Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Swastakowey wrote:

And to the guy who said the rules are there to define what you can and can not do, re read the rule book. The designers clearly state that the rules are not absolute and it encourages people to change and play it as they see fit. After all its the fround work for a game. You are meant to add to it or take away from it. the rules are not law. the players are law.

What are the rules of the game if both players say infantry can move 20"? the rule says the players can if they both choose to.

What are the rules if someone says infantry can move 10" and the other player says no they move 2"?
If you and your friends can come up with cool rules you can agree on that is great but for those of us rocking up to our local game store and asking strangers if they are interested in a game then the only practical thing to do is play the rules mostly as they are.

Aftermath. wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I sold my entire collection. Over $20,000 worth. I was super hardcore, with multiple, massive
Apocalypse armies, and I have been undefeated in the last 3 local competitive tournaments.

This attitude from GW is the final nail in the coffin. There was a post on Natfka a few months ago, about how
the design studio doesn't care about game balance. That was the beginning of the end for me.

I have absolutely no desire to play a game that is inherently un-balanced, so much so that the design studio comes
out and says it. GW has turned into nothing more than a toy model company, with very poorly written and horribly
balanced rules. I want no part of it, and would feel like a looser at this point trying to seriously play it competitively.

It is one of the most poorly balanced games I have ever played. No longer can someone just pick an army, build a reasonable
list, and hope to do well in games. If you want to play competitively, you have to flush\rebuild your army 2-3x a year. And
going to the FLGS for a pick-up game is a lesson in bad comedy more often than not.

I blew everything out; legions of models, massive amounts of Forge World, rulebooks, terrain, paints, airbrushes, the works. I am done.

From the proceeds I purchased a brand new HDTV, PS4, and am taking my kids to Disney for 5 days at the end of May.
And I will still have some left to put in savings.

It was fun while it lasted, but I will never touch another GW product again.

Which is great. Id rather someone unhappy with the game try get a return on their investment than sit around complaining and shutting down people trying to help people enjoy their game. (for someone who doesnt play anymore you certainly have a lot of opinions about the game given your past comments)

I did the same. I was hardcore, had 10,000 dollars worth of models but I felt the game wasnt working for me. But what i did instead was start fresh after selling mine and turn a once bland game into something fun. Of course i could have moved on to something else but I chose what i chose and now I love it.

Everyones different. But there is no reason to constantly complain.


And to the person who gave an example about the movements, in that situation you compromise. Make the movement 5". its down the middle of what you both want and the game can go on. Just need the right attitude instead of going I want i want.

 Swastakowey wrote:

That first part is where attitude comes in. Its not the rules fault those players act that way. You get that in a lot of games. We had no problems with the grey knights guy at our club, or the eldar or the tau or anything. Because no ones a jerk about the game. Attitude is the most important part and it seems that all these examples are a result of bad attitude. We dont make anyone change their lists. People are smart enough to change theirs if they feel no one will have fun playing that game. Because you arent gonna have fun playing that list if no you win on turn 2. So why would you want to play that list?

I would expect my opponent to step up their army or tactics (although tactics of any real depth aren't particularly relevant in 40k). I don't have fun sandbagging my opponents, and I especially don't have fun if my opponent is sandbagging me.

But we know what to expect from each other all the time.

Which ultimately becomes boring.

And who couldnt take a well rounded list at 500 points? There is generally like 3-5 units at most in a game that size. Nobody can afford to out counter someone else without loosing something important. It becomes a war of troop choices instead of heavy support.

Landraider. Boom. Have fun beating that at under 500 points without severely compromising your army against something else.

You paid good money for those rules so play them in a way that gets the most fun.

Yes, we pay good money, and GW provides a product that does not even work.

Surely you have far more fun playing a game where your weaker list fought their weaker list in a close game.

Not really, because I know that, regardless of the outcome, I could have won without arbitrary self-limitations.

And it's not like 40k could function with a tiering system similar to how competitive pokemon does (There are various tiers that are determined by viability and usage, with pokemon from lower tiers able to compete in higher ones, but not the other way around. Players can play in any of the tiers, and each one is in itself its own self-contained metagame), since the balance issues that separate various armies and units are so far apart that a lot of times, entire armies cannot be compared in any sensible way.

GW doesnt advertise it as an extremely competitive cut throat game.

