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.

 TheKbob wrote:

 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!"

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.

Dude why are you complaining? Seriously. You realize that the tactical objectives are entirely optional right? You don't even need to buy the stupid cards, just roll a dice. If you would rather not play with them, here it's easy to fix.

"Hey man, I don't wanna play Maelstrom man, I don't like the objectives man, can we play the way we did back in the 90s" (You)

"Sure man, just let me finish playing with those who like to adapt and play something new then I'm all yours" (Adaptive player)

 TheKbob wrote:

 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!"

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.

I've played in tournaments since 2nd edition, I know their past. GW's minimal "support" of tournament play (now that was a "cash grab") has waxed/waned throughout the years but it's never been reflected in their rules. The words "tournament play" have never been mentioned in a 40K rulebook.

I still can't find where it says, "this is the best way ever to play our game"... and he $8 add-on is totally optional and in no way required.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Dude why are you complaining? Seriously. You realize that the tactical objectives are entirely optional right? You don't even need to buy the stupid cards, just roll a dice. If you would rather not play with them, here it's easy to fix.

"Hey man, I don't wanna play Maelstrom man, I don't like the objectives man, can we play the way we did back in the 90s" (You)

"Sure man, just let me finish playing with those who like to adapt and play something new then I'm all yours" (Adaptive player)

Well, the dice is super tedious and another bad design by Games Workshop, but that's just a minor points.

Rather, it's more because it adds one more layer of a game being a non-starter. If I want to play Eternal War or Alter of War missions, but my opponent wants to play Maelstrom only, well then I guess we don't play. And I like how you snidely insult me. You're a self admitted newbie to this game. I have played in many different scenes, stores, and states for years and played in a great variety of campaigns and tournaments. I also play multiple different games. So I'd say I'm more "adaptive" than a gaming newbie.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Dude why are you complaining? Seriously. You realize that the tactical objectives are entirely optional right? You don't even need to buy the stupid cards, just roll a dice. If you would rather not play with them, here it's easy to fix.

"Hey man, I don't wanna play Maelstrom man, I don't like the objectives man, can we play the way we did back in the 90s" (You)

"Sure man, just let me finish playing with those who like to adapt and play something new then I'm all yours" (Adaptive player)

Well, the dice is super tedious and another bad design by Games Workshop, but that's just a minor points.

Rather, it's more because it adds one more layer of a game being a non-starter. If I want to play Eternal War or Alter of War missions, but my opponent wants to play Maelstrom only, well then I guess we don't play. And I like how you snidely insult me. You're a self admitted newbie to this game. I have played in many different scenes, stores, and states for years and played in a great variety of campaigns and tournaments. I also play multiple different games. So I'd say I'm more "adaptive" than a gaming newbie.

You're really not, based on your comments, you are a hardcore wargaming vet who cannot accept the changes being done to this game. I am new to THIS game. 40k. I have been wargaming much longer than I have been playing 40k, this is a recent thing for me.

I have also been playing other competitive games for over twenty years now. We adapt, or we die off. It is as simple as that.

If you want to continue playing and have a chance against the new wave of players, learn to accept the things you cannot change, grow, evolve. Don't sit there and whine or pout.

Edited, that last line was rude

 Gunzhard wrote:


I've played in tournaments since 2nd edition, I know their past. GW's minimal "support" of tournament play (now that was a "cash grab") has waxed/waned throughout the years but it's never been reflected in their rules. The words "tournament play" have never been mentioned in a 40K rulebook.

I still can't find where it says, "this is the best way ever to play our game"... and he $8 add-on is totally optional and in no way required.

They still supported it. And Warhammer World is enforcing strict Force Organization requirements for their tournaments today. If "Unbound" was so super fair and balanced, they'd not need to say anything. But you and I both know that's a load of krootox feces.

It's the new hotness. Of course it's the "best way to play our game". And given that they used a terrible design of a d66 (lol,wat) table to "draw" cards, you're stuck adding more time to game prep hucking dice to make missions. So you design something so incredibly tedious and then offer an $8 add-on, and BAM! More sales! Cash grab, more like it. And if the rumors are true about the Orks, then everyone gets cards and new missions! Let's add a deck building game to 40k, now, huzzah!

Still haven't addressed why this is somehow better than asymmetrical design as I have proposed it.

Wouldn't it be in GW's best financial interest to at least throw tournament players a bone seeing as how that's (I assume) a sizable portion of the clientele and does a lot to drum up support and excitement for their product? Or at least not chase tournament type players away?

 Lobomalo wrote:

You're really not, based on your comments, you are a hardcore wargaming vet who cannot accept the changes being done to this game. I am new to THIS game. 40k. I have been wargaming much longer than I have been playing 40k, this is a recent thing for me.

I have also been playing other competitive games for over twenty years now. We adapt, or we die off. It is as simple as that.

If you want to continue playing and have a chance against the new wave of players, learn to accept the things you cannot change, grow, evolve. Don't sit there and whine or pout.

You could be a world champion in 40k for all I care, right now, you're just some old guy who can't let go.

Well, you don't show it. I play multiple games and understand what's good and what's not in a game's design. Random for random-sake is not good game design. There's nothing about being adaptive. The mission set still plays to strong, fast armies versus slow or weaker ones.

