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.

ShadarLogoth wrote:Did you just condone death threats by pissed off video gamers and censure GW for being defensive in the same post?

So its ok for fans to have ridiculously irrational reactions and beat there chest into an insane frenzy...but if a company chooses to take this insane frenzy with a rational grain of salt they are evil?

There's nothing rational about the vitriol I get from GW redshirts about how rumors and especially the forums that spread them are hurting the games community. GW is not "being defensive", they're responding to negative feedback by throwing a hissy fit. It's not "You shouldn't believe everything they say on the internet", it's "You shouldn't believe anything they say on the internet." It's not "Lack of balance between different codexes isn't as bit of a problem as those people say", it's "All those tournament players are having badwrongfun."

Agamemnon2 wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:Did you just condone death threats by pissed off video gamers and censure GW for being defensive in the same post?

So its ok for fans to have ridiculously irrational reactions and beat there chest into an insane frenzy...but if a company chooses to take this insane frenzy with a rational grain of salt they are evil?

There's nothing rational about the vitriol I get from GW redshirts about how rumors and especially the forums that spread them are hurting the games community. GW is not "being defensive", they're responding to negative feedback by throwing a hissy fit.

Maybe they just don't like you in particular Assuming you live in Finland we meet the same redshirts and I've never seen them throwing hissy fits at anyone at all.

I wouldn't put it past them. Still, I'm more sinned against than sinning.

I did say that it's GW as an institution that's throwing whatever the proper term should be for an institutional hissy fit. The individual redshirts are more likely to exaggerate, misattribute or tell flat-out untruths when it comes to the online community.

I used to work for GW, and I always went on various forums to learn the latest tactics, rules queries, and general feeling of people, because most of the time if something was a talking point on a forum, I'd need to answer the same question in-store.

But I was the odd one out, generally the opinion of forums is that they are a hive of scum and villainous tournament players who play to win, not to have fun.

I endeavoured to keep my rules knowledge of every game system (and codex) as sharp as possible, to avoid the stereotype that redshirts know nothing about the game or the rules. Reading forums helped me do that, and pretty often I'd tell a customer a strategy that I read online if they told me they were having trouble against a particular opponent.

It should be said that I did work there casually, not full-time.

Also, that cover picture looks a bit like the front cover of the limited edition 3rd edition codex, the one with the cardboard sleeve. Maybe we're seeing the limited edition copy?

The win/fun dichotomy has always annoyed me. It is false. The objective of every game is to win. The purpose of many games is to have fun (there are others). These do not exclude each other.

Exactly, it's not like wanting to win and wanting to have fun are mutually exclusive.

@pretre: The link 'twas posted naught one page ago, dear sir.

Agamemnon2 wrote:The win/fun dichotomy has always annoyed me. It is false. The objective of every game is to win. The purpose of many games is to have fun (there are others). These do not exclude each other.

It's more of an excuse by horrid players to justify to themselves why they are so bad.. and that is "Because they like to have fun, and those who beat them don't enjoy having fun". This mindset also allows them the comfort of never having to learn to get better.

Storm bolters always get 2 shots at full range, moving or not. For a 3 point upgrade over a bolt pistol id say that's more than fair. Then consider gk psybolts. Bolters/pulse rifles/gauss blasters & flayers all need a boost to make them tactically feasible. Rumors do just that.

I'd rather lose a hard faught battle then win all the time...

yes the objective is to win the game, but i'd rather it be challenging. if i came across a build that always won, with ease, i'd probably stop playing it (mind you i'm not playing in a tourny but generaly playing)

I also probably wouldn't play against someone who played the same army that won with ease every time (not that that happens, but if it did), i want to enjoy my time playing... Yes winning is the goal, but losing doesn't equal the game not being fun in itself...

tetrisphreak wrote:Storm bolters always get 2 shots at full range, moving or not. For a 3 point upgrade over a bolt pistol id say that's more than fair. Then consider gk psybolts. Bolters/pulse rifles/gauss blasters & flayers all need a boost to make them tactically feasible. Rumors do just that.

I believe people are wondering if/how the weapon in question (or any assault weapon for that matter) interacts with Relentless in 6th ed. As it would appear Termies gain no benefit from the rule with their basic weapons.

CSM Termies OTOH...

