I play against unbound all the time i think it kind of broken because it lets people run 3riptides 2 wrightkints 2dreadknights and 2knights. This is what a normal list looks like in my meta.
So i would like other people opinions and experience with unbound armys
Also my group does not play mission as i the only obe who wants to so i out voted are games are just death matchs last one standing wins
allow a Waac player to take unbound and you will come a cropper against some truly stupid things, let some kid play his greater deamon with his carnifex and a unit of guard and you will likely be ok, unbound is the last straw of army balance that GW has thrown out.
There was an unbound tournament here and it was won by the Find a better expression in future. Reds8n Ctan and a FW 400pt 4 D blast shooting Stompa full of meks. Most games were finished in under 30 minutes and had no tactical value.
Really unbound didn't need to be a rule, beginners were doing it anyway (I know I did) and really the only thing you gain from it is taking something that is completely unbalanced.
Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
zilka86 wrote: I play against unbound all the time i think it kind of broken because it lets people run 3riptides 2 wrightkints 2dreadknights and 2knights. This is what a normal list looks like in my meta.
So i would like other people opinions and experience with unbound armys
Also my group does not play mission as i the only obe who wants to so i out voted are games are just death matchs last one standing wins
No, in this case Unbound is not breaking the game, your players are. Sorry to sound harsh, but there is nothing in Unbound that requires you to spam the most optimum units possible as much as you can. Unbound in itself is not an issue, the issue here is the mentality of the players that feel the need to go to extreme lengths to win a game of toy soldiers. I can assure you that even with the old style FOC in place they would still be building lists that took the best of everything, and the situation would be just as bad.
My suggestion would be to find other players or other games, but from your other thread I see that may not be possible so I don't know what to suggest.
No offense but your local group seems like a bunch of 12 year olds. I don't see how any normal adult would find it fun to play purge the alien over and over with the most broken unbound list possible. That's something you do for laughs once, realize how broken it is and never do it again. If I were you, I would field a transcendent c'tan and fill in the points with imperial knights. Stomp them and then they'll get tired of playing those games so you can move on to playing real 40k.
Unbound let's players play what they want.
Some people are surprised when players play what they want. C-tans, IK's and Reavers.
This is my shocked face.
Blacksails wrote: Clearly its the players fault and not the rules designers who, you know, made the rules and published it.
Damn those players for playing within the rules using lists and models they want! Curse them!
Exactly, everything is within the rules, the players have chosen to take those rules and use them to create the best armies possible.
What makes you think that they wouldn't do the same within any structure that did exist. As all the threads from pre-Unbound 40k complaining about balance can prove, it was perfectly possible to build a similarly unbalanced army within the framework of the FOC. I can't imagine that all these players had a sudden change of mindset as soon as Unbound was introduced and went out to buy all these lists just to win games. They are sure to have held the same mindset before 7th, all Unbound does is allow them to take it further, which, given what was possible before, is not a huge leap.
Imbalance could be considered the cause of this, but not Unbound.
Yes, but not because of Unbound itself. Unbound could be a good idea since it brings back some of the flexibility of older editions, where you could do for instance a Space Marine army with all jump packs, or the Biel-Tan Swordwind army with lots of Aspect Warriors, or a non-Deathwing 1st Company Marine army. Those are good, fluffy things that allow for themes or customization.
The problem with Unbound is that it also opens the floodgates for crazy combinations that have no basis in an army background and is picked entirely to win (see my thread about the "Spirit of the Game" as outlined in an old White Dwarf) without doing anything to restrict them. The allies system started this, and Unbound just threw everything out while at the same time keeping up the GW trend of putting the blame on the players for taking something that they are allowed to. It's like if you showed somebody several colored balloons and told them they can pick any one of them, and then yelling at them and calling them a cheat and a terrible person for picking the red balloon, even though you allowed them to pick the red balloon in the first place.
In a real game, the rules and armies would be balanced enough that adding Unbound wouldn't break the game; the guy who fields 3 Riptides, a Wraithknight and an Imperial Knight might have a powerful army, but he also only has 5 models that can be killed with strategy or ignored completely depending on the mission/scenario. In 40k, with its unbalanced and often vague rules, those 5 models can devastate entire armies because they are just head and shoulders better on the tabletop because reasons and with Unbound they can all be fielded together even though that makes virtually no sense at all.
That's the problem with Unbound: It took already bad and unbalanced rules and said to hell with it, take whatever you want we don't care anymore, but your bad and should feel bad if you dare to take some of the options that we're letting you take.
Exactly, everything is within the rules, the players have chosen to take those rules and use them to create the best armies possible.
What makes you think that they wouldn't do the same within any structure that did exist. As all the threads from pre-Unbound 40k complaining about balance can prove, it was perfectly possible to build a similarly unbalanced army within the framework of the FOC. I can't imagine that all these players had a sudden change of mindset as soon as Unbound was introduced and went out to buy all these lists just to win games. They are sure to have held the same mindset before 7th, all Unbound does is allow them to take it further, which, given what was possible before, is not a huge leap.
Imbalance could be considered the cause of this, but not Unbound.
If the game was well structured, well written, and well balanced, we wouldn't have to lay any blame anywhere. There would be no pointing of fingers, no accusation of WAAC, no complaining people try to win too hard. There would just be players playing a game.
When the rules leave exploits or poor balance, players will inevitably gravitate towards stronger combinations. Let's face it, most people don't enjoy getting beaten over and over again. So in the case of 40k, a divide gets created between so called fluffy players and competitive players, where each looks down on the other. Players get blamed for problems in the game when the issue stems from the rules. When the issue stems from the rules, the only people to blame are the people who created the rules.
While you're correct people will be in the mindset to win regardless of how well or poorly the rules are written, a well written and balanced game wouldn't have the problem surface where players are getting trounced for bringing a certain selection of miniatures.
Unbound only made the balance issues worse in the game. Blaming players for using Unbound within its rules and indeed spirit is the last thing you should be doing. Blame the developers for releasing such a shoddy product. Don't look down on those who enjoy the game differently than you.
I find the whole player shaming and blaming nonsense to only make the issue even worse. This particular complaint could be avoided had Unbound never seen the light of day. In its place, you'd have a complaint about how powerful Eldar are, or some other list/codex, but again, those are products of poor writing and not inherent to players being donkey-caves.
The only time a player causes a problem is when the problem is independent of the rules. A loud, rude, obnoxious, smelly, dorito covered guy who touches your models, breaks models, and makes games unpleasant is a player problem. Jimmy from the store who likes his 5 IK list is not a player problem.
Unbound is a useful tool for things like planned out Campaign games (for example, I played a fun Air Raid game against a big fortification).
The thing is, there was nothing really preventing you from doing stuff like this before. All Unbound did was give player's the expectation that if they show up with a list of nothing but Riptides to their flgs, they should expect people to play them without complaint. It was a bad move for the pickup game scene.
jasper76 wrote: It was a bad move for the pickup game scene.
Which might have been the entire point, since 40k isn't conducive to pickup games but the ideal seems to be a known gaming club where nobody would dare to play a list of nothing but Riptides because it's against the spirit of the game.
@ Blacksails:A lot of what you say is fair enough, which is why I won't try and claim 40k is balanced: it's not, but has it ever stated it was trying to be? I wouldn't assume that it's a major concern for grew GW when writing the rules, given the attitude we know they hold and the attitude they want/expect players to hold (see the Spirit of the Game thread).
But that aside, you point out yourself that if Unbound didn't exist this thread works still exist, just with a different title. You could swap Unbound for Eldar, Detachments, Dataslates, Warlord Traits, any aspect of the rules. The fact is that players like the OP describes will the power of their armies to the limit of the rules, no matter what that limit is. In 5th, it was the best units of the various FOC slots in your army, in 6th it was that plus the best of another army in an allied detachment, in 7th it's all the best units in the game in a single army.
Taking 40k as it is, not as we'd like it to be, we have to accept the game is unbalanced, as that's not going to change time soon. Accepting that the game is unbalanced also means that lists can/will take the best and most imbalanced units, and it's common knowledge that these lists are unfun to face unless you have similar lists yourself. Therefore, the players that take them must know the effect their list has on the game, don't care about their opponent enough to change it, which to me shows the utmost contempt to the game, it's spirit, and the opponent.
There is a problem, it does exist, and I won't say otherwise. And while this may well come from some part of the game or the players (and let's face it, it's both), it's certainly not Unbound, which is what this thread is about.
I could accept that the game is unbalanced IF I played in a set group with people who would never abuse it. That's the crux of the entire Spirit of the Game issue: It's not grounded in reality. The way GW plays the game is a way virtually nobody else plays it, and they don't even acknowledge that to be the case.
I get that they are trying to be as lax as possible with restrictions to not prevent that one off scenario where you have a horde versus 3 Riptides or whatever, but the fact is that most people do not play in social clubs where you can have a gentleman's agreement not to abuse Unbound or Wave Serpents or whatever.
Why should we accept a game that is deeply flawed, just because its always been that way?
Seems a little defeatist if you ask me. Given the price, I expect the people making the game to make a game worthy of that price tag.
I don't people are going to stick around and accept that the game is both overpriced and poorly designed. Cases like the OP are going to drive people out of the game for good.
For the sake of the game itself, I certainly hope we and the developers don't accept mediocrity just because its always been that way.
Paradigm wrote: @ Blacksails:A lot of what you say is fair enough, which is why I won't try and claim 40k is balanced: it's not, but has it ever stated it was trying to be? I wouldn't assume that it's a major concern for grew GW when writing the rules, given the attitude we know they hold and the attitude they want/expect players to hold (see the Spirit of the Game thread).
But that aside, you point out yourself that if Unbound didn't exist this thread works still exist, just with a different title. You could swap Unbound for Eldar, Detachments, Dataslates, Warlord Traits, any aspect of the rules. The fact is that players like the OP describes will the power of their armies to the limit of the rules, no matter what that limit is. In 5th, it was the best units of the various FOC slots in your army, in 6th it was that plus the best of another army in an allied detachment, in 7th it's all the best units in the game in a single army.
Taking 40k as it is, not as we'd like it to be, we have to accept the game is unbalanced, as that's not going to change time soon. Accepting that the game is unbalanced also means that lists can/will take the best and most imbalanced units, and it's common knowledge that these lists are unfun to face unless you have similar lists yourself. Therefore, the players that take them must know the effect their list has on the game, don't care about their opponent enough to change it, which to me shows the utmost contempt to the game, it's spirit, and the opponent.
There is a problem, it does exist, and I won't say otherwise. And while this may well come from some part of the game or the players (and let's face it, it's both), it's certainly not Unbound, which is what this thread is about.
No we don't.
I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.
Blacksails wrote: Why should we accept a game that is deeply flawed, just because its always been that way?
Seems a little defeatist if you ask me. Given the price, I expect the people making the game to make a game worthy of that price tag.
I don't people are going to stick around and accept that the game is both overpriced and poorly designed. Cases like the OP are going to drive people out of the game for good.
For the sake of the game itself, I certainly hope we and the developers don't accept mediocrity just because its always been that way.
I think part of the issue is that GW has always designed the game around the way they play it, with enough leeway to not just say "You can only play it this way". It seems to me that they acknowledge(d) that there were different playstyles and that they had to accommodate them, but because they looked down on it ("playing to win" for example) they didn't give balance more than a cursory thought because in their mind, if you play the game differently you are playing it wrong, they just can't flat out say that.
As Blacksails points out, the big problem with this approach is that the rules are probably the most expensive currently on the market, so you're paying a premium for bad rules unless you play it in exactly the way the designers do (and they don't tell you exactly how they play), and even then the rules are still bad and require fixing on the players' end.
I think part of the issue is that GW has always designed the game around the way they play it, with enough leeway to not just say "You can only play it this way". It seems to me that they acknowledge(d) that there were different playstyles and that they had to accommodate them, but because they looked down on it ("playing to win" for example) they didn't give balance more than a cursory thought because in their mind, if you play the game differently you are playing it wrong, they just can't flat out say that.
Like the whole 'nerf chaplain, buff Librarian' nonsense they managed to come up with during their 'playtesting'.
As Blacksails points out, the big problem with this approach is that the rules are probably the most expensive currently on the market, so you're paying a premium for bad rules unless you play it in exactly the way the designers do (and they don't tell you exactly how they play), and even then the rules are still bad and require fixing on the players' end.
WayneTheGame wrote: I could accept that the game is unbalanced IF I played in a set group with people who would never abuse it. That's the crux of the entire Spirit of the Game issue: It's not grounded in reality. The way GW plays the game is a way virtually nobody else plays it, and they don't even acknowledge that to be the case.
.
I think you've hit the nail on head about what GW want, and imagine, when they write their rules. However, I don't think the gaming club is as rare as you think, especially here in UK where GW are based. Here, gaming clubs are the norm and the FLGS is practically non-existant outside of GW stores, and so it's this environment they tailor the game for and in which it works best. I have no idea why the situation is reversed elsewhere, but at their very start, it was is this kind of environment and setting that the guys who wrote the game lived and gamed. Whether they should have/have to adapt is another discussion altogether...
Although, I would wonder why it's any different with a less established group of players. Maybe I'm idealising, but I don't see why the anonymity in a less regular group makes one more comfortable with building lists known to be annoying to face, or to exploit the game in ways it clearly isn't meant for. You don't need to be best buddies with your opponent to be able to take into account their experience and enjoyment and put them first.
No we don't.
I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.
OK, allow me to rephrase: if we're playing 40k, then we have to accept that. Of course you're free to go and play something else, but that doesn't change the facts of 40k, and that's what the discussion is about.
In the FLGS/pickup game culture the issue is, I think, that you're more likely to play a game against someone you don't really know, so it's rude to present a list of restrictions or whatnot. While in a gaming club it's not that unheard of to have "club rules" that outline things like games are X points unless agreed upon, no Titans/superheavies, etc.
In a club that's fine because club members are expected to abide by the rules, but it's not the same if Bob goes down to the game store and expects Jim to adhere to his rules for a game. Jim might play, but it doesn't seem right.
WayneTheGame wrote: In the FLGS/pickup game culture the issue is, I think, that you're more likely to play a game against someone you don't really know, so it's rude to present a list of restrictions or whatnot. While in a gaming club it's not that unheard of to have "club rules" that outline things like games are X points unless agreed upon, no Titans/superheavies, etc.
In a club that's fine because club members are expected to abide by the rules, but it's not the same if Bob goes down to the game store and expects Jim to adhere to his rules for a game. Jim might play, but it doesn't seem right.
It's hard to explain, honestly.
Hmm, I kind of see where you're coming from, but still don't entirely get it. I wouldn't advocate turning up to a game and handing over a list of restrictions, but I don't quite see why you can't police yourself. If, when making lists, everyone were to think 'would I enjoy seeing this across the table?', and all built so that the answer was yes, there wouldn't be need for swapping house rules at the start of the game. Anyone who's read a forum knows that bringing 3+ Wave Serpents or a Knight in a small game is no fun to face, so why take it?
Like I say, maybe I'm putting too much faith in people to put others first, but I do find it odd.
zilka86 wrote: I play against unbound all the time i think it kind of broken because it lets people run 3riptides 2 wrightkints 2dreadknights and 2knights. This is what a normal list looks like in my meta.
So i would like other people opinions and experience with unbound armys
Also my group does not play mission as i the only obe who wants to so i out voted are games are just death matchs last one standing wins
Unbound doesn't break games, players break games. Are you guys there to have fun, or solely to win?
WayneTheGame wrote: I could accept that the game is unbalanced IF I played in a set group with people who would never abuse it. That's the crux of the entire Spirit of the Game issue: It's not grounded in reality. The way GW plays the game is a way virtually nobody else plays it, and they don't even acknowledge that to be the case.
.
I think you've hit the nail on head about what GW want, and imagine, when they write their rules. However, I don't think the gaming club is as rare as you think, especially here in UK where GW are based. Here, gaming clubs are the norm and the FLGS is practically non-existant outside of GW stores, and so it's this environment they tailor the game for and in which it works best. I have no idea why the situation is reversed elsewhere, but at their very start, it was is this kind of environment and setting that the guys who wrote the game lived and gamed. Whether they should have/have to adapt is another discussion altogether...
Although, I would wonder why it's any different with a less established group of players. Maybe I'm idealising, but I don't see why the anonymity in a less regular group makes one more comfortable with building lists known to be annoying to face, or to exploit the game in ways it clearly isn't meant for. You don't need to be best buddies with your opponent to be able to take into account their experience and enjoyment and put them first.
No we don't.
I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.
OK, allow me to rephrase: if we're playing 40k, then we have to accept that. Of course you're free to go and play something else, but that doesn't change the facts of 40k, and that's what the discussion is about.
And I was coming from someone who was playing, saw that the crazyness was only getting worse.
GW drives the direction of the community and right now it feels like the Titanic without a pilot. It's like Battle Royal. They just drop players in and don't care what happens next. With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder the player base is so divided.
It was Unbound that finally got me to step away. To me it showed that GW simply don't care about the game anymore and just want to sell more models. The sad thing is, Unbound could work if there was internal and external codex balance. The fact that unbound is horrible is a symptom of this unbalance.
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
Suggesting that because it was done like that before, it was a good thing. There's a reason why 3rd, 4th and maybe 5th tried to tighten up the rules only for 6th to get rid of most of that work.
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
You mean back in the day when it was suggested a GM wasn't a bad idea?
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
And RT was an incoherent mess.
I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.
Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.
Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.
Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.
Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.
I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza." Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
And RT was an incoherent mess.
I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.
Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.
Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.
Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.
Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.
I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza." Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.
So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you?
But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.
The problem isn't being able to field a themed army, it's that when the rules aren't balanced, for everyone who looks at Unbound and says "Yes, I can finally do my Rough Riders army!" there's a bunch who say "Mwa ha ha I can field six Riptides and three Knights and a C'Tan at the same time!"
Put those two on the battlefield, and it's not going to be a pretty or enjoyable game. That's the problem.
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
And RT was an incoherent mess.
I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.
Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.
Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.
Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.
Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.
I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza." Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.
So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you?
But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.
Yeah, this is something I've never understood. You play in a group of like-minded people, so they are all able to come to an agreement to not abuse the Unbound system. But, being a group of people that can make agreements on things, surely they could have agreed to ignore the FOC rules if they were more stringent (ala 4th edition).