You're being completely derogatory, so discuss the matter and not myself. I will refer you to Rule #1.

Edit: And I laughed at "new players" to Warhammer 40k. We'll see how well that idea is working for them in about 3 weeks.

Hint: http://masterminis.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-future-of-games-workshop-part-14.html

But then again, what's facts and logic? PSHAW!

 Lobomalo wrote:

 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.

I can totally understand your interpretation of this rule but I don't think it is definitive, and I certainly don't think that is the intent, especially given the Warlord Traits "Tactical Genius".

And further - I'd hardly consider it exploiting a loophole for advantage - when it's basically the same as the 'house rule' you suggested. To me the rule reads pretty clear though - you can always discard one (if you have any left).

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

You're really not, based on your comments, you are a hardcore wargaming vet who cannot accept the changes being done to this game. I am new to THIS game. 40k. I have been wargaming much longer than I have been playing 40k, this is a recent thing for me.

I have also been playing other competitive games for over twenty years now. We adapt, or we die off. It is as simple as that.

If you want to continue playing and have a chance against the new wave of players, learn to accept the things you cannot change, grow, evolve. Don't sit there and whine or pout.

You could be a world champion in 40k for all I care, right now, you're just some old guy who can't let go.

Well, you don't show it. I play multiple games and understand what's good and what's not in a game's design. Random for random-sake is not good game design. There's nothing about being adaptive. The mission set still plays to strong, fast armies versus slow or weaker ones.

So you're being completely derogatory, so either discuss the matter and not myself. I will refer you to Rule #1.

I have been discussing the matter. Dude, you aren't even on topic of the thread. This thread is about why people love 7th. Not why some people have to find issues with every change they experience as if its the end of the world.

You haven't discussed anything positive in fact, you have been negative the entire time.

You lack the ability to adapt. In game design, random is good. It is the only way to ensure true balance between two players because trust me, I've done it in other games, when you take out the random element, you will find players who will find a way to manipulate everything to their advantage.

I just played a game the other day using a friends GW. Took down the Tau player who has reigned supreme for months now at our store, simply through turtling and playing slow. Your analysis of the missions, is wrong.

Now, get back on topic, stop whining and start respecting the tone of the thread that the op was trying to achieve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

You're really not, based on your comments, you are a hardcore wargaming vet who cannot accept the changes being done to this game. I am new to THIS game. 40k. I have been wargaming much longer than I have been playing 40k, this is a recent thing for me.

I have also been playing other competitive games for over twenty years now. We adapt, or we die off. It is as simple as that.

If you want to continue playing and have a chance against the new wave of players, learn to accept the things you cannot change, grow, evolve. Don't sit there and whine or pout.

You could be a world champion in 40k for all I care, right now, you're just some old guy who can't let go.

Well, you don't show it. I play multiple games and understand what's good and what's not in a game's design. Random for random-sake is not good game design. There's nothing about being adaptive. The mission set still plays to strong, fast armies versus slow or weaker ones.

You're being completely derogatory, so discuss the matter and not myself. I will refer you to Rule #1.

Edit: And I laughed at "new players" to Warhammer 40k. We'll see how well that idea is working for them in about 3 weeks.

Hint: http://masterminis.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-future-of-games-workshop-part-14.html

But then again, what's facts and logic? PSHAW!

They're losing money because the die hard players who have been here since 1st and 2nd are unhappy about the changes that have occurred in a game they loved, so they quit, good riddance. Honestly, if you are so unhappy with something that you need to whine about it and quit simply because things aren't the way you like them, you are being nothing more than an immature child.

Things are expensive, that alone stops new players from joining, so what. It won't kill the game, people have been saying that for over ten years. Stocks rise, stocks fall. People will continue to buy and play what they want, that has zero bearing on this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 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.

I can totally understand your interpretation of this rule but I don't think it is definitive, and I certainly don't think that is the intent, especially given the Warlord Traits "Tactical Genius".

And further - I'd hardly consider it exploiting a loophole for advantage - when it's basically the same as the 'house rule' you suggested. To me the rule reads pretty clear though - you can always discard one (if you have any left).

Except it isn't an interpretation. It is explicit wording telling you when and how you can do something. Any changes to this becomes a house rule, which we all have done from what I can see. It sucks being stuck with something you cannot do. But, following the rules as they are written, you are not allowed to discard simply because you want to.

 Lobomalo wrote:


I have been discussing the matter. Dude, you aren't even on topic of the thread. This thread is about why people love 7th. Not why some people have to find issues with every change they experience as if its the end of the world.

You haven't discussed anything positive in fact, you have been negative the entire time.

You lack the ability to adapt. In game design, random is good. It is the only way to ensure true balance between two players because trust me, I've done it in other games, when you take out the random element, you will find players who will find a way to manipulate everything to their advantage.

I just played a game the other day using a friends GW. Took down the Tau player who has reigned supreme for months now at our store, simply through turtling and playing slow. Your analysis of the missions, is wrong.

Now, get back on topic, stop whining and start respecting the tone of the thread that the op was trying to achieve.

