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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
Those who do not like it are a select group, more of a subtype of wargamer to be honest that simply are never going to be satisfied until things go back to the way they used to be.

I only recently started wargaming, I have no idea how they used to be - I just know that 40k rules could be so much better. I love 40k, I dislike GW due to the policies and actions and the rules due to their cumbersome nature and lack of balance. That seems quite a reasonable distinction to me and quite rational.

 Mentat wrote:
I think if players get some practice in and break out of their old set ways, they will find that 7th is not so bad after all.

How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.

Actually, I was quite satisfied with 6th, even with its faults. I've been playing since RT and I like change when its for the better. 2nd was a huge change but it was better. 5th was better than 4th, etc. It's not change we don't like, it's arbitrary changes that don't improve the game that we don't like. What pushed me away was GW pushing further away from balance, making escalation a part of the actual game, lack of structure for army building, obvious cash grab edition, and too expensive. One of those by themselves wouldn't do it but all together, yes.

And I'm completely up for trying new things. I've been trying other games. Big changes but I've found they have better rules and I have more fun with them for less money.

Stop characterizing people with complaints, Lobomalo. (badwolf?)You clearly don't understand anything we've been saying. You may think the game is fun and that's fine, but at least try to understand why people are leaving.

You know, I think I'd be far less forceful in my opposition if GW fans would stop mischaracterizing me and actually took the time to understand what's going on.

We understand what you are saying, what we don't understand is why you rushed in here to crap on peoples' enjoyment? ...for what? ...why?

I've played since RT as well. I've seen the same arguments you've made with every big change over the lifespan of this game, as I'm sure you have. You've made it to 6 editions, and surprisingly, you were, "quite satisfied with 6th" (haha). If you don't like what many of us, actually playing the game, find to be huge improvements, good for you - you can still play 6th that you are quite satisfied with.

It seems like so many people here want us all to quite playing; and instead understand that it's just not fun / realistic / strategic and join you at home in your misery, slinging negativity on forums.

 Yonan wrote:

How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.

Let me help you, since you are new to the game. You mentioned some other great games that 40k could be like; ...if you are holding out for some tight tournament edition style ruleset with 40K, just play that 'other' game, because 40K has NEVER been that (and never even hinted at that) in nearly 30 years.

It's never been perfect but rational adults with basic human communication can make it work wonderfully, that slow FAQs / updates / imperfections have always been a part of this game; if that is too much for you - Crapping on some kid's enjoyment here won't fix that.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.

Let me help you, since you are new to the game. You mentioned some other great games that 40k could be like; ...if you are holding out for some tight tournament edition style ruleset with 40K, just play that 'other' game, because 40K has NEVER been that (and never even hinted at that) in nearly 30 years.

It's never been perfect but rational adults with basic human communication can make it work wonderfully, that slow FAQs / updates / imperfections have always been a part of this game; if that is too much for you - Crapping on some kid's enjoyment here won't fix that.

I've already come to that conclusion a year or more ago - I play Dreadball, will play Deadzone when I paint up my guys, and will probably get at least one more of: DZC, X-Wing or Warmahordes. However, me playing those games doesn't mean that I can't hope that 40k gets better, or that I can't discuss my problems with it, or indeed why I love the setting and the miniatures. I'm a very capable man - I can do *two* things! ; )

Please quote where I crapped on someones enjoyment, I'd like to see it. You didn't show me last time I asked, but I figure it's worth another shot.

 Yonan wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

How can my ways be set if I'm relatively new to tabletop gaming? Overall 7th is a minor upgrade to 6th to me due to a couple of things that should have been FAQ'd plus some poorly thought out (rushed to release this financial year) systems.

Let me help you, since you are new to the game. You mentioned some other great games that 40k could be like; ...if you are holding out for some tight tournament edition style ruleset with 40K, just play that 'other' game, because 40K has NEVER been that (and never even hinted at that) in nearly 30 years.

It's never been perfect but rational adults with basic human communication can make it work wonderfully, that slow FAQs / updates / imperfections have always been a part of this game; if that is too much for you - Crapping on some kid's enjoyment here won't fix that.

I've already come to that conclusion a year or more ago - I play Dreadball, will play Deadzone when I paint up my guys, and will probably get at least one more of: DZC, X-Wing or Warmahordes. However, me playing those games doesn't mean that I can't hope that 40k gets better, or that I can't discuss my problems with it, or indeed why I love the setting and the miniatures. I'm a very capable man - I can do *two* things! ; )

Please quote where I crapped on someones enjoyment, I'd like to see it. You didn't show me last time I asked, but I figure it's worth another shot.

