Hey there! Recently I've been getting, well, a bit agitated at the number of forum posts about "this is why I don't like or play this game". Often it's in discussion about people that are looking to come back, or talking about what they think about the rules. I don't want to dissuade people from discussing these, because they're valid posts to make, and people have a right to hear all sides. But it seems that the number of voices answering with "I don't play, but here's why I think you shouldn't play either" has become louder. Not necessarily more... but certainly louder. I don't think it's very helpful when the loudest voices in a post where people are looking to know something are "don't try". So, I'm curious then, why do you still come here? I'm sure there are some great reasons, and so I've taken the benefit of the doubt (in most cases) and offered what I think are the BEST reasons that someone might still be posting here, even if they don't play (or they play incredibly infrequently).
Second, open question - what could be done to help you encourage other players coming to this forum to try the game first and see what you're talking about? I, personally, like to see the community grow - both in real life and online. I worry that just always chiming in that "the game is bad, don't play" only serves to make both communities smaller. So what could I do to help you reverse that trend?
EDIT: Added "I am looking at maybe starting 40k." forgot that some folks may be here for some of their first times!
My 40K playing has dropped off a cliff lately. But I still play rarely and more importantly I host a lot of games at my place - so I keep a finger on the pulse of rules, errata/FAQ, upcoming models, etc. I still enjoy the painting/hobby aspect of it all.
I have buddies who play who don't pay too much attention to forums and news, so I keep them abreast of upcoming kits/combos/fluff/books, etc. I will probably depart Dakka if 40K slows down or if I quit entirely, but even then I might play some games of 2nd, so I'd maybe still loiter.
I think you're missing the "I'm trying to feel superior to others by repeatedly demonstrating how I see GW for what I think it really is" option.
You're going to miss out on the most vocal demographic that still lingers like a fart and doesn't actually play or seemingly have any joy left in life.
Sadly if anyone is new to the hobby, or looking to get back in, I can't think of a worse place to come than DakkaDakka. All they'll find is salt, arrogance, and crying wolf.
On the upside, if you want the irony of a thread calling a new release OP next to a thread calling the same new release trash, or complaints about bloat next to complaints about not enough new releases, you've certainly come to the right place.
I'm here for the AoS and other games - you forget that whilst Dakka has a 40K focus it has a lot of other generalist threads on kickstarters and other games as well as Age of Sigmar.
Also several of the answers are unlikely to get truthful results - most trolls don't announce themsleves and some who are clearly very salty about the game and company often don't see themselves as such.
Overread wrote: I'm here for the AoS and other games - you forget that whilst Dakka has a 40K focus it has a lot of other generalist threads on kickstarters and other games as well as Age of Sigmar.
Also several of the answers are unlikely to get truthful results - most trolls don't announce themsleves and some who are clearly very salty about the game and company often don't see themselves as such.
Yeah, that`s Dakka Dakka as a whole. My question was about the 40k General Discussion forum. Like, some people may not play 40k and be on the Rules forum because they like helping people answer rules questions... but that`s not an answer because that`s a different forum. As for the trolls, it`s anonymous, and so sure they`re unlike to respond, but I like being thorough.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sentineil wrote: I think you're missing the "I'm trying to feel superior to others by repeatedly demonstrating how I see GW for what I think it really is" option.
You're going to miss out on the most vocal demographic that still lingers like a fart and doesn't actually play or seemingly have any joy left in life.
Sadly if anyone is new to the hobby, or looking to get back in, I can't think of a worse place to come than DakkaDakka. All they'll find is salt, arrogance, and crying wolf.
On the upside, if you want the irony of a thread calling a new release OP next to a thread calling the same new release trash, or complaints about bloat next to complaints about not enough new releases, you've certainly come to the right place.
Thanks for the response, and I very much feel the sentiment you`re carrying here. But I don`t want to insult people. Just from the votes already put up, a lot of people that don`t play that are here want the game to be better. They`re waiting. I hope some of them respond to my second question, because I want to help change that attitude here at Dakka.
While I do still play I'd like to know why people like to come in and gak on a new players parade when they ask for advice. I remember a guy made a thread asking what documents he needed for playing a Chaos army or something and BaconCatBug thundered into the thread like "HHHHWELLLLLLLLLLLLL...". Like why are you activly trying to turn people against something they just started taking an interest in?
From what I can tell GW just seems to instil this massive love/hate relationship (or love to hate relationship).
So you know, posts to the tune of "I've not played since about 2015, but I know the game is trash, GW is always trash and you are trash for playing it".
As the original poster says... its weird.
For instance... I don't much like Magic the Gathering. I very rarely play it unless someone I know is very keen for a game. I don't go to the forums and say blue is overpowered, nerf blue. I don't complain that the game has been going downhill for 2, 5, 10 or 20 years. I don't rush in to say that Wizards of the Coast or whoever are evil grasping businessmen intent on destroying all that is good in the world just to make some money selling me stuff.
Because I don't play it - and so I don't care.
But if you looked at most 40k forums for... well, since the internet became a thing, that has been a huge percentage of the posters.
Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.
I do want to see the game be good, interesting and encompasses the perceived scope that it’s trying to achieve.
I mostly just see it as a complicated game trying to be simple, to simple for what it is trying to achieve.
And a team that has no real drive to put out a top quality product, or has no ability to.
More like different teams all trying to do there own products with no sense of how they support each other.
Why I do not think it will happen, I do worry that if they are so reliant on space marines and the regular release of the product on that line. That they could have set themselves up in a poor position despite there strengths.
I also like discussing and reading about such things Why I think sometimes looking down on products can be quite bad, I think the real toxicity and the reason I do not play was from the people that do get the most support.
You should be happy with what you have, you will get something soon. Why are you complaining about OP stuff I have. Ohh you play eldar, people who play eldar are just TFG.
Sometimes I feel like it’s the community that would prefer I was more positive, is the reason I have become this way.
40k could represent a awesome sci fi battlefield on the table, and why I do not think the older editions are great. I do think they have actuly lost a lot of that feel.
Pushing for, bigger more powerful individuals, tanks and other things. With no need for support and the shrinking of the simulated battlefield tactics that they utilise on what is already quite a small space.
In the end, I just find it sad that the reason I got into this hobby is left so unfulfilling and I wish it was better.
Brother Castor wrote: Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.
I put it down to the fact that the site has a good few people who have moved on from the hobby but not from the social interaction and community. The result is that they tend to bring their salt with them to the forum over and over again without actually realising it. Even though they've moved on and might not go to the local warhammer club any more or play different games at the local general club; they still retain the online connection because its basically no effort to be here.
Another group are those who tend to be more critical of things and who mostly post to be critical and don't tend to speak much of the positive sides. So they present a more negative attitude even if they don't realise it because their other game interactions (real world) are more weighted to the positive.
Brother Castor wrote: Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.
Its only unusual in the lack of overwhelming negativity. If you think Dakka is bad, I (somewhat) envy your internet history.
But mostly I'm tired of people complaining about people who have different points of view. And the OP comes across as 'if people don't like it, they should be made to go away'
You are forgetting the fun discussions from people who do play but insist on telling people they play the wrong way. Constantly. It’s like you mention power levels and they come swarming.
Brother Castor wrote: Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.
I could give two reasons, some of this discussion does not really come up in open gaming groups. I tend to let people play what they want to in our groups.
Can also depend who is in that group, there are a few people I just do not bring anything up with. I would not want to play 40k with them not matter how good the game was.
But second, some other places can be quite dismissive of any dislike of GW. Been kicked out of a Facebook group for saying way less than anything I have said on dakka. 40k players and fans can be super toxic like a lot of nerdy fandoms when there thing is not held as high as they think it should be.
Yarium wrote: Hey there! Recently I've been getting, well, a bit agitated at the number of forum posts about "this is why I don't like or play this game". Often it's in discussion about people that are looking to come back, or talking about what they think about the rules. I don't want to dissuade people from discussing these, because they're valid posts to make, and people have a right to hear all sides. But it seems that the number of voices answering with "I don't play, but here's why I think you shouldn't play either" has become louder. Not necessarily more... but certainly louder. I don't think it's very helpful when the loudest voices in a post where people are looking to know something are "don't try". So, I'm curious then, why do you still come here? I'm sure there are some great reasons, and so I've taken the benefit of the doubt (in most cases) and offered what I think are the BEST reasons that someone might still be posting here, even if they don't play (or they play incredibly infrequently).
Second, open question - what could be done to help you encourage other players coming to this forum to try the game first and see what you're talking about? I, personally, like to see the community grow - both in real life and online. I worry that just always chiming in that "the game is bad, don't play" only serves to make both communities smaller. So what could I do to help you reverse that trend?
EDIT: Added "I am looking at maybe starting 40k." forgot that some folks may be here for some of their first times!
Denying some of the core issues of the game (IGOUGO, terrible external and internal balance) is pure ignorance though. I wouldn't let anyone start Grey Knights or Necrons because this hobby is a good amount of investment in terms of time and money.
It doesn't matter how much you like the models if your ultra optimized Grey Knights can't even land a bit of damage on a casual Eldar list of all things.
I find, personally, that the issue with Dakka is the fact some members purposely start inflammatory threads which seem to eclipse those where someone, be they new to the hobby or otherwise, is genuinely asking for advice, hints, etc., i.e. mainly you just get to see the simians throwing their own faeces at one another.
I am not saying I haven't been guilty of this over the years myself.
My 40K playing has fallen by the wayside and I am moving into the board game aspect e.g. Warcry, Adepticus Titanicus, etc., but I do still frequent the monkey exhibition as there is some genuinely good advice pops up now and then and I like to try and stay relatively up to date with current state of the 40K game.
Sadly you do have to sift through an awful lot of detritus to find that good advice.
I wouldn't wonder if the more vocal members of Whineseer mde their way over here when it went down for like a year and thats why there's been an increase in complaining.
I'm still here because even though I'm pretty grumpy at 40k at the moment I have a playgroup that still enjoys it and is open to homebrew rules. If I have a broader base of people to give their opinions on what works, what doesn't work, and why that helps me build structures under which I can still use my models/play games with my friends.
Though I will admit I am probably complaining to hear myself complain too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sim-Life wrote: I wouldn't wonder if the more vocal members of Whineseer mde their way over here when it went down for like a year and thats why there's been an increase in complaining.
This may be anecdotal but I feel like the level of complaining was similar during 7th. Maybe as the game starts to look more like 7th the community starts to react to it more like 7th.
I personally will continue to be salty at GW due to them ruining my hobby with 8th edition. Up until then I had fun playing 40k and it gave me motivation to paint my models. 8th drops and became such a chore to play and fails to give me the satisfaction that I got from 6th and 7th. While I don't have to play 8th (I don't) but generally the community as a whole plays the rules GW plops down and it has become next to impossible to find games for 7th. So I find myself with thousands of dollars of models that I sunk hundreds of hours into modeling/painting for a game that I loved to play before but got completely ruined by GW because they decided to rewrite the entire rule book into a bare bones unfun mess.
While I appreciate others finding joy in the current game, I do tend to be defensive of 7th because people generally treat 8th like its a gift from the Emperor himself while 7th gets viewed as a horrible dumpster fire with zero redeeming qualities. 7th has is fair share of problems and faults but it also has a lot of quirks and aspects of it that 8th cannot come close to matching because of the design choices (or design butchering) that GW did with 8ths core rules. I also tend to feel both frustration and a sort of schadenfreude from seeing GW revert to its old ways of balance problems, rules bloat, and power creep (the stuff that people damned about 7th and said 8th fixed all that because of "New GW (™)". Of course its really irritating to see the whole "love it or leave it" gak as it just dismisses any opposing view points and ignores any negative ramifications that 8th had on some players. Just like how runaway power creep in 7th had negative ramifications on some players.
Bitterness aside I still love 40k as a whole and still consider myself a part of the player community because I still try to find games to play (just with 7th edition rules). Maybe one day GW will realize that the pendulum swung too far in the other direction and look to bring a more complex and tactical game experience back to current 40k rules.
Anecdotal evidence;
My group of 6-9 regulars is still going strong for 40k. Not because the rules are perfect, but because we play more for the narrative side, and love the hobby side. I say that to say this:
I am the only member of that group who comes to Dakka. The rest of the group finds the site too negative, and often toxic, somewhat supporting the OP's list, although what that is worth I don't know. I have been accused of being too positive and encouraging myself, particularly in the painting forum. (And I find some of those accusations accurate...so guilty on that count and yes, that CAN be a bad thing)
Here, however, is my take.
Like all communities, the following applies; (and this is by far NOT a comprehensive or exclusive list. For some reason this has to be noted often here)
The site does have a percentage of "play my way or you're an idiot" posters
A percentage of those who criticize for the sub-conscious purpose of boosting their own ego
A percentage of those who vent against success or perceived success for a variety of reasons (mostly jealousy in my opinion) and focus on GW A percentage of people of people who vent frustrations unrelated to this forum on this forum (displaced anger)
The problem is, each of these small percentages add up and can result in what seems a majority, because as in all things, they tend to "shout" the loudest to be heard. Just look at any "political" discussion right now in the USA. In general, content people remain silent.
Being an old man who remembers the stone age, I will point out that the internet makes these things worse, because in the real world extremely irritating or downright discourteous people can be avoided or, heaven forbid, punched in the nose... (my going strong group has "lost" or asked to leave several other players when their behavior became detrimental, and they refused or were unable to modify it. These things are subjective, but personal attacks and purposeful antagonism was generally the most common reason.)
The reality is, you have joined a forum where people are allowed and encouraged to share their opinions. They will. Accept, ignore, rage against, whatever, but they are allowed. It's the internet. Live with the haters, trolls, whatever moniker you want, because they are drawn to it, live on it, and thrive on it.
If only there was an App that gave you a color based on the posters real motivation behind a post...
Karol wrote: What does toxic mean, when it doesnt describes a non plant or chemical?
Figuratively? Caustic. Hostile. Disruptive. Destructive. Causes more harm than good. Pretty much the same thing as when it describes a plant or chemical, but affecting human interaction instead of bodily function.
I still frequent this board, because it is connected to a hobby I enjoy, and a game I’m not currently interested in.
I would encourage people to play Kill Team. It’s a pretty decent game that you can get into for a reasonable cost (depending on faction).
Coming from a service background, I find managing expectations is crucial to happiness. Be it a job, your hobby, raising kids, being married... if you promise the stars then give them a moon (double entendre I tended) they won’t be happy. But if you promise a plain hamburger and deliver a hamburger with delicious toppings, people are almost always happy. If you promise 4 hours, but it takes 5, everyone is pissed. If you promise 6 hours and it takes 5, minutes everyone is happy. Same result, but different expectations. Different satisfaction.
So if someone comes to 40k expecting a *great* game, they’ll be disappointed. If they expect an *ok* game that only works well if both players are in it for the same reasons, that has cool models and overall good IP, then they can be happy within that framework. So that’s where my hope to grow the community comes from. Expect a 5, work for an 8, get a 7 in the end. Don’t expect an 8, work for a 3, and get a 1 in the end.
When people have their expectations met or exceeded, they become repeat customers. Same deal for gaming communities. If you have reasonable expectations from your activity, and you meet or exceed them, you’ll come back.
Some Dakkites have higher expectations from 40k than the game can currently deliver (myself included). I have to very actively control my games to make them even remotely interesting. I have to work to make the game *good* for me to play. So I hope that people coming into the game and hobby are prepared to play a game you (may) need to work at with your gaming group for it to be enjoyable. This edition is much more sandbox than I want it to be. I want a game I can play “out of the box” that is fun, challenging, and (better) balanced. I do *NOT* want to feel I have to create house rules to keep the game from devolving to who won the roll to go first... but I don’t feel that is what the game currently is.
Like I said, we can work to make it work... but we could also just play a game that’s ready to go without having to work at it first.
(To be clear, I don’t consider the hobby to be work... just setting up the parameters for a game is work that feels like it shouldn’t be necessary but is. 7th was like that for me. Early 8th wasn’t, but now modern 8th is again.)
Interesting enough I consider that to be the strong part of 40K and maybe the only aspect that even worked in 7th: despite all its flaws if you didn't consider 40k as a tactical wargame but instead as a roleplay or an action movie it worked with heavy House ruling and homewritten scenarios. The great thing about 8th is that this still applies, but you don't have to make up your own scenarios and the game has become more tactical. Still nothing compared to Lotr, but at least you have to plan and think what you do on the table and don't just watch the fireworks.