Games Workshop has to give me something to love to be positive. They shuffled the rules around with no reason to it and then charged a higher price.

Again, you don't know me. Discuss the matter. Random for random-sake is not good in a game; unless you're confusing the thought of a random table versus a die roll. Weighted probability is the heart of all war gaming, whatever the RNG means is (dice, cards, etc.). It's how we determine results. Making your warlord or psycher confused each game by which talent is theirs or spell power they now know is not good design. Neither is "ever changing series of events" as that plays well to fast, mobile armies and plays poorly to slower or weaker ones. A pool of fixed objectives that are shared between the players means they can choose their army and then choose which mission suits their over all armies strategy. A slower, tougher army may look for the long haul of holding ground or the midfield; to score objectives every turn. A faster army may lean more towards the traditional means of scoring objectives at the end of the game as they operate on a "snatch and run" motif.

My analysis of the missions are spot on. Tau are not a mobile force and the Maelstrom missions will not play well with them. Their mobile units, like Crisis Suits, Vespids, and Kroot, lack durability to withstand for long portions of the game unless they spam one man units and hope to just hold to gain a card. That's not adaptability, that's just asinine. On the inverse, the Eldar still excel in these missions with their fast, insanely durable tanks. The Necrons also enjoy these missions with their Av13 Wall list, which was solid in 6E and would be stupid in 7E Maelstrom games.

As for the tone, I'll let you know after I play my first game of 7th. It's not different enough from 6th to know I'll not "love" it and I know the Maestrom missions are poorly designed.

And you need to read that full series of articles if you just say "stock rises and stocks fall." It shows your ignorance on the subject matter at hand. We have a 32+ page discussion on the subject on this here site filled with intelligent business types. The same story is being said by many different folks across many different forums and blogs; anyone with business sense knows GW is in a bad position. Whether you like the game or not, this doesn't change the facts of that situation.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Wouldn't it be in GW's best financial interest to at least throw tournament players a bone seeing as how that's (I assume) a sizable portion of the clientele and does a lot to drum up support and excitement for their product? Or at least not chase tournament type players away?

By GW's behavior and the behavior they are encouraging in their zealots. I would say they don't believe the Tournament players are a significant part of the base. Or in their arrogance they don't believe people will leave. Either way, once the competitive players start to migrate to other games in mass we might see a mad scramble by GW to get them back. Or prove Lobomalo and his ilk correct that they aren't welcome or will be missed.

And they still don't realize that we're saying why we're unsatisfied with the game because the GW defenders keep characterizing the critics and misunderstanding why they have problems.

NOT reasons people complain:
Inability to change
hate 40k
WAAC players
A group hive mind and/or conspiracy

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


I have been discussing the matter. Dude, you aren't even on topic of the thread. This thread is about why people love 7th. Not why some people have to find issues with every change they experience as if its the end of the world.

You haven't discussed anything positive in fact, you have been negative the entire time.

You lack the ability to adapt. In game design, random is good. It is the only way to ensure true balance between two players because trust me, I've done it in other games, when you take out the random element, you will find players who will find a way to manipulate everything to their advantage.

I just played a game the other day using a friends GW. Took down the Tau player who has reigned supreme for months now at our store, simply through turtling and playing slow. Your analysis of the missions, is wrong.

Now, get back on topic, stop whining and start respecting the tone of the thread that the op was trying to achieve.

Games Workshop has to give me something to love to be positive. They shuffled the rules around with no reason to it and then charged a higher price.

Again, you don't know me. Discuss the matter. Random for random-sake is not good in a game; unless you're confusing the thought of a random table versus a die roll. Weighted probability is the heart of all war gaming, whatever the RNG means is (dice, cards, etc.). It's how we determine results. Making your warlord or psycher confused each game by which talent is theirs or spell power they now know is not good design. Neither is "ever changing series of events" as that plays well to fast, mobile armies and plays poorly to slower or weaker ones. A pool of fixed objectives that are shared between the players means they can choose their army and then choose which mission suits their over all armies strategy. A slower, tougher army may look for the long haul of holding ground or the midfield; to score objectives every turn. A faster army may lean more towards the traditional means of scoring objectives at the end of the game as they operate on a "snatch and run" motif.

My analysis of the missions are spot on. Tau are not a mobile force and the Maelstrom missions will not play well with them. Their mobile units, like Crisis Suits, Vespids, and Kroot, lack durability to withstand for long portions of the game unless they spam one man units and hope to just hold to gain a card. That's not adaptability, that's just asinine. On the inverse, the Eldar still excel in these missions with their fast, insanely durable tanks. The Necrons also enjoy these missions with their Av13 Wall list, which was solid in 6E and would be stupid in 7E Maelstrom games.

As for the tone, I'll let you know after I play my first game of 7th. It's not different enough from 6th to know I'll not "love" it and I know the Maestrom missions are poorly designed.

And you need to read that full series of articles if you just say "stock rises and stocks fall." It shows your ignorance on the subject matter at hand. We have a 32+ page discussion on the subject on this here site filled with intelligent business types. The same story is being said by many different folks across many different forums and blogs; anyone with business sense knows GW is in a bad position. Whether you like the game or not, this doesn't change the facts of that situation.