Not to make this into some stupid personal thing ...you've been quite civil, as have most in this discussion; but to me if someone is very happy about something, and you seek to bring him down, and prove that he is just wrong - that's crapping on him (even if done in a civil manner).

Not everyone has been civil though, and the "last" time you asked the example was given to you, you just chose to ignore it.

We don't want to stop them having fun - we've said repeatedly not only that you can have fun with a bad system, but we're happy you're having fun with it. It's just that we're not, and this is why. I wasn't going to enter into the thread, despite some "brace yourselves, the whingers are coming!" posts such as:

 lobbywatson wrote:
Shhhh keep it down if the haters hear you they will pounce!!!

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
Haha, I'm sure the cynics will show up soon

but this was what I replied to which started the objective cards discussion:

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
However, if you aren't the sort that makes up background like that you might find the objectives feel artificial.

That was not just incorrect but pretty insulting. We love backgrounds for our games - we just don't feel the cards provide for it, and we said why. My reply seems very clear and polite to me:

 Yonan wrote:
Going to have to disagree there. I love having a good background for games - but this implementation of tactical objectives is anything but tactical or narrative. There are proposed ways to fix it (in this thread iirc) but as is, really don't like the system.

I looked for the "ridiculous anger", I couldn't see it. If it was there, surely you could have quoted it - specifically - to illustrate it. Since you didn't, I had no option but to write your statement off as hyperbole - which if you can't back up your assertion of me "crapping on" peoples fun here, I'm going to have to do the same. I had no intention of doing that, if you can show me where I have I'd like to know so I don't make the mistake again.

You have just proven that you are just as capable of going back and reading the previous comments; you don't need me to do it for you. ...read Calgarspimphand's comments and tell me there is no anger there, even if you agree with him.

There have been even more insulting comments coming for your camp (shoots and ladders) but who really cares? ...what do you think you are solving here?

I did read it, I saw no anger - at players - there. I saw it at the rules. That's a very important distinction. People have repeatedly called those of us that dislike certain aspects of the rules whiners and what not. That's an attack on the player - we're attacking the game.

 Yonan wrote:
I did read it, I saw no anger - at players - there. I saw it at the rules. That's a very important distinction. People have repeatedly called those of us that dislike certain aspects of the rules whiners and what not. That's an attack on the player - we're attacking the game.

Ok great Yonan; being told we just don't understand combat realism, or strategy, or that we seek to play shoots and ladders because we are incapable of tactics is attacking the game. This is getting stupid now. Selectively read whatever you want. Have fun playing other games, while I enjoy 40K.

You can enjoy 40k all you want. I don't really care what you play or how.

My 20th anniversary with 40k will be in August. And I find myself closer to the end than the beginning. I bought the 2nd edition box set with my first paycheck from a new job. My very first experience was a veteran telling me not to play Space Wolves if I wanted to play at all because they were so broken. I persevered and played a lot over the years and championed 40k like some of you guys in this thread. So I feel I understand you, but I believe you are refusing to understand me. I don't want a previous edition like some have accused me of. I can easily play that if it were the case. I don't mind rules changing. What I want is a rule set that matches the quality of the miniatures they produce. What I'm getting instead is misdirection about forging narratives and such. What I need is GW to do is to stop pissing on my boots and tell me its raining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for the record I know GW will never do it. They are determined to reduce the value to money ratio to the thinnest possible. Knowing that doesn't stop me from being frustrated by it.

I have yet to play 7th edition, but have it on order and it should come in soon. I was wondering for those who have played it has the new missions affected how you build lists and if so what kind of changes have you had to make. Also with the new rules what is in your opinion the best change?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design. Almost every player who has said they like it usually adds in the fact they must house rule it (remember, $85 rules that you're editing to make fun...) such that if you get an objective that's literally impossible, it's ditched.

Barely even counts as a house rule it's s obvious. And the rules allow for unachievable cards to be discarded if you stick by the rules. Maelstrom missions are absolutely fine for PUGs.

Just wanted to swing by and rub the nose in this one to make a point: If it's such an obvious house rule, why isn't it in the book? Or are we ready to admit that the rules are bad and paying $85 for something that needs to be "obviously" house-ruled is a stinker?

 TheKbob wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I have to wonder if people playing the new missions have played other games with real asymmetrical mission design. Almost every player who has said they like it usually adds in the fact they must house rule it (remember, $85 rules that you're editing to make fun...) such that if you get an objective that's literally impossible, it's ditched.