Concerning the Community I must say I was surprised to see some of the grumpy long time dakkanouts changing their attitude at the start of 8th, showing that they didn't hate GW without reason but because 7th really sucked for them. Some since have returned to being grumpy, others seem to be still grateful that 7th died.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Interesting enough I consider that to be the strong part of 40K and maybe the only aspect that even worked in 7th: despite all its flaws if you didn't consider 40k as a tactical wargame but instead as a roleplay or an action movie it worked with heavy House ruling and homewritten scenarios. The great thing about 8th is that this still applies, but you don't have to make up your own scenarios and the game has become more tactical. Still nothing compared to Lotr, but at least you have to plan and think what you do on the table and don't just watch the fireworks.
Concerning the Community I must say I was surprised to see some of the grumpy long time dakkanouts changing their attitude at the start of 8th, showing that they didn't hate GW without reason but because 7th really sucked for them. Some since have returned to being grumpy, others seem to be still grateful that 7th died.
That once again leads to the question of why we should do the jobs of the designers?
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Interesting enough I consider that to be the strong part of 40K and maybe the only aspect that even worked in 7th: despite all its flaws if you didn't consider 40k as a tactical wargame but instead as a roleplay or an action movie it worked with heavy House ruling and homewritten scenarios. The great thing about 8th is that this still applies, but you don't have to make up your own scenarios and the game has become more tactical. Still nothing compared to Lotr, but at least you have to plan and think what you do on the table and don't just watch the fireworks.
Concerning the Community I must say I was surprised to see some of the grumpy long time dakkanouts changing their attitude at the start of 8th, showing that they didn't hate GW without reason but because 7th really sucked for them. Some since have returned to being grumpy, others seem to be still grateful that 7th died.
That once again leads to the question of why we should do the jobs of the designers?
I don't know. I do mods for the games I enjoy, as a hobby, so they catter even more to my tastes. And I love to play with mods other people does.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Interesting enough I consider that to be the strong part of 40K and maybe the only aspect that even worked in 7th: despite all its flaws if you didn't consider 40k as a tactical wargame but instead as a roleplay or an action movie it worked with heavy House ruling and homewritten scenarios. The great thing about 8th is that this still applies, but you don't have to make up your own scenarios and the game has become more tactical. Still nothing compared to Lotr, but at least you have to plan and think what you do on the table and don't just watch the fireworks.
Concerning the Community I must say I was surprised to see some of the grumpy long time dakkanouts changing their attitude at the start of 8th, showing that they didn't hate GW without reason but because 7th really sucked for them. Some since have returned to being grumpy, others seem to be still grateful that 7th died.
That once again leads to the question of why we should do the jobs of the designers?
I don't know. I do mods for the games I enjoy, as a hobby, so they catter even more to my tastes. And I love to play with mods other people does.
Were those games playable before the mods is the question. Were they filled with bugs and everything imbalanced before your mods?
The answer is going to be "not really". Ergo, why should we do the job of the designers?
Yarium wrote: Hey there! Recently I've been getting, well, a bit agitated at the number of forum posts about "this is why I don't like or play this game". Often it's in discussion about people that are looking to come back, or talking about what they think about the rules. I don't want to dissuade people from discussing these, because they're valid posts to make, and people have a right to hear all sides. But it seems that the number of voices answering with "I don't play, but here's why I think you shouldn't play either" has become louder. Not necessarily more... but certainly louder. I don't think it's very helpful when the loudest voices in a post where people are looking to know something are "don't try". So, I'm curious then, why do you still come here? I'm sure there are some great reasons, and so I've taken the benefit of the doubt (in most cases) and offered what I think are the BEST reasons that someone might still be posting here, even if they don't play (or they play incredibly infrequently).
Second, open question - what could be done to help you encourage other players coming to this forum to try the game first and see what you're talking about? I, personally, like to see the community grow - both in real life and online. I worry that just always chiming in that "the game is bad, don't play" only serves to make both communities smaller. So what could I do to help you reverse that trend?
EDIT: Added "I am looking at maybe starting 40k." forgot that some folks may be here for some of their first times!
Denying some of the core issues of the game (IGOUGO, terrible external and internal balance) is pure ignorance though. I wouldn't let anyone start Grey Knights or Necrons because this hobby is a good amount of investment in terms of time and money.
It doesn't matter how much you like the models if your ultra optimized Grey Knights can't even land a bit of damage on a casual Eldar list of all things.
And here one of them is. I swear the words power level summon them to a thread.
Or you can actually address the points instead of "be positive or leave".
I do play 40k, though not that often. I started in early 3rd edition as an absolute fanatic, skipped 6th and 7th due to disappointment with the rules, and came back to 8th hoping for a substantially better game after hearing that GW threw away the old rules and started from scratch. I think greatbigtree's post about expectations is bang on target, because my expectations have not been met and that's what makes me feel sad. Probably they were too high from the start.
I also think aging and hardening is a part of it too. I got started in 40k when I was 14. Looking back, 3rd edition was an absurdely unbalanced game. But as a kid I didn't care. My friends and I had a ton of fun with it anyway, despite the nonsensical rules of the era. Now I'm in my 30s and it's harder for me to get excited about something fun but flawed given the enormous universe of entertainment options out these today. I'm more demanding of perfection--especially for something as expensive as 40k is. It was cheaper when I was a kid, but to be fair it was always quite expensive. Today the prices feel patently absurd, even though I have a level of disposable income that I could have only dreamed of 20 years ago. The models are so good that you can craft a plausible excuse in your mind to spend $35 for five plastic soldiers or $75 on a plastic tank. But the rules aren't worth the paper they're printed on, which makes it feel downright insulting that you're expected to buy so many of these expensive glossy full-color books, most of whose content is recycled from prior versions.
Like others, I agree that you need to house-rule things to make the game playable outside of the context of two friends talking it out ahead of time regarding what they want. So I like reading discussions here about the kinds of house rules people have come up with fix the game. I also mine these ideas for a set of custom tabletop wargame rules that I wrote for a game some of my friends are developing. Originally it was going to be purely a Necromunda-sized game but I've since made it able to accommodate 40k-sized battles without bloat, and I'm working on writing rules for the various 40K factions so I can use it to play 40k. I guess I'm basically doing what the OnePageRules folks did. However I'm not a huge fan of those rules, though they are better than 40K in many ways. IMO they're too similar to 40K, and don't really take advantage of the possibilities available when you create something from scratch.
Were those games playable before the mods is the question. Were they filled with bugs and everything imbalanced before your mods?
The answer is going to be "not really". Ergo, why should we do the job of the designers?
That's strange, I seem to play games all the time? Seems pretty playable to be!
It's actually a perfectly enjoyable game when you and the person you're playing aren't toxic. Very similar to any other game actually.
But hey, GW are evil, can't design a game, don't know what they're doing, don't know what the customer wants, over charge, only make marines and hate Xenos, yadda yadda.
I get this funny feeling that a lot of people 'waiting for the game to be better' just want the game to go back to editions past, which just won't happen. But hey, rose tinted goggles are always in-season on Dakka.
I do play 40k and I come here to see what people are complaining about. It's kind of like watching a different news channel, so I can get the good and the bad, both sides of the argument. Helps me relate to more people without being a glaze-eyed fanboy, though I do find most of the complains to be just straight silly, tired, and over-done. Few people beat dead horses as well as some of the Dakka regulars.
I was listening to a podcast about troll farms and it mentioned that these farms try to infiltrate as many online communities as they possibly can, doesn't matter what the community is about. It honestly got me wondering if some of the people on here aren't actually real.
There are a few posters on here that always seem to pop up with a negative comment no matter the time of day. They don't sleep. They don't seem to work. THEY'RE NOT REAL!!!
I was listening to a podcast about troll farms and it mentioned that these farms try to infiltrate as many online communities as they possibly can, doesn't matter what the community is about. It honestly got me wondering if some of the people on here aren't actually real.
There are a few posters on here that always seem to pop up with a negative comment no matter the time of day. They don't sleep. They don't seem to work. THEY'RE NOT REAL!!!
ok, time to go take my medication...
Hah, no, it'd be really hard for random trolls to be knowledgeable enough to start gak.
I sometimes wondered if that's what happened to Warseer on a small scale, it got crazy over there before it went down. Or maybe it was a lack of moderation and things just got out hand.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Speaking of expectations, I figured this would be a thread about understanding why people might still enjoy Dakka Dakka as a forum even though they might find 40k less enjoyable
What I found is condescension towards people and delusions that the only reason people are unhappy but still want social interaction must because they're misrerable people who want to make other people miserable
I guess Self Awareness is a rare skill afterall
I find it odd that someone would "enjoy" a forum where they almost exclusively gak-post in 40K. If Dakka is a broad forum with many places for different interests why are they in the forum that doesn't interest them much at all?
Luke_Prowler wrote: Speaking of expectations, I figured this would be a thread about understanding why people might still enjoy Dakka Dakka as a forum even though they might find 40k less enjoyable
What I found is condescension towards people and delusions that the only reason people are unhappy but still want social interaction must because they're miserable people who want to make other people miserable
I guess Self Awareness is a rare skill afterall
I find it odd that someone would "enjoy" a forum where they almost exclusively gak-post in 40K. If Dakka is a broad forum with many places for different interests why are they in the forum that doesn't interest them much at all?
Surely that isn't "social interaction".
Do you have friends that have jobs? I'm going to assume yes.
I'm sure then that at some point you've had one of them complain about their job. Bad clients, crappy boss, unreasonable work, or they got yelled for a dumb thing. And maybe that goes on for a while for whatever reason, and it gets obnoxious for you to hear over time.
But the reason they do that isn't to make other people miserable. If someone doesn't want to talk to other people, they usually just do that. So then there must be a reason, whether than's venting, looking for sympathy, or trying to find an understanding. Assuming that person is a "Hater" generally doesn't help and I find the Positivity Police can be just as toxic (like some of the posts here)
I also question how much of it is "exclusive". Peregrine was one of those chronic complainers people tended to hold as an example... but she also was part of the X-Wing forum and also had a few painting blogs. So, perspective is certainly a part of it.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Speaking of expectations, I figured this would be a thread about understanding why people might still enjoy Dakka Dakka as a forum even though they might find 40k less enjoyable
What I found is condescension towards people and delusions that the only reason people are unhappy but still want social interaction must because they're miserable people who want to make other people miserable
I guess Self Awareness is a rare skill afterall
I find it odd that someone would "enjoy" a forum where they almost exclusively gak-post in 40K. If Dakka is a broad forum with many places for different interests why are they in the forum that doesn't interest them much at all?
Surely that isn't "social interaction".
Do you have friends that have jobs? I'm going to assume yes.
I'm sure then that at some point you've had one of them complain about their job. Bad clients, crappy boss, unreasonable work, or they got yelled for a dumb thing. And maybe that goes on for a while for whatever reason, and it gets obnoxious for you to hear over time.
But the reason they do that isn't to make other people miserable. If someone doesn't want to talk to other people, they usually just do that. So then there must be a reason, whether than's venting, looking for sympathy, or trying to find an understanding. Assuming that person is a "Hater" generally doesn't help and I find the Positivity Police can be just as toxic (like some of the posts here)
I also question how much of it is "exclusive". Peregrine was one of those chronic complainers people tended to hold as an example... but she also was part of the X-Wing forum and also had a few painting blogs. So, perspective is certainly a part of it.
Sure, but I feel like it's a bit different where at a job you're required to deal with the bs whereas with Warhammer it is by choice that you engage.
I don't think people who don't play should be banned from posting. Perry has some fine posts. Some others do not. It's the dedication to absolute truth of their convictions for some that gets me (i.e. They never played 8th, but it's absolutely the worst edition ever).
Daedalus81 wrote: Sure, but I feel like it's a bit different where at a job you're required to deal with the bs whereas with Warhammer it is by choice that you engage.
I don't think people who don't play should be banned from posting. Perry has some fine posts. Some others do not. It's the dedication to absolute truth of their convictions for some that gets me (i.e. They never played 8th, but it's absolutely the worst edition ever).
Experience trumps conjecture, if you will.
Maybe. Getting a crappy job can also get advise of "just quit/ignore the problem/buck up" or accusations of exaggeration, and Warhammer 40k might be the only real options in your area if you want to play tabletop wargamming so it could feel like a job to get that tactical itch. There's probably some people here who's prefer something else. But I agree that it's not the best example, but it's an example I personally have experience with and I'm sure most others do too.
I should note that I agree, in a general sense. I have a few people on my ignore list because they take things too far. But I felt rather disgruntled with how hostile this thread ended up being immediately which seems hypocritical to the complaints leveled at the people. And I personally would prefer a negative, if at least thought provoking, post that someone going "Haters gonna hate".
EDIT: So, general question: In terms of trying to discourage someone from playing a game like 40k, If you feel like a place like Dakka is the wrong place for that what the heck is the "right" place?
Luke_Prowler wrote: Speaking of expectations, I figured this would be a thread about understanding why people might still enjoy Dakka Dakka as a forum even though they might find 40k less enjoyable
What I found is condescension towards people and delusions that the only reason people are unhappy but still want social interaction must because they're miserable people who want to make other people miserable
I guess Self Awareness is a rare skill afterall
I find it odd that someone would "enjoy" a forum where they almost exclusively gak-post in 40K. If Dakka is a broad forum with many places for different interests why are they in the forum that doesn't interest them much at all?
Surely that isn't "social interaction".
Do you have friends that have jobs? I'm going to assume yes.
I'm sure then that at some point you've had one of them complain about their job. Bad clients, crappy boss, unreasonable work, or they got yelled for a dumb thing. And maybe that goes on for a while for whatever reason, and it gets obnoxious for you to hear over time.
But the reason they do that isn't to make other people miserable. If someone doesn't want to talk to other people, they usually just do that. So then there must be a reason, whether than's venting, looking for sympathy, or trying to find an understanding. Assuming that person is a "Hater" generally doesn't help and I find the Positivity Police can be just as toxic (like some of the posts here)
I also question how much of it is "exclusive". Peregrine was one of those chronic complainers people tended to hold as an example... but she also was part of the X-Wing forum and also had a few painting blogs. So, perspective is certainly a part of it.
If you continue complaining about your old job I don't want to talk with you, unless it was military service or something you need to move on.
I originally came to this forum to find out what the hell was in the pipe for 40K, as GW wouldn't say, it'd just show up in shops.
I've been collecting 40K models since Rogue Trader days, and enjoy the lore (not a deep dive into novels, but the rulebook & codex information) but quit playing in 2E after a really bad experience. Somewhere around 3rd, I picked up a Tau army with the intention of getting back in, but the local group scared me off. In late 5th, my eldest son became interested in Dawn of War, and I got him interested in the tabletop version. We played occasionally, even joined an escalation league but, once again, the community drove us away. The last 40K game I played with my son was about three months ago, before he started college. We don't have enough time when he visits on weekends (we're usually playing D&D or Destiny 2), so I've just gone back to watching releases and buying for the modeling for now.
I have also been working on the side on my own version of the rules, think that's the only way I'll ever truly enjoy GW's offerings as a game.
So, a bit complex but I keep dipping my toe into the pool but find it too frigid for my tastes.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Interesting enough I consider that to be the strong part of 40K and maybe the only aspect that even worked in 7th: despite all its flaws if you didn't consider 40k as a tactical wargame but instead as a roleplay or an action movie it worked with heavy House ruling and homewritten scenarios. The great thing about 8th is that this still applies, but you don't have to make up your own scenarios and the game has become more tactical. Still nothing compared to Lotr, but at least you have to plan and think what you do on the table and don't just watch the fireworks.
Concerning the Community I must say I was surprised to see some of the grumpy long time dakkanouts changing their attitude at the start of 8th, showing that they didn't hate GW without reason but because 7th really sucked for them. Some since have returned to being grumpy, others seem to be still grateful that 7th died.
That once again leads to the question of why we should do the jobs of the designers?
I don't know. I do mods for the games I enjoy, as a hobby, so they catter even more to my tastes. And I love to play with mods other people does.
Were those games playable before the mods is the question. Were they filled with bugs and everything imbalanced before your mods?
The answer is going to be "not really". Ergo, why should we do the job of the designers?
not a Skyrim fan I'm guessing?
in terms of 8th edition I wouldn't say you have to do the job of the designers anymore.
You think terrain base rules suck? - take Cities of Death rules
You find Eternal war boring? - Play Maelstrom, or the Vigilus campaign, or urban warfare, or take the Open War card deck
Space Marines appear too strong? - play an attacker/ defender scenario with unequal points values, or let the SM player roll for warlord traits and psychic powers instead of choosing them
They gave you a lot to play with. I admit the stuff is all over the place and imo all missions that have been released in 1 year should be reprinted in the respective CA like a catalogue, so you don't have to look up 3 different books for a mission.
They gave you a lot to play with. I admit the stuff is all over the place and imo all missions that have been released in 1 year should be reprinted in the respective CA like a catalogue, so you don't have to look up 3 different books for a mission.