From a business point I'd agree, except I've been playing long enough to see games rise and fall multiple times forcing people to jump ship only to regret it later. It happened with MtG numerous times over the last 15 years or so, yet still they go, strong as ever. The pricing is an issue, no denying that, but this has been an issue for a very very long time.

But look at it another way, who else is making detailed plastic mold models at such a professional level? Forgeworld charges just as much if not more and I've seen the models in other wargames, they aren't half as good in comparison, though I'd make arguments for Warmachine.

Your analysis is based on faulty data if you have yet to play them. Witnessing games being player or talking about them later does not equal actual experience. Play the game, play the new missions and objectives. And not just one or two, give it a few games for a few weeks and then come back. Until then, everything else you say on the subject has no basis and is pointless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Wouldn't it be in GW's best financial interest to at least throw tournament players a bone seeing as how that's (I assume) a sizable portion of the clientele and does a lot to drum up support and excitement for their product? Or at least not chase tournament type players away?

By GW's behavior and the behavior they are encouraging in their zealots. I would say they don't believe the Tournament players are a significant part of the base. Or in their arrogance they don't believe people will leave. Either way, once the competitive players start to migrate to other games in mass we might see a mad scramble by GW to get them back. Or prove Lobomalo and his ilk correct that they aren't welcome or will be missed.

Happened in MtG, happened in D&D, not wargames I'll grant, but the games keep running and the veterans do come back. They can't help themselves. Give them enough time, let the tantrums die down and once they accept that it won't go back to the way it was, the whines will become grumbles and they'll crawl back to the shops and try and find that niche they used to fill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
And they still don't realize that we're saying why we're unsatisfied with the game because the GW defenders keep characterizing the critics and misunderstanding why they have problems.

NOT reasons people complain:
Inability to change
hate 40k
WAAC players
A group hive mind and/or conspiracy

You would be right if the bulk of the players complaining across multiple forums were not the veterans of the game. From what I can tell, the biggest dissenters have played a minimum since 2nd. Where as people starting in 5th or 6th from what I've seen here, on other forums and in person, are fine with 7th and only miss the brokennes that was the gun line.

 Lobomalo wrote:


From a business point I'd agree, except I've been playing long enough to see games rise and fall multiple times forcing people to jump ship only to regret it later. It happened with MtG numerous times over the last 15 years or so, yet still they go, strong as ever. The pricing is an issue, no denying that, but this has been an issue for a very very long time.

But look at it another way, who else is making detailed plastic mold models at such a professional level? Forgeworld charges just as much if not more and I've seen the models in other wargames, they aren't half as good in comparison, though I'd make arguments for Warmachine.

Your analysis is based on faulty data if you have yet to play them. Witnessing games being player or talking about them later does not equal actual experience. Play the game, play the new missions and objectives. And not just one or two, give it a few games for a few weeks and then come back. Until then, everything else you say on the subject has no basis and is pointless.

You want something positive and we can agree upon? GW models are pretty snazzy, this I agree. There are many from the Fantasy line that I snap up just to paint and display. If that game didn't require a billion troops to make armies, I'd be playing Vampire Counts.

Forgeworld is greatly overpriced. Insanely. What Japan is doing with large, plastic (more durable) fully articulate models is insane. And at 1/8 the cost of Forgeworld. I love me some Forgeworld models. I really, really want a DKoK army full of artillery pieces and tractors. Amazing aesthetic! But the 1850 list I want is also $1,850. Dollar per point. *sigh*

And I will not play Maelstrom of War. It's a common fallacy for one to assume that just because you haven't tried it, doesn't mean you won't like it. If it came up, sure, I might give it a-go, but I won't go out of my way to attempt it. It's random for random-sake and that is the epitome of poor game design. I would first offer my opponent one of the simpler asymmetrical missions proposed at the end of 6E and see if they'd rather do that much simpler, but still tactically satisfying mission type that allows the player to play to the strengths of their strategy versus random nonsense.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


From a business point I'd agree, except I've been playing long enough to see games rise and fall multiple times forcing people to jump ship only to regret it later. It happened with MtG numerous times over the last 15 years or so, yet still they go, strong as ever. The pricing is an issue, no denying that, but this has been an issue for a very very long time.

But look at it another way, who else is making detailed plastic mold models at such a professional level? Forgeworld charges just as much if not more and I've seen the models in other wargames, they aren't half as good in comparison, though I'd make arguments for Warmachine.

Your analysis is based on faulty data if you have yet to play them. Witnessing games being player or talking about them later does not equal actual experience. Play the game, play the new missions and objectives. And not just one or two, give it a few games for a few weeks and then come back. Until then, everything else you say on the subject has no basis and is pointless.

You want something positive and we can agree upon? GW models are pretty snazzy, this I agree. There are many from the Fantasy line that I snap up just to paint and display. If that game didn't require a billion troops to make armies, I'd be playing Vampire Counts.