Unbound more negatively impacts pick-up games, whereas old-style FOC does not impact them as much. So it would seem to me that the older system is much more effective at mitigating problems than the current one.
Of course, With all of the FOC stuff that's going on now (detachments, formations, etc), I feel like list-building has become prohibitively difficult to evaluate, especially when reviewing an army your're not super familiar with.
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
And RT was an incoherent mess.
I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.
Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.
Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.
Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.
Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.
I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza." Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.
So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you?
But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.
1] So what is stopping you from spending and extra 10-15 min to work things out with your opponent?
2] What stops you from Bringing an Unbound List and a Battleforged List?
3] What is stopping your LFGS from having a Unbound Night and the next week a Battleforged Night?
4] What is stopping You and your opponent both making a Compromise for this game and then the next one even if it 6 months from now?
My Replies to this: 1] Nothing ever has for me unless the other guy is not willing to and then I question weather I play him or not.
2] Only my ability to bring multiple Armies, but I could have usually found the space to being an extra few units to make either list.
3] I don't deal with mine anymore because they are no longer my LFGS anymore, but they used to be very open to Ideas to improve "Game Night"
4] Nothing ever has stopped us when we decide to do this.
The worst part about the lack of balance is that it hurts the guy who wants to do an all Thousand Sons, Terminator or Rough Riders army most of all, because those armies would be insanely fluffy and likely always lose against anything that takes a better choice, fluff be damned.
That's the biggest issue here. Your person who wants a Thousand Sons army is going to get screwed for wanting to play that because there's no balance.
The problem is a moot point. If you don't want to play against an Unbound army you're perfectly within your rights to say "I'd rather not play against an Unbound army, sorry" and walk away.
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
And RT was an incoherent mess.
I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins. I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.
Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.
Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.
Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army. For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army. Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.
Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.
I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza." Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.
So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you? But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.
1] So what is stopping you from spending and extra 10-15 min to work things out with your opponent? 2] What stops you from Bringing an Unbound List and a Battleforged List? 3] What is stopping your LFGS from having a Unbound Night and the next week a Battleforged Night? 4] What is stopping You and your opponent both making a Compromise for this game and then the next one even if it 6 months from now?
My Replies to this: 1] Nothing ever has for me unless the other guy is not willing to and then I question weather I play him or not. 2] Only my ability to bring multiple Armies, but I could have usually found the space to being an extra few units to make either list. 3] I don't deal with mine anymore because they are no longer my LFGS anymore, but they used to be very open to Ideas to improve "Game Night" 4] Nothing ever has stopped us when we decide to do this.
I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?
If I want to play Bolt Action for example, if it was a campaign or something I could see setting up conditions and particular forces (e.g. I would not bring a Tiger II if we were playing out Operation Typhoon), but I could just as easily play a 1,000 point whatever force and reasonably expect (in most cases) a balanced game no matter what my opponent fielded.
WayneTheGame wrote: The problem isn't being able to field a themed army, it's that when the rules aren't balanced, for everyone who looks at Unbound and says "Yes, I can finally do my Rough Riders army!" there's a bunch who say "Mwa ha ha I can field six Riptides and three Knights and a C'Tan at the same time!"
Put those two on the battlefield, and it's not going to be a pretty or enjoyable game. That's the problem.
They you tell them this wont be fun for me up front, but we both agreed to the game, I hoe that you have as much fun as me when we exchange armies for the Rematch.
You will surprised at the number of times that gets them to think twice. If they don't want to ask him to explain why. Unless they have an issue with others touching their models it is fun to listen to them come up with excuses.
I have done this a few time and it quickly works on getting them to change how they play you.
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
And RT was an incoherent mess.
I could be, but it was about getting an army together and just blowing the snot out of each other. The group I played with had mixed armies of Terminators, Orks [By Fluff under Mind Control Devices] and Harlequins.
I had to build a half Dozen Commissars for my Imperial Beastman Army because it was random on how many Commissars.
Yes it was Mass Chaos, but it was fun Mass Chaos.
Now we can field those armies once more and not worry about feeling like we are breaking the Rules, which bugged us all of the time.
Unbound also lets you build those Fluffy List we always wanted like an All Thousand Sons Army, All Dreadnaught Army of for me an All TWC/Fenrisian Wolf Army.
For us Marine Players we can now play an a Captain Lysander Terminator Army or Teloin Scout Army.
Guard can now run their all Rough Rider Armies in places that do not allow Forge World.
Here what I love, For years everyone was Raging about how they hated the FOC System and being forced to pay a "Troop Tax". GW Decided to give everyone the Option to not have to and then "Reward" Players when they choose to take an FOC. Now the Complaint is that they gave you to much freedom to build what you want.
I also agree it is not the "Game" that is the issue it is some of the "Players" That are an issue. Our group has no issue with Unbound because we sit down before the game and talk about what we are going to play. We also do something I never see: "Ok this week we will bring out our most broken List we can, Looser Buys the Pizza, but next week we bring out the Fluffy List and this weeks winner Buys the Pizza." Everyone of these thread has turned into "But you should not tell me what to bring!" and no one is willing to compromise, there is the Real Problem out there.
So, you play in a group of like-minded people? Why couldn't you just ignore the FOC before? No one was stopping you?
But for people that don't play in close groups, we need rules that put us on an even playing field and give us some semblance of guidance. Again, clear rules and direction don't hold you back, but lack of them holds many players back.
1] So what is stopping you from spending and extra 10-15 min to work things out with your opponent?
2] What stops you from Bringing an Unbound List and a Battleforged List?
3] What is stopping your LFGS from having a Unbound Night and the next week a Battleforged Night?
4] What is stopping You and your opponent both making a Compromise for this game and then the next one even if it 6 months from now?
My Replies to this: 1] Nothing ever has for me unless the other guy is not willing to and then I question weather I play him or not.
2] Only my ability to bring multiple Armies, but I could have usually found the space to being an extra few units to make either list.
3] I don't deal with mine anymore because they are no longer my LFGS anymore, but they used to be very open to Ideas to improve "Game Night"
4] Nothing ever has stopped us when we decide to do this.
I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have campaign maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?
Restrictions is not the key word here. You should never tell anyone You Can't Play That." You can ask, but never demand.
It is actually simple using the assumption when you look at each others armies and you see that he can stop you. Tell him that upfront, that you know you know you have a snowball's chance in . Ask if it is ok for you to set up the terrain, Choose the Table Side, Scenario, and/or who goes first. We have done that a lot and as long as you are not an hat about it by doing thing like making the roads to narrow for his Vehicles do down or things like that things could be real fun.
We do that kind of thing all of the time with no issues because we know next week it could be us on that receiving end.
I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.
I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?
I say that 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff is worth it if it stops you spending the next 2 hours playing a game you're not going to enjoy. In same way it's worth finding out if a movie is something you'll like rather than just picking any screen in any cinema at any time, if a tiny investment of time makes sure you're not wasting more time later on, you're up on that deal. And it won't always be that long, as eventually you get to know the people and how/what they play, and can decide what to do based on that.
I know it's going back to the club vs pick-up thing, but I personally can't see ever going into a game only knowing the points and the army.
WayneTheGame wrote: The problem isn't being able to field a themed army, it's that when the rules aren't balanced, for everyone who looks at Unbound and says "Yes, I can finally do my Rough Riders army!" there's a bunch who say "Mwa ha ha I can field six Riptides and three Knights and a C'Tan at the same time!"
Put those two on the battlefield, and it's not going to be a pretty or enjoyable game. That's the problem.
They you tell them this wont be fun for me up front, but we both agreed to the game, I hoe that you have as much fun as me when we exchange armies for the Rematch.
You will surprised at the number of times that gets them to think twice. If they don't want to ask him to explain why. Unless they have an issue with others touching their models it is fun to listen to them come up with excuses.
I have done this a few time and it quickly works on getting them to change how they play you.
While I can agree with you, I'd also argue that having to tell your opponent that a matchup wouldn't be fun for you kind of showcases bad rules.
I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?
I say that 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff is worth it if it stops you spending the next 2 hours playing a game you're not going to enjoy. In same way it's worth finding out if a movie is something you'll like rather than just picking any screen in any cinema at any time, if a tiny investment of time makes sure you're not wasting more time later on, you're up on that deal. And it won't always be that long, as eventually you get to know the people and how/what they play, and can decide what to do based on that.
I know it's going back to the club vs pick-up thing, but I personally can't see ever going into a game only knowing the points and the army.
I actually do agree. I'd love an established club (they are generally rare in the US though), but the fact remains that GW games are the only games that require 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff to avoid a 2 hour unenjoyable game.
By Playing the game still and you already know about the "Rules Issues", you have Accepted the "Rules Issues" and it is your Responsibility to make the game Enjoyable for both your Opponent and You. The same is for your opponent, it is his Responsibility to make sure that you both enjoy the game.
If he is not willing to take on his Responsibility, then it time to find a new Opponent.
Anpu42 wrote: By Playing the game still and you already know about the "Rules Issues", you have Accepted the "Rules Issues" and it is your Responsibility to make the game Enjoyable for both your Opponent and You. The same is for your opponent, it is his Responsibility to make sure that you both enjoy the game.
If he is not willing to take on his Responsibility, then it time to find a new Opponent.
Uh... no. So in other words, if you play a broken game you accept that it's broken and therefore you should bear responsibility for fixing it, despite paying a premium for the broken rules?
I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?
I say that 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff is worth it if it stops you spending the next 2 hours playing a game you're not going to enjoy. In same way it's worth finding out if a movie is something you'll like rather than just picking any screen in any cinema at any time, if a tiny investment of time makes sure you're not wasting more time later on, you're up on that deal. And it won't always be that long, as eventually you get to know the people and how/what they play, and can decide what to do based on that.
I know it's going back to the club vs pick-up thing, but I personally can't see ever going into a game only knowing the points and the army.
You can turn down a game of checkers because it wouldnt be fun. It must have bad rules too. Someone could offer me a game of chess or tic tac toe and i can also turn them down because it wouldnt be fun.
If someone plays the game, they are fully aware of any rules issues. You dont need to point them out because they already know about them. You can accept or tun down any game you like for any reason you like. If game has rules you dont like and you arent willing to accept them, the answer is simple. Dont play it and go play a different game that has rules you like. Dont look back.
if you dont like the rules but still like the game, the answer is, again, simple. Sit with your local players (the actual physical people you play with and work as a team to tweak them or m ake house rules till it suits you and just play in that setting.
I think one of the biggest issues with that is this: Why would I do all that when I can play (insert virtually every other wargame here except maybe some oldschool Napoleonic games that have a ton of logistics and maps) and simply ask the points of the game and maybe if we're doing a scenario, and then start to set up to play? Why *should* I spend an extra 10-15 minutes working restrictions out with my opponent to make sure that we're going to have a fun game?
I say that 10 minutes of discussion while you unpack your stuff is worth it if it stops you spending the next 2 hours playing a game you're not going to enjoy. In same way it's worth finding out if a movie is something you'll like rather than just picking any screen in any cinema at any time, if a tiny investment of time makes sure you're not wasting more time later on, you're up on that deal. And it won't always be that long, as eventually you get to know the people and how/what they play, and can decide what to do based on that.
I know it's going back to the club vs pick-up thing, but I personally can't see ever going into a game only knowing the points and the army.
I do all the time, just not with 40k.
Exactly, I'm off to play X Wing in a minute. I messaged my friend last night and the conversation went
"X Wing?"
"Yep, 100 points?"
"No problem, or did you want to try out your Tantive IV?"
"Nah, not really got a handle on the rules yet."
"Ok, see you tomorrow."
Now, in the interests of full disclosure, we'd probably need a similarly brief conversation for a game of 40K, because we've known each other as gamers for 20 years, but I'm pretty sure I could have the same conversation about X Wing with a complete stranger and get a decent game, I'm not so sure that would apply to 40K.
Blacksails wrote: Unbound is just monstrously stupid. I don't even care if its breaks the game or not, its just quite possibly the stupidest thing you can publish in a ruleset.
"Here's a bunch of pages explaining how to make an army. And here's a paragraph telling you to ignore all of that and just take whatever you want! Narrative! Forging! Fluff! Fun!"
You mean how the games was set up in the Old Rouge Trader Days before 2nd Edition?
Ah, yes, the old makeup traders!
Heil grammar und spelling!
But I like Unbound. The only downside is not being able to reroll Warlord traits, but if you really want a specific one you might as well not risk it and take a SC. Unbound should be reorganised into tank battalions, infantry regiments etc to give people more choice without being exploitative.
Anpu42 wrote: By Playing the game still and you already know about the "Rules Issues", you have Accepted the "Rules Issues" and it is your Responsibility to make the game Enjoyable for both your Opponent and You. The same is for your opponent, it is his Responsibility to make sure that you both enjoy the game.
If he is not willing to take on his Responsibility, then it time to find a new Opponent.
Uh... no. So in other words, if you play a broken game you accept that it's broken and therefore you should bear responsibility for fixing it, despite paying a premium for the broken rules?
If you group wants to come up with house rules then yes it is your Groups Responsibility to make such changes.
As far as my statement let me try to explain what I mean from this point of view and how most of my RPG Players see it.
As the GM: It is my Responsibility as a good GM/Host to make sure everyone has a good time (Including Myself). If one person did not have a Good Time, I failed as the GM/Host for that game.
As a Player: It is my Responsibility as a good Player to make sure everyone has a good time (Including Myself). If one person did not have a Good Time, I failed being a good Player for that game.
Now this does not mean we yes men, this means we take my Job as the Host/GM/Player very seriously and most of my group does to.
As for 40k, I take my opponent in account when I am List Building (A luxury with a small group).
Recently I took out my Space Wolves with a Vindicare and a Knight vs his Guard loaded up with Tauroxs, he knew I was taking a "War Machine", but did not know what. Well my Knight Stomped one side of the table into mush (In one case literately) with the Battle Cannon (Pop the Trasport with the First Pie and then managed to get the Pie on the Survivors two turns in a row) and Stomping for Justice. I did not relies that he did not bring anything to deal with it other than a Pair of Punishers that My Grey Hunters dealt with quickly.
Well I had fun with my first time taking a Knight, but I could tell he was very frustrated by it. So I made the decision not to take it the next few games as my Responsibility as a good Player to make sure he had a good time the next few games.
This thought proses of our group along this line it taking a look at what the others enjoy taking and what they like facing. We have an Ork Player that loves having massive Melee Battle so when we play I take out lots of Blood Claws and Thunderwolves. Though when we decide on some Marine on Marine Action we both like to Play Gunline Marines and so that is how we build our Armies.
zilka86 wrote: So unbound lets players be jerks and donkey caves because there playing with in the rules. wow just wow that's so wrong
The rules dont force them to act that way. they will act that way playing chess or call of duty or any other game regardless of any rules. of course, there will be those who use the rules as an excuse.
zilka86 wrote: That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way
So, who decides which lists are good and which are bad? The players? Because there's often sharp disagreement in that department. If only there was a unifying source for rules that told people what they could and couldn't take.
zilka86 wrote: That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way
So, who decides which lists are good and which are bad? The players? Because there's often sharp disagreement in that department. If only there was a unifying source for rules that told people what they could and couldn't take.
That would inhibit selling jewel-like objects of magic and wonder though. Can't have that.
zilka86 wrote: That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way
Exactly, even in games such as chess, players will cry that it is not balanced when one wins almost every game. despite both sides starting with exactly the same pieces with exactly the same abilities starting at exactly the same locations. Sounds rather bland and boring doesnt it?
ANY game that allows you to "build" an army will have balance issues.
"The game is broke, the rules are horrible, it allows you to use a tank against my 50 guys I armed with toothpicks".
Likewise, if someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk regardless of the rules of the game they are playing. No one has ever contested the fact that the rules are not perfectly balancedor that some games are more or less balanced. It is what it is. If someone doesnt like it, they are free to go play something they enjoy more. It says more about the character of someone than the rules of the game if they spam the internet trying to convince others to hate the game as well instead of just moving on to a different game without looking back. A hobby is better off without them. Note that this is not to indicate anyone in this particuler forum.
zilka86 wrote: That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way
Exactly, even in games such as chess, players will cry that it is not balanced when one wins almost every game. despite both sides starting with exactly the same pieces with exactly the same abilities starting at exactly the same locations. Sounds rather bland and boring doesnt it?
ANY game that allows you to "build" an army will have balance issues.
"The game is broke, the rules are horrible, it allows you to use a tank against my 50 guys I armed with toothpicks".
Likewise, if someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk regardless of the rules of the game they are playing. No one has ever contested the fact that the rules are not perfectly balancedor that some games are more or less balanced. It is what it is. If someone doesnt like it, they are free to go play something they enjoy more. It says more about the character of someone than the rules of the game if they spam the internet trying to convince others to hate the game as well instead of just moving on to a different game without looking back. A hobby is better off without them. Note that this is not to indicate anyone in this particuler forum.
I think its the DEGREE of unbalance that people are complaining about. Other games come to an acceptable level of balance and you see a few complaints, but not nearly as many as 40k. These complaints aren't mindless rants. They're legitimate complaints from consumers about a product they find unsatisfactory. Ignoring the huge amounts of complaints won't help anything and will only lead to the continued loss of players and revenue for GW.
zilka86 wrote: That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way
Exactly, even in games such as chess, players will cry that it is not balanced when one wins almost every game. despite both sides starting with exactly the same pieces with exactly the same abilities starting at exactly the same locations. Sounds rather bland and boring doesnt it? ANY game that allows you to "build" an army will have balance issues. "The game is broke, the rules are horrible, it allows you to use a tank against my 50 guys I armed with toothpicks".
Likewise, if someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk regardless of the rules of the game they are playing. No one has ever contested the fact that the rules are not perfectly balancedor that some games are more or less balanced. It is what it is. If someone doesnt like it, they are free to go play something they enjoy more. It says more about the character of someone than the rules of the game if they spam the internet trying to convince others to hate the game as well instead of just moving on to a different game without looking back. A hobby is better off without them. Note that this is not to indicate anyone in this particuler forum.
I think its the DEGREE of unbalance that people are complaining about. Other games come to an acceptable level of balance and you see a few complaints, but not nearly as many as 40k. These complaints aren't mindless rants. They're legitimate complaints from consumers about a product they find unsatisfactory. Ignoring the huge amounts of complaints won't help anything and will only lead to the continued loss of players and revenue for GW.