But most of the stuff isn't matched played, and the rest falls under the no thank you to armies that make my army worse, so you can have fun. Double that if their army work just fine under normal match played rules. People interest in other people fun stops at their own wallet.
Karol wrote: What does toxic mean, when it doesnt describes a non plant or chemical?
Figuratively? Caustic. Hostile. Disruptive. Destructive. Causes more harm than good. Pretty much the same thing as when it describes a plant or chemical, but affecting human interaction instead of bodily function.
They gave you a lot to play with. I admit the stuff is all over the place and imo all missions that have been released in 1 year should be reprinted in the respective CA like a catalogue, so you don't have to look up 3 different books for a mission.
But most of the stuff isn't matched played, and the rest falls under the no thank you to armies that make my army worse, so you can have fun. Double that if their army work just fine under normal match played rules. People interest in other people fun stops at their own wallet.
Well, if you choose to stick only to one narrow way of playing 40K I don't think that's GWs fault. In every WD and many Community articles they encourage you to play however you like and mix between different ways to play (like narrative with points, for example).
And I can't agree on the second part of your vote and I'm not even sure if I get it right. How does having fun with your opponent have anything to do with money (apart from buying minis, of course)? I think it just shows that the community you're in seems very focussed on Win at all costs, but I can't imagine how that even works for a whole gaming group.
don't play 40k but being one of the chief cat herders for my local club skim reading dakka keeps me up to date enough for 40k and a couple of other games means I can at least talk to folks about their games
also testing the faith of the geedubs followers is sort of fun, although don't think i've upset anyone in years
They gave you a lot to play with. I admit the stuff is all over the place and imo all missions that have been released in 1 year should be reprinted in the respective CA like a catalogue, so you don't have to look up 3 different books for a mission.
But most of the stuff isn't matched played, and the rest falls under the no thank you to armies that make my army worse, so you can have fun. Double that if their army work just fine under normal match played rules. People interest in other people fun stops at their own wallet.
Well, if you choose to stick only to one narrow way of playing 40K I don't think that's GWs fault. In every WD and many Community articles they encourage you to play however you like and mix between different ways to play (like narrative with points, for example).
And I can't agree on the second part of your vote and I'm not even sure if I get it right. How does having fun with your opponent have anything to do with money (apart from buying minis, of course)? I think it just shows that the community you're in seems very focussed on Win at all costs, but I can't imagine how that even works for a whole gaming group.
The problem there is the culture of the community. I personally would love to play random homebrewed missions with mixed point totals, the open war cards, whatever. However, my local store is pretty much strictly 2000pt matched play ITC pick up games. It's very difficult to plan anything more complex than that without a lot of extra pre-planning and logistical work and the person may bail on you in the end because real life gets in the way. Back before I moved, I had a legit group of friends that all played and we regularly messed around with games like this. but I moved, and now I'm at the mercy of a store community I haven't been able to mesh with yet. I haven't played in like 8 months now due to this.
Initially due to lack of time, but now due to lack of interest and not knowing which books/FAQs etc I need to run my army. I'm sick of buying books and packs of datacards that are obsolete before I finish reading them.
I still have mountains of grey plastic, and I still paint when I am in the mood. So, painting is the only aspect of the hobby I indulge in these days.
Instead of declaring that GW has messed up every edition since 2nd, what if you all just finally came to terms with the fact that your vision for the game and GW's are different.
At the end of the day, they've always said they're casual players not competitive. The game is about having fun with your mates, not net-listing a tournament.
Sentineil wrote: Instead of declaring that GW has messed up every edition since 2nd, what if you all just finally came to terms with the fact that your vision for the game and GW's are different.
I'm sure that plenty of people have long ago come to terms with the fact that GW isn't about meeting their specific vision of the game.
That doesn't in any way excuse the mechanical brokenness of the rules system though; Nor the imbalance which is bad for everyone - competitive and casual; The arbitrary removal of unit/wargear options; The imbalance between faction support; The bloat in the number of rules sources required over the lifetime of an edition cycle; The price gouging; the anti-customer practices; etc. etc.
They gave you a lot to play with. I admit the stuff is all over the place and imo all missions that have been released in 1 year should be reprinted in the respective CA like a catalogue, so you don't have to look up 3 different books for a mission.
But most of the stuff isn't matched played, and the rest falls under the no thank you to armies that make my army worse, so you can have fun. Double that if their army work just fine under normal match played rules. People interest in other people fun stops at their own wallet.
Well, if you choose to stick only to one narrow way of playing 40K I don't think that's GWs fault. In every WD and many Community articles they encourage you to play however you like and mix between different ways to play (like narrative with points, for example).
And I can't agree on the second part of your vote and I'm not even sure if I get it right. How does having fun with your opponent have anything to do with money (apart from buying minis, of course)? I think it just shows that the community you're in seems very focussed on Win at all costs, but I can't imagine how that even works for a whole gaming group.
The problem there is the culture of the community. I personally would love to play random homebrewed missions with mixed point totals, the open war cards, whatever. However, my local store is pretty much strictly 2000pt matched play ITC pick up games. It's very difficult to plan anything more complex than that without a lot of extra pre-planning and logistical work and the person may bail on you in the end because real life gets in the way. Back before I moved, I had a legit group of friends that all played and we regularly messed around with games like this. but I moved, and now I'm at the mercy of a store community I haven't been able to mesh with yet. I haven't played in like 8 months now due to this.
If that's the case I wonder what GW is even supposed to do. They release refined terrain rules, but people on this board will tell you "nobody plays that way". They release a mere suggestion for tournament play ("rule of 3)" but some people treat it as if that was a rule for all ways to play. Seems arbitrary to me. Same with ITC house rules, that seem to be widely accepted in the USA (and hardly known in europe). If a community can accept ITC rules, it's just as easy to say: Today we're playing Cities of Death, but all matched play rules still apply.
There is a lot of "comic book guy" syndrome on these boards. It's just the case than many of the toxic complainers probably don't have much going on in their lives and like to get a reaction.
I like to keep up to date with news and rumours although I rarely post because of the aforementioned trolls. Forums are a dying thing and have actually been pleasantly surprised with Instagram and fb groups.
Initially due to lack of time, but now due to lack of interest and not knowing which books/FAQs etc I need to run my army. I'm sick of buying books and packs of datacards that are obsolete before I finish reading them.
I still have mountains of grey plastic, and I still paint when I am in the mood. So, painting is the only aspect of the hobby I indulge in these days.
Daedalus81 wrote: Sure, but I feel like it's a bit different where at a job you're required to deal with the bs whereas with Warhammer it is by choice that you engage.
I don't think people who don't play should be banned from posting. Perry has some fine posts. Some others do not. It's the dedication to absolute truth of their convictions for some that gets me (i.e. They never played 8th, but it's absolutely the worst edition ever).
Experience trumps conjecture, if you will.
Maybe. Getting a crappy job can also get advise of "just quit/ignore the problem/buck up" or accusations of exaggeration, and Warhammer 40k might be the only real options in your area if you want to play tabletop wargamming so it could feel like a job to get that tactical itch. There's probably some people here who's prefer something else. But I agree that it's not the best example, but it's an example I personally have experience with and I'm sure most others do too.
I should note that I agree, in a general sense. I have a few people on my ignore list because they take things too far. But I felt rather disgruntled with how hostile this thread ended up being immediately which seems hypocritical to the complaints leveled at the people. And I personally would prefer a negative, if at least thought provoking, post that someone going "Haters gonna hate".
EDIT: So, general question: In terms of trying to discourage someone from playing a game like 40k, If you feel like a place like Dakka is the wrong place for that what the heck is the "right" place?
Extremes exist on both sides, for sure. Some, I think, exist because they're really worn out over the negativity.
People shouldn't have a goal to kill someone else's joy. Wargaming isn't a religion requiring converts to save ones "soul".
Denying some of the core issues of the game (IGOUGO, terrible external and internal balance) is pure ignorance though. I wouldn't let anyone start Grey Knights or Necrons because this hobby is a good amount of investment in terms of time and money.
It doesn't matter how much you like the models if your ultra optimized Grey Knights can't even land a bit of damage on a casual Eldar list of all things.
This is the very archetype of the people the OP mentioned.
Your post is sour, salty and presents your personal frustration as fact.
Not only can you beat a truly casual list with Necron or GK, their current weakness is very temporary as history has shown and the hobby is about so much more than points cost balance.
Like it or not, many people enjoy 40k, necrons and GK, and some even like an uphill battle.
Balance in 40k is definitely no worse than it has been in the past and people have been enjoying it for decades despite the shortcomings that appear to hurt you.
Denying some of the core issues of the game (IGOUGO, terrible external and internal balance) is pure ignorance though. I wouldn't let anyone start Grey Knights or Necrons because this hobby is a good amount of investment in terms of time and money.
It doesn't matter how much you like the models if your ultra optimized Grey Knights can't even land a bit of damage on a casual Eldar list of all things.
This is the very archetype of the people the OP mentioned.
Your post is sour, salty and presents your personal frustration as fact.
Not only can you beat a truly casual list with Necron or GK, their current weakness is very temporary as history has shown and the hobby is about so much more than points cost balance.
Like it or not, many people enjoy 40k, necrons and GK, and some even like an uphill battle.
Balance in 40k is definitely no worse than it has been in the past and people have been enjoying it for decades despite the shortcomings that appear to hurt you.
It IS fact those armies I listed are bad via basic math and Stratagems, and it IS fact GW hasn't done anything to boost them since 5th edition itself (remember when everyone said Necrons were broken with Decurion, and how quickly that changed once everyone else got their 7.5th codex?). You saying "no ur frustrated" doesn't refute my point, it means you can't counter it.
They gave you a lot to play with. I admit the stuff is all over the place and imo all missions that have been released in 1 year should be reprinted in the respective CA like a catalogue, so you don't have to look up 3 different books for a mission.
But most of the stuff isn't matched played, and the rest falls under the no thank you to armies that make my army worse, so you can have fun. Double that if their army work just fine under normal match played rules. People interest in other people fun stops at their own wallet.
Well, if you choose to stick only to one narrow way of playing 40K I don't think that's GWs fault. In every WD and many Community articles they encourage you to play however you like and mix between different ways to play (like narrative with points, for example).
And I can't agree on the second part of your vote and I'm not even sure if I get it right. How does having fun with your opponent have anything to do with money (apart from buying minis, of course)? I think it just shows that the community you're in seems very focussed on Win at all costs, but I can't imagine how that even works for a whole gaming group.
The problem there is the culture of the community. I personally would love to play random homebrewed missions with mixed point totals, the open war cards, whatever. However, my local store is pretty much strictly 2000pt matched play ITC pick up games. It's very difficult to plan anything more complex than that without a lot of extra pre-planning and logistical work and the person may bail on you in the end because real life gets in the way. Back before I moved, I had a legit group of friends that all played and we regularly messed around with games like this. but I moved, and now I'm at the mercy of a store community I haven't been able to mesh with yet. I haven't played in like 8 months now due to this.
If that's the case I wonder what GW is even supposed to do. They release refined terrain rules, but people on this board will tell you "nobody plays that way". They release a mere suggestion for tournament play ("rule of 3)" but some people treat it as if that was a rule for all ways to play. Seems arbitrary to me. Same with ITC house rules, that seem to be widely accepted in the USA (and hardly known in europe). If a community can accept ITC rules, it's just as easy to say: Today we're playing Cities of Death, but all matched play rules still apply.
The "refined" terrain rules requires more money forked over for something that should've been standard and included in the base rules. As well, nobody plays narrative. Everyone on this forum can pretend it flourishes or whatever, but walk into any store in the world and see what the people are playing. They're playing Matched, the standard for how the game has been played since 3rd.
Brother Castor wrote: Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.
Its only unusual in the lack of overwhelming negativity. If you think Dakka is bad, I (somewhat) envy your internet history.
I'm on a few single-marque car forums (my other hobby), and I guess the equivalent would be someone either joining to post negatively about the marque, or getting fed up with their car, selling it and hanging around to do the same. It just doesn't seem to happen. People have different preferences for particular models etc, but advice threads don't get derailed in the same way they do here.
Denying some of the core issues of the game (IGOUGO, terrible external and internal balance) is pure ignorance though. I wouldn't let anyone start Grey Knights or Necrons because this hobby is a good amount of investment in terms of time and money.
It doesn't matter how much you like the models if your ultra optimized Grey Knights can't even land a bit of damage on a casual Eldar list of all things.
This is the very archetype of the people the OP mentioned.
Your post is sour, salty and presents your personal frustration as fact.
Not only can you beat a truly casual list with Necron or GK, their current weakness is very temporary as history has shown and the hobby is about so much more than points cost balance.
Like it or not, many people enjoy 40k, necrons and GK, and some even like an uphill battle.
Balance in 40k is definitely no worse than it has been in the past and people have been enjoying it for decades despite the shortcomings that appear to hurt you.
It IS fact those armies I listed are bad via basic math and Stratagems, and it IS fact GW hasn't done anything to boost them since 5th edition itself (remember when everyone said Necrons were broken with Decurion, and how quickly that changed once everyone else got their 7.5th codex?). You saying "no ur frustrated" doesn't refute my point, it means you can't counter it.
The point isn't the maths, its the attitude that you're going in with.
" I wouldn't let anyone start Grey Knights or Necrons "
This is a very direct instruction and stance to take. You're not simply informing people of the current state of the game, you are outright taking the stance that they will NOT play those armies. This is a very negative attitude and also one that takes a very commanding position. Both things people basically don't like.
Furthermore it ignores the "local" meta scene. Remembering some people only play with one or two friends in a club or might even just play at school. Not everyone is playing in the ultra competitive scene.
Plus you admit that this hobby takes large amounts of time, but you neglect to consider that in your stance. The meta chances all the time; so just as you're forcing people away from armies currently weaker that might get stronger, you likely push them toward currently strong armies that could get weaker.
Quite a few of the "salty aggression" we see from users isn't just a stance or "fact" or even opinion; it often purely comes down to the choice of language that they use to interact with.
Denying some of the core issues of the game (IGOUGO, terrible external and internal balance) is pure ignorance though. I wouldn't let anyone start Grey Knights or Necrons because this hobby is a good amount of investment in terms of time and money.
It doesn't matter how much you like the models if your ultra optimized Grey Knights can't even land a bit of damage on a casual Eldar list of all things.
This is the very archetype of the people the OP mentioned.
Your post is sour, salty and presents your personal frustration as fact.
Not only can you beat a truly casual list with Necron or GK, their current weakness is very temporary as history has shown and the hobby is about so much more than points cost balance.
Like it or not, many people enjoy 40k, necrons and GK, and some even like an uphill battle.
Balance in 40k is definitely no worse than it has been in the past and people have been enjoying it for decades despite the shortcomings that appear to hurt you.
It IS fact those armies I listed are bad via basic math and Stratagems, and it IS fact GW hasn't done anything to boost them since 5th edition itself (remember when everyone said Necrons were broken with Decurion, and how quickly that changed once everyone else got their 7.5th codex?). You saying "no ur frustrated" doesn't refute my point, it means you can't counter it.
The point isn't the maths, its the attitude that you're going in with.
" I wouldn't let anyone start Grey Knights or Necrons "
This is a very direct instruction and stance to take. You're not simply informing people of the current state of the game, you are outright taking the stance that they will NOT play those armies. This is a very negative attitude and also one that takes a very commanding position. Both things people basically don't like.
Furthermore it ignores the "local" meta scene. Remembering some people only play with one or two friends in a club or might even just play at school. Not everyone is playing in the ultra competitive scene.
Plus you admit that this hobby takes large amounts of time, but you neglect to consider that in your stance. The meta chances all the time; so just as you're forcing people away from armies currently weaker that might get stronger, you likely push them toward currently strong armies that could get weaker.
Quite a few of the "salty aggression" we see from users isn't just a stance or "fact" or even opinion; it often purely comes down to the choice of language that they use to interact with.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
This thread is the equivalent of those GOP bumper stickers. "If you don't love god, guns and government, you don'l love America, so there's the door"
I like 40K for the fluff and the models, and I want it to be written well. Simple as that.
You don't have to love everything about something in order to want the best for it. I would argue that making suggestions on how to improve a game is tough love. To just stick our heads in the sand and take it for what it is does no favours to anyone.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Again you're missing the point. The point isn't about your opinion on the relative performance of different armies and advising people away from weaker choices and toward stronger ones. It's the attitude and your choice of language that you're taking.
Furthermore you're overlooking that not everyone plays; not everyone plays the same and not everyone competes. Furthermore your'e overlooking the variation in meta states. Necrons and Grey Knights are weak now, however a new edition; a new set of rules; a new handbook edition etc.... could all change that situation.
You're taking a very hard, very bossy, very single approach to your viewpoint. Thrusting it upon others without consideration nor without taking into account the wider viewpoint.