I don't want something cut-throat, I want something playable. A game where I can find an opponent at my FLGS, decide on a point level, and play an army that I enjoy playing without having to worry about steamrolling my opponent (or being steamrolled by my opponent) to such a degree that they might as well not even have unpacked their models.

40K does function. I will quote myself from page 1

"For those who are likening the rulebook to something that doesnt function AS IT SHOULD.

If I sold a 7 meter boat for $200,000 to a customer and it didnt function properly, by law Id have to replace the boat with another one of equal value and purpose or get it fixed at a cost.

If I purchased a car from a dealer and it did not work, by law I can take it back and get a replacement or refund etc.

So if 40k rules arent functioning like in your car "example" or program "example then im fairly sure you have every right to complain.

But the way I see it the 40k rules are advertised correctly, they do what the designers say they are meant to and they are sold in a proper process.

They are doing nothing wrong at all, you as a customer are responsible for making choices when buying a product and its only the sellers problem if they misinformed you or did shady business. Both of which they have not done.

So who is to blame then, if GW has done nothing wrong? The people who buy it. Someone cant buy a boat then say it wasnt what they wanted and expect a refund. Thats not my problem thats their problem for not thinking their purchase through. Just like with 40k. I know its harsh but you as a consumer are protected enough as it is and GW did not do anything to breach your rights as a customer. So they are in no way at fault. If you are unhappy with their product for any illegitimate reason (such as its not what I wanted) then the blame lies with you.

So if you made me a buggy program but advertised it as a barely working not very efficient program, but I still purchased it, then im at fault. Not you. But if you said its a program that works EXACTLY LIKE YOU WANT IT To and it doesnt work properly then the fault lies with you. Same with the car example.

So you as a customer have a few choices. Move on as the product clearly isnt for you, put in the effort to make your mistake purchase worthwhile, sell it off to try make some of your money back or put up with it.

Thats how I see it and thats how it works in real world examples. Well here in NZ it does anyways."

And expect what you will, but expecting does nothing in any situation but let you down. Put effort in on your part and the game is more fun.

The game doesnt become boring because its not just about units. terrain, map type, points size and the occasional new unit really changes things up. Especially at lower points.

And how can you have 2 troops, an HQ and landraider at 500 points and still win?

The product does work. see quote.

And if you cant have fun, dont play it and dont complain. Only you are to blame for not enjoying the game. Nobody is ruining it but yourself. Yet again see above.

Its a game, there are going to be limits either buy rules or players. Limits make a game fun. After all, all games have limits. Treat it as part of the game. Stop saying I want and start playing as a group and make the game mould to how you like it. thats what the rules are for.

 Swastakowey wrote:

And expect what you will, but expecting does nothing in any situation but let you down. Put effort in on your part and the game is more fun.

I could put in the effort to rewrite the entire rulebook into something playable. But that does a whole lot to undermine the supposed quality of the ruleset, now doesn't it. The issue isn't that someone can't have fun with it. You obviously do, and I'm glad you do, because it's something you can enjoy, and that's your perogative. But don't go defending it as a quality product, because it patently isn't.

The game doesnt become boring because its not just about units. terrain, map type, points size and the occasional new unit really changes things up. Especially at lower points.

Until someone brings one unit that is largely insurmountable at that point level.

And how can you have 2 troops, an HQ and landraider at 500 points and still win?

Try killing a landraider at 500 points with an army built to take all corners. Now try do do that while it's gunning you down while on top of an objective. And the other half of the army is happily contesting/capturing the other objectives.

And if you cant have fun, dont play it and dont complain. Only you are to blame for not enjoying the game. Nobody is ruining it but yourself. Yet again see above.

Except I used to enjoy the game. And then GW turned it into something that, despite my attempts, I could not enjoy. For all the time and money I put into the game, and how much I used to enjoy it, you can't not expect me to feel somewhat cheated.

Its a game, there are going to be limits either buy rules or players. Limits make a game fun. After all, all games have limits. Treat it as part of the game. Stop saying I want and start playing as a group and make the game mould to how you like it. thats what the rules are for.

Or just download a better, less exploitative ruleset for free, and play that.

Why feel cheated. You knew the game would always be changing unless you purchased 1st edition. Everything changes. Do you feel cheated when your phone model gets outdated and you get angry that the next model isnt what you enjoy? No you move on to another one.