Exactly this. It's not so much unbalance, because almost nothing is perfectly balanced. But the gulf between "good" and "bad" in 40k is magnitudes of depth; it's more than just "Unit A performs better than Unit B for the same points" it's often "Unit A is cheaper than Unit B and can perform 10x better, while Unit B will get shot up before it ever gets into combat and costs 30 points more than Unit A". It's almost as if every unit was designed and priced in a vacuum where it stood alone on its own merit instead of comparing it. In a hypothetical situation like that maybe Unit B would be worth taking if it was your only choice, but when Unit A is right next to it, fills the same role on the battlefield and often costs less or does more, it makes you wonder why on earth you would ever take Unit B if you had the choice.
That's what people are complaining about. If it was closer to other games where Unit A might be better than Unit B, but Unit B is a perfectly viable choice because Unit B offers this other thing that Unit A doesn't (more Wounds, for example), it would not be such a big deal. The gap in 40k though seems to range from "LOL are you serious?" to "WTFBBQ take as many of this as you can because it's that awesome and better than everything else" when in most other games it ranges from "Not great" up through "Very good".
Anpu42 wrote: I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.
Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.
The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.
It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.
The fact that the complaints are more vocal and loud does not mean that there are more of them. Since the 80s and even within the last 15 years, technology has advanced from pen and paper to computers to now we have people complaining in the heat of the moment on their smartphones.
Certain playstyles attract different "types" of people that ehibit different behaviors or are more or less vocal than others. A playstyle that attracts a more laid back quiet type of person will not have NEAR the "vocality' (is that even a word?) when it is weakened while a more in your face assaulty playstyle will attract a very loudly vocal type of player who will blow up the internet when it is weakened. I'm sure that you will agree with that.
Now40k is indeed IMO (because it is an opinion based matter after all) in the more unbalanced half of the spectrum. When looking at this, we have to look at the type of game it was designed to be. A beer and pretzels type of game designed to not be really serious or hardcore where you can sit and just enjoy the setting and storyline and the antics of what happenes in game win or lose. This is further examplified by the models themselves (heroic scale rather than realistic scale.
Then... players started wanting to take it more seriously, tournaments started and GW found they could make more $ off going that route. Then it escelated .
This is why we have the fluff players and the competitive players. The game was not originally designed to be competative at all and without a total redo, it never will be a good compettive game. Its trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
This is why if your wanting to have perfect balence for competetiveness sake, your better off just finding another game. trying to ruin the fun of those who play it for what it was originally designed for is only making yourself look bad. Even if your in the majority, your making yourself look bad.
I think that if you totally redid the rules for that, then you would find the players who play it for what it was originally designed would start complaining. Your just not gonna make everyone happy.
The thing is, rather than trying to run everyone off who doesnt agree with you (not you in particuler, but in general), working to find a solution might be better. Recently, i've started looking at Dust Tactics cause i think the walkers are cooland all but thats a different story and found that they have different sets of rules for the same "mythos". I think something along these lines might be something that could be a decent pipe dream. A set of fluffy rules and a set of competetive rules. That way, you could make both "sides" happy (or at least less unhappy).
EVIL INC wrote: A beer and pretzels type of game designed to not be really serious or hardcore where you can sit and just enjoy the setting and storyline and the antics of what happenes in game win or lose.
Explain to me how a game that does neither encourage narrative play through its rules, nor provide simple and easy to use rules, nor cost cheap enough to be considered casual, nor is easy to carry on and set up, a beer and pretzels game.
Anpu42 wrote: I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.
Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.
The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.
It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.
So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.
Anpu42 wrote: I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.
Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.
The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.
It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.
So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault? It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.
Are you serious?! It is most certainly the fault of the rules to allow abuses in the first place, and it is the pinnacle of lazy design to try and pass the fault off on the players for not fixing your broken rules.
Some abuses that are unforseen can be excused, but this is basically deliberate to do as little balance as possible and put the blame on the person who uses your rules in a valid way that turns out abusive. The player who brings an army of Riptides is not free of blame, by any means, but to pretend that the rules are okay for allowing it unrestricted in any way, shape or form?
Anpu42 wrote: I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.
Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.
The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.
It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.
So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.
What exactly are they abusing?
The rule says "take anything you want." Then you say they shouldn't take anything they want. Seems contradictory to me.
Or maybe it's because "taking anything you want" means taking the really good stuff and not the bad stuff and thus have an OP army.
The problem is that there is really good stuff and really bad stuff.
Anpu42 wrote: I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.
Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.
The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.
It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.
So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.
Are you serious?! It is most certainly the fault of the rules to allow abuses in the first place, and it is the pinnacle of lazy design to try and pass the fault off on the players for not fixing your broken rules.
Yes it is The Player Fault.
If you see there is a problem with the Rules that let you Pull out a 6-Riptide list and you know that nothing in your Meta can deal with it, but still chose to do it, You made that decision, not the Rule Books.
EVIL INC wrote: A beer and pretzels type of game designed to not be really serious or hardcore where you can sit and just enjoy the setting and storyline and the antics of what happenes in game win or lose.
Explain to me how a game that does neither encourage narrative play through its rules, nor provide simple and easy to use rules, nor cost cheap enough to be considered casual, nor is easy to carry on and set up, a beer and pretzels game.
Different conversation. Read through the Rogue Trader book and remember the gaming scene at the time it was published.
zilka86 wrote: That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way
Exactly, even in games such as chess, players will cry that it is not balanced when one wins almost every game. despite both sides starting with exactly the same pieces with exactly the same abilities starting at exactly the same locations. Sounds rather bland and boring doesnt it?
ANY game that allows you to "build" an army will have balance issues.
"The game is broke, the rules are horrible, it allows you to use a tank against my 50 guys I armed with toothpicks".
Likewise, if someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk regardless of the rules of the game they are playing. No one has ever contested the fact that the rules are not perfectly balancedor that some games are more or less balanced. It is what it is. If someone doesnt like it, they are free to go play something they enjoy more. It says more about the character of someone than the rules of the game if they spam the internet trying to convince others to hate the game as well instead of just moving on to a different game without looking back. A hobby is better off without them. Note that this is not to indicate anyone in this particuler forum.
Anpu42 wrote: I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.
Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.
The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.
It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.
So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.
What exactly are they abusing?
The rule says "take anything you want." Then you say they shouldn't take anything they want. Seems contradictory to me.
Or maybe it's because "taking anything you want" means taking the really good stuff and not the bad stuff and thus have an OP army.
The problem is that there is really good stuff and really bad stuff.
Truly I see nothing wrong with taking the Most Overpower Stuff You can take as long as the other guy/girl is doing the same thing.
However if you taking the Most Overpowered Stuff you can against someone playing a "Fluffy" or Semi-Competitive" List and then complaining that the Game is not balanced I see an issue, especially considering 90% out there know the game has balance issues.
Anpu42 wrote: I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.
Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.
The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.
It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.
So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.
Are you serious?! It is most certainly the fault of the rules to allow abuses in the first place, and it is the pinnacle of lazy design to try and pass the fault off on the players for not fixing your broken rules.
Yes it is The Player Fault.
If you see there is a problem with the Rules that let you Pull out a 6-Riptide list and you know that nothing in your Meta can deal with it, but still chose to do it, You made that decision, not the Rule Books.
I won't argue that the player is not *at* fault, because he is, but the fault IMHO lies more with the rules that allow a 6-Riptide list with nothing to reign it in. The player is still a jerk for bringing it when they know nothing in their meta can deal with it, but the rules are not innocent because the rules of the game should at least try to stop abuse.
EVIL INC wrote: A beer and pretzels type of game designed to not be really serious or hardcore where you can sit and just enjoy the setting and storyline and the antics of what happenes in game win or lose.
Explain to me how a game that does neither encourage narrative play through its rules, nor provide simple and easy to use rules, nor cost cheap enough to be considered casual, nor is easy to carry on and set up, a beer and pretzels game.
Different conversation. Read through the Rogue Trader book and remember the gaming scene at the time it was published.
Nope, very much the same conversation.
This is a thread about how the game should be played and "beer and pretzals" signifies an easy to play, casual game without much thought put into it.
If the rules were easier to use and the game weren't so convoluted and expensive, it could be a beer and pretzals game.
But it isn't.
"Casual" shouldn't be an excuse for sloppy rules.
The world has changed since RT days. RT was a blast because it was new and different. (And I was much younger and didn't know better.) But now I'm older and have seen better games out there and when I see the mess that is 7th ed rules, I see how bad it really is.
WayneTheGame wrote: In the FLGS/pickup game culture the issue is, I think, that you're more likely to play a game against someone you don't really know, so it's rude to present a list of restrictions or whatnot. While in a gaming club it's not that unheard of to have "club rules" that outline things like games are X points unless agreed upon, no Titans/superheavies, etc.
In a club that's fine because club members are expected to abide by the rules, but it's not the same if Bob goes down to the game store and expects Jim to adhere to his rules for a game. Jim might play, but it doesn't seem right.
It's hard to explain, honestly.
Hmm, I kind of see where you're coming from, but still don't entirely get it. I wouldn't advocate turning up to a game and handing over a list of restrictions, but I don't quite see why you can't police yourself. If, when making lists, everyone were to think 'would I enjoy seeing this across the table?', and all built so that the answer was yes, there wouldn't be need for swapping house rules at the start of the game. Anyone who's read a forum knows that bringing 3+ Wave Serpents or a Knight in a small game is no fun to face, so why take it?
Like I say, maybe I'm putting too much faith in people to put others first, but I do find it odd.
Not at all. I've played with many groups, and the vast majority are decent guys to play with. As I've said before, the number of players who actually show up to play with six serpents or riptides is pretty rare. They don't last long in most gaming groups because nobody wants to play then, and they end up finding somewhere else to play or hating 40k since their legal army doesn't get much table time. And, after an hour of whining someone plays a tailored list to squish them like a bug, after which they hate 40k even more.
What 40k is not terrific for is pickup games, although it's certainly possible to see good ones of those.
I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.
Why do you still read and post in the 40k topics then? Don't you expect more from your time as well?
If enough people complain firms and sells drop most firms tend to change stuff. And considering how random GW writes rules, one never knows, maybe the next codex for my faction will be more fun to play with.
They don't last long in most gaming groups because nobody wants to play then, and they end up finding somewhere else to pls or haying 40k since their legal army doesn't get much table time. And, after an hour of whining someone plays a tailored list to squish them like a bug, after which they hate 40k even more.
Hmm what is more possible. People buying the best units for their army to get the highest chance for fun games or people spending an impossible number of cash to counter every good build possible.
I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.
Why do you still read and post in the 40k topics then? Don't you expect more from your time as well?
If enough people complain firms and sells drop most firms tend to change stuff. And considering how random GW writes rules, one never knows, maybe the next codex for my faction will be more fun to play with.
I post on forums when I'm waiting around (getting an oil change atm) or when I'm watching tv. In either case, I'm not giving anything up to post
Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.
Unbalance can also take place in more Balanced Games and not because of the Rules.
BattleTech which is one of the More Balanced Unbound games out there had its Balance issues especially when the Clans Showed up. It was so bad that our group did not allow them in games for years.
The a couple of us managed to set up a Game where the Clan Players used the Clan Challenge Rules [I forgot the name]. After the game the others were willing to play vs the Clans, except one player who would only use 100% Customized Mechs with Mixed Technology. [He is no longer with the group because no one would play him].
These are the People who immediately gave Unbound it Bad name. Who most likely were the Same People caused all of those 1999+1 List in 6th and were playing Cheese in 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and RT The Game suffers from them as well as Rules Issues, but that does not make the Game the Only Problem, because there are players out there that will push Any Game to its breaking point.
I also don't mind the 6x Riptide Players as long as they are polite and on occasion want to change things every once in a while and play something different, but for me that has more to with I get board facing the same thing every single time win or loose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EVIL INC wrote: Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.
If that is how you play Beer and Pretzels I wish I was part of your group.
This how we do it, the only pressure is looser pays for the Pizza next week, but not two weeks in a row.
We also play by the Rules 99.999999%. Out house rules are Fluffy things like allowing Salamanders to take a Heavy Flamer in place of any Heavy Bolter, Rough Riders being aloud to replace their Hunting Lances with Las-Pistols and Harker makes his Squad Relentless. We have really seen a reason to add a bunch of Rules Fixes.
The funny thing is we have had people quit because we did not take the game serious enough.
So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.
Unbound isn't abused. It's played the way that the rules explicitly let you. It's difficult for it to be abused because you can just take 2000 points of Riptides or whatever without jumping through the min-maxing hoops that the FOC system requires. Manipulating detachments is much more abusive than the unbound system.
The problem isn't what any one individual decides to do against the wishes of their local group but what these rules mean on a large scale. An unstable game environment isn't something you can blame individual players for. This is a systemic problem. The fault lies with the game designers.
I think the phrase "beer and pretzels" can no longer really be applied to 40k. When you've got armies as big as they are, with the huge wide-ranging issues of balance and simple scale, the investment and time requirement is far beyond "beer and pretzels".
OGRE is a beer and pretzels game. 40k is not.
I can't think of another game where players have to have as much pre-game negotiation, or that have to deal with four or five different rules channels.
EVIL INC wrote: Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.
Then every game is a beer and pretzels game.
All of that isn't a unique ability only granted by 40k.
However, unlike 40k, other games are cheaper, simpler, better balanced, have less ambiguous wording, and require less 'policing' to ensure everyone brought a suitably fun list.
Which is why very few people seriously consider 40k a beer and pretzels game.
EVIL INC wrote: Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.
Yeah, exactly. My basement is set up for gaming, with a 6x4, two 4x4's and a pool table that can double as a gffame surface. I have a couple of couches and a big screen tv. Lots of pop and snacks, 50 cent honor system. We argue more about which show or football fame to put on the tv than whether GOI constitutes movement. And if someone is really a dick, I just don't have them back.
Golden Eye was a great game, but there would always be TFG that would select Oddjob (and indeed would consider selecting Oddjob really quickly just to deny it to the other players to be part of the skill of the game)!
I can't point the finger; I loved it when they added the tactical shield to counterstrike. I was always TFG there . People hated the shield, but I just saw it as part of the game to be used.
Talys... man, nice set up; can I play if ever in Canada?
EVIL INC wrote: Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.
Yeah, exactly. My basement is set up for gaming, with a 6x4, two 4x4's and a pool table that can double as a gffame surface. I have a couple of couches and a big screen tv. Lots of pop and snacks, 50 cent honor system. We argue more about which show or football fame to put on the tv than whether GOI constitutes movement. And if someone is really a dick, I just don't have them back.
Eactly, this is exactly the game 40k was originally designed for. More so than most others. It wasnt till it was taken out of that "type" and shoehorned in with the competative games that we started to see problems.
Why was this done? I think because of the great storyline and mythos. I think it might be an idea to follow in the footsteps of games like DUST and have different rule systems designed for the 2 different types of games. Would get rid of a lot of the issues we have.
Not veryone plays in the basement. But again, you are confusing he current edition and the ultra competetive atmosphere with rogue trader and the atmosphere that surrounded it. I suspect that this is not an accident.
So Games Workshop started supporting and running 40K Tournaments, but we weren't meant to confuse that with their lack of desire for it to be a competitive game?
EVIL INC wrote: Not veryone plays in the basement. But again, you are confusing he current edition and the ultra competetive atmosphere with rogue trader and the atmosphere that surrounded it. I suspect that this is not an accident.
Then explain what I'm apparently confusing. What I'm gathering is that you're saying 40k is the better (or at least very good) game for casual, friendly atmospheres. I'm questioning why you think that. Its irrelevant what edition I'm confusing unless you're trying to make a point about a specific edition. I also understand most everyone is speaking about 40k as it currently states. Again, if you wish to discuss a specific edition of 40k, please make that clear, as this thread was started around Unbound which is a construct of 7th.
If you're speaking about the game as it right now, then my question to you remains the same as it is above; what about 40k makes it a better game for casual, laid back, 'beer and pretzels' gaming?
EVIL INC wrote: Eactly, this is exactly the game 40k was originally designed for. More so than most others.
What about 40k makes it better suited for basement gaming then other games?
Just like RPG nights or Sundays, we start when people are out of work and go to 1-3am. That is tough in most stores. If you have a large model count, or want to leave large models where you play, a friend's house works better.
You cannot take 25 models and expect to amuse yourself for 7+ hours.
On a different note, 40k is an ideal game for folks who love to collect and model miniatures. Almost everyone I play with adds at least 10 models to their collection a month (some of us do wayyyyy more than that). It isn't really an ideal game for people who aren't really into the hobby aspects, I think, because for some of us, the coolest part is the new stuff, and it can't come fast enough.
The game as it is now is different from the game as it was then. Try to get your hands on a copy of Rogue Trader and a copy of the current edition and compare the two.
To give you a helpful hint, look at the role of the TO at a tourney. What is the usual min ou can have and it be a decent tourney? 8 players maybe?
Now look at the role of the GM. and compare the two.
TO- set up tables to be perfectly fair for both players according to the pre=set scenerio as it is written in the book. Arbitrate rules so players dont kill each other, tally points, prizes ect and so forth. Compare it to the GM, coming up with a scenerio that may or may not be fair, set up the board custom, operate "NPC" units, councel players and watch the individual every step of the game making decisions of things that may or may not be in the rulebook, possibly even making changes. ect ect. You will see that with that alone, RT is far more designed for that atmosphere than many other games. Look at chess for example, it is designed to be played competetively. true it CAN be played in that atmosphere, but it is not designed with that in mind.
Unbound is great because I can run an all-Canoptek list. Scarabs and Charnel Scarabs as rough "troops" analogues. Spyders and Sentry Pylons for heavy support, wraiths and Acanthrites as fast attack and a Tomb Stalker for my warlord.
There's some lists like that in bound already, such as Deathwing or Eldar Wraith lists. But the beauty of unbinding is you can design your own.
Will you get someone who takes twelve Heldrakes? Sure, and good luck to him finding someone who actually wants to play against that.
But you already get those guys. The guy who takes three annihilation barges, two units of destroyer-led wraiths and fills the rest with five man warrior squads to unlock lots of night scythes. Does that guy care that his army is a generic Internet power list? Does he care that the five man warrior squads make no thematic sense whatsoever? That his army has no personality? Nope. He just carries on playing to win not through tactics, but pre game optimisation and shuffles in some barge lords because the Internet says those are the hot new thing.