Again its not your choice to advise people, its language, attitude and the overall way you present yourself.
Brutus_Apex wrote: This thread is the equivalent of those GOP bumper stickers. "If you don't love god, guns and government, you don'l love America, so there's the door"
I like 40K for the fluff and the models, and I want it to be written well. Simple as that.
You don't have to love everything about something in order to want the best for it. I would argue that making suggestions on how to improve a game is tough love. To just stick our heads in the sand and take it for what it is does no favours to anyone.
Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.
There's also a big difference between being disappointed with something and stating as much, and derailing Every. Single. Thread on this forum.
You couldn't have a thread about your favourite sandwich on this board without GW, Marines, and sandwich apologists getting bashed within 10 posts.
It's fine to be unhappy, it's not fine to be utterly unrelenting in complaining and talking down to others like the nonsense we're seeing about Necrons and GK right now.
I play Necrons, I have fun with Necrons, and I can win with Necrons. Can I win every matchup? No, but I don't need to. There's also a very active Necrons tactics thread, which includes other people who seem to manage to win too. That will all get drowned out by absolutes from toxic people though.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves - and the mods and people who kind of steer dakka - is whether we really want this kind of negativity to be the primary image people get of this community.
I'm kind of amazed at the level of tolerance that appears to be displayed here on that very topic.
In the real world, people who are so obsessively negative, close minded and talking in bad faith are simply ignored and rejected by everyone.
So why is such a bevhaviour tolerated here where we're basically focused on one of our few happy chosen activities... I don't know.
I could probably write a AI bot to just flag and spoiler all of these copy paste "GW don't do what I want so I hate them". After all, if you find "utterly imbalanced", "IGOUGO" and "proper rules" in a post, we all know the tone and content of it.
Brutus_Apex wrote: This thread is the equivalent of those GOP bumper stickers. "If you don't love god, guns and government, you don'l love America, so there's the door"
I like 40K for the fluff and the models, and I want it to be written well. Simple as that.
You don't have to love everything about something in order to want the best for it. I would argue that making suggestions on how to improve a game is tough love. To just stick our heads in the sand and take it for what it is does no favours to anyone.
Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.
I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.
When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
morgoth wrote: I think the question we need to ask ourselves - and the mods and people who kind of steer dakka - is whether we really want this kind of negativity to be the primary image people get of this community.
I'm kind of amazed at the level of tolerance that appears to be displayed here on that very topic.
In the real world, people who are so obsessively negative, close minded and talking in bad faith are simply ignored and rejected by everyone.
So why is such a bevhaviour tolerated here where we're basically focused on one of our few happy chosen activities... I don't know.
I could probably write a AI bot to just flag and spoiler all of these copy paste "GW don't do what I want so I hate them". After all, if you find "utterly imbalanced", "IGOUGO" and "proper rules" in a post, we all know the tone and content of it.
This is sorta funny, since it’s been those so against this negativity that have been the most rude, dismissive and insulting the passed few things I have been discussing here.
I mean, your saying that we as a community should silence and ignore those who do not agree with us, since they are close minded.
Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.
Brutus_Apex wrote: This thread is the equivalent of those GOP bumper stickers. "If you don't love god, guns and government, you don'l love America, so there's the door"
I like 40K for the fluff and the models, and I want it to be written well. Simple as that.
You don't have to love everything about something in order to want the best for it. I would argue that making suggestions on how to improve a game is tough love. To just stick our heads in the sand and take it for what it is does no favours to anyone.
Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.
I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.
When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.
I think this argument would only hold water if all GW focused communities were heavily negative. The fact that they aren't suggests that whilst there are issues that stem from the parent company, the community itself has a greater part to play in the attitude that is displayed.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Again you're missing the point. The point isn't about your opinion on the relative performance of different armies and advising people away from weaker choices and toward stronger ones. It's the attitude and your choice of language that you're taking.
Furthermore you're overlooking that not everyone plays; not everyone plays the same and not everyone competes. Furthermore your'e overlooking the variation in meta states. Necrons and Grey Knights are weak now, however a new edition; a new set of rules; a new handbook edition etc.... could all change that situation.
You're taking a very hard, very bossy, very single approach to your viewpoint. Thrusting it upon others without consideration nor without taking into account the wider viewpoint.
Again its not your choice to advise people, its language, attitude and the overall way you present yourself.
I didn't even say anything about competing. Casual anything else is better than streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights. Simple as that.
So why should someone spend their hard earned money on a "they might be good later"?
Brutus_Apex wrote: This thread is the equivalent of those GOP bumper stickers. "If you don't love god, guns and government, you don'l love America, so there's the door"
I like 40K for the fluff and the models, and I want it to be written well. Simple as that.
You don't have to love everything about something in order to want the best for it. I would argue that making suggestions on how to improve a game is tough love. To just stick our heads in the sand and take it for what it is does no favours to anyone.
Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.
I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.
When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.
I think this argument would only hold water if all GW focused communities were heavily negative. The fact that they aren't suggests that whilst there are issues that stem from the parent company, the community itself has a greater part to play in the attitude that is displayed.
I actuly think a lot are, and have mention this a bit in other posts here. Just in other ways. As I point out here just above, it’s at least from where I sit. Mostly from those who dislike this discussion that consistently sets the tone. I when I made my first reply was trying to be positive about why I am here. I even try and use the poll as honestly as I could.
Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.
I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.
When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.
Don't you see how closely your statement resembles that of a depressive person making an "objective" assessment of pretty much anything?
It's terrible, immensely terrible and nothing is as terrible...
Really?
I've seen this blindness in others. Even going as far as to pretend that other game systems are infinitely better and - why not - flawless.
Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.
Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.
I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.
More to the point: If you start Grey Knights, Necrons, or something else that has no sliver of hope of competing if anyone around you makes any effort to be more competitive you're telling your playgroup "Hey, guys, could you not use a bunch of your cool stuff because my army book can't deal with it". It isn't about whether you can win, or whether your playgroup is casual or competitive, so much as it is by picking those armies you're putting some pretty stringent limitations on your entire play environment. You either shelve any list with more than a couple of vehicles in it or the Grey Knight player has to go home and cry. Is that good for the Grey Knight player? Is that good for the player who wants to use tanks? Does anyone have a good time?
morgoth wrote: I think the question we need to ask ourselves - and the mods and people who kind of steer dakka - is whether we really want this kind of negativity to be the primary image people get of this community.
I'm kind of amazed at the level of tolerance that appears to be displayed here on that very topic.
In the real world, people who are so obsessively negative, close minded and talking in bad faith are simply ignored and rejected by everyone.
So why is such a bevhaviour tolerated here where we're basically focused on one of our few happy chosen activities... I don't know.
I could probably write a AI bot to just flag and spoiler all of these copy paste "GW don't do what I want so I hate them". After all, if you find "utterly imbalanced", "IGOUGO" and "proper rules" in a post, we all know the tone and content of it.
Empty forums make for excellent echo chambers.
Mods are not positivity police and neither should you be.
Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.
I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.
When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.
Don't you see how closely your statement resembles that of a depressive person making an "objective" assessment of pretty much anything?
It's terrible, immensely terrible and nothing is as terrible...
Really?
I've seen this blindness in others. Even going as far as to pretend that other game systems are infinitely better and - why not - flawless.
How realistic does that sound?
What.
Well, depressive hmm. I am not at all, in fact I find the discussion amusing and interesting. But reading into text is hard.
I also do not think the game is terrible, immensely terrible and nothing is as terrible. And taking that from my statement seems like you are reading into it with the negativity you are pushing onto me.
One thing I have mention a few times here is I think GW could work it all out if they sat back and did just that, rather than pile more on with a scatter design.
But here is the thing, I do see the insults in this thread, I see it when it come up in the USR thread. Whiner, wingers, complainers, depressed with nothing going on in there lives, and that is why they can post all the time.
This is all just from the last week or this thread. Now I do not think that it’s all once side, but reading your own post.
It would seem you are doing exactly what you are in such support of removing.
But here is the thing, I do see the insults in this thread, I see it when it come up in the USR thread. Whiner, wingers, complainers, depressed with nothing going on in there lives, and that is why they can post all the time.
See? I don't get this line of thinking. It's almost 2020- millions of people have smartphones that they can browse things with in their downtime. Maybe they're painting, having a gak, cooking dinner or waiting for another game. Why is the idea that only people actively playing the game are not posting as they "are doing other things"? You can be doing any of the above and more and still post on forums quite frequently.
At the end of the day, they've always said they're casual players not competitive. The game is about having fun with your mates, not net-listing a tournament.
if 40k ever becomes the casual friendly, fun for me and my mates and not "one unit is obviously better than the other" (don't even need net-listing for that) game again, I am glad to give it a try again will move some minis around.
But I haven't had much fun with the game since the end of 5th, tried to give each edition a chance but got more and more the feeling that you need to constantly be with the game and keep track on the releases to have fun.
Not the "take your already long ago painted Minis once every 3 months to a campaign weekend or visit the store/club once a month, have some good games, purchase 1 or 2 boxes of minis you like enjoy painting them and play again"
Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.
Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.
I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.
I think I could find a few, but it comes down to. Is it the same tired complaints, or a continuation of issues. It’s the same reason I think GW has lead a lot of this far more than people realise. I regular ply get a few people who want me to set up 40k tournaments again here. And the response is Luke warm at best, the same people who would sit and say there was nothing wrong, are now sitting alone with no one to play with.
Now our area is probably unique, but I think it’s a real possibility that we are not entirely unique.
Thinking to news, I liked several things. But in both cases did not like other things. Then in both cases so far I have been so outpriced that It sour the positives I had. This my personal experiance with GW news and rulers recently.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.
Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.
Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.
I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.
I think I could find a few, but it comes down to. Is it the same tired complaints, or a continuation of issues. It’s the same reason I think GW has lead a lot of this far more than people realise. I regular ply get a few people who want me to set up 40k tournaments again here. And the response is Luke warm at best, the same people who would sit and say there was nothing wrong, are now sitting alone with no one to play with.
Now our area is probably unique, but I think it’s a real possibility that we are not entirely unique.
Thinking to news, I liked several things. But in both cases did not like other things. Then in both cases so far I have been so outpriced that It sour the positives I had. This my personal experiance with GW news and rulers recently.
I'm not sure I see the difference between the same tired complaints and a continuation of issues? I think the issue is that people want 40k and GW to be something they're not, and take every opportunity to vent when they don't get what they want.
I've been in the hobby for over 20 years. Marines have always gotten more releases than other factions. That doesn't mean we need to sit through the same nonsense every time a marine release is announced. Whether it's a continuation of an issue or not doesn't matter, it's a broken record, and it's not going to change.
It's incredibly frustrating to jump into a thread on a new release to see what it's like and all you see is page after page of the same arguments and negativity. You can sum up any thread with scary accuracy- yes it's Marines not Xenos, all Marines should be rolled into one codex, the price increased, GW doesn't know it's customer, it's trash, GW can't balance, let's wait for tournament results, it's now OP, GW can't balance, why did chaos not get the this, more bloat, and so on.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.
Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.
Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.
Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.
I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.
I think I could find a few, but it comes down to. Is it the same tired complaints, or a continuation of issues. It’s the same reason I think GW has lead a lot of this far more than people realise. I regular ply get a few people who want me to set up 40k tournaments again here. And the response is Luke warm at best, the same people who would sit and say there was nothing wrong, are now sitting alone with no one to play with.
Now our area is probably unique, but I think it’s a real possibility that we are not entirely unique.
Thinking to news, I liked several things. But in both cases did not like other things. Then in both cases so far I have been so outpriced that It sour the positives I had. This my personal experiance with GW news and rulers recently.
I'm not sure I see the difference between the same tired complaints and a continuation of issues? I think the issue is that people want 40k and GW to be something they're not, and take every opportunity to vent when they don't get what they want.
I've been in the hobby for over 20 years. Marines have always gotten more releases than other factions. That doesn't mean we need to sit through the same nonsense every time a marine release is announced. Whether it's a continuation of an issue or not doesn't matter, it's a broken record, and it's not going to change.
It's incredibly frustrating to jump into a thread on a new release to see what it's like and all you see is page after page of the same arguments and negativity. You can some up any thread with scary accuracy- yes it's Marines not Xenos, all Marines should be rolled into one codex, the price increased, GW doesn't know it's customer, it's trash, GW can't balance, let's wait for tournament results, it's now OP, GW can't balance, why did chaos not get the this, more bloat, and so on.
Even the inconsistency of arguments is tiresome.
I will just give a short response as I want to eat.
But I have also being in the hobby for 20 years now.
And I have been waiting for a single charecter release for the entire time, and I am still waiting. It sounds like all ongoing issues that GW has yet to fix when I read a lot of it. I can shift though it and left quite positive at the end of the day, in the end this could be that I play several games. I also buy alternatives where I can. GW just being GW does not impact my life as it seems some posters may think it may.
With marines, I see it both as a thing that’s annoying. But I also worry that there own mistakes have led to a reliance on space marines where even a positive and well reserved release is not enough to cover for the time it’s taken. And that is a worry I think others probably share.
In the 3 other main games I play, my factions have all got more support this year than GW has support my current 40k army’s in 5 years.
Maybe all things in life, games included, create bitterness for some people.
Maybe there's always a thin share of those people who can't let go of that bitterness, somehow hoping they can get their time or interest - or really anything at all - back after this perceived betrayal of their own dreams.
Maybe when a game is as successful and lasts as long as 40K, those thin shares pile up and the accumulated stack of bitter spectres becomes enough to create what I've just named "the dakka effect", where an uninformed observer could have the impression that 50% of people are just iredeemably pissed at 40K and GW.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.
Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.
I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate for Crons at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.
Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.
I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.
Then you must be opposed to the faction receiving any buffs or improvements anytime soon then. I look forward to seeing your objections come Chapter Approved!
Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.
Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.
I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.
Dont think that they can help themselves. It seems an innate desire to gak all over anything not to their liking cannot be quenched.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.
Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.
I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.
Then you must be opposed to the faction receiving any buffs or improvements anytime soon then. I look forward to seeing your objections come Chapter Approved!
From a competitive standpoint things don't get more balanced than 50%, the external balance could use a little work and internal balance is pretty bad, but I'd be sad if Immortals or Doomsday Arks got any cheaper.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.
Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.
I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.
Then you must be opposed to the faction receiving any buffs or improvements anytime soon then. I look forward to seeing your objections come Chapter Approved!
This is the kind of asinine argument this thread has needed to prove the point.
Apparently a faction is either bottom tier or perfect and not on need of any updates. Cool.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.
Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.
I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate for Crons at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.
There isn't really a point atm for my main army to be fielded because of the fact that it is basically a predetermined conclusion to the match.
Basically.
So yeah atm i am more painting and building then playing.
As for the big number of unhappy players 7th too 8th was a shift in design paradigms however gw has fallen back into their old Modus operandi.
That people are unhappy about that is understandable.
Further many like the hobby not because of the game but often despite it.
There are miserable people in life who don’t know how or to or don’t want to figure out more productive ways to vent their frustration or find better things to do with their time.
I get it, this is a game we all love. We don’t own it. If it changes and we don’t like it, too bad. Move on. There are more important things in life to worry about.
This is pretty much what I am referring to. The start of 8th was very manageable. We adapted the rules by unanimous consent to work more in a way we thought made sense... like if you’re behind a building, you get cover whether or not you’re “in” it.
We found the balance reasonable. As a Guard player, I gave myself a 10% disadvantage in points, and things played really well for my group.
My interest in 40k resumed! I was playing again after *almost* selling off my collections at the middle of 7th. I was content with the game. Sure it needed a few tweaks, but we could handle that.
But then the rules bloat started... free stuff started coming back into the game with not-formations. Chapter Tactics spread. Decurian-style benefits are returning. The ills of 7th are plaguing us again and I’m unhappy with the game again.
greatbigtree wrote: This is pretty much what I am referring to. The start of 8th was very manageable. We adapted the rules by unanimous consent to work more in a way we thought made sense... like if you’re behind a building, you get cover whether or not you’re “in” it.
We found the balance reasonable. As a Guard player, I gave myself a 10% disadvantage in points, and things played really well for my group.
My interest in 40k resumed! I was playing again after *almost* selling off my collections at the middle of 7th. I was content with the game. Sure it needed a few tweaks, but we could handle that.
But then the rules bloat started... free stuff started coming back into the game with not-formations. Chapter Tactics spread. Decurian-style benefits are returning. The ills of 7th are plaguing us again and I’m unhappy with the game again.
Yep, in the form of even more books.
The difference in quality is also often night and Day, even in the same book.
E.g. Csm dex traits, Vigilus traits, index fw astra militarum compared to gw index imperium,new 2.0 dex csm to C:SM dex 2.0, etc.