Barely even counts as a house rule it's s obvious. And the rules allow for unachievable cards to be discarded if you stick by the rules. Maelstrom missions are absolutely fine for PUGs.

Just wanted to swing by and rub the nose in this one to make a point: If it's such an obvious house rule, why isn't it in the book? Or are we ready to admit that the rules are bad and paying $85 for something that needs to be "obviously" house-ruled is a stinker?

To be fair, it is kind of obvious really. Our group figured that you'd remove things you couldn't do as they would be a waste of a draw

Just wondering about your house rule Lobomalo (and any others who do so). How would you handle the situation where at the start of the game, that objective was possible but after a few turns became impossible. For example to destroy a flyer but the flyer has crashed himself mid game? Do you discard the card if you draw it midgame? Or do you only remove the cards at the beginning. And wouldn't you be worried about increasing the relative frequency of the other cards?

 milkboy wrote:
Just wondering about your house rule Lobomalo (and any others who do so). How would you handle the situation where at the start of the game, that objective was possible but after a few turns became impossible. For example to destroy a flyer but the flyer has crashed himself mid game? Do you discard the card if you draw it midgame? Or do you only remove the cards at the beginning. And wouldn't you be worried about increasing the relative frequency of the other cards?

Frequency has never really been an issue. We simply remove the ones we cannot do, for example none of us run MC so we simply take it out. If one of us did and it died before the card was drawn, so be it. IIRC there are some cards that give points as long as the unit was taken out in the game at any time, not just that turn. Can't remember which it is atm though

That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...

 Crimson Devil wrote:
getting instead is misdirection about forging narratives and such. What I need is GW to do is to stop pissing on my boots and tell me its raining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
.

and if they told you the truth, which is that they dropped almost half the value of their stock value since 6E came, and TOLD you that the only saving grace for the company during that time were Dividends, would you listen? There's more to this than just a wish to piss on your bioots. Now I've seen the dividends and i know they are making money hand over fist. But if you're a CEO with stock price dropped in half, what exactly are your options at that point? Not many. KEEP making money and when stocjk rises again, perhaps you can let up.

I dont like it. but I understand it.

 Gunzhard wrote:
That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...

Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.

Lobomalo wrote:
To be fair, it is kind of obvious really. Our group figured that you'd remove things you couldn't do as they would be a waste of a draw

And again, not addressing the issue. If it's an obvious fix, why isn't it in the rulebook? Why are you excited to be paying $85 for a set of rules that you must make obvious fixes towards?

Gunzhard wrote:That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...

Really? Dunno about you, but watched and read battle reports of Maelstrom games where one guy gets 2~3 impossible cards along with 2~3 "get this objective in your enemy deployment zone" styles while the other player gets 2~3 stupid, easy ones along with the objectives they sit on. Great, awesome game. Wonderful design.



And you never addressed playing games with real asymmetrical design that makes the game actually work versus random card pull/dice rolling. If you haven't played said games or missions, I highly suggest either grabbing the tournament missions floating around from 6E or proxying Malifaux. The rules for Malifaux are $15, so nothing terrible.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
getting instead is misdirection about forging narratives and such. What I need is GW to do is to stop pissing on my boots and tell me its raining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
.

and if they told you the truth, which is that they dropped almost half the value of their stock value since 6E came, and TOLD you that the only saving grace for the company during that time were Dividends, would you listen? There's more to this than just a wish to piss on your bioots. Now I've seen the dividends and i know they are making money hand over fist. But if you're a CEO with stock price dropped in half, what exactly are your options at that point? Not many. KEEP making money and when stocjk rises again, perhaps you can let up.

I dont like it. but I understand it.

You make a good point. It is understandable, but I don't think I'm very sympathetic to their plight anymore. GW has squandered too much good will from it's customer base over the years. I feel they are currently feeling the inevitable outcome of their policies.

7th Edition Rulebook page 137 - the last paragraph titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives":

In summary -
...after you discard the cards you've achieved, you can select one remaining (if any) and discard it - if you choose.

TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.

But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...

Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.

you might want to reread the section titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives" - especially the second sentence.

 Gangrel767 wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...

Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.

you might want to reread the section titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives" - especially the second sentence.

I have. Read the first one. You cannot discard until AFTER you finish an objective. It's fairly clear, don't just skip over it.