Unbinding, if anything, makes a guy who tries to take that kind of thing to a game more obvious. Easier to avoid entirely. Not everyone can spot an power list for every faction at a glance, but they can certainly spot a Riptide horde.
The game as it is now is different from the game as it was then. Try to get your hands on a copy of Rogue Trader and a copy of the current edition and compare the two.
To give you a helpful hint, look at the role of the TO at a tourney. What is the usual min ou can have and it be a decent tourney? 8 players maybe?
Now look at the role of the GM. and compare the two.
TO- set up tables to be perfectly fair for both players according to the pre=set scenerio as it is written in the book. Arbitrate rules so players dont kill each other, tally points, prizes ect and so forth. Compare it to the GM, coming up with a scenerio that may or may not be fair, set up the board custom, operate "NPC" units, councel players and watch the individual every step of the game making decisions of things that may or may not be in the rulebook, possibly even making changes. ect ect. You will see that with that alone, RT is far more designed for that atmosphere than many other games. Look at chess for example, it is designed to be played competetively. true it CAN be played in that atmosphere, but it is not designed with that in mind.
And all of that has what to do with my question?
I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?
Blacksails wrote: I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?
Good luck getting an answer to that question. I've been asking it for a quite a while now, and I've never seen anyone give an answer that makes any sense.
There is a difference between a game specifically designed with that in mind and one without that in mind. You are fully aware of this. One can be played anywhere so CAN be played in that environment. The other is usually not effectively played outside of itspecial considerations.
EVIL INC wrote: There is a difference between a game specifically designed with that in mind and one without that in mind. You are fully aware of this. One can be played anywhere so CAN be played in that environment. The other is usually not effectively played outside of itspecial considerations.
Which also fails to answer my question. If you don't understand the question, please say so and I'll happily try to clarify.
Again; what in particular about 40k makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative gaming? You made that claim in an earlier post, and I'm curious as to your reasoning why.
Blacksails wrote: I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?
Good luck getting an answer to that question. I've been asking it for a quite a while now, and I've never seen anyone give an answer that makes any sense.
EVIL INC wrote:There is a difference between a game specifically designed with that in mind and one without that in mind. You are fully aware of this. One can be played anywhere so CAN be played in that environment. The other is usually not effectively played outside of itspecial considerations.
I think that any good gaming club should be able to support your pure narrative players along side your ultra competitive players as well. Be that club in someone's basement or at the GW store, local gaming store. The environment in which one plays in will have a bearing towards the scale of Fluff vs. Competition.
If your club is very cut-throat win at all costs. New players introduced into the club are going to be at a severe disadvantage until they learn what the local meta game is. Even still, then those new 40k players will have to design lists and then build the models to become competitive in those said cut-throat leagues.
The flip side to the cut-throat club is the fluffy league where it's all about themed armies. Once again a new player to that club scene is made to feel that his army is inadequate because it might not be considered fluffy enough.So the new member of the club has to change his army composition once again in order to fit in.
But I personally see nothing wrong with both styles of play. The more exposed to unbound the more I think that it does have its uses. In the end, we all want to have a pool of players that we can call upon to have our 40k games with. A small select few of players are hard core competitors. A equal amount of players pure fluff players. Any good gaming club worth its salt, is going to be able to balance between the 2 extremes.
It is now my opinion, that Unbound games are a great tool to feel out new players that want to join your club/league games. When you remove all restrictions of unit choices you really get to see the personality of the person that you are going to play against. Be that as someone who comes prepared with printed army lists bound by a sense of the FOC of their codex of choice. Or TFG who has proxied all his units, does not have a handwritten/printed/typed army list, does not carry the codexes he needs to run the units he is fielding, uses loaded dice, etc, etc, etc.
In the absence of established law and order, some folks are going to set a new form of law and order.Some others will act as complete and utter barbarians/outlaws/pirates. Most of us are balanced somewhere in between the two extremes.
Blacksails wrote: Am I missing some words or something? Do other people understand what I'm asking? Am I missing something in EVIL's posts that answers my question?
I can only speak for myself, but I can't see how what you're asking could be any clearer.
Pretending to not understand does not change it. That is the answer. if you decide that it is not obvious enough, that is your problem to deal with because I can copy and paste it till the cows come home and it will still be be true every time.
EVIL INC wrote: Pretending to not understand does not change it. That is the answer. if you decide that it is not obvious enough, that is your problem to deal with because I can copy and paste it till the cows come home and it will still be be true every time.
You haven't answered my question. You might have answered a question you created in your head, but you haven't answered the question I put forward in any logical manner.
I'll even try and explain why your responses don't qualify as an answer to my question. In none of your posts have you explained a particular aspect of the rules of 40k that create a positive gaming experience geared towards casual, laid back, and narrative gaming, above and beyond the offerings of other games.
If you don't want to answer my question, fine, so be it. But if you're going to quote me and try to respond, at least have the courtesy to actually attempt an answer.
Blacksails wrote: Am I missing some words or something? Do other people understand what I'm asking? Am I missing something in EVIL's posts that answers my question?
No, non-sequitur responses are par for the course there.
But it isn't an answer at all. The question is not "can 40k be played in a 'beer and pretzels' environment", it's "what makes 40kbetter than other games for this kind of gaming". Your answer, just like every other non-answer I've received, completely fails to address the "why" part. You claim that 40k is somehow magically superior, but you don't give a single reason WHY.
I think that any good gaming club should be able to support your pure narrative players along side your ultra competitive players as well. Be that club in someone's basement or at the GW store, local gaming store. The environment in which one plays in will have a bearing towards the scale of Fluff vs. Competition.
If your club is very cut-throat win at all costs. New players introduced into the club are going to be at a severe disadvantage until they learn what the local meta game is. Even still, then those new 40k players will have to design lists and then build the models to become competitive in those said cut-throat leagues.
The flip side to the cut-throat club is the fluffy league where it's all about themed armies. Once again a new player to that club scene is made to feel that his army is inadequate because it might not be considered fluffy enough.So the new member of the club has to change his army composition once again in order to fit in.
But I personally see nothing wrong with both styles of play. The more exposed to unbound the more I think that it does have its uses. In the end, we all want to have a pool of players that we can call upon to have our 40k games with. A small select few of players are hard core competitors. A equal amount of players pure fluff players. Any good gaming club worth its salt, is going to be able to balance between the 2 extremes.
It is now my opinion, that Unbound games are a great tool to feel out new players that want to join your club/league games. When you remove all restrictions of unit choices you really get to see the personality of the person that you are going to play against. Be that as someone who comes prepared with printed army lists bound by a sense of the FOC of their codex of choice. Or TFG who has proxied all his units, does not have a overwritten/printed/typed army list, does not carry the codexes he needs to run the units he is fielding, uses loaded dice, etc, etc, etc.
In the absence of established law and order, some folks are going to set a new form of law and order.Some others will act as complete and utter barbarians/outlaws/pirates. Most of us are balanced somewhere in between the two extremes.
Speaking as someone who has an element of responsibility in managing a gaming club, when you have a mix of "casual" players and "competitive" players, it's a pain in the ass to achieve balance. I've seen too many people get stomped too much too early in their playing careers and silently stop attending.
Unbound won't do anything to avoid this, and while I agree that assessing a new player before "allowing" them to join would be lovely, an open club doesn't work like that, a gaming group maybe, but not a club. It's also a nice conceit that there's plenty of people queuing up to join too, in reality for many players, getting more than a handful of potential opponents on a regular basis (in the UK at least) is tough. It is all well and good to say "if they're not playing your game, move on to the next one" but in many cases, the decision is "play this guy or don't play at all"
But it isn't an answer at all. The question is not "can 40k be played in a 'beer and pretzels' environment", it's "what makes 40kbetter than other games for this kind of gaming". Your answer, just like every other non-answer I've received, completely fails to address the "why" part. You claim that 40k is somehow magically superior, but you don't give a single reason WHY.
Perhaps I could help with an illustrative answer?
I consider Magic to be a solid beer and pretzel game because the rules are relatively easy to learn in a broad sense, the cards themselves contain most of the information you need to play them, their is little bookkeeping other than life totals and occasional tokens, a deck is an easily transportable size and it essentially all you need, you do not need a huge space to play in, and it doesn't take hours of preparation to get a card ready for play.
Please let us not tangent off into the whys and wherefores of if my ideas are correct or not, but let's see if anyone can put together a comparable answer about 40K.
See, peregrine, thats where he gets you. I did not say it was better in that environment. I said it was designed specifically for that environment. He uses the wording change the meaning of what i said to support a circular logic.
Any game can be played in that environment. Even baseball (although putting out a window from the inside might make the missus a lil upset)
Many games are designed to be pick up and carry about, played anywhere. Take chess or tic tac toe for example. they can be played hardcore tourney are they can be played in the basement. The point I made was that Rogure trader was simply not designed to be played in tourneys but specifially for the "basement". he is changing the words about intentionally to try to make it appear as though i am trying to say that it was better than others games to distract you from the actual point.
Of course, to avoid any reporting, I could be wrong, he might actually believe that is what i am saying in which case he is simply mistaken.
I consider Magic to be a solid beer and pretzel game because the rules are relatively easy to learn in a broad sense, the cards themselves contain most of the information you need to play them, their is little bookkeeping other than life totals and occasional tokens, a deck is an easily transportable size and it essentially all you need, you do not need a huge space to play in, and it doesn't take hours of preparation to get a card ready for play.
Please let us not tangent off into the whys and wherefores of if my ideas are correct or not, but let's see if anyone can put together a comparable answer about 40K.
Exactly this. I don't know anything about Magic, but that's the type of response/reasoning I'm looking for.
Blacksails wrote: I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?
How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.
Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]
EVIL INC wrote:Eactly, this is exactly the game 40k was originally designed for.More so than most others.
EVIL INC wrote:See, peregrine, thats where he gets you. I did not say it was better in that environment. I said it was designed specifically for that environment.He uses the wording change the meaning of what i said to support a circular logic.
Tell me again how I changed your wording.
Oh, emphasis mine, yadda yadda.
Now, you can back out of this if you clarify an earlier question I had. Are you in that instance referring to 40k as it is now, or the game it once was? If the former, my question and point stands. If the latter, carry on. Though, my question is a fair question anyway and you can feel free to answer it.
Blacksails wrote: I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?
How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.
Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]
Sure, but how does that make 40kbetter at being a casual, laid back, narrative game? The same you just said is true of quite literally anything.
I have seen some licensed FLGS, so it is a possibility. Rare, but possible. And awesome.
Blacksails wrote: I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?
How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.
Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]
That doesn't make 40Kbetter at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.
EVIL INC wrote: I said it was designed specifically for that environment.
HOW is it specifically designed for that environment? What specific aspects of 40k are optimized for that kind of gaming? When you answer these questions please remember that "the game sucks too much for anything else" is not an acceptable answer.
Blacksails wrote: I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?
How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.
Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]
That doesn't make 40Kbetter at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.
But does not it being unfit for everything else, but in the casual home environment make it Better in the casual home environment or do I not understand what better is?
Azreal13 wrote: That doesn't make 40Kbetter at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.
Exactly. There seems to be this bizarre idea that 40k must be good at something, so if it sucks for competitive play it must be awesome for casual games to make up for it. In reality the rules just suck in general, and the things that make it bad for competitive play are also problems in every other environment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: But does not it being unfit for everything else, but in the casual home environment make it Better in the casual home environment or do I not understand what better is?
You're misunderstanding the question. It's not "is 40k better in a casual or competitive environment" it's "is 40k a better casual game than X-Wing/Infinity/MTG/etc".
EVIL INC wrote: Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.
This is what we call a casual game environment, this is pretty much how every game that my group plays goes......except for the not caring at all about winning and losing. I am not WAAC, I don't want to win EVERY game I play, I don't expect to win EVERY game I play; is it too much to ask of a game that it doesn't require some type of full discussion beforehand to make sure that the game can be competitive? While the main point of playing a game is to have fun, it is disingenuous to make a game that has opposing sides and not to expect people to want to win the game. It is not narrative, and it is certainly not fun, for a game to be over in turn 2 or 3 because your army is totally outclassed by your opponent's army no matter what you do; it is also not narrative when you have to discuss with your opponent/group beforehand how your list is going to be built, or disregard whatever portion of units in your army because if you field them you are already losing. You can play casual games with balanced rules and it is so much easier to do so, and it would also be more narrative because you could use units in your army that are fluffy and narrative without having your army gimped from the outset. I completely stopped going to my local game store simply because making sure that you can have an enjoyable pickup game is a chore. The type of game that "Beer n Pretzels" seems to denote is one where the 2 players don't care about the outcome, but if that is the case, why play a game at all? At that point, you can just talk about all the great things that your units and characters do in battle.
Once more. Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind. That does not make it better in that environment, only that is is not played as well outside of it. You are changing my words to say that it is better inside that environment which is quite possibly untrue. Better than some worse than others depending on the individual game.
The point you are trying to hide and circle about is that when you try to play a game in a way it was not specifically designed for, it will not play near as well as when played as it was intended. This is what was done when it was taken from RT to modern ultra competative international tournament scene.
Without basic fundamental changes, it just does not play near as well as games that were intended for this scene from their very beginning.
EVIL INC wrote: Once more. Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind. That does not make it better in that environment, only that is is not played as well outside of it.
Okay, still not answering my question, but I'll least take it as an admission 40k is not the best, or even a good game for any environment.
Irrelevant and poor comparison about polo...
Spoiler:
let me give you an example. polo is a game designed to played riding horses, swinging the long hammer like clubs and such out in an open field. That is the environment is is designed to be played in. NOW, try to play the same game, same number of horses and so forth without any changes in a 2.5' by 4' bathtub. You will find that the game does not play nearly as well.
The point you are trying to hide and circle about is that when you try to play a game in a way it was not specifically designed for, it will not play near as well as when played as it was intended. This is what was done when it was taken from RT to modern ultra competative international tournament scene.
Without basic fundamental changes, it just does not play near as well as games that were intended for this scene from their very beginning.
I'm not hiding or circling about anything. I asked a very simple question. Perhaps you may be confusing your own posts for hiding and circling?
Amazingly enough, you've still failed to actually answer my question.
Once more. Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind. That does not make it better in that environment, only that is is not played as well outside of it. You are changing my words to say that it is better inside that environment which is quite possibly untrue. Better than some worse than others depending on the individual game.
let me give you an example. polo is a game designed to played riding horses, swinging the long hammer like clubs and such out in an open field. That is the environment is is designed to be played in. NOW, try to play the same game, same number of horses and so forth without any changes in a 2.5' by 4' bathtub. You will find that the game does not play nearly as well.
The point you are trying to hide and circle about is that when you try to play a game in a way it was not specifically designed for, it will not play near as well as when played as it was intended. This is what was done when it was taken from RT to modern ultra competative international tournament scene.
Without basic fundamental changes, it just does not play near as well as games that were intended for this scene from their very beginning.
EVIL INC wrote: Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind.
So are you ever going to explain how 40k is designed to be played in this environment, as opposed to being so horrible in every other environment that playing "beer and pretzels" games is the only way to salvage it? You could start your answer by giving some examples of parts of the game that function especially well in a "beer and pretzels" environment, compared to alternative ways of doing those parts in a similar game that is designed for competitive play.
Edit: and oh good, now we come to the part of the "discussion" where you just keep copy/pasting your previous posts and ignoring all of the questions or responses you get.
EVIL INC wrote: Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.
This is what we call a casual game environment, this is pretty much how every game that my group plays goes......except for the not caring at all about winning and losing. I am not WAAC, I don't want to win EVERY game I play, I don't expect to win EVERY game I play; is it too much to ask of a game that it doesn't require some type of full discussion beforehand to make sure that the game can be competitive? While the main point of playing a game is to have fun, it is disingenuous to make a game that has opposing sides and not to expect people to want to win the game. It is not narrative, and it is certainly not fun, for a game to be over in turn 2 or 3 because your army is totally outclassed by your opponent's army no matter what you do; it is also not narrative when you have to discuss with your opponent/group beforehand how your list is going to be built, or disregard whatever portion of units in your army because if you field them you are already losing. You can play casual games with balanced rules and it is so much easier to do so, and it would also be more narrative because you could use units in your army that are fluffy and narrative without having your army gimped from the outset. I completely stopped going to my local game store simply because making sure that you can have an enjoyable pickup game is a chore. The type of game that "Beer n Pretzels" seems to denote is one where the 2 players don't care about the outcome, but if that is the case, why play a game at all? At that point, you can just talk about all the great things that your units and characters do in battle.
The advantage though of the casual home environment is after a few times you no longer Need to have those discussions because they we worked out last time. You can then focus on the other things like creating fun scenarios and things like that.
One of the most fun games we ever did was a "Magnificent 7" Scenario.
I brought 7 Character and Our Ork player just took all of his Orks [About 2,000 Points, No Vehicles, but Bikes were ok].
We played for a few turns and then we calculated my points vs how many of Points of Orks I killed off. If I killed off more Points than my points I won [I did].
Anpu42 wrote: The advantage though of the casual home environment is after a few times you no longer Need to have those discussions because they we worked out last time. You can then focus on the other things like creating fun scenarios and things like that.
One of the most fun games we ever did was a "Magnificent 7" Scenario.
I brought 7 Character and Our Ork player just took all of his Orks [About 2,000 Points, No Vehicles, but Bikes were ok].
We played for a few turns and then we calculated my points vs how many of Points of Orks I killed off. If I killed off more Points than my points I won [I did].
This is what Unbound should be about.
In that scenario (environment and all) I question the necessity of a 'rule' like Unbound. What I'm gathering about your environment is that you could have previously done anything you wanted so long as it was agreed upon by your friends. In that case, your group wouldn't need Unbound to be published.
For pick up gamers, Unbound creates another hoop to jump through at best, and at worst provides a barrier between players. As a rule, I think its absolutely useless in what it provides to the player base. Groups like yourselves don't need to be told they can do what they want, and it only serves to hamper the pick up and tournament/league gamers.
So your saying you have personal knowledge of my finances over the last 10 years as to exactly which of my gaming supplies I have sold and not sold and why? Exactly how have you gained this knowledge because it can not have been through any legal means.
For the at least 3rd time now.