What about that video game you invested time and money in, when the sequel is released and its not what you enjoy do you have a huge fit? No because thats life.

Things change. Dont like it use your free will and move on.

Since we list tailor all corner lists arent what we all take. We make armies specifically to fight each other. We make them with the other players in mind not ourselves. If everyone felt the landraider was too much for such a small game like you claim then we simply would save it for the bigger battles.

We still play larger games but not all the time. In about a months time we will have a titan mash in a large game for fun. But its just silly fun at that size.

You no longer like the game and have moved on. Good stop lingering around. Like I said, you cant possibly think GW is obliged to in any way keep the game the same as always. People will get bored of it and move on otherwise.

Another thing you need to remember, just because you can doesnt mean you should. This applies to everything especially wargames. Yes I can take a landraider against an opponent that doesnt expect it, but thats called being a jerk. Nothing to do with GW.

Landraiders are fun in big games. I faced one once. It was cool having a henchmen band wipe out one of my units, only to die buy the next wave of units. But thats just one unit, no need to let it ruin the game for you. Just use it in moderation like everything else.

And if you find a free better rule set then go away and play it. Stop wining. It gives us a bad look. Imagine what non wargamers would think reading threads like this? People slandering their hobby and complaining or arguing all the time. If you dont have anything nice to say then dont say anything. What you are doing benefits no one.

 Swastakowey wrote:
.... If your only solution is to complain and wait then im sorry but you will never be happy with the game.

There is a difference between not liking certain apsects of the game and not being happy with how the game plays.

I enjoy playing 40K. I would enjoy it more if it were better balanced.

Try forming a club if you have so many people coming.

You have misunderstood - I was talking about clubs. And you apparently missed the end of that statement, which was that a lot of players just pass through.

What size is the game designed for? .

1500 points has been the 'sweet spot' since 3rd edition, although they stopped specifically recommending that size in the rulebook a couple of editions ago.

The thing is, the smaller you go, the more the game turns into scissors-paper-rock, as it's harder for some armies to make a 'take all comers' style list as the points limit goes down. That's why back in the day they added specific rules for playing smaller games.

So everything is fine
as long as you're playing without using all units available
or all the rules available like allies, data slates and supplements,
or allies in general
and playing at such a low point value outside of what the game developers intended.
So low that most normal units and SC would be impossible to utilize

unless you're trying to tell me that a 375 point model was expressly intended for 500 point games for the maximum amount of options available?

Seriously stop and think what you're saying. Your group isn't playing at all what the standard is or using even the majority of units available. Yet you're here telling everyone that everything is fine because for your small group it happens to work with all those restrictions.

You can't really be serious, can you? It's like the car example earlier. The car is advertised and shown in commercials to be able to drive across town no problem. In actuality it breaks down if you travel further than a couple miles. But you're suggesting that the car is perfectly fine because you only use it to go around the block.

To quote the old robot saying "That does not compute."

Sigh, well then guys. Keep being unhappy with the game and playing it your way. But since you guys are so right and the people who find ways of enjoying it are so wrong stop complaining.

I have tried, but alas they have not listened. Have fun with your hobby doing it the way you always do. Guess what, you will always have the same problems!

And to that car example I said, re read mine. If you purchased a car that was advertised its enough to get you around the block and thats it, you have no right to complain. GW games work as advertised. So stop complaining and think about what you buy instead.

I have had enough of this. Just trying to make the hobby a bit better. But I guess they use the terms stubborn as a mule for a reason. Some people just dont change even if what they have clearly doesnt work for them.

Goodbye.

You're saying it's fine then telling us to cut out allies, data slates, formations, the newest codex, and all the while suggesting the smallest game possible with huge amounts of terrain.

And that is somehow what GW advertises? They advertise not playing with the IK, inquisitors, and allies? They advertise not purchasing their data slates? I kind of missed that. I guess the price tag on some of them was a clue they didn't want me to buy them.

You're saying 40K is fine because Kill teams is fun and saying the problem is we aren't happy with a bad product.

Question, has anyone here actually seen 40k advertised as a game about making up your own rules and forging a narrative or whatever?
I've heard that phrase come out of my local redshirts mouth but it was in response to my saying something seems broken, not as an advatisment for a new player, and it sure as hell wasn't being advertised as that back when I got in with 5th ed.