Forgeworld is greatly overpriced. Insanely. What Japan is doing with large, plastic (more durable) fully articulate models is insane. And at 1/8 the cost of Forgeworld. I love me some Forgeworld models. I really, really want a DKoK army full of artillery pieces and tractors. Amazing aesthetic! But the 1850 list I want is also $1,850. Dollar per point. *sigh*

And I will not play Maelstrom of War. It's a common fallacy for one to assume that just because you haven't tried it, doesn't mean you won't like it. If it came up, sure, I might give it a-go, but I won't go out of my way to attempt it. It's random for random-sake and that is the epitome of poor game design. I would first offer my opponent one of the simpler asymmetrical missions proposed at the end of 6E and see if they'd rather do that much simpler, but still tactically satisfying mission type that allows the player to play to the strengths of their strategy versus random nonsense.

Having played both myself, I can actually say for certain how the games play out and no, they don't favor the highly mobile, unless you're playing with Chaos who are simply slow. Eldar do not dominate as others have claimed because, if both players had sense when placing objectives as the game allows you to do, you can make sure to have a balance for both players so the game isn't a scramble. I don't think Maelstrom is good for a PUG, you can't trust people you don't know, they only care about winning. As for your supposed fallacy, I'd agree if I didn't prove people wrong weekly by making them try or do something they don't like to do. It's my job actually as both a teacher and a mentor, I make people try things they think they'll hate and I make them do things they think they won't like. No fallacy, actual real world experience.

Having player Maelstrom with my group, the highly mobile armies are the first to lose as the best strategy for them is always the turtle in the center area of the map, within range of every objective. We actually end up tabling a lot faster in Maelstrom than we ever did in Eternal War as people are now forced to come out and move around the map.

Again with your unnecessary rudeness. Why are you taking critcisms to GW so personally? We aren't throwing tantrums.
What does them being veterans have anything to do with it? Their criticisms are still just as valid. Maybe them being veterans they have more experience into judging what makes a good game or not? So, shouldn't veterans and tournament people be a bad indicator if they same the game sucks? Many times its the veterans that steer new people to the game. If they're steering them away...

Also, with D&D many people left after 4th edition to the point that D&D is having to do a massive reboot just to in the game.

Again, I point you to the history of TSR.

 MWHistorian wrote:
And they still don't realize that we're saying why we're unsatisfied with the game because the GW defenders keep characterizing the critics and misunderstanding why they have problems.

NOT reasons people complain:
Inability to change
hate 40k
WAAC players
A group hive mind and/or conspiracy

It is hard to have a conversation with someone who disrespects you from the beginning. We are nothing more to them than cartoonish villains out to destroy their fun. Because we have that power apparently.



Personally I blame the Hiphop.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Having played both myself, I can actually say for certain how the games play out and no, they don't favor the highly mobile, unless you're playing with Chaos who are simply slow. Eldar do not dominate as others have claimed because, if both players had sense when placing objectives as the game allows you to do, you can make sure to have a balance for both players so the game isn't a scramble. I don't think Maelstrom is good for a PUG, you can't trust people you don't know, they only care about winning. As for your supposed fallacy, I'd agree if I didn't prove people wrong weekly by making them try or do something they don't like to do. It's my job actually as both a teacher and a mentor, I make people try things they think they'll hate and I make them do things they think they won't like. No fallacy, actual real world experience.

Having player Maelstrom with my group, the highly mobile armies are the first to lose as the best strategy for them is always the turtle in the center area of the map, within range of every objective. We actually end up tabling a lot faster in Maelstrom than we ever did in Eternal War as people are now forced to come out and move around the map.

I'm an engineer, so measurable and distinct are my thought patterns. I do things that have the best and most efficient outcome as trying something just to try it could end in failure (loss of life, equipment, productivity, etc.) Game types in 40k aren't asparagus where you can try it once and move on, I might be forced to sit through those missions if I want to play a game determining on who or where I play. And that's No Bueno. And I care about winning, it's why I play. I'm not "TFG," but 40k is a player vs player game, not an RPG. The rules mention your "opponent." We can play to have fun, goof, but we are both playing to win.

And that just suggest maybe your group isn't playing right. I could very easily bring my standard Eldar list I have planned and probably clean up in Maelstrom simply because it is focused on mobility.

I couldn't care less if you criticism GW actually, I just don't want to read about people whining and complaining. Nobody has time for that really. Especially in a topic talking about the positive things in the game. You want to complain, do it in a complain thread. Also, I have not begun to be rude yet, trust me, you'll know. There will be red markings all over my posts, and as they are not there yet...

Why are you so sensitive about the comments about veteran players? Could it be there is truth to them?

There was a psychological study a while back that focused on peoples reactions to things they heard or read and how their initial reaction, defensive in your case, shows a sensitivity to the subject in question. So, why, as a veteran player are you unhappy? I am giving you free room to complain about everything you see wrong with the game, I will be, for the next hour or so, your therapist, I will help you get to the bottom of your issues with GW and how, you as an individual, as a human being, a rational creature can get over it and learn to deal.

Being a veteran doesn't give you more experience on what makes a game good or not actually. It gives you experience on how things used to be back in the day. People have this insane idea that experience = knowledge and this is simply not the case and is proven every day around the world that just because you have been around longer, it does not mean you know more than others.