I did NOT say RT or even current 40k was better played in a basement than any other game in existance past present or future.
I DID say that it was originally(RT) designed to not be played in an ultra competetive tournament environment. I would probobly go on to say not in any kind of tournament environment but PURELY for light entertainment (such as would normally be played in the "basement".
This is not to say it is better in the basement than any other game just that it was not really designed to be played outside of it.
Other games can be played in the basement just as easily and effectively and you can have just as much fun doing it.
(please note this is not about which is a better game overall) HOWEVER, many of the other games were designed to also be played competetively (or outside of the basement). For example chess. This means that those other games are more well rounded and likely more balanced because of that.
That IS the point. 40k has been turned into an international ultra competative tournament game when it was not originally designed to be that. When the game designers sat about and created the game. I am sure the conversations went more along the lines of
"ELVES IN SPACE!! Lets give them ninja star guns and jetbikes!"
"Only if I get to have my space dwarves wearing sunglasses and cigars"
"*general laughter* SURE, you can have your space dwarves."
"whispers amongst the others* "givem a few years and then the dwarves are GONE. GONE I say."
Rather than anything along the lines of what was going to be allowed in tournaments or rulings on FAQs.
EVIL INC wrote: So your saying you have personal knowledge of my finances over the last 10 years as to exactly which of my gaming supplies I have sold and not sold and why? Exactly how have you gained this knowledge because it can not have been through any legal means.
wat
For the at least 3rd time now.
Oh boy.
I did NOT say RT or even current 40k was better played in a basement than any other game in existance past present or future.
Would you like me to quote, again where you explicitly stated 40k was designed for basement/casual/whatever gameplay, more than other games? Which, as I've asked, what about 40k makes it better for that kind of play. The connection being that a game designed for that kind of play ought to be better for that kind of play, otherwise we can reasonably conclude that the game was either not designed for that or failed in its attempt.
I DID say that it was originally(RT) designed to not be played in an ultra competetive tournament environment. I would probobly go on to say not in any kind of tournament environment but PURELY for light entertainment (such as would normally be played in the "basement".
This is not to say it is better in the basement than any other game just that it was not really designed to be played outside of it.
Okay, so RT wasn't designed for tournaments. The relevance of that is...?
How that ties in with the thread is that the unbound is a step back towards the time of RT.
My feelings on thats in the frame of mind and intentions of how you build your unboundlist. You can be making an ultra killy tourney list or you could be making a pure fluff weaker list for fun.
My feeling are that 2 seperate sets of rules could work. One set up for the just for fun fluffy games in a relaxed environment (what I mistakenly called a beer and pretzels game". this set could include stuff like unbound because you wouldnt really have anything to gain by "abusing" it.
Another set of rules for tournament environments with much more balance which would likely require a total rewrite.
This way, you could make both "sides" happy or at least less unhappy.
I mean, it doesn't answer any of my questions, and its side stepped a lot of the earlier issues, but its at least on topic and understandable.
Yes, two sets of rules is one way of doing that. Downside is that it would end up dividing the playerbase into two large camps with floaters in betwee. Upside is that distinction would be clear and clean.
I'd just prefer one good ruleset. A good, concise, well written and well balanced rule set caters equally to the fluffiest of casual fluff bunnies as it does to the hardest of winningest tournament goers, and everyone in between.
To that end, I feel Unbound is completely, 100% useless. Its lazy, it causes more problems than it solves, and its fairly comical, as far as rules go.
Unbound doesn't necessarily break the game, it just opens the door and invites the bull into the china shop. Unbound used to be a thing that friendly players could agree upon before hand.
"I want to play an all Terminators, Dreadnaughts, and other 1st company stuff next time." "Ok, I want to play all Tanks next time, let's play a Cleanse mission and it can be your boys dropping into my tank company's compound to try to prevent them being used two games from now..."
"Hey Bud, I want to try out a scout company for my Guard, I'm going to use a lot of Fast Attack choices, and all my units will be embarked in transports, even if they normally couldn't. That cool?"
It was the sort of thing you needed to agree with an opponent before you set up. Such battles weren't necessarily about a competitive, "Fair" game. It was about trying something fun. It wasn't FORCED on competitive players. Fluffy players could still play fluffy when they wanted, because they weren't terribly concerned about the rules to begin with.
Even in 7th, so long as players aren't actively trying to dump a load on their opponents, unbound isn't too bad. It's all about the reward for winning. If the guys you play against view the rush of the win as being more important than a mutually enjoyable game... that's their personalities. If money is on the line, they have every reason to try to win at all costs. It's not bad, but maybe not what you're into.
I'd like a tighter rule set, with better balance, and such, but I've been playing for 18 years, and enjoyed every edition for it's own merits. I'm lucky to still play against most of the guys I started with, so we all have pretty similar ideas about "good form". Hopefully, you either find some people with a different play-style, or you can convince your buddies to try more "conventional" 40k again.
I mean, it doesn't answer any of my questions, and its side stepped a lot of the earlier issues, but its at least on topic and understandable.
Yes, two sets of rules is one way of doing that. Downside is that it would end up dividing the playerbase into two large camps with floaters in betwee. Upside is that distinction would be clear and clean.
I'd just prefer one good ruleset. A good, concise, well written and well balanced rule set caters equally to the fluffiest of casual fluff bunnies as it does to the hardest of winningest tournament goers, and everyone in between.
To that end, I feel Unbound is completely, 100% useless. Its lazy, it causes more problems than it solves, and its fairly comical, as far as rules go.
I didnt change anything. I just finally said what you wanted to hear instead of something you disagreed with. That meant that you didnt ignore it.
Call me wishy washy or an idealist. i want everyone to be happy which is just not gonna happen with a single set of rules.
Good points about it diving the player base. Bt dont you think it is already divided? 2 sets of rules was just an off the wall idea and not something I'm putting stock in. like i said, I just started checking into DUST and found that they have 2 set of rules and that the players on their forums actually seem to get along because they all get what they want and have nothing to complain about. Of course, I havnt checked into a LOT of their forums either so cant put a lot of stock in it.
My point about RT not being designed for tournaments is that it is a square peg being pounded into that round hole with only "minor" tweaks in each edition (figure of speach) rather than the total rewrite that is needed to make it effective in that environment.
Blacksails wrote: I'd just prefer one good ruleset. A good, concise, well written and well balanced rule set caters equally to the fluffiest of casual fluff bunnies as it does to the hardest of winningest tournament goers, and everyone in between.
Meh. Fluff bunnies (or purely social players) and hardest of winningest tournament goers make poor opponents, regardless of the rules. It's just a different attitude that can't be reconciled.
To illustrate, let's pick a game with static units, starting positions and rules: a ranked chess player who also wants to win every game is a poor partner for someone who plays just for fun, because a 20-0 scoreboard isn't really interesting to anyone. At some time, one of them will say they're wasting their time.
I guess I'm pretty weird. On computer and console games, I'm fiercely competitive. I mean, I'm not happy if there's a leaderboard and I'm not in the top 10; and I'll pour in 2000 hours and practice the most monotonous things to get there. But in a tabletop wargame, I'm extremely social, and would much rather enjoy the company of other players. I'm the sort of guy where if a game is going really badly for an opponent, and someone else is done at their table, I'll invite them to pop over with a few squads as reinforcements.
EVIL INC wrote: I didnt change anything. I just finally said what you wanted to hear instead of something you disagreed with. That meant that you didnt ignore it.
Well, first of all, I never claimed you changed anything.
Second of all, NO ONE was understand ANYTHING you were saying. The problem lies not with me, but squarely with you. If no onse understands what you're saying, you need to re-evaluate how you discuss things and make points.
Call me wishy washy or an idealist. i want everyone to be happy which is just not gonna happen with a single set of rules.
If by everyone, you mean literally every single human being on the planet, then sure. However, a well made ruleset creates positive gaming communities which grow and succeed. Oddly enough, poor rulesets lose players and create poor gaming communities. All it takes is a cursory look at GW and other companies like Corvus Belli or PP.
So yes, a single set of rules can easily please far more people than you give it credit for.
Good points about it diving the player base. Bt dont you think it is already divided? 2 sets of rules was just an off the wall idea and not something I'm putting stock in. like i said, I just started checking into DUST and found that they have 2 set of rules and that the players on their forums actually seem to get along because they all get what they want and have nothing to complain about. Of course, I havnt checked into a LOT of their forums either so cant put a lot of stock in it.
It is already divided. Two sets would just make that distinction clearer. I can't say for sure how it would affect the game, as I suppose Magic has things called formats (unless I'm mistaken) and its doing fine.
Meh. Fluff bunnies (or purely social players) and hardest of winningest tournament goers make poor opponents, regardless of the rules. It's just a different attitude that can't be reconciled.
To illustrate, let's pick a game with static units, starting positions and rules: a ranked chess player who also wants to win every game is a poor partner for someone who plays just for fun, because a 20-0 scoreboard isn't really interesting to anyone. At some time, one of them will say they're wasting their time.
I guess I'm pretty weird. On computer and console games, I'm fiercely competitive. I mean, I'm not happy if there's a leaderboard and I'm not in the top 10; and I'll pour in 2000 hours and practice the most monotonous things to get there. But in a tabletop wargame, I'm extremely social, and would much rather enjoy the company of other players. I'm the sort of guy where if a game is going really badly for an opponent, and someone else is done at their table, I'll invite them to pop over with a few squads as reinforcements.
I disagree. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume most wargamers do not self identify as some sort of absolute between casual and tournament, nor does that correlate with desire to create fluffy games.
Purely anecdotal, but it illustrates how your point is flawed. I enjoy competitive games. Wether its 40k, or World of Tanks, I enjoy playing things to the best of my ability. I also enjoy playing purely fluffy, campaign oriented, scenario based matches using a themed list. I will happily throw down against an array of players, and regardless of my list or result in the game, I can be a pleasant opponent.
A well written ruleset would allow people like myself, and any others, to more readily game against a wider array of players without having to re-tool lists to ensure everything is within the same bracket. Further, a better set of rules would also allow for the creation of fluffier lists and have games feel more in line with stated fluff and lore.
Just because someone is a top tournament winner does not mean they can't (or won't) gladly play the most ridiculous themed scenario. A better ruleset benefits people palying themed/scenario games, while it benefits tournaments by being better balanced and having less rules disputes/abuse/gimmicks, thus promoting skill more.
I honestly dont think you make much effort to understand me. It is much more "fun to poke fun at the outsider who has disabilities than try to understand them. Of course, that may just be my view.
I always have a point and it is usually a good one. Not always entirely relevent but always well thought out. I would ask that you have a little patience with me and make an effort to understand rather than just shouting me down and making fun. Unfortunately, that makes it even harder to find the right words.
I'm not saying a single good rule set wouldnt work. I rather think it could. The 2 different sets was just a random idea I thought I'd voice.
MTG has different rule sets or like you said formats. I have a deck or two remnents somewhere but dont really play anymore. I do remember being told I couldnt use them in the big tournament setting because it wasnt legal but that there was another "type 2" or something that was set up "just for fun" where I could use them. Of course, not being a big MTG player, they might have dumbed down the terms for me which I appreciated at the time.
EVIL INC wrote: I honestly dont think you make much effort to understand me. It is much more "fun to poke fun at the outsider who has disabilities than try to understand them. Of course, that may just be my view.
You got me, I do this only to people with disabilities because I'm a terrible person. In related news, I kick puppies constantly.
First of all, I had no clue you had a disability.
Secondly, I don't know the relevance of that piece of information.
Third, I'm not the only one having this issue. If you read back through it, several other posters confirmed they were confused too.
I always have a point and it is usually a good one. Not always entirely relevent but always well thought out. I would ask that you have a little patience with me and make an effort to understand rather than just shouting me down and making fun. Unfortunately, that makes it even harder to find the right words.
No, no you don't. A brief scroll through your history shows how blatantly untrue that is. You have a history and reputation on these boards, and I can assure you, its not positive.
I have made an effort. In fact, I made a very hard effort and gave you multiple opportunities to clarify your position.
Keep playing the victim card though.
I'm not saying a single good rule set wouldnt work. I rather think it could. The 2 different sets was just a random idea I thought I'd voice.
MTG has different rule sets or like you said formats. I have a deck or two remnents somewhere but dont really play anymore. I do remember being told I couldnt use them in the big tournament setting because it wasnt legal but that there was another "type 2" or something that was set up "just for fun" where I could use them. Of course, not being a big MTG player, they might have dumbed down the terms for me which I appreciated at the time.
I have no idea about anything Magic related, so I can't really comment on this.
I disagree. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume most wargamers do not self identify as some sort of absolute between casual and tournament, nor does that correlate with desire to create fluffy games.
Purely anecdotal, but it illustrates how your point is flawed. I enjoy competitive games. Wether its 40k, or World of Tanks, I enjoy playing things to the best of my ability. I also enjoy playing purely fluffy, campaign oriented, scenario based matches using a themed list. I will happily throw down against an array of players, and regardless of my list or result in the game, I can be a pleasant opponent.
A well written ruleset would allow people like myself, and any others, to more readily game against a wider array of players without having to re-tool lists to ensure everything is within the same bracket. Further, a better set of rules would also allow for the creation of fluffier lists and have games feel more in line with stated fluff and lore.
Just because someone is a top tournament winner does not mean they can't (or won't) gladly play the most ridiculous themed scenario. A better ruleset benefits people palying themed/scenario games, while it benefits tournaments by being better balanced and having less rules disputes/abuse/gimmicks, thus promoting skill more.
Of course, there are many shades in between, "I must always win" and "I just want to play fluff". I'm just saying that people at opposite ends of the spectrum don't mesh well in the same game. Someone whose only army is DV and DV expansion and plays once a month can't compete with someone who owns $50,000 in models that they've collected over the last 20 years, and who has read every rulebook and plays ten games a week.
If the person with more experience and unlimited resources just wants to destroy the other player, that's exactly what will happen, and, in my opinion, to nobody's benefit. This was my point -- that the ultracompetitive types that are willing to expend time and money and really, really want to win, are not good play partners for much more casual players. But, this is not unique to 40k; it's something you pretty much see in every game, even where units and starting positions are predefined.
Now, when you look at all the players in between (which I hope comprises most of the playerbase!), and the original topic, which was unbound lists, winners of large tournaments don't play large, broken, unbound lists. Unless the tournament is devoid of skilled players with sufficient resources, it's pretty much safe to say, serpents and riptides might do alright, but they aren't tournament winners (well, aside from that house rules often prohibit such lists). Quite often, you see good old Ultramarines with a strong list, but not particularly gimicky, doing very well.
Just to clarify, I don't think there's any problem at all with a tournament aficionados playing against a casual player. I think it's only a problem when the tournament winner wants to maximize his chance of winning against said casual player. I like winning as much as the next person, but I'm sure not going to break out an imperial knight and a couple of DK against someone who only owns infantry and small flyers. I'd rather tone down my list.
On topic. Unbound can be a great asset to fluff gamers in the correct setting when used as it was intended. However, as it is too easily abused (or used as it was not intended), it can be bad.
Blacksails wrote: I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?
How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.
Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]
That doesn't make 40Kbetter at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.
But does not it being unfit for everything else, but in the casual home environment make it Better in the casual home environment or do I not understand what better is?
40K can really only stand as a casual game, because its rules and mechanics are broken for actual competitive games.
However, these conditions exist (here) in a vacuum, 40k is better than itself as a casual game than a competitive game... but when you bring other games into it, on purely objective standards (rules clarity, pricing, balance, etc)... then you see that 40K also fails as a casual game, because many other games beat it in objectively-measured means of judging a game's quality.
Sure, some people will say that they prefer 40K because they think the fluff is cooler,the models are cooler, they have X amount of money invested in it, all their friends play it, ect. That's all fine, well, and good... but none of these subjective criteria make 40K a better game than another, they just indicate why someone would play 40K over a different game.
EVIL INC wrote: MTG has different rule sets or like you said formats. I have a deck or two remnents somewhere but dont really play anymore. I do remember being told I couldnt use them in the big tournament setting because it wasnt legal but that there was another "type 2" or something that was set up "just for fun" where I could use them. Of course, not being a big MTG player, they might have dumbed down the terms for me which I appreciated at the time.
You're misunderstanding how formats work in MTG. It isn't about casual vs. competitive, it's just about how many years worth of cards to include. MTG was designed from the beginning to be a game where new stuff would be published, you'd play with it for a while, and then it would rotate out in favor of the next new stuff. The tournament formats set the point where that rotation happens. Some use only the newest cards, some go all the way back to 1993 and allow everything. And all of these formats are played at every level of competitiveness, from kitchen table games to pro tour tournaments with $50k cash prizes.
Something like this wouldn't work at all in 40k because there's no neat division between "casual" and "competitive", where you can just include the appropriate elements and leave out the rest.
I have no idea about anything Magic related, so I can't really comment on this.
MtG, and most TCGs are relevant because they appeal to the same playerbase and are often sold at the same stores (not GW ones obviously ). In MtG, you can pick whatever cards you want to play, much like building your 40k army. To optimize your chances of winning, the single most important task as a player is to stack the deck so that you have good odds of pulling resources, spells, and creatures to combat your opponent.
The problem with casual vs WAAC in MtG is that the most powerful cards are very, very rare -- you might have to, on average, spend thousands of dollars to get one of those cards. So, the person who has invested tens of thousands of dollars will have a huge potential advantage to stack their deck against someone with far more common cards. It is impossible, with a $100 budget buying starter/booster packs, to win a tournament, because your cards won't be good enough.
There are also some out of print cards that are massively overpowered -- essentially, they are vastly superior versions of regular cards, that have no downsides. You can only get these cards either by paying hundreds of dollars for each card, unless you were spending thousands of dollars twenty years ago.
To adjust for this, there are different rulesets that you can adopt that limit what and how many of each card you may play. Most often, the massively overpowered cards (that were made before WoTC knew better.. I guess) are simply prohibited, though between friends or in a casual game, they might be allowed. In most cases, you are limited in how many of a single card you can play. That type of thing.
Most casual players love MtG when they start playing (the game is very fun), and hate it when they run into a bunch of WAAC players that mercilessly destroy them.
Oh yes, and you can play for ante (a relatively rarity at FLGS), meaning that you the first card, at the top of your shuffled deck is up for grabs by your opponent, should you lose.