Honestly the only advertisements I ever see is the "Hey, we have something coming out next week. Better hurry up and pay us now for it" style of advertisement.

For what it's worth, even if 40k were effectively advertised as something to 'forge a narrative' with, it doesn't actually do a very good job of that.

 Swastakowey wrote:
GW games work as advertised.

The Games Workshop Website wrote:Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook


There is no time for peace. No respite. No forgiveness.

There is only WAR.

In the nightmare future of the 41st Millennium, Mankind teeters upon the brink of destruction. The galaxy-spanning Imperium of Man is beset on all sides by ravening aliens and threatened from within by Warp-spawned entities and heretical plots. Only the strength of the immortal Emperor of Terra stands between humanity and its annihilation, and in his name, countless warriors and agents do battle against the encroaching darkness. Foremost amongst them stand the Space Marines, the ultimate protectors of Mankind.

Across airless moons, within the depths of dark, twisted hive worlds and even in the immaterial realm of Warp space, battles rage that will shape the future of the galaxy forever.
It is a universe that you can enter today, if you dare. But remember that this is a dark and terrible era, and there is no peace amongst the stars...

The Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook is your essential guide to playing atmospheric battles in the 41st Millennium. It helps you field majestic armies of Citadel miniatures across the war-ravaged battlefields of the far-future, in the ultimate contest of strategy and skill.

With 452 full-colour pages, this hardback Rulebook is packed with rich background and contains all the rules for fighting pulse-pounding tabletop battles. The Rulebook includes exciting features such as dynamic close-combat, flyers, psychic devastation and interactive scenery. As well as jaw-dropping artwork, contained within is a history of the 41st Millennium and a richly detailed guide to the races and weapons of the far-future. It also features a comprehensive hobby section to set you on the path to choosing, collecting and building your own Warhammer 40,000 army of Citadel miniatures.
Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours.
Part Code: 60040199026

Maybe I missed it - Can you please point out the part in that advertisement that mentions having to re-write the rules in order to make the game completely functional? Or the bit that says that as you play this 'ultimate contest of strategy and skill' you should avoid using certain codexes or combinations of units or your opponent may not enjoy himself?

One last comment before I stop receiving comments here.

The point of what im saying is not to play it my way, but to use your brains to look at what is stopping you from enjoying the game with your friends and work out how to make the game your own.

Dont like small games? well dont play em, play bigger games and find another solution to your problem. Sitting in your chairs complaining and crying whilst doing nothing solves nothing. If you keep doing the same thing you keep getting the same result.



As to the advertisements, I can play the game without re writing anything. But its more fun to make the game fit the style of games you do with friends. If you are dumb enough to buy a game you dont like well jokes on you.

So keep complaining. It will fall on deaf ears. Keep playing a game that "doesnt function" you are simply wasting life time. Keep blaming someone else for your purchase, it only prolongs the problem.

Unless you have a better solution. Shut up.

 Swastakowey wrote:


Unless you have a better solution. Shut up.

You seem to be making the same mistake that gets repeated over and over again from people defending 40k.

'Complaining' in threads like this does not preclude anyone from also working on ways to fix it. Its not like I have to choose between posting on a forum about how I feel about the state of the game, or writing some patches for my game group to help balance the game.

Its just that I expect GW to produce a quality product if they're going to charge me as much as they do, and not put the burden on the gamer to figure out how to play it 'properly'.

Do you honestly think that we aren't trying to make the game fun? The problem is that without major house ruling and over all reworking of major core concepts then it is terribly unbalanced and often times the rules are non-sense.

But that doesn't make it a good product. Us fixing it does not make it a good product. Selling a car in pieces with several of them broken and needing replacement from out side sources does not make it a good car because a mechanic can build one from scratch.

 Swastakowey wrote:
..., but to use your brains to look at what is stopping you from enjoying the game with your friends ...

And the point you still seem to be missing is that a lot of us aren't playing with friends.

We're playing with people who expect that when you say you want to play a game of 40K, that you will be playing by the rules of the game of 40K. Becuase neither of us know each other, and it's just too much bother to re-write the game with a stranger before you get to toss any models on the board.

As to the advertisements, I can play the game without re writing anything.

Really?