Also D&D, I have no idea where you got your info about people leaving, I had more games played when 4th came out than 2nd or 3rd combined.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Having played both myself, I can actually say for certain how the games play out and no, they don't favor the highly mobile, unless you're playing with Chaos who are simply slow. Eldar do not dominate as others have claimed because, if both players had sense when placing objectives as the game allows you to do, you can make sure to have a balance for both players so the game isn't a scramble. I don't think Maelstrom is good for a PUG, you can't trust people you don't know, they only care about winning. As for your supposed fallacy, I'd agree if I didn't prove people wrong weekly by making them try or do something they don't like to do. It's my job actually as both a teacher and a mentor, I make people try things they think they'll hate and I make them do things they think they won't like. No fallacy, actual real world experience.

Having player Maelstrom with my group, the highly mobile armies are the first to lose as the best strategy for them is always the turtle in the center area of the map, within range of every objective. We actually end up tabling a lot faster in Maelstrom than we ever did in Eternal War as people are now forced to come out and move around the map.

I'm an engineer, so measurable and distinct are my thought patterns. I do things that have the best and most efficient outcome as trying something just to try it could end in failure (loss of life, equipment, productivity, etc.) Game types in 40k aren't asparagus where you can try it once and move on, I might be forced to sit through those missions if I want to play a game determining on who or where I play. And that's No Bueno. And I care about winning, it's why I play. I'm not "TFG," but 40k is a player vs player game, not an RPG. The rules mention your "opponent." We can play to have fun, goof, but we are both playing to win.

And that just suggest maybe your group isn't playing right. I could very easily bring my standard Eldar list I have planned and probably clean up in Maelstrom simply because it is focused on mobility.

Please tell me you live in the vicinity of Southern California because I will drop everything just to prove you wrong. As an engineer, randomness isn't part of your cognitive thought, you'll never accept something unless it linear, written out for you and inarguable in any way. There is no point trying to convince you because you already have your mind made up. It's like arguing with a mathematician, they just don't get it, too literal and no grasp on things that don't conform to rules and expectations. Not an insult, just an observation from others I work with on occasion, both engineers and mathematicians.

 Lobomalo wrote:
I couldn't care less if you criticism GW actually, I just don't want to read about people whining and complaining. Nobody has time for that really. Especially in a topic talking about the positive things in the game. You want to complain, do it in a complain thread. Also, I have not begun to be rude yet, trust me, you'll know. There will be red markings all over my posts, and as they are not there yet...

Why are you so sensitive about the comments about veteran players? Could it be there is truth to them?

There was a psychological study a while back that focused on peoples reactions to things they heard or read and how their initial reaction, defensive in your case, shows a sensitivity to the subject in question. So, why, as a veteran player are you unhappy? I am giving you free room to complain about everything you see wrong with the game, I will be, for the next hour or so, your therapist, I will help you get to the bottom of your issues with GW and how, you as an individual, as a human being, a rational creature can get over it and learn to deal.

Being a veteran doesn't give you more experience on what makes a game good or not actually. It gives you experience on how things used to be back in the day. People have this insane idea that experience = knowledge and this is simply not the case and is proven every day around the world that just because you have been around longer, it does not mean you know more than others.

Also D&D, I have no idea where you got your info about people leaving, I had more games played when 4th came out than 2nd or 3rd combined.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Having played both myself, I can actually say for certain how the games play out and no, they don't favor the highly mobile, unless you're playing with Chaos who are simply slow. Eldar do not dominate as others have claimed because, if both players had sense when placing objectives as the game allows you to do, you can make sure to have a balance for both players so the game isn't a scramble. I don't think Maelstrom is good for a PUG, you can't trust people you don't know, they only care about winning. As for your supposed fallacy, I'd agree if I didn't prove people wrong weekly by making them try or do something they don't like to do. It's my job actually as both a teacher and a mentor, I make people try things they think they'll hate and I make them do things they think they won't like. No fallacy, actual real world experience.

Having player Maelstrom with my group, the highly mobile armies are the first to lose as the best strategy for them is always the turtle in the center area of the map, within range of every objective. We actually end up tabling a lot faster in Maelstrom than we ever did in Eternal War as people are now forced to come out and move around the map.

I'm an engineer, so measurable and distinct are my thought patterns. I do things that have the best and most efficient outcome as trying something just to try it could end in failure (loss of life, equipment, productivity, etc.) Game types in 40k aren't asparagus where you can try it once and move on, I might be forced to sit through those missions if I want to play a game determining on who or where I play. And that's No Bueno. And I care about winning, it's why I play. I'm not "TFG," but 40k is a player vs player game, not an RPG. The rules mention your "opponent." We can play to have fun, goof, but we are both playing to win.

And that just suggest maybe your group isn't playing right. I could very easily bring my standard Eldar list I have planned and probably clean up in Maelstrom simply because it is focused on mobility.

Please tell me you live in the vicinity of Southern California because I will drop everything just to prove you wrong. As an engineer, randomness isn't part of your cognitive thought, you'll never accept something unless it linear, written out for you and inarguable in any way. There is no point trying to convince you because you already have your mind made up. It's like arguing with a mathematician, they just don't get it, too literal and no grasp on things that don't conform to rules and expectations. Not an insult, just an observation from others I work with on occasion, both engineers and mathematicians.