EVIL INC wrote: I honestly dont think you make much effort to understand me.
Speaking for myself, I make the same amount of effort to understand yours I do everyone else, but you aren't always clear.
It is much more "fun to poke fun at the outsider who has disabilities than try to understand them. Of course, that may just be my view.
Yep, just your view, I had no idea you had any sort of disability, and I won't treat you any differently now I know you do. You're not an outsider, we're all pretty much strangers here, I have met precisely one Dakka user IRL since I started posting here, this could just be an advanced AI pretending to be every other poster at once for all I know.
I always have a point and it is usually a good one. Not always entirely relevent but always well thought out. I would ask that you have a little patience with me and make an effort to understand rather than just shouting me down and making fun. Unfortunately, that makes it even harder to find the right words.
To be blunt, if you're aware that you sometimes have difficulties composing you're replies, then take your time. I can see by the speed you reply sometimes you simply cannot be taking your time with thinking through what you're trying to say. Oh, and for the record, an irrelevant point is never a good point, even if it is expressed in the most succinct and witty way ever conceived.
I'm not saying a single good rule set wouldnt work. I rather think it could. The 2 different sets was just a random idea I thought I'd voice.
MTG has different rule sets or like you said formats. I have a deck or two remnents somewhere but dont really play anymore. I do remember being told I couldnt use them in the big tournament setting because it wasnt legal but that there was another "type 2" or something that was set up "just for fun" where I could use them. Of course, not being a big MTG player, they might have dumbed down the terms for me which I appreciated at the time.
Magic has one ruleset, the different formats govern what cards since the first set ever printed can be used, the tournament formats tend to be focused on the latest core set plus a fixed, normally most recent, number of expansions. To apply that to 40K, it would be somewhat akin to having a list of acceptable units, "restricted" units (one per army) and banned units. Not quite the same, but probably the way it could work.
EVIL INC wrote: On topic. Unbound can be a great asset to fluff gamers in the correct setting when used as it was intended. However, as it is too easily abused (or used as it was not intended), it can be bad.
It is certainly not a great asset, for two reasons:
1) Unbound isn't intended to open up "fluff" armies (even ignoring the fact that overpowered unbound armies can also be very fluffy), it's intended to make you buy more GW products. GW added it to the book so the employee in your local GW store can say "sure, get that big new Tyranid kit, even if you place space marines you can still use it" and sell another $50 model. If you use unbound as GW intends it you get incredibly unfluffy armies that consist of nothing more than the most recent new releases, without any theme beyond "I BOUGHT A GW MODEL!!!!".
2) It removes all limits on using "rule-breaking" armies. Previously if you wanted to break the FOC and/or army list rules in a "fluff" environment you had to justify your list to everyone. So the only "unbound" armies were the ones that had awesome fluff behind them and were fun to play against. Now it's just the default that you're allowed to bring whatever you want, and the burden of being the bad guy and refusing to allow it now falls on everyone else. This adds nothing for the "fluff" players (who already got to use their armies) while simultaneously giving them extra work to do in trying to keep things balanced and fun. So no, that's not really a "great asset".
Sure, some people will say that they prefer 40K because they think the fluff is cooler,the models are cooler, they have X amount of money invested in it, all their friends play it, ect. That's all fine, well, and good... but none of these subjective criteria make 40K a better game than another, they just indicate why someone would play 40K over a different game.
Actually, objectively, the price per model and the number of available models in the 40k universe is better than other Scifi games. Plus, the models have interchangeable configurations, and may be posed.
So, if you are primarily or seriously interested in the hobby and wish to collect models, it is objectively superior. If your desire is to collect, build, and paint models, and have a context in which to play with them when you wish, 40k is, objectively, a better game.
If your desire is to play a game, and owning and painting models is of secondary importance (or a nuisance), then objectively, 40k is an inferior game.
If your desire is to play a quick skirmish game, objectively, 40k rules and units make it a terrible game.
If your desire is to play a high model count (100+) Scifi game, or if you wish to mix infantry, vehicles, large creatures, and flying units, 40k is pretty much the only game, whether that's good or bad.
But anyhow, why does it have to be either/or? Why not just play them all ^^.
Talys wrote: The problem with casual vs WAAC in MtG is that the most powerful cards are very, very rare -- you might have to, on average, spend thousands of dollars to get one of those cards.
Or just buy the specific cards you want online. If you're opening booster packs to find a specific card then you're just throwing away money.
It is impossible, with a $100 budget buying starter/booster packs, to win a tournament, because your cards won't be good enough.
Well yeah, because spending $100 on booster packs to get a new deck is stupid. A $100 budget to buy single cards, on the other hand, is a pretty good start to a tournament deck (and sometimes the entire deck).
And of course this is much better than 40k, where $100 isn't even close to enough to buy a tournament-legal army. At least in MTG you can maybe have some fun in the losers' bracket at your local tournament, in 40k you don't get to play at all.
There are also some out of print cards that are massively overpowered -- essentially, they are vastly superior versions of regular cards, that have no downsides. You can only get these cards either by paying hundreds of dollars for each card, unless you were spending thousands of dollars twenty years ago.
This is one reason the rotating format system exists, to support sanctioned tournaments where costs aren't massively inflated by the scarcity of cards that went OOP almost 20 years ago. Cost of OOP stuff is certainly a factor if you want to play in the "everything since 1993 is legal" formats, but most tournaments (especially local tournaments) use much cheaper "only the current sets" formats.
Oh yes, and you can play for ante (a relatively rarity at FLGS), meaning that you the first card, at the top of your shuffled deck is up for grabs by your opponent, should you lose.
In theory you can use house rules and play for ante, but this has been incredibly rare since 1994 or so and there are no longer official rules for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: So, if you are primarily or seriously interested in the hobby and wish to collect models, it is objectively superior.
Not really. It has a larger total number of sculpts than other games, but the quality of each model isn't all that impressive. So it really depends on what you want to collect: if you want to get a huge collection of decent models then 40k is great. If you want to collect a smaller number of models but have each of them be an awesome centerpiece then 40k kind of sucks.
Blacksails wrote: I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?
How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.
Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]
That doesn't make 40Kbetter at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.
But does not it being unfit for everything else, but in the casual home environment make it Better in the casual home environment or do I not understand what better is?
40K can really only stand as a casual game, because its rules and mechanics are broken for actual competitive games.
I'd be careful saying that too loudly or they will come after you like they did me when i said the exact same thing. lol Glad to see I'm not the only one with that opinion at least. Cheers
No, most of us are of the opinion Psienesis is expressing.
It is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of what you were saying EVIL, which is that 40K is best as a casual game because that's what it was designed for - something you've spectacularly failed to corroborate on any of the multiple occasions you've been asked to.
The fact is, a good game loses nothing when played in a casual manner or competitively.
Azreal13 wrote: No, most of us are of the opinion Psienesis is expressing.
It is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of what you were saying EVIL, which is that 40K is best as a casual game because that's what it was designed for - something you've spectacularly failed to corroborate on any of the multiple occasions you've been asked to.
The fact is, a good game loses nothing when played in a casual manner or competitively.
40K is not that.
If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the wooshing noise over EVIL's head.
Azreal13 wrote: No, most of us are of the opinion Psienesis is expressing.
It is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of what you were saying EVIL, which is that 40K is best as a casual game because that's what it was designed for - something you've spectacularly failed to corroborate on any of the multiple occasions you've been asked to.
The fact is, a good game loses nothing when played in a casual manner or competitively.
40K is not that.
Actually, he is expressing exactly what I have been saying all along (different words, same exact point) while you tried your best to disagree.
If you agree with what he and I are saying, than maybe trying to pick an argument when the person disagrees with you would be a better bet than just doing it for the sake of doing it.
EVIL INC wrote: Indeed, sometimes, it is hard to get a point across and say in 1500 words what some one else says clearer in 15. It is still the same point.
It may have been the same point you intended, but you can't very well point your finger anywhere but at yourself when people fail to understand what you were trying to say all along.
If you were struggling to make the point, you should have said so; I also asked if you needed clarifying what I was asking, and indeed asked you at several points to clarify your position with some questions.
Regardless, the point many of us apparently agree on is that 40k is a rather poor game for competitive play, and only barely works when everyone agrees exactly how to play in a casual environment. That said, nothing about 40k is inherently casual or lends itself to being a game geared towards that goal, and thus I'd argue its not even a good casual game, but works marginally better in an environment of similar attitudes.
Other, better balanced games don't have this problem and function equally well in a basement six beers in or in a tournament hall with 200 players.
Talys wrote: I'm just saying that people at opposite ends of the spectrum don't mesh well in the same game. Someone whose only army is DV and DV expansion and plays once a month can't compete with someone who owns $50,000 in models that they've collected over the last 20 years, and who has read every rulebook and plays ten games a week.
Why can't they? Since when did owning all the right models actually matter to how a game for fun is played?
DarknessEternal wrote: Why can't they? Since when did owning all the right models actually matter to how a game for fun is played?
Because options are power, and GW's starter sets often have weak unit choices. The DV player will have a poorly-optimized mix of random units built from a very limited supply of models, and may or may not have basic tools like melta guns, AA, etc, that are not included in the starter set. And because of their lack of experience they are likely to struggle with understanding how the rules work or what makes a good strategy. The experienced player, on the other hand, will have a well-practiced list drawn from all of the possible options and will know far more about how to win the game even with a weaker list. If you're playing against someone with such an extremely limited budget you have two choices:
1) Make a conscious effort to cripple your own list so that the both players have a roughly equal chance of winning, which probably means abandoning your army's theme, not getting to use your favorite units, etc. In fact, you might even have to go out and buy new stuff just to bring yourself down to their level. And on top of that you'll probably have to deliberately make bad choices to get your units killed/stay too far away and fail charges/etc to make up for their mistakes, which also isn't much fun.
or
2) Crush them utterly in a game that won't be any fun for either player.
Not that this is a problem unique to 40k, of course. Any game where there is a basic starter set and most of the game's content is bought separately is going to run into problems when you try to deal with players who only buy the starter set, simply because you can't balance a situation with such a huge difference in access to options. It's not really even worth trying, you just have to accept that playing beyond your first intro games has a price tag attached and focus on matchups between players that have "real" armies/decks/whatever.
Peregrine wrote: Not really. It has a larger total number of sculpts than other games, but the quality of each model isn't all that impressive. So it really depends on what you want to collect: if you want to get a huge collection of decent models then 40k is great. If you want to collect a smaller number of models but have each of them be an awesome centerpiece then 40k kind of sucks.
That's a very subjective statement. Personally, being someone who buys about half of the PP new releases and a quarter of the GW new releases, it is my personal opinion that new GW models are superior to new PP models. And, GW has far superior centerpiece models. There is nothing to compare with Voidraven, Revenant Titan, Baneblade, Treeman ancient, Wood elf Dragon, Nagash, etc. In other game universes, from a purely modelling perspective.
I feel that in a different "gaming era" it served it's purpose as a casual game. Currently.. not as much so but many of us make do because of a love of the "mythos" and imagery (and for many of us, nostalgia). Top that off with it being one of the largest games with finding opponents easiest and , well, there ya have it. For many, better to make do than go without.
That is why a couple buddies and I are looking into DUST (FF super sale REALLY helped a lot. $9.00 for a $45 model kinda helped out lol) We now all 3 have fully playable armies that we can add to as we move forward.
What gets me is not that people dont like the rules. Heck, we had questions in RT. What gets me is the attitude of the "complainers". I made a point earlier about how different playstyles attracts different sorts of players. My example was that the sit and shoot armies usually sttract one type of player who is more laid back while the in your face assaulty playstyle usually sttracts that sort of player. So that when the shooty armies are weak, those players make do and muddle through while when the assaulty armies are weakened, those players take different and more vocal action.
I dont think that the fact that the current "complainers" are more vocal makes them more numerous, I think it makes them "louder".
Of course, thats my view and others disagree. Just thought I would explain why I think that.
What gets me though (back on track) is not that theycomplain but that they take every opportunity possible to shoehorn in the complaints even in threads where it is not related...
*Thread title* "What shade of green should I do my orks?
*post #1-215* "40k sucks!!! the rules blow chunks all over you when you play!. Dont even bother with orks!......."
Extreme and exagerated but figured it would bring a smile and a nod because I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from on that.
Another is the argumentativeness just for the sake of it. Say for example someone says that they dont like the rules but dont think they are QUITE as bad as described for X reason and since the person likes the fluff anyway, they will keep playing. The complainers do everything possible to discredit and flame/troll at that person simply because they arent on the bandwagon. This makes the vast majority of people afraid to voice any opinion at all for fear of repercussions.
Id say, if someone doesnt agree 100%, the complainers should accept that and not spend 12 pages trying to argue and ridicule every little point.
there are shades of grey and much of it is opinion based. Even the results of things that arent opinion based are usually based on preferences and opinions.
For example, I feel that chess is much more balanced than 40k. I can play chess and am decent at it (well, I used to be) but I dont play it because I find it bland and boring. My opinions and preferences cause me to go against what someone else would say would be facts that they feel would make it a "better game".
The I must be 100% right 100% of the time attitude is, to me, much like the "WAAC" attitude that is discussed so often in gaming and I see it here (in discussions, not this locale) MUCH more often than I see on the tabletop.
It isnt that bad to be wrong once in a while just as it is ok to not be 100% right 100% of the time. Trust me. I'm wrong often enough and I found out years ago it's easier to just admit it or acknowledge that both sides can be "right" based on preferred perspective.
We have enough of the world looking down on us that we need to stick together despite our differences instead of fighting one another.
Not that this is a problem unique to 40k, of course. Any game where there is a basic starter set and most of the game's content is bought separately is going to run into problems when you try to deal with players who only buy the starter set, simply because you can't balance a situation with such a huge difference in access to options. It's not really even worth trying, you just have to accept that playing beyond your first intro games has a price tag attached and focus on matchups between players that have "real" armies/decks/whatever.
This covers virtually all collectible games. If that's not your thing, there are many good board games.
There is no way around it: this is an expensive hobby to get into and excel in.
EVIL INC wrote: I*Thread title* "What shade of green should I do my orks?
*post #1-215* "40k sucks!!! the rules blow chunks all over you when you play!. Dont even bother with orks!......."
Extreme and exagerated but figured it would bring a smile and a nod because I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from on that.
If your point was that the level of complaining tends to get blown all out of proportion by those complaining about the complainers... then yes, I can see where you're coming from.
We have enough of the world looking down on us that we need to stick together despite our differences instead of fighting one another.
Who are you referring to as the 'we' here?
If you're talking about gamers, from my experience most of the 'looking down upon' comes from gamers themselves. The vast majority of the rest of the world couldn't care less what you do with your spare time, and being nerdy is far less of a social stigma than it used to be.
EVIL INC wrote: I*Thread title* "What shade of green should I do my orks?
*post #1-215* "40k sucks!!! the rules blow chunks all over you when you play!. Dont even bother with orks!......."
Extreme and exagerated but figured it would bring a smile and a nod because I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from on that.
If your point was that the level of complaining tends to get blown all out of proportion by those complaining about the complainers... then yes, I can see where you're coming from.
We have enough of the world looking down on us that we need to stick together despite our differences instead of fighting one another.
Who are you referring to as the 'we' here?
If you're talking about gamers, from my experience most of the 'looking down upon' comes from gamers themselves. The vast majority of the rest of the world couldn't care less what you do with your spare time, and being nerdy is far less of a social stigma than it used to be.
On the first, your spot on to what I was getting at in terms f people complaining. Those complaining about the complainers are almost as bad but not quite. The example was exagerated, but not by a whole lot I was trying to make a funny example to lighten the atmosphere a lil bit. like I said, I dont mind the complaining overmuch except when it gets out of hand and the attitude of the complainers. I complained when the balance went the other way, but I did it in moderation and with respect for others which we simply rarely see now..
With "we", I did mean gamers in general. I admit, my stance on that may be slanted more than a little bit. i grew up in a small town where everyone gossips and loves to have a scapegoat. during the 80s when if you listened to heavy metal and played D&D or any of theat genre of games you were branded as a satanist. I listened to Twisted Sister and Iron Maiden and was an avid gamer so.... It was bad enough i literally had to watch for gangs of "rednecks" trying to jump me in parking lots, forget about trying to find a job in town ect. So it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Your right the "stigma" isnt near what it used to be and we are now usually only considered geeks. I also agree with you that "we" catch MUCH more flack from each other than from non-gamers. often times, we are even held in esteem as 'knowing things" or being good at math or history or whatever but it usually seems, to me at least, as though we arent treated as full equals even then. Regardless, I may not be fully right on that but either way, it still stands to reason we shouldnt be putting one another down and should still try to get along with one another and accept our differences of opinions and perspectives.
Talys wrote: This covers virtually all collectible games. If that's not your thing, there are many good board games.
There is no way around it: this is an expensive hobby to get into and excel in.
Except, as I said, this only applies to extreme cases where one player is limited to almost nothing and the other player isn't. Better games very quickly get rid of this problem once both players have at least a reasonable ability to buy new stuff, while 40k continues to have problems with it until you spend thousands of dollars on building a collection.
Talys wrote: That's a very subjective statement. Personally, being someone who buys about half of the PP new releases and a quarter of the GW new releases, it is my personal opinion that new GW models are superior to new PP models. And, GW has far superior centerpiece models. There is nothing to compare with Voidraven, Revenant Titan, Baneblade, Treeman ancient, Wood elf Dragon, Nagash, etc. In other game universes, from a purely modelling perspective.
Yes, as you said, it's your subjective opinion. I'm glad you've admitted it now and backed off from your previous statement (which I was responding to in the post you quoted) that, from the point of view of someone who cares primarily about modeling and painting, GW's products are objectively superior.
And by "centerpiece" I'm talking about the difference between painting a whole plastic tactical squad vs. a single high-end resin character model, not just really big stuff. Most of GW's advantage in the modeling/painting side of the hobby depends on a "bigger is better" attitude that wants huge armies with huge models in them. If you instead want individual works of art then GW is a lot less appealing.
Azreal13 wrote: You use the "branded as a satanist" line a lot EVIL.
Are you sure it was the music and RPGs, or maybe it was the goat sacrifice and cavorting naked around bonfires at midnight?
Im unsure of your age and dont want to know it. The culture in the U.S. during that period of time might have been a little different from what you had in the U.K.