How do you draw LOS with Wraithguard? Or Artillery?

 Swastakowey wrote:
I see it fit to not use GW models and not read the fluff but play the game and use models I enjoy.

Sadly, I think this is why you're at such odds with everyone else here. You don't actually have anything invested in the fluff or background of your models, do you? So chopping up rules, making exceptions, down-tailoring your lists has no impact on you at all - you just take whatever units you "like" based on the new restrictions. It's an attitude that I see (for good reason) amongst MtG players - none of them feel the need to use a particular card over another, although they might like some better than others. They don't have an emotional investment in their "Lanowar Elves" or whatever - it's just a card.

This isn't the same in 40k for many casual and competitive players alike. Many people who play 40k have an attachment to certain units for fluffy or narrative reasons. For example, I really enjoy the (old) Grey Knights fluff, and I find Paladins (and all terminators) to be pretty awesome in the lore. So what have I spent my money and time to develop? Of course, it's my paladin army. Now, I get the most enjoyment out of a game when units live up to their fluff potential - so playing a paladin list and watching them wade through a vicious melee puts me in a grand mood, even if they eventually lose. But if doing that meant that my opponent would automatically lose every time, without a chance, I wouldn't do it - because that would not be fun. Yet if that were the case, I would never be able to get the most enjoyment out of my time - and all the while that potential would be wasted.

You seem to make the mistake of assuming everyone who complains is just doom and gloom about 40k. The truth is that most of us actually care about this game. We want to enjoy it to its fullest potential, not just have a "workable" solution. This is especially true for a game that might take 2-3 hours to play - it's much more difficult getting a game in when you need an hour of "negotiations" beforehand just to lay down extra ground rules on top of what's already written. Voicing these concerns is also a good way to commiserate amongst ourselves, come up with solutions, and hope that things get better. It's just that sometimes, solutions (like yours) need to be so drastic that they're not logistically feasible to enforce across the board.

 Xca|iber wrote:

This isn't the same in 40k for many casual and competitive players alike. Many people who play 40k have an attachment to certain units for fluffy or narrative reasons. For example, I really enjoy the (old) Grey Knights fluff, and I find Paladins (and all terminators) to be pretty awesome in the lore. So what have I spent my money and time to develop? Of course, it's my paladin army. Now, I get the most enjoyment out of a game when units live up to their fluff potential - so playing a paladin list and watching them wade through a vicious melee puts me in a grand mood, even if they eventually lose. But if doing that meant that my opponent would automatically lose every time, without a chance, I wouldn't do it - because that would not be fun. Yet if that were the case, I would never be able to get the most enjoyment out of my time - and all the while that potential would be wasted.

A man of my own blood! Have an exalt.

Additionally, I'd like to point to Jonolikespie's signature, quoted from a truly magnificent bastard, which I feel gets the point across pretty well:

I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.

I don't really follow the "40k is good at 500pts" thing, because at that small of a game size, there are better games out there. Some of which GW themselves designed (and then axed).

 Fafnir wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Hmmmm im not saying competitive players aren't tying to have fun, what I mean is the game is more geared towards casual players. So having the right attitude for the game is toning down the competitive attitude. Its how these rules work. So the "right attitude" to play 40k is to try tone down your desire to win. Which is hard sometimes as its so easy to make very powerful lists. But its how the game is.

I never said it isnt a great idea, i merely said we arent the type of players who abuse the options given to us. I have an inquisitor but its far from crazy powerful. I just made up a guy and gave him gear I thought suited the model. Same with henchmen. And the low point values make a better game over all. It wasnt to cut out any power builds (as we dont use them to begin with) but to make games shorter so we can play more and to even out the playing field. Not all the players can afford to play huge games. It also makes games look nicer and have less clutter.

But there's a bit of a problem when someone's favourite or fluffy options end up throwing a lot of brute force onto the table then. For example, when the Grey Knights codex released, I ended up getting a lot of flakk amoungst a less competitive community for playing a Paladinstar. But I wasn't trying to break the game, I was playing what was genuinely my favourite army setup in the book. I had played Grey Knights back during the days of the awful (as far as strength is concerned, as far as fluff, it was miles above the current codex) Daemonhunters codex, and the small squads of Grey Knights up against countless foes was something I wanted to preserve in my games. To me, it wasn't a power build, but to other players, it was something they found to be greviously offensive.