It's like gw went to simple with base 8th and now has to introduce something to get depth back, except they this time charge even more for it for faux Choice.
The Necron argument is surely a good case for why "if you win a tournament its fine" shouldn't be the be-all and end all.
I think Necrons have a viable list.
Its just that it consists of:
Characters
Immortals
Tomb Blades
Destroyers
Scarabs (maybe, depending on your list something as chaff/go get objectives is probably necessary)
Doomsday Arks
Doom Scythes.
And - possibly sadly - the meta seems to be going away from Immortals. Probably because its 30 or nothing, and 450 points is a lot to drop just for some extra CP, which are not exactly giving you amazing abilities anyway. You can take some chunky units of Tomb Blades that are more vulnerable to D2, but for one point more have an extra point of toughness and are much faster so much more flexible on the table. With say 18 wounds rather than 10 you have a better chance of reanimation protocols going off. No MWBD which sucks - but then you are free to roam the table rather than blob up around your characters as immortals tend to.
And you know what? Compared to a lot of factions, that roster of okay units isn't that bad.
Its just a shame the rest of what the faction has to offer is obviously rubbish. Lychguard are terrible, flayed ones are terrible and the monolith is terrible. Praetorians are terrible - and due to GW's "brilliant" design idea of "no chapter tactic for you don't worry as we make chapter tactics the key to modern 40k", they will likely never be good (certain DE bitterness creeping in here).
Hopefully CA will shake up the meta by tuning various options - not just for Necrons, but for all the factions.
greatbigtree wrote: This is pretty much what I am referring to. The start of 8th was very manageable. We adapted the rules by unanimous consent to work more in a way we thought made sense... like if you’re behind a building, you get cover whether or not you’re “in” it.
We found the balance reasonable. As a Guard player, I gave myself a 10% disadvantage in points, and things played really well for my group.
My interest in 40k resumed! I was playing again after *almost* selling off my collections at the middle of 7th. I was content with the game. Sure it needed a few tweaks, but we could handle that.
But then the rules bloat started... free stuff started coming back into the game with not-formations. Chapter Tactics spread. Decurian-style benefits are returning. The ills of 7th are plaguing us again and I’m unhappy with the game again.
Likewise, I'm in the same boat. Been playing 40k since I started wargaming and took 6th and 7th off as they are frankly the drizzling gaks of excuses for wargames. I came back with 8th. I bought into what GW said. They kept that promise initially but now the bloat (and simultaneous removal of units. Pick a lane GW) and stupidity has been doubled down on and we're back to the same problems that plagued 7th. I frankly don't want to play another game of 40k right now unless it is against close friends. I'm not interested in getting my lovingly converted army getting blown off the board in turn 2 by some idiot with their FOTM souped up SM army that was a different chapter last month.
But no, I'm just a bItTeR hAteR!!! and other such things that the positivity police need to label people with as I have dared criticise their sweet m'lady GW.
I guess the haterade rolls off me and the positivity police don’t bother me. I’ll be honest, vitriol is unpleasant no matter which side of the fence I’m on.
I tend to give more attention / respect to an opinion that has a point of view that doesn’t slag someone else. I can be unhappy about the current state of the game without slagging GW as incompetent, or slagging people that are content with the game.
Different people like different things. When a new player comes to the forum, asking about this faction or that, I tend to ask, “what are you looking for in this game?”
If not-auto-losing is important, then advising caution when building a weak faction is valuable advice for someone. As is mentioning that the game changes, and that the FotM may change next week and make something really powerful.
If they want advice on how to best mix sub-optimal units into a force, advise on how best to do that, with a caveat that they’re going to be facing an uphill battle in a “typical” meta. If you like the look of a unit with poor rules, but really like the model/s and want to use it, here’s the best way, and some additional units and strategy that will mitigate the weakness.
I don’t have a particular nostalgia for any edition, though early 6th (Before Knights) was my favourite edition. I liked being able to blend a small allied detachment into a main force, before the FOC basically went out the window and super-heavies created the most skewed of skew lists. I don’t ever expect the game to go backwards to a more limited format. It doesn’t need to. Just the core mechanics need to be more able to differentiate the wider spread of scope.
So here I am. Hopeful that by contributing my thoughts to this community it might someday influence the designers to create a game more to my liking. Sure, it’s a long shot. But it makes sense to take it, when the alternative is to give up on a hobby I want to have ties to.
Then you must be opposed to the faction receiving any buffs or improvements anytime soon then. I look forward to seeing your objections come Chapter Approved!
Again this is the black and white kind of post that just drives me batty. A codex can be competitive, but also bland, because some units within it don't stack up.
Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?
I'm still curious about the game and am waiting for a positive change in the game.
Interesting that this is the highest pick atm.
The games comes and goes. 8th Edition has been pretty good. No reason for casuals not to get into the game.
If your a comp player that comes and goes too. Atm probably a tough time to enter. But before we had Knights and Ynnari be pains. But the amount of tournaments is at an all time high so technically a good time to get into the game but be prepared to meta chase a little.
Crablezworth wrote: Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?
Crablezworth wrote: Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?
Here's your case study, folks.
Sorry, an edition without terrain rules is objectively good and anyone disagreeing with that is morally flawed or something.
regarding people who want to see positive change, I'm reminded of people who'd stick around a MMO looong after they ceased to like it, complaining all the whiole and insisting they're sticking around because the game has "so much potential" I'm not saying that it's exactly the same but as someone who fell into that trap I found stepping away and taking a real break was REALLY useful
They gave you a lot to play with. I admit the stuff is all over the place and imo all missions that have been released in 1 year should be reprinted in the respective CA like a catalogue, so you don't have to look up 3 different books for a mission.
But most of the stuff isn't matched played, and the rest falls under the no thank you to armies that make my army worse, so you can have fun. Double that if their army work just fine under normal match played rules. People interest in other people fun stops at their own wallet.
Well, if you choose to stick only to one narrow way of playing 40K I don't think that's GWs fault. In every WD and many Community articles they encourage you to play however you like and mix between different ways to play (like narrative with points, for example).
And I can't agree on the second part of your vote and I'm not even sure if I get it right. How does having fun with your opponent have anything to do with money (apart from buying minis, of course)? I think it just shows that the community you're in seems very focussed on Win at all costs, but I can't imagine how that even works for a whole gaming group.
The problem there is the culture of the community. I personally would love to play random homebrewed missions with mixed point totals, the open war cards, whatever. However, my local store is pretty much strictly 2000pt matched play ITC pick up games. It's very difficult to plan anything more complex than that without a lot of extra pre-planning and logistical work and the person may bail on you in the end because real life gets in the way. Back before I moved, I had a legit group of friends that all played and we regularly messed around with games like this. but I moved, and now I'm at the mercy of a store community I haven't been able to mesh with yet. I haven't played in like 8 months now due to this.
If that's the case I wonder what GW is even supposed to do. They release refined terrain rules, but people on this board will tell you "nobody plays that way". They release a mere suggestion for tournament play ("rule of 3)" but some people treat it as if that was a rule for all ways to play. Seems arbitrary to me. Same with ITC house rules, that seem to be widely accepted in the USA (and hardly known in europe). If a community can accept ITC rules, it's just as easy to say: Today we're playing Cities of Death, but all matched play rules still apply.
Well on that? GW really should stay silent concerning tourney play. If indeed they're "casual gamers" & design & intend their games to be played that way, then the most they should ever say is that "We do not design our games with the tournament scene in mind." and leave it at that. If you then all go & use 40k in a tourney setting & get wonky results? Well, so what? You were told it's not designed for that environment....
regarding people who want to see positive change, I'm reminded of people who'd stick around a MMO looong after they ceased to like it, complaining all the whiole and insisting they're sticking around because the game has "so much potential" I'm not saying that it's exactly the same but as someone who fell into that trap I found stepping away and taking a real break was REALLY useful
Breaks definitely can be good. Since quitting 40k, I've gotten back into Magic (which has its own issues currently- WOTC is making GW-esque decisions with increasing frequency, but it's still fun) and have read up on many other games I would like to play, and will hopefully soon get some forces painted up to bring to the LGS.
I stay around because I do want to see 40K become a game I would enjoy again. I visit the MEDGe forum to stay up to date, browse trough painting and modeling, and proposed rules and Dakka discussions.
AnomanderRake wrote: More to the point: If you start Grey Knights, Necrons, or something else that has no sliver of hope of competing if anyone around you makes any effort to be more competitive you're telling your playgroup "Hey, guys, could you not use a bunch of your cool stuff because my army book can't deal with it".
Pfft. I'm saying no such thing. What I am saying to them is Challenge Accepted.
I'm a veteran minis-gamer. I'm well aware when I'm dialing the difficulty up to 11 for myself. And rest assured that I'm confidant that by bringing ______, no matter what you bring, I'll be able to have (and give) a fun & challenging game.
AnomanderRake wrote: It isn't about whether you can win, or whether your playgroup is casual or competitive, so much as it is by picking those armies you're putting some pretty stringent limitations on your entire play environment. You either shelve any list with more than a couple of vehicles in it or the Grey Knight player has to go home and cry. Is that good for the Grey Knight player? Is that good for the player who wants to use tanks? Does anyone have a good time?
If it's me bringing the gak? Don't worry about it. That's on me. As long as you've got a legal list, bring whatever you like. We'll have a better game than you think we will.
If my opponents not having fun vs stuff I'm fielding (as in it's too strong for them)? All they have to do is talk to me. I've got an extensive collection (the benefit of having done this for 30 years). And there's nothing in it that I don't enjoy playing with. So, as I'm ALWAYS leaving cool stuff at home, I don't have any problem changing what I bring next time*.
* Though if it's not SW/Dreadnoughts/Khorne Demons/Ad Mech/or pure Vostryan infantry IG I'll need to dig it out of storage....
The Ad Mech & Vostroyans are currently on my painting table.
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.
Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.
I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate for Crons at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.
Um no they really have not.
40kstats = 49% win-rate 3% of primary factions in lists and 3% of top 4s in GTs. There is no big external balance problem for Necrons, there are problems internally and there are other factions that need bigger or smaller nerfs to their most powerful lists, but Necrons are not bottom of the barrel.
Now, will you please stop trying to make people not play Necrons? If they like the aesthetics and the lore they'll find a way to make the rules work for them. You can say "I think Necrons and Grey Knights are pretty weak, you might have a difficult time winning games, I'd suggest you play x faction if you want to win more". You had an argument back in 5th, 6th or 7th when a codex might not even come in an edition, now we get CA once a year + FAQs that sometimes nerf powerful factions.
From a competitive standpoint things don't get more balanced than 50%.
in a different topic the statement was that a balanced army in 40k has 70% win rate (to counter the argument that a specific faction is over powered)
and the disagreement on such basic values also is a reason why the discussions always end up the same
I was ridiculing people that said IH were balanced in Maelstrom and only broken in ITC by saying that even if IH are even more absurd in ITC that they still had an unreasonably high win-rate upon release in Maelstrom games. 70% is not good or fair, it was a huge failure by the playtesters, one that it seems the game designers set their playtesters up for by suggesting poor testing mechanics.
I walked into Dakka Dakka when it was an actual store on their 11th day of being open. I was there when the website went online but immediately forgot my password.
I played 40k there for years.
I stay here for all my gaming related stuff.
I used to post artwork until they locked my thread for necromancy even though I followed the rules about posting new and relevant content.
I like to come here to read opinions like "games workshop should just produce more miniatures and sell them cheaper" ... even though GW's production facilities are running full bore almost 24 hours a day 7 days a week and they are constantly selling out of what they produce the most (new products).
Apparently new production facilities are being built so that will be interesting once they are done.
I also poke my head in to believe the fantasy that i get to play more than I really do. Sometimes going on the forums will inspire me to arrange a game IRL, work on an old project, pick up new hobby materials, etc.
I also like to check on if Slayer, Peregrine and Martel are doing okay. Where is Martel? Did GW fix blood angels?
nareik wrote: I like to come here to read opinions like "games workshop should just produce more miniatures and sell them cheaper" ... even though GW's production facilities are running full bore almost 24 hours a day 7 days a week and they are constantly selling out of what they produce the most (new products).
Apparently new production facilities are being built so that will be interesting once they are done.
I also poke my head in to believe the fantasy that i get to play more than I really do. Sometimes going on the forums will inspire me to arrange a game IRL, work on an old project, pick up new hobby materials, etc.
I also like to check on if Slayer, Peregrine and Martel are doing okay. Where is Martel? Did GW fix blood angels?
To my knowledge Martel changed to C:SM 2 and uses the self build traits to simulate BA.
And he seems a lot happier for it.
But he also rarely comments nowadays cause Marines are not bad anymore.
Brother Castor wrote: Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.
I disagree that Dakka is negative about the hobby. Check out the painting and modelling section, not really any negativity there, for example. Or the Fiction section for people's homebrew army fluff.
What there is on Dakka, is criticism of GWs business model and of GWs ability to write rules for the game. Some people are unable to separate the hobby from the company that makes things for them to use in your hobby.
I've lost my Mojo - but I have invested so much time, money and effort into the game that I hope I will get the enthusiasm back at some point.
GW are so hit and miss right now - I'm either cheering for them, or wondering wtf are they smoking, and feeling sad about the missed opportunities.
They also still appear to be unable to write balanced rules for toffee, so there is that (not necessarily an issue for me given I only play casually now).
There isn't really a point atm for my main army to be fielded because of the fact that it is basically a predetermined conclusion to the match. Basically.
This is the definition of salt. "The match is predetermined because my army is underpowered." That is salt, classic salt. Like in a fighting game if you keep spamming a move and your opponent doesn't know how to counter it and says that you're just using an easy cheese tactic or that they only lose because they are using a bad character, that's salt. You can either embrace the salt and say "hey I'm a salty guy, I have every right to be, my faction is kind of garbo ATM, I'll stop being salty when my faction is more balanced" or you can say "I guess I am salty, I'll stop it immediately". But this "Nah I'm not salty" does not make sense.
I was salty when the first codexes came out in 8th and Necrons which were already a poor faction got left in the dirt and then buried below the dirt in anticipation of the codex by nerfing the Pylon with CA17, I quit my faction for a while and played Craftworlds that already had their codex, salt is justified at times IMO. Thankfully balance advocacy does work in 2019, GW messed up with IH and toned things down, they'll need to be toned down another two or three times probably before they are put in their place, we'll see, I'm glad GW toned down the worst of it within a month instead of waiting 6 months like some people wanted. GK are going to get some of the bigger buffs in psychic awakening, obviously Drukhari and Craftworlds didn't get much, they were already top competitive factions. GW knows that GK are a problem, I'm more worried about Harlequins and Dark Angels which might just float under the radar. Especially if GW wants to continue with same prices for different chapters, even in different books BA are going to pay another 40-70 pts for Smash Captains and DA will pay full price for tanks with half the rules.
Edit: This was not meant as a personal attack and I did not mean to imply that NotOnline!!! is a bad player although I understand why my comment might come across that way.
Thank you all for the responses. It pleases me to see that about 2/3rds of respondents on here that don't play 40k are here because they either like keeping up to date with 40k, and/or because they are waiting to see the game get better. I hope some folks can come forward with ideas for the second open question, as I don't think I've seen (or may have missed) any answers to that.
There isn't really a point atm for my main army to be fielded because of the fact that it is basically a predetermined conclusion to the match.
Basically.
This is the definition of salt. "The match is predetermined because my army is underpowered." That is salt, classic salt. Like in a fighting game if you keep spamming a move and your opponent doesn't know how to counter it and says that you're just using an easy cheese tactic or that they only lose because they are using a bad character, that's salt. You can either embrace the salt and say "hey I'm a salty guy, I have every right to be, my faction is kind of garbo ATM, I'll stop being salty when my faction is more balanced" or you can say "I guess I am salty, I'll stop it immediately". But this "Nah I'm not salty" does not make sense.
I was salty when the first codexes came out in 8th and Necrons which were already a poor faction got left in the dirt and then buried below the dirt in anticipation of the codex by nerfing the Pylon with CA17, I quit my faction for a while and played Craftworlds that already had their codex, salt is justified at times IMO. Thankfully balance advocacy does work in 2019, GW messed up with IH and toned things down, they'll need to be toned down another two or three times probably before they are put in their place, we'll see, I'm glad GW toned down the worst of it within a month instead of waiting 6 months like some people wanted. GK are going to get some of the bigger buffs in psychic awakening, obviously Drukhari and Craftworlds didn't get much, they were already top competitive factions. GW knows that GK are a problem, I'm more worried about Harlequins and Dark Angels which might just float under the radar. Especially if GW wants to continue with same prices for different chapters, even in different books BA are going to pay another 40-70 pts for Smash Captains and DA will pay full price for tanks with half the rules.