We had druggies playing D&D and killing themselves. Rather than admit their kids had drug problems or social issues, the parents blamed the games and the music. We had tv stars like geraldo rivera (or however it's spelled) doing big specials talling the U.S. how the games were satanic and destroying our youth". Small towns had churches with great power and charismatic preachers preaching this in church. We had schoolteachers actually teaching in classes. Drunken rednecks used it as an excuse to jump those weaker than themselves.
Not once did I ever dance around a fire naked or any of those things. I refuse to kill (beyond what annoyed me like flies and skeeters), heck, i didnt even fish because I didnt wanna kill/clean them.
This might not haave been as big an issuee in many areas but ii can tell you that in my area, thhis attitude was strong.
we could discuss it in detail and I could give more details wof what I went through during this time just as i'm sure others could too. That may be an idea for a different thread in a different section of the forum. making light of it I feel is insulting and in pooor taste, most definately not polite IMO.
Talys wrote: This covers virtually all collectible games. If that's not your thing, there are many good board games.
There is no way around it: this is an expensive hobby to get into and excel in.
Except, as I said, this only applies to extreme cases where one player is limited to almost nothing and the other player isn't. Better games very quickly get rid of this problem once both players have at least a reasonable ability to buy new stuff, while 40k continues to have problems with it until you spend thousands of dollars on building a collection.
This I agree with. I had a couple of people I work with ask about starting the game, but gave up the idea very quickly when they realized how much it would take to get to an average sized army. The entry point for GW is to the point where it's not even worth it for most people.
Not once did I ever dance around a fire naked or any of those things. I refuse to kill (beyond what annoyed me like flies and skeeters), heck, i didnt even fish because I didnt wanna kill/clean them.
Woosh.
Also, Azrael's age is proudly displayed in his profile info.
Not once did I ever dance around a fire naked or any of those things. I refuse to kill (beyond what annoyed me like flies and skeeters), heck, i didnt even fish because I didnt wanna kill/clean them.
Woosh.
Also, Azrael's age is proudly displayed in his profile info.
Old fart that he is.
LOL, A woosh because I'm too lazy to go to everyone's profile to scrutinize their age and information. Thats actually funny.Might as well woosh again because I didnt look yours up either.
Age is just a number Regardless of his age, i glanced and saw UK next to his name so assumed he wasnt in my hometown at that period of time regardless of his age.
Just because the players can put in extra effort and fix your lazy and incompetent "game design" work doesn't mean that you should use that as a replacement for doing your job.
Talys wrote: This covers virtually all collectible games. If that's not your thing, there are many good board games.
There is no way around it: this is an expensive hobby to get into and excel in.
Except, as I said, this only applies to extreme cases where one player is limited to almost nothing and the other player isn't. Better games very quickly get rid of this problem once both players have at least a reasonable ability to buy new stuff, while 40k continues to have problems with it until you spend thousands of dollars on building a collection.
Talys wrote: That's a very subjective statement. Personally, being someone who buys about half of the PP new releases and a quarter of the GW new releases, it is my personal opinion that new GW models are superior to new PP models. And, GW has far superior centerpiece models. There is nothing to compare with Voidraven, Revenant Titan, Baneblade, Treeman ancient, Wood elf Dragon, Nagash, etc. In other game universes, from a purely modelling perspective.
Yes, as you said, it's your subjective opinion. I'm glad you've admitted it now and backed off from your previous statement (which I was responding to in the post you quoted) that, from the point of view of someone who cares primarily about modeling and painting, GW's products are objectively superior.
And by "centerpiece" I'm talking about the difference between painting a whole plastic tactical squad vs. a single high-end resin character model, not just really big stuff. Most of GW's advantage in the modeling/painting side of the hobby depends on a "bigger is better" attitude that wants huge armies with huge models in them. If you instead want individual works of art then GW is a lot less appealing.
LOL. Way to twist words, dude. I said, what sculpt is better is subjective. You're the one who seems to think GW sculpts are mediocre -- yet your gallery and signature would seem to indicate that you like their product.
I said, GW is objectively superior of you want a high model count Scfi game, or a Scifi game where there are little units, big units, flying units, and so forth. That isn't just objective, it is a FACT. Another game of that scope does not exist. Name ONE other game that can look like a 3500 point table on an Imperialis board, with troops, tanks, artillery, jet bikes, bombers, copters and giant robots. I'd like to hear of just one.
Now, the other issue. GW is an expensive game. If you don't have a thousand bucks, and another thousand every year, you probably will bitch about how the game is overpriced. There are much cheaper games. However, they suffer the same issue, though perhaps at a different scale: you need to buy more stuff to be competitive and as you 'progress' you will but more stuff to be better. This is the business model, unless it's a board game.
Talys wrote: You're the one who seems to think GW sculpts are mediocre -- yet your gallery and signature would seem to indicate that you like their product.
You mean the same gallery that contains exactly zero "main GW" models? All of that is FW stuff, which is a very different kind of model.
I said, GW is objectively superior of you want a high model count Scfi game, or a Scifi game where there are little units, big units, flying units, and so forth.
That's not what you said. You made two separate points, one about model quality and one about scale. Let me re-post your own words for you:
Actually, objectively, the price per model and the number of available models in the 40k universe is better than other Scifi games. Plus, the models have interchangeable configurations, and may be posed.
So, if you are primarily or seriously interested in the hobby and wish to collect models, it is objectively superior. If your desire is to collect, build, and paint models, and have a context in which to play with them when you wish, 40k is, objectively, a better game.
Talys wrote: You're the one who seems to think GW sculpts are mediocre -- yet your gallery and signature would seem to indicate that you like their product.
You mean the same gallery that contains exactly zero "main GW" models? All of that is FW stuff, which is a very different kind of model.
I said, GW is objectively superior of you want a high model count Scfi game, or a Scifi game where there are little units, big units, flying units, and so forth.
That's not what you said. You made two separate points, one about model quality and one about scale. Let me re-post your own words for you:
Actually, objectively, the price per model and the number of available models in the 40k universe is better than other Scifi games. Plus, the models have interchangeable configurations, and may be posed.
So, if you are primarily or seriously interested in the hobby and wish to collect models, it is objectively superior. If your desire is to collect, build, and paint models, and have a context in which to play with them when you wish, 40k is, objectively, a better game.
See? Nothing about scale.
Read on, buddy:
If your desire is to play a high model count (100+) Scifi game, or if you wish to mix infantry, vehicles, large creatures, and flying units, 40k is pretty much the only game, whether that's good or bad.
And I stand my original comments:
- If you wanted to buy 100 futuristic infantry sized models *to model*, GW has a lower average (mean) price per model compared with competitors
- If you wanted to buy 100 futuristic vehicle sized models *to model*, GW has a lower average (mean) price per model compared with competitors
- if you want to pose or customize models, GW gives you more options out of the box than any other company
Therefore:
Actually, objectively, the price per model and the number of available models in the 40k universe is better than other Scifi games. Plus, the models have interchangeable configurations, and may be posed.
My followup comment was that if your primary interest is modelling, 40k gives you a better modelling environment, and there is a context in which to play those models. That's all.
I did not make any statement in my original post as to whether, subjectively, one person might prefer models from one company or another company, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people prefer Everblight to Necron. That's just preference.
Regarding ForgeWorld:
Okay, so you like modelling FW models and think they're superior to GW ones. If you ever want to *play* those models, it will be in a GW game, which was what I was getting at in the first place. I never said GW wrote better games; I said, that objectively, it's a better environment for modellers (like you); some of those modellers wish to play a game with their work, in which case 40k would objectively seem like the logical conclusion.
When FW or another company likes it starts making beautiful models for Hordes or Warmachines, and when WMH makes rules for large scale games, I will happily change my assessment. I have no loyalty to Games Workshop; they just happen to make the only product that fits my criteria.
Also, I have no idea if you're aware of this, but Forgeworld is a Games Workshop company.
Don't believe me? Read the copyright at the bottom of the Forgeworld page, which clearly states that "the Forge World" is a trademark of Games Workshop Ltd.
I can only speak for australia and say: If i wanted to buy 100 futuristic infantry sized models *to model*, GW has the highest average (mean) price per model compared with competitors.
It doesn't help that most competitors will let me buy direct from them if they're located in another country. Or let me buy from 3rd party online retailers in another country that will probably offer me some form of discount. Also, the benefit of other companies' models is that you can pick and match the categories. Tanks from one company, infantry from another, fliers from a 3rd and so on. GW was the first company i encountered that was so retentive about using their models and only their models for their games.
Also, the poseability of most gw models is a furfee - to get things fitting right and looking natural, there's usually only a couple different variations that will actually work. Most of the 'modelability' comes if you play space marines. God help a modeler that likes eldar aspect warriors.
Torga_DW wrote: I can only speak for australia and say: If i wanted to buy 100 futuristic infantry sized models *to model*, GW has the highest average (mean) price per model compared with competitors.
It doesn't help that most competitors will let me buy direct from them if they're located in another country. Or let me buy from 3rd party online retailers in another country that will probably offer me some form of discount. Also, the benefit of other companies' models is that you can pick and match the categories. Tanks from one company, infantry from another, fliers from a 3rd and so on. GW was the first company i encountered that was so retentive about using their models and only their models for their games.
Also, the poseability of most gw models is a furfee - to get things fitting right and looking natural, there's usually only a couple different variations that will actually work. Most of the 'modelability' comes if you play space marines. God help a modeler that likes eldar aspect warriors.
What scifi game do you play that give you great prices on infantry and tanks?
The average box of 5-10 units in Canada is between $25-$40, discounted. That's $2.50 - $8 per model for troops to non-personality units. If you get them in a box set (like stormclaw or this week's deathstorm), or a starter box the price drops dramatically, closer to $2-$3 per model (you need to give some proportional credit for large models). Even undiscounted, it's only a buck more.
Heroes in 40k range, discounted, from $15 - $25 (add $5 undiscounted).
Tanks/transports, like wave serpent, lehman russ, raider, ravager range from $40 - $60 discounted (add $10 undiscounted).
Plus, there are often great deals for modellers. For instance, the box this week is superb (about $380 of models for $150 CAD; or $125 discounted). Stormclaw was so freaking amazing that it was out of this world. List price of $150, and there were so many sprues in the box I didn't know what to do with them. The $150 boxes even come with a couple of heroes, which are commonly proxied for other similarly geared heroes.
In WarMachines, which is really the only playable scifi wargame with a large selection of collectible models, with the exception of the starter box, it's almost impossible to get miniatures for less than $6 a piece, and that doesn't include any specialty units.
Poseability is highly important if you want to build convincing armies. There is no point in collecting dozens of basic Menoth units for display purposes, because they will all look the same.
With many -- MOST -- citadel troop models, there is an upper and lower torso (sometimes with male and female options), the lower torsos are different stances, and the weapons and head facing can be interchanged to give soldiers a relaxed look, an at-ready look, or an aiming-down-the-rifle look. Plus, there are a ton of weapon options. If modelling is your thing, you can paint a hundred space marine tacticals, and have the army poses not look repetitive.
You can also choose heads, which makes a huge difference in the model.
I agree that many Eldar models are woefully lacking in poseability, but you picked pretty much the only major faction that this is the case; this is partly because many of the models (especially the highly popular ones) are very dated.
If you look at Dark Eldar, on the other hand, take a look at a box of Kabalites, which is less than $30 (about $2.50 / model discounted), and consider the amazing modelling options available for that. Wyches, same thing. A cheap, $30 box gives you 10 highly customizable units, and you could buy 10 boxes, yet have little repetition. This goes for the vast majority of factions.
It is very cool to me that I can build a unit like a Dreadknight in many ways. It is much less cool that when I buy a Warjack, that's the only way it will ever be. At most, I might buy a second identical unit; I'll never buy five or six, since it's point less for game purposes, and I don't want clones for models.
Blacksails wrote: No, the woosh was for your very serious reply about not actually dancing around fires or making sacrifices to Azrael's joke post.
That is not somethig you joke about. It is in poor taste to do so.
Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."
I really recommend you avoid a little known movie starring two nobodies called Dan Akroyd and Tom Hanks from 'our' era (I'm 37 in a little over a month) called Dragnet, if you found my little joke in poor taste, that will have you spitting feathers!
Thats the beautiful thing about non-gw games: you don't need to buy the specific model for the specific game. Want just one example? Wargames factory greatcoat troopers. I'm sadly eyeballing the unfinished ones sitting next to me on the desk right now, and they model extremely well. Cost per model? $1.22. Heads are poseable, come with multiple head variants, comes with multiple weapon variants, fits almost any gaming system including games workshop games.
Let me say that again: $1.22 per model. $21.95 for a box of 18. The prices you list as amazing is just amazing to me. What is the point of building convincing armies if they're not convincing in the game?
I get that you seem to be a modeller, but its not an army you're building its a hypothetical abstract that isn't based on what an army in the game would actually be. People don't buy dozens of menoth basic units for display purposes if they're looking to build a convincing army. They buy the units needed to form an effective army, thats what forms a convincing army.
I'll give you that games workshop has updated the majority of their lines. But sisters of battle are the next obvious example that springs to mind.
Torga_DW wrote: Thats the beautiful thing about non-gw games: you don't need to buy the specific model for the specific game.
To be fair here, you don't have to use GW models to play GW games either, unless you're playing in a GW store. Since GW is the only games designer/publisher with their own network of brick and mortar stores, you can't really compare GW not allowing you to use non-GW models in a GW store to another company which doesn't even have a store to stop you playing with other models anyway.
If you build an IG army using WW2 models, you can assemble an army incredibly cheap.
Torga_DW wrote: Thats the beautiful thing about non-gw games: you don't need to buy the specific model for the specific game. Want just one example? Wargames factory greatcoat troopers. I'm sadly eyeballing the unfinished ones sitting next to me on the desk right now, and they model extremely well. Cost per model? $1.22. Heads are poseable, come with multiple head variants, comes with multiple weapon variants, fits almost any gaming system including games workshop games.
Let me say that again: $1.22 per model. $21.95 for a box of 18. The prices you list as amazing is just amazing to me. What is the point of building convincing armies if they're not convincing in the game?
I get that you seem to be a modeller, but its not an army you're building its a hypothetical abstract that isn't based on what an army in the game would actually be. People don't buy dozens of menoth basic units for display purposes if they're looking to build a convincing army. They buy the units needed to form an effective army, thats what forms a convincing army.
I'll give you that games workshop has updated the majority of their lines. But sisters of battle are the next obvious example that springs to mind.
Oh, I see what you mean. Wargames Factory is useful to get units to substitute, but they have a very, very limited scifi collection (I mean, you can't seriously compare it to the possibilities in 40k....). The difference in possible units is... orders of magnitude. I'm happy to give them and other companies my business too; they just don't pump out enough new stuff or have large enough libraries to keep me occupied.
I get what you're saying about buying units needed to form an effective army, but that's not quite true. I build far larger armies than I could actually ever play, especially in 25mm base troops, because they look so damn good when you have rows of them -- like Warhammer Fantasy Battle movement tray style. For the new release this week (deathstorm) I am buying 4 boxes (and I will paint pretty much every model in at least 3 of those boxes), even though there is no logical way I could ever field 3-4x anything included there.
I know I'm not unique in this, as my local gaming stores have a few people who have ordered multiple copies of deathstorm, and it's sure as heck not to build armies of genestealers, tyranid warriors, legion of the damned, or lord almighty... more terminators.
Regarding Sorroritas... those models are so old that you can't even buy most of them anymore. The codex is ancient, and I haven't seen anyone play more than a squad or two of them for kicks... I don't think, ever. I guess I'm saying, think that's a bit of an edge case I think the most legitimate complaint of dated, boring-looking models is Eldar, especially given that they are so crazy popular.
And, you're absolutely correct. I'm more modeler than game player, although I have a very nice gaming setup in my home, and have friends over to play at least a couple of times a month.
The problem with this is that the basic game rules compel you to seek victory. What you [Ìi]do[/i] during a game is most commonly work to defeat your opponent. These are incentives for analysing the rules and the army book to find the most useful options and then compose them into the most useful list given the circumstances. Playing to win is not a character flaw, it's what the fundamental game rules are based on. There may be room for moral victories in narrative campaigns but those are less common than just plain games due to requiring more time and effort.
Any game designers who introduce official rules that by design require informal agreements to stop the game from going sour aren't doing their jobs right.
Where do people get this 100+ models nonsense? Most 40k lists for typical games are like 30-40 unless you're pkeying a guard, ork or nid horde and frequently less just a lot of vehicles to make it look impressive.
Exactly, everything is within the rules, the players have chosen to take those rules and use them to create the best armies possible.
What makes you think that they wouldn't do the same within any structure that did exist. As all the threads from pre-Unbound 40k complaining about balance can prove, it was perfectly possible to build a similarly unbalanced army within the framework of the FOC. I can't imagine that all these players had a sudden change of mindset as soon as Unbound was introduced and went out to buy all these lists just to win games. They are sure to have held the same mindset before 7th, all Unbound does is allow them to take it further, which, given what was possible before, is not a huge leap.
Imbalance could be considered the cause of this, but not Unbound.
If the game was well structured, well written, and well balanced, we wouldn't have to lay any blame anywhere. There would be no pointing of fingers, no accusation of WAAC, no complaining people try to win too hard. There would just be players playing a game.
When the rules leave exploits or poor balance, players will inevitably gravitate towards stronger combinations. Let's face it, most people don't enjoy getting beaten over and over again. So in the case of 40k, a divide gets created between so called fluffy players and competitive players, where each looks down on the other. Players get blamed for problems in the game when the issue stems from the rules. When the issue stems from the rules, the only people to blame are the people who created the rules.
While you're correct people will be in the mindset to win regardless of how well or poorly the rules are written, a well written and balanced game wouldn't have the problem surface where players are getting trounced for bringing a certain selection of miniatures.
Unbound only made the balance issues worse in the game. Blaming players for using Unbound within its rules and indeed spirit is the last thing you should be doing. Blame the developers for releasing such a shoddy product. Don't look down on those who enjoy the game differently than you.
I find the whole player shaming and blaming nonsense to only make the issue even worse. This particular complaint could be avoided had Unbound never seen the light of day. In its place, you'd have a complaint about how powerful Eldar are, or some other list/codex, but again, those are products of poor writing and not inherent to players being donkey-caves.