With that in mind, am I obligated to stop playing my favourite army the way I get the most enjoyment out of it to cater to other players, simply due to a very poorly balanced system?

Similar here. I like infantry-heavy Eldar lists. I just love all those Aspect Warriors and Dire Avengers have been my favourite unit since they were released and I found how great Shuriken Catapults were with Following Fire and BS4! So what does this mean if I want to do this? Lots of Wave Serpents, usually. So I become, by default, a Wave Serpent spammer. It's not that bad, because I like variety, but it's pushing that. I'd really like to use an Eldar Titan but several of the posters on this very forum who exalt the principles of play what you like fluffily, I have also seen insult the idea of someone fielding a titan and said they should be pretty much ostracised by other players.

That's the thing - improving the rules and balance wont hurt anyone, but it will benefit many. What annoys me is every time someone expresses a desire to improve things one of a small handful of the same posters each time appear to either (a) try to explain how it would turn the game into soulless chess or (b) say how it doesn't negatively affect them and if other people just played the way they did it they would be much happier, along with a nice dollop of concealed or unconcealed snobbery depending on the poster. Both (a) and (b) then frequently lead on to (c) which is saying that the hobby isn't them and they should walk away and do something else.

It would be nice if instead of every time someone wants to improve something, the same few posters appear to say 40K is not for you / grow up and stop being so competitive, they showed an ability to regard other people's needs as valid also. I really dislike the endless attitude that any dissatisfaction with 40K is a failure on the player's part. That it's their fault game balance or rules issues are a problem because if they just used their brains or changed what they want from the game, it would all be fine. We pay a very large amount of money for professional people who have more experience than us, to write the rules and find the balance. That they do a poor job of that is not our fault and I dislike the blame being put on us. Ward and Jervis Johnson et al. are not gravity, or magnetism. They're not laws of the universe that the enlightened person comes to terms with accepts and then achieves peace. They're just people who don't play test properly. And it is perfectly valid to complain about that.

I dislike the placid acceptance of "that's just the way it is" as well. All change begins with people saying "I don't like how things are".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
And a new "fair rule set" hurts us more. Why? Because we have to pay more money for a different game when we where happy with the last one. When at the end of the day the rules are great for what we want. So why change it? We may as well play another game if we have to buy entirely new rules just to play another game we didnt ask for. Unless these new balanced rules are similar to the game we enjoy playing then of course it hurts no one. So it depends how they balance the game really. Not that they will so get over it

Are you not the one touting the freedom of players to adjust rules to suit them and how playing with friends lets you all find common agreement between you. Then if a new rules set appears, you can just continue to play with the old one amongst yourselves, along with whatever tweaks you have introduced. You claim that you are already tailoring lists to produce good match-ups, so what would it matter if GW revised the cost of Banshees down by three points for example?

You cannot simultaneously argue that rules issues are not issues because players should "use their brain" to make them non-issues, whilst simultaneously complaining that a change to the rule set will be a problem to you. The more you emphasise the former, the less you can claim the latter to the same degree. And vice versa.

I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that Swastakowey et al haven't seriously played any games that are balanced, and so don't believe such a thing is actually possible, believing that negotiating with your opponent not to make your list "too good" or to not exploit a bad rule is an integral part of all wargaming.

Also, a quick look through any thread of 4+ pages on the YMDC forums should dispel any notion that fuzzy rules make 40K the least bit "friendly".

 Swastakowey wrote:
Just try play the game as a community instead of screaming I want this and that and calling it quits.

And there is the attitude of superiority that is at the root of the disconnect and the reason why you think people are being "stubborn as mules" in not receiving your enlightened wisdom. Because you see the things other people enjoy as immature and their objections (which are pretty well informed for the most part) as "screaming". You see the rest of us as spoilt children.

I actually think having a different view is refreshing.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion on what is fun. I think the OP is just trying to share his way. If you do not agree, I am sure you have your own way of having fun.

He is probably trying to show those who never have fun, how he is having fun. As for those vocal ones who do not think it is balanced but are still having fun, I think that is still great.

And for those who never have any fun and have decided not to try the OP's way of fun, that is great too because everyone is entitled to free choice.