Lol. Again, I state what i percive according to Schulze von Thun as a factual statement.
Secondly: I'd like to see where you can turn that into a positive spin for Renegades and heretics. I did my 77 rounds with a high end win rate during index of about 45% to a low rate recently to less then 25%, i personally like uphill battles but there is a point where i deem the question necessary of what the point is when the intention is an actuall challangeing game won through skill. But sure, i must be salty and a bad player, btw i switched back to CSM preciscly because my R&H army couldn't perform. Further unlike in a fighting game, last time i checked not all off us can just switch out chosen factions and archetypes like fighters in one. I got lucky that i still have had 2 csm warbands and projects i had lying around others might not.
Further many like the hobby not because of the game but often despite it.
"Nobody really likes 40K and neither should you"
That's not a fair take on their post at all. I, too, like 40K despite the game's rules, not because of them. The game itself is a mess and if released on the market today with anyone but GW behind it, would be a dismal failure. But the models are great and I like the background, so I stick with it and eagerly hope that some of the refreshingly modern changes introduced in Apoc and Kill Team make their way into 40K proper.
It's not 'nobody likes 40K'. It's 'some people like 40K for reasons other than the game itself'.
There isn't really a point atm for my main army to be fielded because of the fact that it is basically a predetermined conclusion to the match.
Basically.
"My army can't win ever"
That quote would actually apply equally well to an incredibly underpowered army and a massively overpowered army if your intent is to have a fun game. Stomping someone with no difficulty is equally as boring as being stomped with no difficulty.
Crablezworth wrote: Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?
Here's your case study, folks.
Sorry, an edition without terrain rules is objectively good and anyone disagreeing with that is morally flawed or something.
See, but you didn't say that. You said 8th was hot garbage and accused others who like it of believing its the only game around.
It was a substance-less low-effort post. The kind of gak that drives people nuts.
Sure, the terrain rules are NOT fantastic - that's why I play ITC. It doesn't make the game hot garbage.
Crablezworth wrote: Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?
Here's your case study, folks.
Sorry, an edition without terrain rules is objectively good and anyone disagreeing with that is morally flawed or something.
See, but you didn't say that. You said 8th was hot garbage and accused others who like it of believing its the only game around.
It was a substance-less low-effort post. The kind of gak that drives people nuts.
Sure, the terrain rules are NOT fantastic - that's why I play ITC. It doesn't make the game hot garbage.
What does create garbage games is poor external/internal balance and IGOUGO, which is frankly an outdated system. People STILL defend it for whatever fething reason though, and we still have some clown defending the state of Necrons in this thread too!
Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.
Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.
Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.
I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate for Crons at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.
Um no they really have not.
40kstats = 49% win-rate 3% of primary factions in lists and 3% of top 4s in GTs. There is no big external balance problem for Necrons, there are problems internally and there are other factions that need bigger or smaller nerfs to their most powerful lists, but Necrons are not bottom of the barrel.
Now, will you please stop trying to make people not play Necrons? If they like the aesthetics and the lore they'll find a way to make the rules work for them. You can say "I think Necrons and Grey Knights are pretty weak, you might have a difficult time winning games, I'd suggest you play x faction if you want to win more". You had an argument back in 5th, 6th or 7th when a codex might not even come in an edition, now we get CA once a year + FAQs that sometimes nerf powerful factions.
From a competitive standpoint things don't get more balanced than 50%.
in a different topic the statement was that a balanced army in 40k has 70% win rate (to counter the argument that a specific faction is over powered)
and the disagreement on such basic values also is a reason why the discussions always end up the same
I was ridiculing people that said IH were balanced in Maelstrom and only broken in ITC by saying that even if IH are even more absurd in ITC that they still had an unreasonably high win-rate upon release in Maelstrom games. 70% is not good or fair, it was a huge failure by the playtesters, one that it seems the game designers set their playtesters up for by suggesting poor testing mechanics.
LOL at using 40k stats. They take even small time tournaments for their statistics. That's one of the worst websites to make use of your argument.
What does create garbage games is poor external/internal balance and IGOUGO, which is frankly an outdated system. People STILL defend it for whatever fething reason though, and we still have some clown defending the state of Necrons in this thread too!
People "defend" IGOUGO, because alternating activations is abuseable in a game like 40K where players are allowed to take units of varying sizes and strengths. Proposals need layers of rules to make it work. And THEN if you were successful at implementing such a system you'd likely have to rework the balance of all the units.
Its totally out of scope for the edition.
We're going to play IGOUGO, because it is the system we have. It's great to push for change. It's great to debate options. It's a total dick move to pretend like you've got the answers to everything and act like those that oppose you are clueless morons / white knights.
Regarding Necrons - this is another common issue. People talking out both sides of their mouth. They'll be happy to point to 40kstats and show how terrible GK are, but then when you see 40kstats showing Necrons sitting in a decent spot, oh, well that data doesn't count! 40kstats IS a terrible method for analyzing performance, but it's also a decent DIRECTIONAL tool to assess issues.
People who play Necrons can win games. Are they going 5 for 5? No, but that doesn't make the game unplayable for them or make it impossible for them to have fun.
There isn't really a point atm for my main army to be fielded because of the fact that it is basically a predetermined conclusion to the match.
Basically.
"My army can't win ever"
That quote would actually apply equally well to an incredibly underpowered army and a massively overpowered army if your intent is to have a fun game. Stomping someone with no difficulty is equally as boring as being stomped with no difficulty.
It applies to R&H in this case, so make of that what you want. I also am by far not new to the army, having started it during the free FW pdf for vraksian renegades. (4th?!? )
But atm there is not a point to play them due to the simple fact that most indexes allready were better, against most codexes i'd have to run mass horde skew and that is not really funny or how i build my R&H army.
I find it difficult to understand the IGOUGO complaint. This is 40k, and it's turn based system has been ongoing for 30 years.
If you don't want it, play a system that actually matches your preference.
The idea that if GW were to release 40k now and fail is absurd too. If any new game came out with the depth and range that 40k has they would take over just as much.
It's also the size of the range that makes it so hard to balance.
Sentineil wrote: I find it difficult to understand the IGOUGO complaint. This is 40k, and it's turn based system has been ongoing for 30 years.
If you don't want it, play a system that actually matches your preference.
The idea that if GW were to release 40k now and fail is absurd too. If any new game came out with the depth and range that 40k has they would take over just as much.
It's also the size of the range that makes it so hard to balance.
Community size.
Issue is most people want a return of their investment, and whilest GW isn't as monolothic a company as MS, it's still the MONOLITH of miniature gaming.
And GW themselves offer alternatives, f.e. KT or APOC. The issue is more the fact that GW offers these alternatives and they show promise and are often ultimately better balanced and deeper mechanics wise yet GW refuses to learn from these, even though they promised to change in early 8th.
Another issue is traits, during 7th some armies gained a kinda prototype of traits and stratagems, these were balanced around point costs though, (e.g. IA13, Corsairs, Legion supplements) now you get the poor internal balance that comes with the basic Pts price tag of 0.
I mean traits are great, to personalize etc, but you can't tell me a AL marine is equally worth 13 pts compared to a WB one. Which is hillarious considering the wider imbalances during 7th ed.
IGOUGO has always been fine because the level of speed and lethality has always been lower than it is today, and terrain blocked line of sight. These factors mitigated the ability of an army to delete multiple enemy units on the first turn, and proper deployment meant that you could be quite safe if your opponent got the first turn. Now that terrain almost never blocks line of sight, everything moves quickly and can charge absurd distances, and shooting units have double or more the number of shots they used to have, the issue rears its ugly head.
You can fix it by abandoning IGOUGO, or you can fix it by reducing the speed of infantry models, toning down the power of shooting, and making terrain block line of sight like it used to. Then most people will magically stop complaining about IGOUGO.
unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.
Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well
Generally the issue was solved in 7th by pricing the HQ that generated the trait ith an additional cost, whilest some upgrades also were unlocked. F.e. You wanted to run quasi bloodpact, you had to first pay for the "bloody handed reaver" 35 pts (an upgrade for 1 HQ, which then unlocked 10 pts flat upgrades for Renegade veterans into grenadier squads. Further these had additional requirments, some demanded that you field altleast 3 militia plattons out of atleast 3 x15 Militia members, others demanded all units need to be upgraded with xyz.
It was less book keepy then it sounds and fairly straight forward and also alot better balanced overall then what are now traits. And that was in 7th.
The argument against IGOUGO is that its not especially interactive as players get to do their full output all at once. Due to the damage output of units (which just goes up, and up, and up) this can mean armies are effectively broken by the player going second's turn 3 - and you are just playing out the formalities/chasing a full on tabling.
In theory an alternative activations system would allow for more interactivity - and you wouldn't potentially start the game (or start your second turn) with say 20-40% of your army already dead. Rather than making say 5 "plays" in the gawme (with decisions being impacted only by past success/failure) - you could be making potentially 50, as depending on what your opponent does and so on.
In practice though you are completely changing the game - and yes, you would need a complete rebalance. The amount of time to play a game would also increase - which isn't a problem in itself, it would just mean people would use smaller armies. This is however unlikely to be commercially attractive to GW - both due to the absolute quantity of how much stuff people want, and the fact you have these huge ranges.
Really though I'm not sure what people really want from alternative activations. I think the dream is a sort of computer game RTS type model - where players are constantly interacting. I think this is sort of similar to how people think vehicle facings and armour values gave the game "more strategy" - when to my mind at least it didn't really.
In reality I don't think this is possible. 40k is fundamentally a game where you roll dice and stuff dies. There isn't such a thing as a "perfect" play - even if having your whole army swept of the table because your opponent happens to have hot dice is disappointing.
unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.
Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well
Generally the issue was solved in 7th by pricing the HQ that generated the trait ith an additional cost, whilest some upgrades also were unlocked. F.e. You wanted to run quasi bloodpact, you had to first pay for the "bloody handed reaver" 35 pts (an upgrade for 1 HQ, which then unlocked 10 pts flat upgrades for Renegade veterans into grenadier squads. Further these had additional requirments, some demanded that you field altleast 3 militia plattons out of atleast 3 x15 Militia members, others demanded all units need to be upgraded with xyz.
It was less book keepy then it sounds and fairly straight forward and also alot better balanced overall then what are now traits. And that was in 7th.
I know that link comes up a lot on how GW make new units OP for sales, but it really doesn't actually stand up in practice. How do we explain most of the new Ork releases being hot garbage (not my words), the new Eldar releases being similar, SM Reivers being less than average, and the host of other examples. Does it happen from time to time if they want to push a model? Probably. Is it a defining feature of their sales method? No.
I like the idea of having warlord traits open doors for army wide traits, bit on its own it doesn't scale at all. If you add in that additional points cost to every unit, then you get back into the micro management. Sure it works for Blood Pact, but that's because that's the only option. When you have 6-8 it just makes it unwieldy.
unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.
I think you've mistaken lack of concern for strategic mishandling of rules. The rules are not perfect, because they don't put enough resources behind it not because they want to push models. And they don't put a lot behind it, because of their confidentiality concerns. It's not wildly different from 'The Formula':
Most people here would find AoS to be an unbalanced system and yet the closing statement of the post you referenced says this, which says volumes about ones perceived perspective of his comments :
Glad you like AoS though Whatever people think of it, it was a real breath of fresh air. I used to have to teach kids how to play Warhammer, and I envy the shop guys who have to do it these days!
Problem with IGOUGO aka alternating player turns comes usually with turns taking too long and going second being a huge disadvantage
Alternating player turns are not a big problem for Warmachine/Hordes or Kinbgs of War
Neither it was during 5th.
People just like to act as if this would solve all Balance Problems of 40k immediately, same as changing from a D6 to D12 would.
But, this is not true, as if a designer is not able to make Alternating Player Turns work out well, no chance that Alternating Unit Activation won't be messed up too (same is if the all the possible variability of a profile values from 1-10 and a D6 is not used, it won't be with a D12 either)
It is just that GW proofs that they are able to write rules from time to time, they just mess up maintaining it and the longer an Edition last the worse are the issues.
(a reason why AoS is the better game at the moment, as the edition is not as old and therefore the issues are not as big, but it is already changing and soon with 9th, 40k will be the better game again)
Brother Castor wrote: Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.
I disagree that Dakka is negative about the hobby. Check out the painting and modelling section, not really any negativity there, for example. Or the Fiction section for people's homebrew army fluff.
I don't disagree, but this thread was specifically about the 40K General Discussion forum. I probably should have been more specific. For the record I think the P&M forum is great
Pointed Stick wrote: IGOUGO has always been fine because the level of speed and lethality has always been lower than it is today, and terrain blocked line of sight. These factors mitigated the ability of an army to delete multiple enemy units on the first turn, and proper deployment meant that you could be quite safe if your opponent got the first turn. Now that terrain almost never blocks line of sight, everything moves quickly and can charge absurd distances, and shooting units have double or more the number of shots they used to have, the issue rears its ugly head.
You can fix it by abandoning IGOUGO, or you can fix it by reducing the speed of infantry models, toning down the power of shooting, and making terrain block line of sight like it used to. Then most people will magically stop complaining about IGOUGO.
Completely untrue. Just because lethality is up doesn't mean that IGOUGO was fine. Deleting units entirely STILL happened a lot when I started in 4th.
Nobody can defend the system in this day and age, sorry. The only thing being used to defend it in the end is familiarity with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sentineil wrote: I find it difficult to understand the IGOUGO complaint. This is 40k, and it's turn based system has been ongoing for 30 years.
If you don't want it, play a system that actually matches your preference.
The idea that if GW were to release 40k now and fail is absurd too. If any new game came out with the depth and range that 40k has they would take over just as much.
It's also the size of the range that makes it so hard to balance.
Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"
Pointed Stick wrote: IGOUGO has always been fine because the level of speed and lethality has always been lower than it is today, and terrain blocked line of sight. These factors mitigated the ability of an army to delete multiple enemy units on the first turn, and proper deployment meant that you could be quite safe if your opponent got the first turn. Now that terrain almost never blocks line of sight, everything moves quickly and can charge absurd distances, and shooting units have double or more the number of shots they used to have, the issue rears its ugly head.
You can fix it by abandoning IGOUGO, or you can fix it by reducing the speed of infantry models, toning down the power of shooting, and making terrain block line of sight like it used to. Then most people will magically stop complaining about IGOUGO.
Completely untrue. Just because lethality is up doesn't mean that IGOUGO was fine. Deleting units entirely STILL happened a lot when I started in 4th.
Nobody can defend the system in this day and age, sorry. The only thing being used to defend it in the end is familiarity with it.
I don't think anyone has said AA wouldn't necessarily be better than IGOUGO. What's being said are:
a) Moving to AA would take a *lot* of work to do well. A naive approach - just going to AA mostly "as is" using a naive aproach - would clearly be abysmal. Terribly balanced and wonky. To make it work, you'd need to invest time in developing a solid AA schema (which takes more than vomiting ideas onto paper). Then you'd have to reevalute most core systems for what works/what doesn't with the change. Then you'd have to rebalance every option in every unit in every book. And you have to do all of that very extensively and carefully. Just to get on parity with the quality of the game as-is under IGOUGO.
So a complicated, well-done transition to AA could likely improve the game. But it's not as simple as just saying it. So ignoring any other possible improvement and just ranting on IGOUGO does nothing but shut down any reasonable discussion of balance or improvement.
b) IGOUGO isn't the only problem with the game. And if you were to address the other problems, IGOUGO wouldn't be as eggregious.
As such, further pontificating on "AA > IGOUGO" doesn't really get us anywhere.
Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"
It's all a bunch of crap.
Completely valid - tradition is not always best. Would you have trusted old GW to have done it properly though?
We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system. It gives them a testing ground to begin thinking about applications of some of these ideas within 40K. That is the only time I think 9th edition would become a reality. Otherwise we're in the Chapter Approved cycle.
Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"
It's all a bunch of crap.
Completely valid - tradition is not always best. Would you have trusted old GW to have done it properly though?
We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system. It gives them a testing ground to begin thinking about applications of some of these ideas within 40K. That is the only time I think 9th edition would become a reality. Otherwise we're in the Chapter Approved cycle.
Until then its just IGOUGO.
I wouldn't trust old GW with anything. An attempt would at least be something to start with though.
Apocalypse isn't perfect but it's definitely better balanced based on the few games I did.
Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"
It's all a bunch of crap.
Completely valid - tradition is not always best. Would you have trusted old GW to have done it properly though?
We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system. It gives them a testing ground to begin thinking about applications of some of these ideas within 40K. That is the only time I think 9th edition would become a reality. Otherwise we're in the Chapter Approved cycle.
Until then its just IGOUGO.
I wouldn't trust old GW with anything. An attempt would at least be something to start with though.
Apocalypse isn't perfect but it's definitely better balanced based on the few games I did.