You're very condescending to anyone you don't agree with.

Text removed.


Reds8n

I was respectful and despite pointing out your rudeness you decide to brag about it. I'm putting you on ignore. Life's too short to deal with condescending rude people that don't take time to understand the other person's argument.

 MWHistorian wrote:

You're very condescending to anyone you don't agree with.

Yes, quite so.

I can enjoy narrative, bad games, and non-linear elements. Again, I play other games, including Malifaux, which does asymmetrical design better. But saying randomness is good is like saying you can apply tactical skill to chutes and ladders. The more you take elements away from a player in a game billed as a strategic wargame, the less it becomes one.

And there is nothing to prove wrong unless you want to play Maelstrom missions until we finally get a game where either you or I crush one another or we house rule the game to make sure that doesn't happen. And if we house rule it, I still bring back to the point on why are we house ruling an $85 game, which has yet to be addressed.

Or if you wanna play Malifaux, which then that's cool. Or Infinity. Or Warmachine. Then we can probably have fun.

This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.

The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.

 Gunzhard wrote:
This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.

The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.

Yes, I know the scoring is a good change. If you have played the missions I have been talking about it that were developed in 6E, they included that very element; scoring at the end of a player and/or game turn versus game end. It's something found in many other miniatures games. I do agree that's a great element. The random card element is not.

I have a feeling we're both on the same page, it's just how you get there. I played it as a controlled variable designed for a level playing field. I am assuming, and could be wrong, that you and others first taste of this style of play is on the random side of the house.

I would purely suggest looking up those missions or just simply giving your opponent a choice... play with 5 standard objectives, one in each deployment zone, 3 in no-man's land, and give the player the decision, before the game starts, to determine how he'd like to score them. Either every player turn for 1pts or end of game for 3pts, per the normal. Then allow a player to escalate one of the secondaries, making either slay the warlord or linebreaker worth 2 pts, and delete first blood since it's broken. Give that a-go. Your game will be simplified, it will be shorter, and it gives an asymmetrical means to play the game. That's a simplification of the rules, but the packets and pdfs are floating around if you want to find them.

I do like that Games Workshop is trying new game design, but instead of making great missions to include in the core rules, or provide them for free as incentive to play they game, they tack on bloated tables and sell you cards. Well I'm already once bitten, twice shy on the concept of cards because my psychic deck, now maybe a year old if that, is worthless. And I don't find rolling many times on a d66 table that enticing of a mechanic.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.

The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.

Yes, I know the scoring is a good change. If you have played the missions I have been talking about it that were developed in 6E, they included that very element; scoring at the end of a player and/or game turn versus game end. It's something found in many other miniatures games. I do agree that's a great element. The random card element is not.

I have a feeling we're both on the same page, it's just how you get there. I played it as a controlled variable designed for a level playing field. I am assuming, and could be wrong, that you and others first taste of this style of play is on the random side of the house.

I would purely suggest looking up those missions or just simply giving your opponent a choice... play with 5 standard objectives, one in each deployment zone, 3 in no-man's land, and give the player the decision, before the game starts, to determine how he'd like to score them. Either every player turn for 1pts or end of game for 3pts, per the normal. Then allow a player to escalate one of the secondaries, making either slay the warlord or linebreaker worth 2 pts, and delete first blood since it's broken. Give that a-go. Your game will be simplified, it will be shorter, and it gives an asymmetrical means to play the game. That's a simplification of the rules, but the packets and pdfs are floating around if you want to find them.

Did this one before Maelstrom missions and while it is still fun, it works even better for turtle armies in all honesty, well when you're not playing against gun lines. Gun lines excel here as they can simply not make an actual engagement and still win. Both have their merits, the tactical objectives add more of a challenge t the game though. For example, you hold 3 objectives on your side and I have 3 on mine, playing Eternal War style, there is no real benefit to actually moving from these objectives. The cards can force players to move around and secure other objectives, to actually go after an opponent.

I've noticed that even with Eternal War, you've still home brewed a lot of the rules which begs the question, why are you paying money for a game in which you change the rules to fit how you want to play.

Considering Maelstrom missions also contain the secondary objectives in them as well, what difficulty is there in transitioning over, besides your hatred for randomness?

Which begs another question, if you hate randomness so much, why play a game that boils down to pure dice rolls. Especially as you play Eldar.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.

The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.

Yes, I know the scoring is a good change. If you have played the missions I have been talking about it that were developed in 6E, they included that very element; scoring at the end of a player and/or game turn versus game end. It's something found in many other miniatures games. I do agree that's a great element. The random card element is not.

I have a feeling we're both on the same page, it's just how you get there. I played it as a controlled variable designed for a level playing field. I am assuming, and could be wrong, that you and others first taste of this style of play is on the random side of the house.

I would purely suggest looking up those missions or just simply giving your opponent a choice... play with 5 standard objectives, one in each deployment zone, 3 in no-man's land, and give the player the decision, before the game starts, to determine how he'd like to score them. Either every player turn for 1pts or end of game for 3pts, per the normal. Then allow a player to escalate one of the secondaries, making either slay the warlord or linebreaker worth 2 pts, and delete first blood since it's broken. Give that a-go. Your game will be simplified, it will be shorter, and it gives an asymmetrical means to play the game. That's a simplification of the rules, but the packets and pdfs are floating around if you want to find them.