I just think that the OP has been fairly reasonable in his comments initially but anyone will feel a bit strained by the backlash for just trying to share something, thus the comments start to get a bit more scathing.

 milkboy wrote:
I just think that the OP has been fairly reasonable in his comments initially but anyone will feel a bit strained by the backlash for just trying to share something, thus the comments start to get a bit more scathing.

Well I don't think anyone here has any problem at all with Swastakowey enjoying the game. Indeed several of us have said that we're glad it works for him or her. The issue is that it is Swastakowey who has taken it upon themself to start telling other people they are wrong to complain, that they should shut up or that they should go away and play something else.

No-one sought out Swastakowey and told them they were wrong. No-one started off (or subsequently, I think) said that it is wrong to have fun with the rules how they are or that you shouldn't tweak the rules to suit you or said that games with strangers are more important than games with regular friends.

However, Swastakowey has started replying to everyone who does have these concerns characterising us as "screaming", "crying", "dumb", telling us that we should "use our brains" and ultimately telling us that we should blame ourselves for buying the game if we're unhappy with it.

The attitude of telling people how to play has been pretty unidirectional from Swastakowey's side. The points where people have corrected Swastakowey are pretty much all cases of showing why one of their criticisms doesn't make sense, contradicts something else they claim or is particular to their set-up and exclusatory to the rest of us.

Basically, they affect an attitude of just 'rolling with it' and accepting things how they are, and they get increasingly angry with those of us who don't share that attitude. Swastakowey keeps posting comments to dismiss our concerns and tell us the issue is us not having the right attitude. Oh, and that we make the community "look bad".

We've heard what they said. We're happy they're happy. But they're not happy that we don't agree with them. And they have a very superior attitude thinking that we're "whining" and should just accept a state we're not happy with or leave. They've repeatedly expressed disdain for those who don't accept those as the only options. No-one has gone to them and told them they're wrong in how they play or that they shouldn't be happy. But they appear repeatedly any time someone is unhappy in a thread here, with the rules or balance, and proceed to tell all of us that it's the fault of our attitude. And then they bemoan us for being "stubborn as mules" when we don't accept their wisdom or point out how it doesn't apply in our situations.

For someone who expouses just accepting things how they are so often in so many threads, they are strangely active in telling people to "shut up." Maybe they should just accept that some of us are very invested in 40K and would like to address the issues with it rather than just give up or walk away. Instead of calling us "whining" and "dumb" and "crying" and that we should leave the game.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

WayneTheGame wrote:
EDIT: Cleaned up the formatting for readability

I bought the White Dwarf Weekly because I wanted to see info on the Helbrute and Crimson Slaughter. I found the following quotes in an article talking about the Knights that illustrates the how the designers seem to approach things and the idea of balance.

A quote from Jervis:

The addition of a model on the battlefield that is so powerful and potentially dominant has the inevitable effect of causing all Warhammer 40,000 players to take stock. It's a massive war machine, capable of having a profound effect on any game. Over the coming weeks, as more players add them to their collections, and their impact on the battlefield is played out across gaming tables around the world, there is going to be a race to unravel its secrets and work out the best ways to use it or destroy it.

Next, from Simon Grant immediately following the above:

Jervis has hit the nail on the head there. Because Imperial Knights have a fully-fledged Codex of their own, you will see them both as allies and as primary detachments. They'll also be appearing in any style of Warhammer 40,000 game, whether that's allied to armies in Eternal War missions, marching into the fray in Stronghold Assault games, and so on. The possibilities are endless. Even during playtesting we realised this was going to be a game changer. Do you adapt your army to deal with an Imperial Knight, or do you adapt your tactics?

Two more quotes from Jervis which IMO sum up some real insanity:

"In the end, we are very satisfied with the place the Imperial Knights have taken in Warhammer 40,000," says Jervis. "This is because no one army can ever deal with all-comers. The holy grail of many hobbyists is to fashion a single, all-conquering army that can win in any eventuality, but in truth there is probably no such thing. It doesn't make the search any less fun, but there are just too many variables, and the Imperial Knight adds another wrinkle to it. What's good at killing a Baneblade is not necessarily much good at dealing with an Imperial Knight, and it almost certainly won't help against a Tyranid Hive Crone. All this encourages people to experiment with their tactics and their collections, and I think this is one of the things adding the Imperial Knight has done. As a games developer, the most important thing I have learned to be most wary of is cutting down options," Jervis concludes. "It's our duty to provide more choices and opportunities for people to have fun with their friends. I think the tactical challenge the Imperial Knight offers are going to do that."

and a bit about their design process:

So, though it may surprise some people, my first concern with rules is always that they are a fair reflection of the background behind the model. Once we get that nailed down, and we're happy with the character of the rules, we then turn our minds to other practicalities: how long will it take people to figure out the best ways to use them? Will people be able to develop counter-tactics once they have played a few games?