I'd also guess Stormbolters will still be assault weapons, so charging after is viable, not so much with bolters.

Dr. Delorean wrote:@pretre: The link 'twas posted naught one page ago, dear sir.

Someone asked that someone rehost the picture so that they can see it while they are at work.

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

I regularly play games where someone goes off some tangent, be it Kill unit/player X, or amass something (money/resoucres) or other bizarre odditites totally unconnected with what will actually provide victory. I regularly play games with odd forces/tactics fully expecting to lose, just to break a rut of seeing the same thing all the time. All these things can be a great fun, and we may not even be checking who actually won at the end of the game, so long as everyone had fun, who cares. First and foremost playing games is a social event not a competitive event.

Many games are played in a larger context than just the single session. A certain game I play a lot is usually within a wider campaign context. Such campaigns may well mean you do not play to win an individual game, but play with some other objective (kill a particular enemy and ignore the actual victory conditions being not uncommon).

Many years ago we used to play a ww3 boardgame, after 1 panzer unit scored a series a spectacular victories in 1 game the other guy made it his mission in most games afterwards to kill that specific unit. Counter productive, but funny as hell.

Formosa wrote:

sennacherib wrote:Not sure how i feel about the suggestion that powerweapons are only ap3. So now storm sheilds are redundant? and we can just start playing terminator hammer instead of infantry or tank hammer. Lists like Deathwing will become the norm. And to all ye non TEQ capable lists, well, your screwed.

Yeah, i sincerly hope that this is wrong, as are the rules concerning dueling, and the multiple hits on front armor AV14 thing. That sounds weak as well.

Like i said before if my deathwing get a massivly needed buff i will be happy, i dont want OP though just nasty enough to make GK and SW worry a little. Remember that DW at the moment in the hands of a skilled player do "alright to good" but anyone else they get groin punched easily, and if you playing GK or SW who can do what you do but better and cheaper (sometimes) then its a real uphill struggle, i just want them to ballance the playing field a little.

Any time one army's power is increased to be better than or "worry" the other two most potent armies in the game, every other army is nerfed that much harder as a result.

I think that assigning AP to weapons (by the rumors that is) is not a good idea. I have a great deal of problems with AP5 on chains swords than with power weapons. Do you know how powerful that will be against Xeno armies? Especially in the hands of standard space marine squad?

Very unbalanced.

I am hoping that the rumor is not correct.

In my area the price increase and the lack of information to my LFGS means that he (and other indi's) in my region are cutting back on what they carry on stock on hand by 20% (a few are cutting back more).

Not good. Not Good at all.

Kirasu wrote:It's more of an excuse by horrid players to justify to themselves why they are so bad.. and that is "Because they like to have fun, and those who beat them don't enjoy having fun". This mindset also allows them the comfort of never having to learn to get better.

Why should they, though? If they really don't care about winning tournaments, who are you to tell them that they should?

Adam LongWalker wrote:I think that assigning AP to weapons (by the rumors that is) is not a good idea. I have a great deal of problems with AP5 on chains swords than with power weapons. Do you know how powerful that will be against Xeno armies? Especially in the hands of standard space marine squad?

My Necrons do not care at all

Adam LongWalker wrote:I think that assigning AP to weapons (by the rumors that is) is not a good idea. I have a great deal of problems with AP5 on chains swords than with power weapons. Do you know how powerful that will be against Xeno armies? Especially in the hands of standard space marine squad?

Of course, we don't know if there will be a difference between regular "close combat weapons" and chainswords and if there is who will get what. It's quite possible that Tactical squads will have regular CCWs which may or may not have an AP and Assault Squads (which are pretty terrible right now) would get AP5 chainswords.

It would definitely make Blood Angels and Black Templars a bit rough though.

puree wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

Grimtuff wrote:

puree wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

While it is personally important to me that my opponent enjoys a game, it's a very dangerous thing to claim people have responsibility for the fun of others. Fun is a very ill-defined term, and sometimes even a person's best efforts at congeniality combined with a certain style of play can tick off a player whose own needs for fun do not line up well.

It's certainly the fundamental responsibility of each person to make sure they are sharing enough with their opponent in terms of personal expectations and desires, to give said opponents at least a chance to ensure they have fun. For example, Someone playing strictly by the rules, or NOT strictly by the rules ... are neither of them things that inherently impugn fun, unless the opponent doesn't want to do the same ... and it's really his job to share that, not his opponent's to guess it.