Discarding Tactical Objectives

"Once a Tactical Objective has been achieved, it is discarded. After all Tactical Objectives
that have been achieved are discarded, the player whose turn it is can select one of his
remaining Active Tactical Objectives (if any) and choose to discard it – this scores no
Victory Points. Discarded Tactical Objectives cease being Active and you cannot generate
or achieve these objectives for the remainder of the game."

That is verbatim. Don't simply skip over sentences you disagree with or think unimportant, that happens too much on these forums as it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
7th Edition Rulebook page 137 - the last paragraph titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives":

In summary -
...after you discard the cards you've achieved, you can select one remaining (if any) and discard it - if you choose.

TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.

But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.

To reiterate:

"Once a Tactical Objective has been achieved, it is discarded. After all Tactical Objectives
that have been achieved are discarded, the player whose turn it is can select one of his
remaining Active Tactical Objectives (if any) and choose to discard it – this scores no
Victory Points. Discarded Tactical Objectives cease being Active and you cannot generate
or achieve these objectives for the remainder of the game."

It gives you a specific timing as to when they can be discarded. Don't take out just a portion of the rule and misquote it like that, it does not help anyone.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Gangrel767 wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...

Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.

you might want to reread the section titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives" - especially the second sentence.

I have. Read the first one. You cannot discard until AFTER you finish an objective. It's fairly clear, don't just skip over it.

I don't think that is what is says at all, you're putting a funny interpretation on the rule... "after all Tac Ob that have been achieved are discarded (<--- this could be zero), the player whose turn it is can select one of his remaining... (if any)... ...". The reason it comes AFTER is because it is possible that you achieve ALL of your objectives and have NO cards left to discard.

 TheKbob wrote:

Lobomalo wrote:
To be fair, it is kind of obvious really. Our group figured that you'd remove things you couldn't do as they would be a waste of a draw

And again, not addressing the issue. If it's an obvious fix, why isn't it in the rulebook? Why are you exciting to be paying $85 for a set of rules that you must make obvious fixes towards?

To be fair, if you need a rulebook to tell you step by step what you can and cannot do, maybe you should stop playing games in general. It's an inference that you discard what no player can achieve, critical thinking really. Also I can see GW not mentioning it at all because the bulk of their player base has at least one model of every single objective. It really only becomes an issue for new players or brand new armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Gangrel767 wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
That house rule is totally unnecessary. You can already discard an unusable card at the end of every turn. Are we really so childish that we can't wait one turn because we didn't get exactly what we want when we wanted it? I can't believe this is still a thing...

Actually, you're only able to discard if you complete an objective. Says so under the discarding and objective heading. You don't get to do it every turn simply if you want to.

you might want to reread the section titled "Discarding Tactical Objectives" - especially the second sentence.

I have. Read the first one. You cannot discard until AFTER you finish an objective. It's fairly clear, don't just skip over it.

I don't think that is what is says at all, you're putting a funny interpretation on the rule... "after all Tac Ob that have been achieved are discarded (this could be zero), the player whose turn it is can select one of his remaining... (if any)... ...". The reason it comes AFTER is because it is possible that you achieve ALL of your objectives and have NO cards left to discard.

Feels like YMDC all over again. You cannot take out portions of a sentence and try and make it an argument, especially when you are discarding relevant parts that disprove your argument. You cannot achieve zero objectives, you need an actual number, therefore if you cannot achieve an objective, you cannot discard an objective. But this is Dakka and people have different ideas when it comes to interpretation of the English language.

 Gunzhard wrote:

TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.

But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.

See, here's the funny thing, because it IS random, I may never have that happen. Or I could have it happen every single game I play. There is nothing remotely tactical about random. Where as your comment still doesn't address the fact you can achieve the same game dynamics of differing objectives through better asymmetrical game design found in homebrew missions planned for major 40k tournaments or other miniatures games.

I don't need to play something to know whether it'll be fun for playing as much 40k as I have. I don't want to micromanage objectives with dice rolls or getting stuck with another $8 for cards or spend the time to make my own. I can just play Malifaux instead to scratch the same itch. Or play the missions that were being developed by 40k TOs.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.

But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.

See, here's the funny thing, because it IS random, I may never have that happen. Or I could have it happen every single game I play. There is nothing remotely tactical about random. Where as your comment still doesn't address the fact you can achieve the same game dynamics of differing objectives through better asymmetrical game design found in homebrew missions planned for major 40k tournaments or other miniatures games.