I would certainly enjoy that type of game, and I'd be open to try it; I've also played the MoW missions repeatedly and they have become an overwhelming favorite in our group.

But when I talk about scoring - I mean the units that can now score (pretty much every unit) - which totally changes the game, as does the Physic Phase which has also been fun, and many other small details. And you know dude - I have to say, I know very few Engineers that draw absolute conclusions without any personally experience (data), but then I've been out of the field for a while.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
This has degenerated into something stupid... but I'll just say this, having played this game since RT (and I was also once an Engineer for the record) - this edition has to be played in order to really know.

The scoring alone, even if you skip the MoW missions, totally changes everything.

Yes, I know the scoring is a good change. If you have played the missions I have been talking about it that were developed in 6E, they included that very element; scoring at the end of a player and/or game turn versus game end. It's something found in many other miniatures games. I do agree that's a great element. The random card element is not.

I have a feeling we're both on the same page, it's just how you get there. I played it as a controlled variable designed for a level playing field. I am assuming, and could be wrong, that you and others first taste of this style of play is on the random side of the house.

I would purely suggest looking up those missions or just simply giving your opponent a choice... play with 5 standard objectives, one in each deployment zone, 3 in no-man's land, and give the player the decision, before the game starts, to determine how he'd like to score them. Either every player turn for 1pts or end of game for 3pts, per the normal. Then allow a player to escalate one of the secondaries, making either slay the warlord or linebreaker worth 2 pts, and delete first blood since it's broken. Give that a-go. Your game will be simplified, it will be shorter, and it gives an asymmetrical means to play the game. That's a simplification of the rules, but the packets and pdfs are floating around if you want to find them.

I would certainly enjoy that type of game, and I'd be open to try it; I've also played the MoW missions repeatedly and they have become an overwhelming favorite in our group.

But when I talk about scoring - I mean the units that can now score (pretty much every unit) - which totally changes the game, as does the Physic Phase which has also been fun, and many other small details. And you know dude - I have to say, I know very few Engineers that draw absolute conclusions without any personally experience (data), but then I've been out of the field for a while.

Drawing any conclusions without supportive data isn't backed in any field tbh.

Glad to hear your group is liking 7th edition.

 Gunzhard wrote:

I would certainly enjoy that type of game, and I'd be open to try it; I've also played the MoW missions repeatedly and they have become an overwhelming favorite in our group.

But when I talk about scoring - I mean the units that can now score (pretty much every unit) - which totally changes the game, as does the Physic Phase which has also been fun, and many other small details. And you know dude - I have to say, I know very few Engineers that draw absolute conclusions without any personally experience (data), but then I've been out of the field for a while.

I will probably like the scoring change, too. Maybe not so much vehicles as I remember what that was like in 5th,... but it certainly gives gravitas to each unit, making them all a little bit better. Everything is scoring in many other games, too, and then they have a weight towards some units to be "super scoring." I think that was a solid, but expected change to the game.

And I do have data as I've read plenty of battle reports, including folks in here. I can read between the "I love this" and "I dislike this" to see the trend, the cards dictate the outcome far more than I'd like. And if you don't house rule them, a bad first hand can make for a completely uneven and not fun game. Plus, I know from my previous data, that random for random-sake is not fun. So don't think I'm just looking at it and say "Nay, good sir!" And would I rather take several hours to play a MoW mission or knock out three Infinity games? I'll go with the latter.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

I would certainly enjoy that type of game, and I'd be open to try it; I've also played the MoW missions repeatedly and they have become an overwhelming favorite in our group.

But when I talk about scoring - I mean the units that can now score (pretty much every unit) - which totally changes the game, as does the Physic Phase which has also been fun, and many other small details. And you know dude - I have to say, I know very few Engineers that draw absolute conclusions without any personally experience (data), but then I've been out of the field for a while.

I will probably like the scoring change, too. Maybe not so much vehicles as I remember what that was like in 5th,... but it certainly gives gravitas to each unit, making them all a little bit better. Everything is scoring in many other games, too, and then they have a weight towards some units to be "super scoring." I think that was a solid, but expected change to the game.

And I do have data as I've read plenty of battle reports, including folks in here. I can read between the "I love this" and "I dislike this" to see the trend, the cards dictate the outcome far more than I'd like. And if you don't house rule them, a bad first hand can make for a completely uneven and not fun game. Plus, I know from my previous data, that random for random-sake is not fun. So don't think I'm just looking at it and say "Nay, good sir!" And would I rather take several hours to play a MoW mission or knock out three Infinity games? I'll go with the latter.

What you have is nothing more than a group of opinions, a polling if you would and nothing more. Random adds an element of danger and change to the dynamic of any game and this makes it that much more interesting. There are those who do not like random and this is okay, but realistically, without randomness in a game, it becomes stale and predictable.

The cards prevent cheese armies from dominating the game as is done so often in EW