Who - or what - would you trust to rebalance 40k with AA?
I'm not playing 40k at the moment. Somehow or other this summer I realized I just didn't want to play another game, which is super-weird because previously I got buggy if I didn't get in a game every so often and really jonesed for it. Kinda wondering what happened.
So I have to confess I'm here out of habit, and because I have an ongoing project I hope to follow up sometime in the next year.
Pointed Stick wrote: IGOUGO has always been fine because the level of speed and lethality has always been lower than it is today, and terrain blocked line of sight. These factors mitigated the ability of an army to delete multiple enemy units on the first turn, and proper deployment meant that you could be quite safe if your opponent got the first turn. Now that terrain almost never blocks line of sight, everything moves quickly and can charge absurd distances, and shooting units have double or more the number of shots they used to have, the issue rears its ugly head.
You can fix it by abandoning IGOUGO, or you can fix it by reducing the speed of infantry models, toning down the power of shooting, and making terrain block line of sight like it used to. Then most people will magically stop complaining about IGOUGO.
Completely untrue. Just because lethality is up doesn't mean that IGOUGO was fine. Deleting units entirely STILL happened a lot when I started in 4th.
Nobody can defend the system in this day and age, sorry. The only thing being used to defend it in the end is familiarity with it.
I don't think anyone has said AA wouldn't necessarily be better than IGOUGO. What's being said are:
a) Moving to AA would take a *lot* of work to do well. A naive approach - just going to AA mostly "as is" using a naive aproach - would clearly be abysmal. Terribly balanced and wonky. To make it work, you'd need to invest time in developing a solid AA schema (which takes more than vomiting ideas onto paper). Then you'd have to reevalute most core systems for what works/what doesn't with the change. Then you'd have to rebalance every option in every unit in every book. And you have to do all of that very extensively and carefully. Just to get on parity with the quality of the game as-is under IGOUGO.
So a complicated, well-done transition to AA could likely improve the game. But it's not as simple as just saying it. So ignoring any other possible improvement and just ranting on IGOUGO does nothing but shut down any reasonable discussion of balance or improvement.
b) IGOUGO isn't the only problem with the game. And if you were to address the other problems, IGOUGO wouldn't be as eggregious.
As such, further pontificating on "AA > IGOUGO" doesn't really get us anywhere.
Tons of issues cannot BE fixed because of IGOUGO. Melee armies will always suffer, Alpha + Beta Strike will ALWAYS be king, and complete deletion of 15-25% of the opponent's army without appropriate response is garbage.
Just because it's been the way it's done for 30 years doesn't mean it's good to continue doing it. All the people defending IGOUGO use either "I'm already familiar with it" or "my total Alpha Strike won't work anymore!!!!!!!"
It's all a bunch of crap.
Completely valid - tradition is not always best. Would you have trusted old GW to have done it properly though?
We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system. It gives them a testing ground to begin thinking about applications of some of these ideas within 40K. That is the only time I think 9th edition would become a reality. Otherwise we're in the Chapter Approved cycle.
Until then its just IGOUGO.
I wouldn't trust old GW with anything. An attempt would at least be something to start with though.
Apocalypse isn't perfect but it's definitely better balanced based on the few games I did.
Who - or what - would you trust to rebalance 40k with AA?
Current GW showed they can attempt it with current Apocalypse. There are also homebrewers that do some good work. There's one posted right now in the proposed rules by Anomander for example that looks decent based on my glimpses. It isn't perfect but it's still got tons of potential.
We can see they're aware of the dynamics in Apocalypse with alternating activations and a D12 system.
With the difference that Apocalypse works because it was written as one game with everything at once and not independent releases that are loosely based on each other
and alternating unit activation is much easier to be messed up if releases change direction in between than the current system, so unless it is done like Apo and everything is written/designed at the same time, it will become much worse (like AoS perfectly shows)
unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.
Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well
Generally the issue was solved in 7th by pricing the HQ that generated the trait ith an additional cost, whilest some upgrades also were unlocked. F.e. You wanted to run quasi bloodpact, you had to first pay for the "bloody handed reaver" 35 pts (an upgrade for 1 HQ, which then unlocked 10 pts flat upgrades for Renegade veterans into grenadier squads. Further these had additional requirments, some demanded that you field altleast 3 militia plattons out of atleast 3 x15 Militia members, others demanded all units need to be upgraded with xyz.
It was less book keepy then it sounds and fairly straight forward and also alot better balanced overall then what are now traits. And that was in 7th.
I know that link comes up a lot on how GW make new units OP for sales, but it really doesn't actually stand up in practice. How do we explain most of the new Ork releases being hot garbage (not my words), the new Eldar releases being similar, SM Reivers being less than average, and the host of other examples. Does it happen from time to time if they want to push a model? Probably. Is it a defining feature of their sales method? No.
I like the idea of having warlord traits open doors for army wide traits, bit on its own it doesn't scale at all. If you add in that additional points cost to every unit, then you get back into the micro management. Sure it works for Blood Pact, but that's because that's the only option. When you have 6-8 it just makes it unwieldy.
my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.
unbalance is atleast partially a sales method of GW. And GW repeating the same thing from 7th in essence raises flags by those that got burnt with it.
Could they be worth points? How would that work? It seems like something that would be tedious to manage and probably not scale well
Generally the issue was solved in 7th by pricing the HQ that generated the trait ith an additional cost, whilest some upgrades also were unlocked. F.e. You wanted to run quasi bloodpact, you had to first pay for the "bloody handed reaver" 35 pts (an upgrade for 1 HQ, which then unlocked 10 pts flat upgrades for Renegade veterans into grenadier squads. Further these had additional requirments, some demanded that you field altleast 3 militia plattons out of atleast 3 x15 Militia members, others demanded all units need to be upgraded with xyz.
It was less book keepy then it sounds and fairly straight forward and also alot better balanced overall then what are now traits. And that was in 7th.
I know that link comes up a lot on how GW make new units OP for sales, but it really doesn't actually stand up in practice. How do we explain most of the new Ork releases being hot garbage (not my words), the new Eldar releases being similar, SM Reivers being less than average, and the host of other examples. Does it happen from time to time if they want to push a model? Probably. Is it a defining feature of their sales method? No.
I like the idea of having warlord traits open doors for army wide traits, bit on its own it doesn't scale at all. If you add in that additional points cost to every unit, then you get back into the micro management. Sure it works for Blood Pact, but that's because that's the only option. When you have 6-8 it just makes it unwieldy.
my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.
The relics don't scale either because they're all the same cost: FREE
my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.
The relics don't scale either because they're all the same cost: FREE
my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.
The relics don't scale either because they're all the same cost: FREE
Brother Castor wrote: Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.
I disagree that Dakka is negative about the hobby. Check out the painting and modelling section, not really any negativity there, for example. Or the Fiction section for people's homebrew army fluff.
What there is on Dakka, is criticism of GWs business model and of GWs ability to write rules for the game. Some people are unable to separate the hobby from the company that makes things for them to use in your hobby.
It's also not exclusive to Dakka, or at all unusual, or even confined to 40K. It happens pretty much everywhere you get a large enough group of people talking anything, unless the discussion is actively curated to remove 'negative' comments.
And from what I've seen (and to be honest, I haven't been following 40K as closely over the last couple of editions, as there's only so long I can maintain an interest in a game I don't actively play any more) it does seem like the general attitude towards 8th edition is largely more positive than it was for 6th and 7th.
kodos wrote: it is still old GW, "new" is just the marketing
Community survey that led to Sisters
Legitimate and regular rebalancing
Two week FAQs and regular updates
A plethora of specialist games and avenues into the hobby
Some attempt at playtesting
Tons of issues cannot BE fixed because of IGOUGO. Melee armies will always suffer, Alpha + Beta Strike will ALWAYS be king, and complete deletion of 15-25% of the opponent's army without appropriate response is garbage.
Of course they can be fixed. If the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.
The ease with which stuff dies has been one of my issues with 40K for a very long time now... Even aside from a balance perspective, it's a bit crappy when that unit that you really like, or that new thing that you were excited to get onto the table, doesn't actually get to do anything before being obliterated. I trot this story out every time this sort of discussion comes up - but I bought the metal/plastic hybrid Vindicator kit when it was first released in 3rd edition, and it was at least a decade before it actually got to shoot anything before being destroyed.
Removing IGOUGO isn't necessary to fix that. Making it harder to hurt things, and giving players more reactive options and better ways to utilise cover would go a long way. Reintroducing Overwatch was a good start, but it should have been more akin to the 2nd edition version, and been accompanied by other reaction options like taking cover or falling back from enemy attacks.
Community survey that led to Sisters
Legitimate and regular rebalancing
Two week FAQs and regular updates
A plethora of specialist games and avenues into the hobby
Some attempt at playtesting
What about those things is just marketing?
To be fair, the first one was just marketing. They didn't release Sisters because a survey said it would be a good idea. They released Sisters because they finally had plastics technology good enough to do the models properly. Pinning it on the survey was just marketing spin.
But yes, GW's attitude towards supporting their core games has certainly changed from late 5th/6th/7th edition, and it's good to see.
my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.
The relics don't scale either because they're all the same cost: FREE
of course. but one issue at a time.
Relics are easy though: pay for them.
You kind of do. There's the cost of the "free" slot. There's also the cost of the model that bears it. A 4++ isn't the greatest thing to tag onto a War Dog as opposed to a full Knight - a relic TH is much better on a jump captain than it is on a regular captain than it is on a tech marine.
They probably could cost points or something else, but you'll likely still see issues, because there's such a huge range of relics. Hard capping the number available does well enough for now.
kodos wrote: Problem with IGOUGO... People just like to act as if this would solve all Balance Problems of 40k immediately, same as changing from a D6 to D12 would.
As all of the proponents of d=!6 system would tell you, this is only a part of the fix as a whole - a small part of same magnitude of change which would be required if the game was changed to a AA system.
The d=!6 system promotes greater range of stats to better balance the middlings between the humble gretchin to mighty titan.
Couple this change with fleshed out terrain rules, the game would be golden.
my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.
Sorry, I didn't mean number of squads, I meant if you had a number of different traits, which will all have variable value depending on the unit it's attached to.
A trait of reroll 1s is a lot more valuable to a leman Russ than a squad of infantry, which means individual prices for units for each potential trait. It just seems like it gets messy fast.
my army alone had 12 Grenadier upgraded squads.
it's as simple as a tick box. And as simple as you make it modelling wise.
That is not valid as an excuse imo for misshandeling traits and warlord interactions as GW does.
Also warlord traits allready don't scale well, cough knights cough.
Sorry, I didn't mean number of squads, I meant if you had a number of different traits, which will all have variable value depending on the unit it's attached to.
A trait of reroll 1s is a lot more valuable to a leman Russ than a squad of infantry, which means individual prices for units for each potential trait. It just seems like it gets messy fast.
No you would ofcourse go back and limit the traits by a only allowing 1 trait carrier E.g. Warlord and secondly upgrades and abilities were tied to specific units.
Recycling only worked on militia and only if atleast 15+ models were in the squad.
Grenadiers upgrade only for vets.
And you get only one of these.
And by jove, just finally remove rerolls. Especially in conjunction with auras.
Tons of issues cannot BE fixed because of IGOUGO. Melee armies will always suffer, Alpha + Beta Strike will ALWAYS be king, and complete deletion of 15-25% of the opponent's army without appropriate response is garbage.
Of course they can be fixed. If the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.
The ease with which stuff dies has been one of my issues with 40K for a very long time now... Even aside from a balance perspective, it's a bit crappy when that unit that you really like, or that new thing that you were excited to get onto the table, doesn't actually get to do anything before being obliterated. I trot this story out every time this sort of discussion comes up - but I bought the metal/plastic hybrid Vindicator kit when it was first released in 3rd edition, and it was at least a decade before it actually got to shoot anything before being destroyed.
Removing IGOUGO isn't necessary to fix that. Making it harder to hurt things, and giving players more reactive options and better ways to utilise cover would go a long way. Reintroducing Overwatch was a good start, but it should have been more akin to the 2nd edition version, and been accompanied by other reaction options like taking cover or falling back from enemy attacks.
Community survey that led to Sisters
Legitimate and regular rebalancing
Two week FAQs and regular updates
A plethora of specialist games and avenues into the hobby
Some attempt at playtesting
What about those things is just marketing?
To be fair, the first one was just marketing. They didn't release Sisters because a survey said it would be a good idea. They released Sisters because they finally had plastics technology good enough to do the models properly. Pinning it on the survey was just marketing spin.
But yes, GW's attitude towards supporting their core games has certainly changed from late 5th/6th/7th edition, and it's good to see.
This has been an issue since 3rd "everything is too lethal" with unit deleting happening very often. As these complaints have gone on for YEARS, don't you think the fact that everyone does everything at once...then you go, MiGHT be the primary issue?
No. Because I think that if the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.
Switching to alternating activation wouldn't change the fact that stuff dies too easily.
insaniak wrote: No. Because I think that if the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.
Switching to alternating activation wouldn't change the fact that stuff dies too easily.
Well it would allow for more balanced situation where killing power would be slightly blunted but yeah it would not solve killing power issues of certain problem units.
It was mitigated somewhat in previous editions by being able to just cram more terrain on the board... (although that didn't work for those tournaments with insufficient terrain, or players who insisted on playing in planet Bowling Ball) but from what I've heard, that's less effective with the current terrain rules.
For my money, 40K with alternating activation wouldn't be 40K. I would much rather see the game tweaked and balanced around the existing turn structure than have it turned into a completely different game.
insaniak wrote: No. Because I think that if the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.
Switching to alternating activation wouldn't change the fact that stuff dies too easily.
Would still be skewed, though. Lets say your opponent has units of the castellan or repulsor type. They engange one or two units you own, probably destroying them. If you have fewer models on the table, or your army is limited in the number units that can delete other units, the end result is going to be the same. Because either your opponent will feed you chaff units, which killing is not going lower his ability to kill your stuff, or if you can't hide your whole army, or have to move on to objective, they are going to be killing them anyway. doesn't matter if the IGYG is done per unit or per army in the end.
insaniak wrote: No. Because I think that if the problem with the current IGOUGO system is that you can suffer too many casualties before you get to respond, then the way to fix it is to reduce the amount of damage that can be caused in a single turn, and/or give players ways to respond.
Switching to alternating activation wouldn't change the fact that stuff dies too easily.
Per my point though, how toned down do you need to make lethality before the game is just hordes holding objectives indefinitely though?
IGOUGO is the problem, and pretending it's part of 40k's identity is really holding the game back.
Well maybe it is not as much a problem of lethality, but how many models there can be on the table? when most armies run around with 60-80 plus models, out of which some a multi wound vehicles, the game has to be lethal, otherwise it would be like armoured dudes slapping each other with wet towels.
the fix could be smaller armies, and few units being used. Big units not being part of normal games. But the chance of this ever happening is exactly zero.
Karol wrote: Well maybe it is not as much a problem of lethality, but how many models there can be on the table? when most armies run around with 60-80 plus models, out of which some a multi wound vehicles, the game has to be lethal, otherwise it would be like armoured dudes slapping each other with wet towels.
the fix could be smaller armies, and few units being used. Big units not being part of normal games. But the chance of this ever happening is exactly zero.
Chicken/egg. If a unit can be casually one-rounded as easily as it can in 8e if you aren't playing 80+ models you just get tabled.
Per my point though, how toned down do you need to make lethality before the game is just hordes holding objectives indefinitely though?
There's a balance. Hordes should die easily but make up for it in numbers. More elite troops should be much more difficult to kill.
IGOUGO is the problem, and pretending it's part of 40k's identity is really holding the game back.
There is no 'pretending'. The core of a game's structure does form a part of that game's identity. If you change the fundamental nature of the game's structure, you have a different game.
IGOUGO is not the problem, and switching to an alternating activation system just because everyone else is doing it wouldn't fix the actual underlying problems, which are down to balance, not structural issues. Making 40K into a different game wouldn't do anything to bring me back, because I don't want to play a different game, I want to play 40K.
Which, incidentally, is why I'm not playing 8th. It was too big a departure from the game I enjoyed playing. When I do find time to get back into 40K, it will be a home-edited version of either 5th or 2nd edition.
Tonight, let myself watch the new Scorp 82 batrep after work.
Took some time, had some wine.
His tables were always pretty, but these days...
not so much. Well, having to completely block line of sight seemed to force a certain scenery selection, that's all...
Not to speak badly of the guy, I have been a big fan for years.
But, batreps before 8th were... more dramatic.
Better.
And all this talk about "lists"...
cards littering the table... re-roll upon re-roll.
Units shooting through units.
Charges intended to wrap around, tie up, take advantage of wobbly model syndrome gak...