I don't need to play something to know whether it'll be fun for playing as much 40k as I have. I don't want to micromanage objectives with dice rolls or getting stuck with another $8 for cards or spend the time to make my own. I can just play Malifaux instead to scratch the same itch. Or play the missions that were being developed by 40k TOs.

Then you are free to do that. For others, random is fun, tactical and strategic. To be honest, no competition is without randomness. otherwise things become predictable and therefore end up in draws.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Feels like YMDC all over again. You cannot take out portions of a sentence and try and make it an argument, especially when you are discarding relevant parts that disprove your argument. You cannot achieve zero objectives, you need an actual number, therefore if you cannot achieve an objective, you cannot discard an objective. But this is Dakka and people have different ideas when it comes to interpretation of the English language.

I'm no English expert but I'm pretty sure that's not a mutually exclusive relationship... the number of achieved objectives can be zero, and further look on page 124 in the Tactical Traits and reason #1 "Tactical Genius".

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Feels like YMDC all over again. You cannot take out portions of a sentence and try and make it an argument, especially when you are discarding relevant parts that disprove your argument. You cannot achieve zero objectives, you need an actual number, therefore if you cannot achieve an objective, you cannot discard an objective. But this is Dakka and people have different ideas when it comes to interpretation of the English language.

I'm no English expert but I'm pretty sure that's not a mutually exclusive relationship... the number of achieved objectives can be zero, and further look on page 124 in the Tactical Traits and reason #1 "Tactical Genius".

Yeah, this is going to end up just like YMDC, another pointless argument with people looking for loopholes for something they want to do.


That trait does not give you permission to discard whenever you want though, especially as the section explicitly telling you how and when to discard is already mentioned.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.

But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.

See, here's the funny thing, because it IS random, I may never have that happen. Or I could have it happen every single game I play. There is nothing remotely tactical about random. Where as your comment still doesn't address the fact you can achieve the same game dynamics of differing objectives through better asymmetrical game design found in homebrew missions planned for major 40k tournaments or other miniatures games.

I don't need to play something to know whether it'll be fun for playing as much 40k as I have. I don't want to micromanage objectives with dice rolls or getting stuck with another $8 for cards or spend the time to make my own. I can just play Malifaux instead to scratch the same itch. Or play the missions that were being developed by 40k TOs.

Great dude... you should do that. We can only hope no small person rushes in to announce that your way of playing (that they've never tried) is wrong, still not perfect, and could be better like game XYZ, because 40K has literally NEVER been suited to tournament play despite decades of TO's trying to cram 40K's square peg into their round holes.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

TheKolb - if hypothetical doom and gloom possible scenarios are keeping you from trying something, that just might be fun, well - that's on you dude.

But that 'house rule' is absolutely unnecessary... the rulebook has already got that covered.

See, here's the funny thing, because it IS random, I may never have that happen. Or I could have it happen every single game I play. There is nothing remotely tactical about random. Where as your comment still doesn't address the fact you can achieve the same game dynamics of differing objectives through better asymmetrical game design found in homebrew missions planned for major 40k tournaments or other miniatures games.

I don't need to play something to know whether it'll be fun for playing as much 40k as I have. I don't want to micromanage objectives with dice rolls or getting stuck with another $8 for cards or spend the time to make my own. I can just play Malifaux instead to scratch the same itch. Or play the missions that were being developed by 40k TOs.

Great dude... you should do that. We can only hope no small person rushes in to announce that your way of playing (that they've never tried) is wrong, still not perfect, and could be better like game XYZ, because 40K has literally NEVER been suited to tournament play despite decades of TO's trying to cram 40K's square peg into their round holes.

Went to a tournament once, just to watch a friend play. Not good at all, fun watching everyone fight over a 1/4 " though, very funny indeed.

 Gunzhard wrote:


Great dude... you should do that. We can only hope no small person rushes in to announce that your way of playing (that they've never tried) is wrong, still not perfect, and could be better like game XYZ, because 40K has literally NEVER been suited to tournament play despite decades of TO's trying to cram 40K's square peg into their round holes.

First, someone doesn't know their past, Games Workshop supported tournaments for three editions and still holds them at Warhammer World. Second, GW is the one rushing in and saying "this is the best way ever to play our game, it just so happens to include another $8 add-on to not make it super tedious, enjoy!" For the record, I'd never interrupt someones game. I let them do as they please. But this is a forum where we discuss and share ideas.

So, great, you enjoy an obvious cash grab and a crappy attempt at asymmetrical game design. Don't get upset when other people say it can and has been done better to a much better level of fairness and design.