So there you have it. They don't like the idea that there exists a "take all comers" army, and thinks there shouldn't be one and I guess expect you to show up to a game, get the snot kicked out of you by 3 Titans, and then next week show up with a list to crush the 3 Titans. They WANT an escalating arms race, presumably because it involves buying more models.

Another quote from Robin (Cruddace? Not familiar with the current generation of designers):

If people find the idea of facing an Imperial Knight (or six) in their games shocking, then combining them with Escalation is going to blow their minds. Realistically you could squeeze an Imperial Knight into your army with your Lords of War unit. A Shadowsword or Baneblade with an Imperial Knight to protect? That sounds like the start of a great narrative, and a massive battle right there.

Another quote from Robin that I didn't post calls the Imperial Knight "a complex tactical puzzle"

Also of note is how with very few exceptions they refer to their customers as "hobbyists". Not gamers, not players, but hobbyists.

Sounds about right, not that I agree with it...but you also need to consider the way they play the game...if you are not playing tournament or pick-up games...then Take all comers ceases to be important. If I know you are bringing knights, and can tailor my list to be able to deal with them...not a huge issue.

Now if you want to do those other things....then it matters, because if I cannot reasonably expect to deal with most threats with a list...it makes for one sided un-fun games.

SO essentially this is just more of GW pushing their view of how the game should be played in little groups with scenarios etc.

IT will fall to TOs and club groups to make decisions at this point about what they want to allow in order for the game to funciton.

Breng77 wrote:

Sounds about right, not that I agree with it...but you also need to consider the way they play the game...if you are not playing tournament or pick-up games...then Take all comers ceases to be important. If I know you are bringing knights, and can tailor my list to be able to deal with them...not a huge issue.

Now if you want to do those other things....then it matters, because if I cannot reasonably expect to deal with most threats with a list...it makes for one sided un-fun games.

SO essentially this is just more of GW pushing their view of how the game should be played in little groups with scenarios etc.

IT will fall to TOs and club groups to make decisions at this point about what they want to allow in order for the game to funciton.

Except Swastakowey isn't just talking about the way they play. Swastakowey is saying that their way is the ONLY way, and is outright insulting everyone who doesn't agree. I'm a power player with super lists, for example, just because I want to actually try to put some tactical depth and thought into a game. Everyone else is dumb/screaming/stubborn as a mule for not agreeing with exactly everything Swastakowey is saying.

Well enough about Swastakowey. Let's get back on the main topic.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Sounds about right, not that I agree with it...but you also need to consider the way they play the game...if you are not playing tournament or pick-up games...then Take all comers ceases to be important. If I know you are bringing knights, and can tailor my list to be able to deal with them...not a huge issue.

Now if you want to do those other things....then it matters, because if I cannot reasonably expect to deal with most threats with a list...it makes for one sided un-fun games.

SO essentially this is just more of GW pushing their view of how the game should be played in little groups with scenarios etc.

IT will fall to TOs and club groups to make decisions at this point about what they want to allow in order for the game to funciton.

Except Swastakowey isn't just talking about the way they play. Swastakowey is saying that their way is the ONLY way, and is outright insulting everyone who doesn't agree. I'm a power player with super lists, for example, just because I want to actually try to put some tactical depth and thought into a game. Everyone else is dumb/screaming/stubborn as a mule for not agreeing with exactly everything Swastakowey is saying.

I was responding to the original post and nothing else. It is how GW views the game right or wrong. I happen to think it is bad for the game...but they obviously prefer that style of play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The imbalance is also an obvious money grab and they essentially say as much. New unit screw your army...change your army to fight that unit. We don't want take all comers because that means you only need to buy 2000 points (or whatever) worth of models...instead of 10000 so you can tailor to fight whatever new crap we throw out there.