The only time a player causes a problem is when the problem is independent of the rules. A loud, rude, obnoxious, smelly, dorito covered guy who touches your models, breaks models, and makes games unpleasant is a player problem. Jimmy from the store who likes his 5 IK list is not a player problem.
I'd have to disagree on the first sentiment, about how balance would fix things.
The first is, even with a perfectly balanced rule set, perfectly balanced codecies, there would ALWAYS be finger pointing and there will ALWAYS be claims that someone is a WAAC player. Because let's face it, even then, there ARE people who power game. People WILL find ways to get the most power out of their army possible, no matter what. And in the eye of many, that is WAAC. And to be fair, I don't think perfect balance is even possible. Power shifts in virtually every game. You can't have perfect balance in a continually evolving game.
Some armies will always trounce another army. Because that tends to be how games work when you make factions. Some factions will be counter picks to others. Perhaps in a perfect balanced game, the trouncing wouldn't be so bad, but in theory, the army designed to take out yours should be winning more often then not, if player skill is equal. In some cases, the loser will call out the other as a WAAC or cheesy player. At least, that's what happens in 40k. I don't see much of this attitude in many other games. (Major exception being Heroclix, where the crying is abound left and right).
My take on Unbound is it can be a fun variant for list building, and helps newer players actually get in a game, even if they might not own all the required models to decently fill a CAD. It also just lets people throw things on the table and have a good time. But with all good and fun things, there will be people to abuse the power it can give. Granted, those players ARE just as entitled to bring whatever they want to the table. Be it nothing but Boyz or nothing but C'tans or what have you. Though those players also have to understand that bringing something so powerful is not going to be fun for their opponent either, specifically when it's a casual game. When there are prizes on the line, I don't expect anyone to play their weaker lists so not to hurt feelings. That's the point of a competition, to do your best to win (Without cheating of course).
TL;DR, Balance is great and all, but it really won't mean a thing in the long run. Yes, closer games maybe, but the power gamer will always exist and do their best to break the meta. Unbound or not. Unbound can be fun. Only play unbound with people you like and understand what you are willing to play against. You are not obligated to play toy soldiers with anyone.
My take on Unbound is it can be a fun variant for list building, and helps newer players actually get in a game, even if they might not own all the required models to decently fill a CAD.
How does one buy 1500pts of models and not have a legal army, even if someone was picking units at random it shouldn't happen.
The issue though is that Unbound doesn't restrict anything and puts the pressure on the players. Since you are technically allowed to field nothing but C'tans, it then makes your opponent (i.e. the guy who will refuse to play you) the jerk/TFG for not playing you with a legal army, even though your "legal" army is ridiculous and wouldn't result in a fun game.
That's the issue I have with Unbound. It's pure lazy design to allow everything and tell the community to enforce its own rules, because while people will generally accept the rules saying that you can't do X, they are generally less accepting of "Don't do X" because some random person doesn't like it. It's almost like appeal to authority. It's fine if the government says that X isn't allowed, but not when Joe Sixpack says it because Joe Sixpack is just a regular person with no authority.
Same thing with Unbound. GW saying that you can't field six Riptides is fine because it comes from the people who are making the rules, with the authority to determine what's best for their game (even if in practice it turns out badly because of that). Bob at the FLGS saying that six Riptides is crap and he won't play you makes Bob seem like a whiny jerk who doesn't want to play your perfectly legal army because he's afraid that you'll curbstomp him with it, and that's the problem; that six Riptides *are* a perfectly legal army by the rules, therefore anyone who doesn't want to play you doesn't want to play by the rules but wants to add their own restrictions without the authority to do so.
My take on Unbound is it can be a fun variant for list building, and helps newer players actually get in a game, even if they might not own all the required models to decently fill a CAD.
How does one buy 1500pts of models and not have a legal army, even if someone was picking units at random it shouldn't happen.
I'll give you an example from my mistakes starting 40k. When I initially got started, I wasn't 100% clear on army building. I didn't own the BRB, and I was foolish and didn't notice the CAD in my Codex, so I started to buy models without buying the proper requirements to fill a CAD. So, unbound would have been nice to play, since I didn't have more than 500 points.
Also, if you seriously think anyone buys 1500 points of models in a sitting to get going, you're insane. By the time you get to 1500 you should be fine to fill a CAD, unless you made severely poor purchase choices.
It still doesn't negate the statement that unbound can be fun if done properly, and allow low model count players to play a little bit. (Without needing to buy Kill Team rules, which honestly, is a bad concept for 40k. It's OK at best, and boring at worst)
TL;DR, Balance is great and all, but it really won't mean a thing in the long run. Yes, closer games maybe, but the power gamer will always exist and do their best to break the meta. Unbound or not. Unbound can be fun. Only play unbound with people you like and understand what you are willing to play against. You are not obligated to play toy soldiers with anyone.
Errr, no.
We have real, functioning examples of games with far better balance.
Yes, there will always be power levels, but those will be determined first and foremost by the ability of the player, and not the collection of their models. Further, the difference between the best, most min-maxed list and one built with models a person loves with far less thought will be close enough that the two can enjoy the game and the primary determinant of the matches outcome will be player actions on the table top.
I think you're falling into the trap of 'perfect balance'. Yes, there will always be imbalances. You're not trying to make things perfect, or mirror match everything. It will always be possible to build a gakky list, but the idea is that a player who makes the effort to find even the smallest amount of synergy and cover their bases for a variety of targets and abilities will be able to function on the table top where their skill and ability will ultimately determine the outcome.
The difference being 40k, where a fluffy stormtrooper army in Tauroxes will get wiped by an Eldar player using Serpents almost every time, assuming players are of equal skill.
Exactly, everything is within the rules, the players have chosen to take those rules and use them to create the best armies possible.
What makes you think that they wouldn't do the same within any structure that did exist. As all the threads from pre-Unbound 40k complaining about balance can prove, it was perfectly possible to build a similarly unbalanced army within the framework of the FOC. I can't imagine that all these players had a sudden change of mindset as soon as Unbound was introduced and went out to buy all these lists just to win games. They are sure to have held the same mindset before 7th, all Unbound does is allow them to take it further, which, given what was possible before, is not a huge leap.
Imbalance could be considered the cause of this, but not Unbound.
If the game was well structured, well written, and well balanced, we wouldn't have to lay any blame anywhere. There would be no pointing of fingers, no accusation of WAAC, no complaining people try to win too hard. There would just be players playing a game.
When the rules leave exploits or poor balance, players will inevitably gravitate towards stronger combinations. Let's face it, most people don't enjoy getting beaten over and over again. So in the case of 40k, a divide gets created between so called fluffy players and competitive players, where each looks down on the other. Players get blamed for problems in the game when the issue stems from the rules. When the issue stems from the rules, the only people to blame are the people who created the rules.
While you're correct people will be in the mindset to win regardless of how well or poorly the rules are written, a well written and balanced game wouldn't have the problem surface where players are getting trounced for bringing a certain selection of miniatures.
Unbound only made the balance issues worse in the game. Blaming players for using Unbound within its rules and indeed spirit is the last thing you should be doing. Blame the developers for releasing such a shoddy product. Don't look down on those who enjoy the game differently than you.
I find the whole player shaming and blaming nonsense to only make the issue even worse. This particular complaint could be avoided had Unbound never seen the light of day. In its place, you'd have a complaint about how powerful Eldar are, or some other list/codex, but again, those are products of poor writing and not inherent to players being donkey-caves.
The only time a player causes a problem is when the problem is independent of the rules. A loud, rude, obnoxious, smelly, dorito covered guy who touches your models, breaks models, and makes games unpleasant is a player problem. Jimmy from the store who likes his 5 IK list is not a player problem.
I'd have to disagree on the first sentiment, about how balance would fix things.
The first is, even with a perfectly balanced rule set, perfectly balanced codecies, there would ALWAYS be finger pointing and there will ALWAYS be claims that someone is a WAAC player. Because let's face it, even then, there ARE people who power game. People WILL find ways to get the most power out of their army possible, no matter what. And in the eye of many, that is WAAC. And to be fair, I don't think perfect balance is even possible. Power shifts in virtually every game. You can't have perfect balance in a continually evolving game.
Some armies will always trounce another army. Because that tends to be how games work when you make factions. Some factions will be counter picks to others. Perhaps in a perfect balanced game, the trouncing wouldn't be so bad, but in theory, the army designed to take out yours should be winning more often then not, if player skill is equal. In some cases, the loser will call out the other as a WAAC or cheesy player. At least, that's what happens in 40k. I don't see much of this attitude in many other games. (Major exception being Heroclix, where the crying is abound left and right).
My take on Unbound is it can be a fun variant for list building, and helps newer players actually get in a game, even if they might not own all the required models to decently fill a CAD. It also just lets people throw things on the table and have a good time. But with all good and fun things, there will be people to abuse the power it can give. Granted, those players ARE just as entitled to bring whatever they want to the table. Be it nothing but Boyz or nothing but C'tans or what have you. Though those players also have to understand that bringing something so powerful is not going to be fun for their opponent either, specifically when it's a casual game. When there are prizes on the line, I don't expect anyone to play their weaker lists so not to hurt feelings. That's the point of a competition, to do your best to win (Without cheating of course).
TL;DR, Balance is great and all, but it really won't mean a thing in the long run. Yes, closer games maybe, but the power gamer will always exist and do their best to break the meta. Unbound or not. Unbound can be fun. Only play unbound with people you like and understand what you are willing to play against. You are not obligated to play toy soldiers with anyone.
The problem is that you're talking of better balance like it's some unproven theory that we don't know about. But there are several games that do this very thing and are quite successful at it. Yes, someone will always complain, but you can't ignore the growing number of legitimate complaints about GW's rules. Other games manage complex faction interactions while still maintaining faction viability. Example: Khador has a 'roughly' equal chance of winning against legion. Like you said, some lists will trounce others, but the degree is less than 40k where some armies just don't stand a chance.
Also, I had no idea what RunicFin was saying.
As Orson Scott Card once told me, "When a reader is confused about something you wrote, it's you, the writer's fault for not being clear enough. Don't try to defend it, just fix it."
I still maintain a more dynamic approach to FAQs and Errata would make a huge difference, it doesn't take a genius to see that the most frequent units and codexes cited as the cause of people's frustrations are comparatively small in the context of the number of factions and units in the game.
If the top 25% were toned down, and the bottom 25% buffed a little, the game would be immeasurably better. It wouldn't take a ground up rebuild to simply make the game more even.
It would be nice to see GW make the attempt if nothing else.
WayneTheGame wrote: Where do people get this 100+ models nonsense? Most 40k lists for typical games are like 30-40 unless you're pkeying a guard, ork or nid horde and frequently less just a lot of vehicles to make it look impressive.
I just counted the first 5 that appeared, which are very average-ish sized armies (GK armies are always small model count). Any 3000+ game will easily land you well over 100 models.
I just counted the first 5 that appeared, which are very average-ish sized armies (GK armies are always small model count). Any 3000+ game will easily land you well over 100 models.
The number of people that actually regularly play 3000+ games is incredibly small.
I just counted the first 5 that appeared, which are very average-ish sized armies (GK armies are always small model count). Any 3000+ game will easily land you well over 100 models.
The number of people that actually regularly play 3000+ games is incredibly small.
Pickup games, yes, for sure. Just transporting the units to the store is a lot of work. But planned games in groups, and preplanned scenarios, 100 units is quite common (at least for us), and 2,500-4,500 points is also common.
Of course, our gaming window is 6-12 hours, much longer than you'd hang out at an FLGS for, and there is a secure place to store your models you don't want to shuffle back and forth. But, we usually do more than just play a 40k game. There might be XB1, a WMH or Malifaux game -- or even continue on our RPG (where we can burn 12 hours and still be at the same place we started hahaha).
I just counted the first 5 that appeared, which are very average-ish sized armies (GK armies are always small model count). Any 3000+ game will easily land you well over 100 models.
The number of people that actually regularly play 3000+ games is incredibly small.
Pickup games, yes, for sure. Just transporting the units to the store is a lot of work. But planned games in groups, and preplanned scenarios, 100 units is quite common (at least for us), and 2,500-4,500 points is also common.
Of course, our gaming window is 6-12 hours, much longer than you'd hang out at an FLGS for. But, we usually do more than just play a 40k game. There might be XB1, a WMH or Malifaux game -- or even continue on our RPG (where we can burn 12 hours and still be at the same place we started hahaha).
At my FLGS 2000 pts is the limit without special permission. Anything more just takes waaaay too long.
At my FLGS 2000 pts is the limit without special permission. Anything more just takes waaaay too long.
No such limit at any of my FLGS, but as you say, you don't want to be 5, 6, 7 hours at a FLGS. Besides, my fave FLGS sells food and drinks (and doesn't allow outside food/drink), and they've got a bazillion tables. They'd be in their glory if they could convince people to hang out for 11 hours
Any discussion of what goes on in private gaming groups is, for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant.
It is fair to assume that a group of like minded friends playing in the privacy of their own homes will be able to resolve any issue that interferes with their enjoyment of the game, it is mainly the PUG in a store or open club environment that are affected most by the big issues.
The point remains, as always, that fixing these issues for the latter players will have zero impact on those playing in private social groups, but the current state of the game only works well for the former.
Azreal13 wrote: Any discussion of what goes on in private gaming groups is, for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant.
It is fair to assume that a group of like minded friends playing in the privacy of their own homes will be able to resolve any issue that interferes with their enjoyment of the game, it is mainly the PUG in a store or open club environment that are affected most by the big issues.
The point remains, as always, that fixing these issues for the latter players will have zero impact on those playing in private social groups, but the current state of the game only works well for the former.
I'm totally in agreement with your conclusion that a group of like-minded friends (whether it's at home or at a club) can resolve issues that interferes with their enjoyment of the game (or the vast majority of games, for that matter), and that the public, pickup scene is most affected by "broken rules" or "broken lists".
I also completely agree that 40k is a game that works better between friends, and/or when missions/scenarios where the starting parameters are more closely defined. I think most games are a lot more fun between friends anyhow, but certainly, 40k is an infinitely superior experience between like-minded players.
I don't really agree that what goes on in private groups (or semi-private groups) is irrelevant, because it comprises a large part of the customer base -- I don't know what percentage, obviously, but I do know a lot of people who visit shop at various FLGS regularly don't play at any of the stores, or *can't* because they live quite far away. I think a lot of people enjoy planned games, and for comparative purposes, comparing gaming systems for games between friends is still important.
I still go back to things not being either/or, anyhow. There's no reason friends or strangers can't enjoy more than one game.
I did qualify that with "for the purposes of this discussion."
I don't believe Unbound breaks the game for private gaming groups, because they will simply fix what they find broken about it, it is anyone who is playing in an environment where they need to stick to RAW who is most affected by, well, how the rules are written.
A private group are in a position to modify the game freely, a gamer who plays in public venues will seldom have that luxury.
Azreal13 wrote: I did qualify that with "for the purposes of this discussion."
I don't believe Unbound breaks the game for private gaming groups, because they will simply fix what they find broken about it, it is anyone who is playing in an environment where they need to stick to RAW who is most affected by, well, how the rules are written.
A private group are in a position to modify the game freely, a gamer who plays in public venues will seldom have that luxury.
Oh, I misread you. I thought you meant, any discussion, as in any discussion of any topic (not just unbound games). Yeah, you are right -- unbound games between friends is pretty much a non-issue. Unbound games between strangers can suck the fun out of the game pretty quick.
Blacksails wrote: No, the woosh was for your very serious reply about not actually dancing around fires or making sacrifices to Azrael's joke post.
That is not somethig you joke about. It is in poor taste to do so.
Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."
I really recommend you avoid a little known movie starring two nobodies called Dan Akroyd and Tom Hanks from 'our' era (I'm 37 in a little over a month) called Dragnet, if you found my little joke in poor taste, that will have you spitting feathers!
How about you find a WW2 surviverof a jewish concentration camp or someone who sufferedunder the regime of Papa Doc or even an older african american whose family was lynched and make fun of them and what they went through I am sure that they will tell you that they do not find it funny. Then i'm sure you will again make fun of them by making such comments as "Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."". The point is, and I'm sure you get it but for some reason ignoring it (or should i just say "woosh") that making fun of those who have suffered hardships ust is not funny to that person or thers who ffered similerly t just isnt nny to make n of them at all n that criteria. You nt have to be 'ultimate judge of what's funny' to understand this.
Blacksails wrote: No, the woosh was for your very serious reply about not actually dancing around fires or making sacrifices to Azrael's joke post.
That is not somethig you joke about. It is in poor taste to do so.
Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."
I really recommend you avoid a little known movie starring two nobodies called Dan Akroyd and Tom Hanks from 'our' era (I'm 37 in a little over a month) called Dragnet, if you found my little joke in poor taste, that will have you spitting feathers!
How about you find a WW2 surviverof a jewish concentration camp or someone who sufferedunder the regime of Papa Doc or even an older african american whose family was lynched and make fun of them and what they went through I am sure that they will tell you that they do not find it funny. Then i'm sure you will again make fun of them by making such comments as "Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."". The point is, and I'm sure you get it but for some reason ignoring it (or should i just say "woosh") that making fun of those who have suffered hardships ust is not funny to that person or thers who ffered similerly t just isnt nny to make n of them at all n that criteria. You nt have to be 'ultimate judge of what's funny' to understand this.
I dont think you can compare being a nerd to being a holocaust survivor.
EVIL INC wrote: How about you find a WW2 surviverof a jewish concentration camp or someone who sufferedunder the regime of Papa Doc or even an older african american whose family was lynched and make fun of them and what they went through I am sure that they will tell you that they do not find it funny. Then i'm sure you will again make fun of them by making such comments as "Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."". The point is, and I'm sure you get it but for some reason ignoring it (or should i just say "woosh") that making fun of those who have suffered hardships ust is not funny to that person or thers who ffered similerly t just isnt nny to make n of them at all n that criteria. You nt have to be 'ultimate judge of what's funny' to understand this.
. Ask if it is ok for you to set up the terrain, Choose the Table Side, Scenario, and/or who goes first. We have done that a lot and as long as you are not an 
It is most certainly the fault of the rules to allow abuses in the first place, and it is the pinnacle of lazy design to try and pass the fault off on the players for not fixing your broken rules.
Cheers