Funny, but the scale that would work on a table this size is exactly that which is unrepresented in GW's product line.
Almost as if they intend the game to be broken, to draw people into their own maelstrom of consumption.
Where is the scale between Kill Team and 40k with initiative and strength to balance H2H against ranged attacks?
Where is the realism that makes having such gorgeous terrain worth it in the first place?
Now people WANT to play with cardboard boxes because they block line of sight?
Why not have rules for shooting through windows,
and use line of sight to individiual models,
with sensible ranges and variable movement,
charges a multiple of movement mediated by terrain,
cover defensible, some more than others,
so troops entrenchable,
overwatch used to catch units in crossfires,
and ... a turn of movement and tactics before shppting across the table through anything that isn't made from a cardboard box?
Per my point though, how toned down do you need to make lethality before the game is just hordes holding objectives indefinitely though?
There's a balance. Hordes should die easily but make up for it in numbers. More elite troops should be much more difficult to kill.
IGOUGO is the problem, and pretending it's part of 40k's identity is really holding the game back.
There is no 'pretending'. The core of a game's structure does form a part of that game's identity. If you change the fundamental nature of the game's structure, you have a different game.
IGOUGO is not the problem, and switching to an alternating activation system just because everyone else is doing it wouldn't fix the actual underlying problems, which are down to balance, not structural issues. Making 40K into a different game wouldn't do anything to bring me back, because I don't want to play a different game, I want to play 40K.
Which, incidentally, is why I'm not playing 8th. It was too big a departure from the game I enjoyed playing. When I do find time to get back into 40K, it will be a home-edited version of either 5th or 2nd edition.
IGOUGO isn't part of the core identity of 40k. The setting itself is. Apocalypse is functioning. Killteam is functioning. Necromunda is functioning.
Why isn't 40k? What's hindering 40k in each bloody edition that has come out? There IS a common factor with everything that has been tried but NEVER changed.
Move, shoot, assault. (Plus a psychic phase, lately).
The d6.
Marines with spikes are Chaos.
IGO,UGO
Don’t get me wrong, I think implementing some kind of interleaved turn structure would be good. But really, it’s pretty much a core element of the game of 40k.
Also, let it go. You’re getting to be a bit of a running joke by bringing up IGOUGO at *every* opportunity. We get it, you don’t like it. It doesn’t have to be pistols at dawn every single time the notion enters your noggin.
Pfft, If I'm drawing pistols it's happening around late afternoon, I'm sleeping in. Not going to wake up early just to risk death, would rather do that sometime after lunch.
IGOUGO isn't part of the core identity of 40k. The setting itself is.
If 40K had the same setting, but used the rules for Monopoly, it wouldn't be 40K. It would be a completely different game set in the 40K universe. The structure of the game is what makes the game. The setting is just the stuff that makes it pretty, and makes you (hopefully) care about the factions that you choose from... changing the setting doesn't change the actual experience of playing the game. Changing the rules does.
Apocalypse is functioning. Killteam is functioning. Necromunda is functioning.
Why isn't 40k?
I like hyperbole as much as the next 20 billion people, but that's overstating things more than a little. 40K is functioning. It might not be functioning the way you want it to, but the resurgence in popularity since 8th edition dropped suggests that plenty of people out there are enjoying it just fine.
IGOUGO isn't part of the core identity of 40k. The setting itself is. Apocalypse is functioning. Killteam is functioning. Necromunda is functioning.
than it should not be a big problem to replace standard 40k with Apocalypse for the standard 1500-2000 points
it has the better rules, better balanced, plays faster and as the core of 40k is just the setting no one should care which rules are used.
You just need to announce that the next big torunament will be with Apo rules and everyone should be happy
Karol wrote: Well maybe it is not as much a problem of lethality, but how many models there can be on the table? when most armies run around with 60-80 plus models, out of which some a multi wound vehicles, the game has to be lethal, otherwise it would be like armoured dudes slapping each other with wet towels.
the fix could be smaller armies, and few units being used. Big units not being part of normal games. But the chance of this ever happening is exactly zero.
Chicken/egg. If a unit can be casually one-rounded as easily as it can in 8e if you aren't playing 80+ models you just get tabled.
well that is great, but then GW has to either make elite armies super resilient or rethink how they cost stuff, because what they do right now makes no sense if they test it only for internal or only for external balance.
Karol wrote: Well maybe it is not as much a problem of lethality, but how many models there can be on the table? when most armies run around with 60-80 plus models, out of which some a multi wound vehicles, the game has to be lethal, otherwise it would be like armoured dudes slapping each other with wet towels.
the fix could be smaller armies, and few units being used. Big units not being part of normal games. But the chance of this ever happening is exactly zero.
Chicken/egg. If a unit can be casually one-rounded as easily as it can in 8e if you aren't playing 80+ models you just get tabled.
well that is great, but then GW has to either make elite armies super resilient or rethink how they cost stuff, because what they do right now makes no sense if they test it only for internal or only for external balance.
A lot of elite army are not really elite at the scale of 40k. THere is only so much you can do when there is supposed to be units/tanks that blow most infantry up no matter what defense they have.
ANd with the shift the game has gone, i wonder if they have made that balance even harder.
Its at this point i wonder if the stats as a base are just not up to what they want on the battlefield.
I don't play 40k but i maniacally play Kill Team. And there are no really live places in the internet where Kill Team is discussed.
Reddit and 4chan thread claim to have Kill Team as their main topic, but actially their main topic is "Look, i can paint my miniatures".
And while this place is not about KT, it seems to have something close to it So i am just trying to distract myself.
I play Oldhammer 40K a few times a year. The reason why I visit this site is to inform myself how 40K itself degrades as time goes by. It´s the same with train wrecks. They are terrible to behold but you can´t turn your eyes away when you are exposed to them.
Per my point though, how toned down do you need to make lethality before the game is just hordes holding objectives indefinitely though?
There's a balance. Hordes should die easily but make up for it in numbers. More elite troops should be much more difficult to kill.
IGOUGO is the problem, and pretending it's part of 40k's identity is really holding the game back.
There is no 'pretending'. The core of a game's structure does form a part of that game's identity. If you change the fundamental nature of the game's structure, you have a different game.
IGOUGO is not the problem, and switching to an alternating activation system just because everyone else is doing it wouldn't fix the actual underlying problems, which are down to balance, not structural issues. Making 40K into a different game wouldn't do anything to bring me back, because I don't want to play a different game, I want to play 40K.
Which, incidentally, is why I'm not playing 8th. It was too big a departure from the game I enjoyed playing. When I do find time to get back into 40K, it will be a home-edited version of either 5th or 2nd edition.
True, the turn structure is part of the game's identity. That does not preclude it from being problematic, however. Much of 40k's problems really are systemic. Balance in particular, is something that, for the scope of 40k, can be achieved either by simplifying the game further, introducing more homogeneity than probably anyone wants, or writing a more complex framework to operate within. If 40k's mechanical identity were to change, it may still be a better, more enjoyable game.
Other systems using AA is not a good reason for 40k to switch. Opening up new gameplay possibilities, making balance between and within the factions easier, is. Familiarity is not enough of a reason to maintain the status quo. Not all changes are good. But not making positive changes out of a desire for comfort isn't any better.
In my experience, IGOUGO games where you can respond during the opponent's turn only work when the game has hidden information. 40k has no hidden information.
another solution is too expand the Action/Reaction System to all phases (and clean it up)
as you can strike back in combat if you are in range, it should be possible in all phases but therefore removing anything that interrupts an action (like overwatch)
limit it to a small range so that it is not time consuming and you get more interaction, less Alpha strike capabilities and still keep IGoUGo
kodos wrote: another solution is too expand the Action/Reaction System to all phases (and clean it up)
as you can strike back in combat if you are in range, it should be possible in all phases but therefore removing anything that interrupts an action (like overwatch)
limit it to a small range so that it is not time consuming and you get more interaction, less Alpha strike capabilities and still keep IGoUGo
I am skeptical this will work. For reactions to work well, it seems that players need to be able to surprise each other, like in Magic, You can't do that in a game like 40k, where all knowledge is, must be, shared with your opponents.
The phases, too, I think greatly restrict what is possible to do during games, as well as make balance difficult, and just generally inhibit smooth, dynamic gameplay.
For me it is the Sunk cost fallacy, mixed with a nostalgia for when I used to enjoy the game.
Still really like the background and (most of) the models, but the rules are so bad that they have become a joke. Which is at the very least entertaining.
I do hope that GW fix the situation, as they have proven recently that they can make good rule systems when they put their mind to it.
I am on an extended break from 40k but the reason I keep following it is the hope that things eventually balance out. Wishful thinking I know at this point, since "good enough" is the rule of the day, but I hope that I'll feel it's in a decent place and can play some casual games again soon.
True, the turn structure is part of the game's identity. That does not preclude it from being problematic, however. Much of 40k's problems really are systemic. Balance in particular, is something that, for the scope of 40k, can be achieved either by simplifying the game further, introducing more homogeneity than probably anyone wants, or writing a more complex framework to operate within. If 40k's mechanical identity were to change, it may still be a better, more enjoyable game.
Maybe. But it would still be a different game, and that sucks for people who like the existing game. The bigger the change, the bigger the risk of alienating your existing playerbase, even if the end result is a 'better' game.
I'd rather see GW experiment with those different mechanics in different games, as they've done with Apocalypse, rather than changing 40K in such a fundamental way.
In my experience, IGOUGO games where you can respond during the opponent's turn only work when the game has hidden information. 40k has no hidden information.
That would be the case where you only have one option (and is part of why Overwatch in its current form is rather lame... it's not a tactical choice, it's just an automatic reaction to being charged). The 'hidden' information comes from your opponent having multiple reaction options and you having to guess which one they are likely to choose in a given situation.
I come here now to lurk to see what news pops up. Lot less time to hobby with the little one these days so I live vicariously through the online community.
That and it seems like 40k still suffers from many of the post 5th ed ailments that helped push me out.
I am thinking of getting into one of the 'specialist' games they offer now, something that doesn't have 100 models on the table.
My group and I veered off in the middle of 5th Ed. to play our own modified rule set. I come on here to see if GW has added anything of interest over the editions, and to see how people react to certain changes in these rules. If a change seems worthwhile we may incorporate it or modify it and alter our rules accordingly. Over time I've grown to respect certain posters even if I disagree with some of their preferences. Others can be entertaining, while of course some are quite annoying. Despite our differences we all have a penchant for this hobby, so as much as you may want to dismiss somebody, you must realize we all still have this game in common.
My group and I veered off in the middle of 5th Ed. to play our own modified rule set. I come on here to see if GW has added anything of interest over the editions, and to see how people react to certain changes in these rules. If a change seems worthwhile we may incorporate it or modify it and alter our rules accordingly. Over time I've grown to respect certain posters even if I disagree with some of their preferences. Others can be entertaining, while of course some are quite annoying. Despite our differences we all have a penchant for this hobby, so as much as you may want to dismiss somebody, you must realize we all still have this game in common.
Kudos to Games Workshop for that.
I'd be quite interested in seeing your modified rule set.
My group and I veered off in the middle of 5th Ed. to play our own modified rule set. I come on here to see if GW has added anything of interest over the editions, and to see how people react to certain changes in these rules. If a change seems worthwhile we may incorporate it or modify it and alter our rules accordingly. Over time I've grown to respect certain posters even if I disagree with some of their preferences. Others can be entertaining, while of course some are quite annoying. Despite our differences we all have a penchant for this hobby, so as much as you may want to dismiss somebody, you must realize we all still have this game in common.
Kudos to Games Workshop for that.
I'd be quite interested in seeing your modified rule set.
I'd be happy to send our rules to anybody who PM's me a valid email.
We also had to alter the codices to fit our rules of course, and not every current faction or model is represented. It isn't that hard to add models or units to the game once you're happy with the overall balance and structure. We may add a mercenary codex in the future just for a chance to use all manner of off market models, for example.
We also made a Random Combat Table for helping us generate battles when we don't have anything specific in mind.
It is strange for me.
I build-up and get fully painted an army and then stop for a bit where me and my group play other games for a time.
Then I update to the new rules my "established" army and slow down a bit while I make a new army, wash, rinse, repeat.
3rd edition was CSM (All four Gods represented! more of a Black Legion mix to get all the differing painted stuff together).
4th was Inquisition (A bit of a hodge-podge of completion)
5th was Black Templar (Completely painted)
6th-7th I tried to play, it sucked... was making a huge Imperial Guard / Astra Militarum army that is at least primed and 1/4 painted.
I am at that stage where I have pretty much a Primaris Company's worth of Ultramarines.
I have JUST finished painting some 30 joe-trooper-marines and now have to get into the fancier units (Everything assembled and primed... airbrush is helping this along).
Soon I will have to jump into my local hobby shop gaming rather than friends, they just have too much going on to get together regularly.
So I stay on here to keep on top of the usual trials and tribulations of updates and how to keep track of it all.
I REALLY do not want to misremember and mix old rules with new... having every edition since Rogue Trader rattling around in my head sure makes keeping rules straight a pain.
amanita wrote: I'd be happy to send our rules to anybody who PM's me a valid email.
We also had to alter the codices to fit our rules of course, and not every current faction or model is represented. It isn't that hard to add models or units to the game once you're happy with the overall balance and structure. We may add a mercenary codex in the future just for a chance to use all manner of off market models, for example.
We also made a Random Combat Table for helping us generate battles when we don't have anything specific in mind.
I'd be curious what form your custom rules take.
Are they mostly just notes?
Are they core rules, or modifications to an existing rulesset?
Are they concrete or conceptual?
How "balanced" do things need to be before your group is happy with overall balance/structure?
-And, following that, do you typically aim at a specific balance level ("Competes with basic Marines"), or more holistically?
-Also, for additions or interesting rules, do you typically aim for "meta-changing", "perfectly-inline", or "not problematic"?
If it's a formally retained set of documents, have you considered something like git?
These are just odd other-hobbyist questions I have, there really is no right/wrong answer to any of these.
Slowly getting into Kill Team and am interested in figuring out the favorite buzzwords/topics of the truly salty so I can more easily pick out who to avoid/marginalize when I'm playing.
amanita wrote: I'd be happy to send our rules to anybody who PM's me a valid email.
We also had to alter the codices to fit our rules of course, and not every current faction or model is represented. It isn't that hard to add models or units to the game once you're happy with the overall balance and structure. We may add a mercenary codex in the future just for a chance to use all manner of off market models, for example.
We also made a Random Combat Table for helping us generate battles when we don't have anything specific in mind.
I'd be curious what form your custom rules take.
Are they mostly just notes?
Are they core rules, or modifications to an existing rulesset?
Are they concrete or conceptual?
How "balanced" do things need to be before your group is happy with overall balance/structure?
-And, following that, do you typically aim at a specific balance level ("Competes with basic Marines"), or more holistically?
-Also, for additions or interesting rules, do you typically aim for "meta-changing", "perfectly-inline", or "not problematic"?
If it's a formally retained set of documents, have you considered something like git?
These are just odd other-hobbyist questions I have, there really is no right/wrong answer to any of these.
Ah yes, context is everything!
I'd say our rules resemble mostly a blend of 4th & 5th Ed. with several other concepts mixed in. Some standard things have been either been given a face lift or an complete overhaul. We grew weary of GW tarnishing some great ideas by over-correcting problems that eventually arose. Too often layers of corrections are added to fix something that was of dubious merit in the first place, compounding the issue and distracting from the original intent. Our changes will never be perfect, but I think our version is engaging and tactical. When you win or lose you feel like it was due to player skill foremost. These rules aren't for everyone, but if we don't like something after a bit we change it! Most people can't afford that luxury, which is a shame.
When we decide to play, usually we generate or decide on parameters a week in advance. This way you will know what army you are facing and know what are the victory conditions, and approximate terrain so you can bring the appropriate units. Each codex is capable of defeating every other codex. The biggest determining factor in our games is the player, though some scenarios may favor a certain force in a specific set up.
I'm not familiar with git. We just wrote up our rules in Word and our codices in Excel, but the basis is still recognizable 40K from earlier editions. If our players want to tweak a certain codex for their own personal army, we work around that by maintaining the standard codex but letting people develop their own supplement that they tend to stick by. For example, I have a space marine army that allows dreadnaughts to be heavy or elite but I'm not allowed non-transport tanks for close support (no Predators or Vindicators). 4th Ed had chapter traits that were interesting without being too powerful, but we feel GW currently has bitten off more than anyone wants to chew. To each his own!
Haven't had a game of 40k in ages but would still say I play 40k... just happen to play AoS more at the minute. Fully intend to focus more on 40k in the new year. Voted for reading dakka for the news. I prefer to read my news rather than podcasts and whatnot - dakkadakka, TGA, and the Warhammer Community sort me out.