Grimtuff wrote:
You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

Actually I didn't miss the point at all. That is why I specifically emphasised the playing bit. The poster I was quoting was the one missing the point. He was talking about the difference between win/fun. When people talk of playing to win/fun they are talking about what they playing for.

The OBJECTIVE of PLAYING and the OBJECTIVE of the GAME itself are not of neccessity one and the same.

MVBrandt wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:

puree wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

While it is personally important to me that my opponent enjoys a game, it's a very dangerous thing to claim people have responsibility for the fun of others. Fun is a very ill-defined term, and sometimes even a person's best efforts at congeniality combined with a certain style of play can tick off a player whose own needs for fun do not line up well.

It's certainly the fundamental responsibility of each person to make sure they are sharing enough with their opponent in terms of personal expectations and desires, to give said opponents at least a chance to ensure they have fun. For example, Someone playing strictly by the rules, or NOT strictly by the rules ... are neither of them things that inherently impugn fun, unless the opponent doesn't want to do the same ... and it's really his job to share that, not his opponent's to guess it.

Okay, to break it down further: Wheaton's law. That is all.

But now we're going a little OT.

Grimtuff wrote:

puree wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote: The objective of every game is to win.

That certainly does not means the objective of playing any particular game is to win. There is a world of difference between playing to win and playing to have fun/chill out with your mates/teach some new players etc.

You've missed the point completely there mate. The OBJECTIVE of every game is to win, no-one goes into a game thinking "I'm gonna try my hardest to lose this one!" The POINT of the game is to have fun. I.e. how you go about trying to achieve your objective is not detrimental to your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

And that also doesn't mean that you can't have two wholly different "win conditions." Maybe he hates those tanks and wants to destroy them all. Clearly, for him winning is killing all of your tanks, even if, for you, winning is killing that stupid Captain of his that keeps killing your favorite squad.

pretre wrote:

Nice photoshop looking cover, it does look badass to be fair, but as i said it looks photoshoped, hope its real as i love DA

Stoff3 wrote:
Man, you must be way off in your way of thinking here. First of all, 8th edition in WFB made the one most imbalancing efforts ever made to the game if you think about all army books. That is the main problem. Amries like Wood Elves, Bretonnia and so on are utterly worthless atm and players will stop playing. It's also very one sided games when large infantry blobs are dominating the meta.
.

Those books are like a decade old. There are probably a bunch of 9 year old gamers running around out there who are younger than the armybooks in question!

So, you can't fault 8th for being imbalanced for that reason. It would be extremely poor system design to try to devise a set of core rules that weighed new books (designed under a new philosophy) against ancient books that are due for replacement.

You can, however, fault GW for putting out the new books too slowly.

Formosa wrote:

Nice photoshop looking cover, it does look badass to be fair, but as i said it looks photoshoped, hope its real as i love DA

That doesn't look photoshopped at all. Look at the light reflected in the bottom corner, for one thing. That's very difficult to photoshop in a photorealistic way.

Furthermore, unless that artwork already exists somewhere, you're suggesting that the "photoshopper" actually illustrated a detailed full-page picture of Dark Angels in the exact Games Workshop style. Although, for all I know that illustration does already exist (but I haven't seen it anywhere).

Well, if it's photoshopped, then surely that artwork must already exist somewhere. If so, where? Or are we to believe a fairly talented artist decided to mock this up to troll us, then failed to take a proper photograph so we could actually properly see the artwork? This seems unlikely.

Can't really see that as the cover of the new rulebook, but if it is, what are we going to call it? The big puke green rulebook (BPGR)?

Re: CCW AP weapons.

I don't think it 'nerfs xenos' at all. Necrons have 3+ armor, Tau are 3+ or 4+. Eldar are 4+ and higher initative.

Dark Eldar have higher initiative, so they are still hitting first, and units that only have 5+ armor to begin with (warriors) are still going to get stomped in CC. Plus they'll probably still have FNP.

Orks are going to take a hit, but going from a 6+ save to no save I don't think will ruin the army.

I think it's a good idea. A squad of berzerkers should not get tied down by a blob squad of IG. It also gives a LOT more diversity in close combat units where as currently it's simply power weapons, rending, or nothing at all.