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.

I decided to start this thread after seeing the one about Gav talking of the new Chaos Marine codex and how ticked a lot of people are about what he said.
In my group, the new codex, or any new codex that comes out doesn't really upset us too much because we generally just work around it or stay with what we like from the old codex.
Someone put a lot of money into a demon bomb army? No prob, they just keep playing it. Same goes for LATD, or any marine army alighned with a specific power. Tournaments aren't really an issue, when we get into them we usually do alright and win more than our share, but a lot of us have families that keep us out of the tournament scene these days.
We do a lot of experimental rules that seem to anticipate what GW ends up doing a couple years later. A friend of mine put together rules a while back for his marines that seem like he copied them right out of the new SW codex.
The point I'm trying to make here is that my group believes getting hung up on the codexes as unalterable law takes a lot of enjoyment out of the game. There is no way that any codex is going to come out that makes everyone happy, and the best way to view them is as the pirate code in Pirates of the Carribean and think of them more as guidelines.

Which side does everybody else's gaming group come down on?

Wouldn't know, haven't played a game sense the combined crap fest of the latest CSM codex and 5th edition. I hate both currently and am only modeling at this point.

Everyone is fine with new Warmachine/Hordes rulebooks as they expand multiple
factions. Some of the things are ridiculous and cover up obvious faction weaknesses
(like the Skorne Tyrant Commander and Extoller) but at least three other factions
get new stuff in the book as well, so it's no big deal.

Probably next year we'll have trouble dealing with Theme Forces as they
update each faction one month after the other, but the updates will
happen so quickly I doubt anyone will have enough real time to get something
to grind on.

There's no way. For every person that's okay with trying new rules and what not, there's another person that's completely against it. All it takes is one detractor to ruin the whole thing. Plus, everyone is fearful that the other person says no. No one likes going to a game store and being unable to find a game.

You can got to a game store and not get a game for many reasons. Show up with a legal army of 9 oblit and double lash, and I just don't want to play the game. Played the list a half dozen times, and it's not want I want to spend my time doing. If I hit them in a tourney, fine. But I won't play that or a few other lists when I want to have fun. A non legal LATD army is fun. No problem playing against it.

Our small group consists of Tyranids, Sisters, Ultramarines, Orks, Imperial Guard, Eldar and Chaos Space Marines. The Ork, Ultramarine Guard and Eldar players have `new' books they are happy with; the Chaos player is not. He stopped playing early in third edition and has (very recently) returned to see his second edition Death Guard ``ruined'' (not having played then I cannot begin to appreciate his point of view). He wants to use the 3.5 book instead, but the rest of the group is uneasy on the prospect. I have wanted to start LATD, but met similar unease and dropped the idea. The group is very RAW and we only have house rules for Apocalypse games (which would not function at all without them).

The point I'm trying to make here is that my group believes getting hung up on the codexes as unalterable law takes a lot of enjoyment out of the game. There is no way that any codex is going to come out that makes everyone happy, and the best way to view them is as the pirate code in Pirates of the Carribean and think of them more as guidelines.

I think it goes without saying that your way to play is not the only way to play.

You might not find it enjoyable, but I personally don't find it very enjoyable to play a game where everyone just makes up whatever fething rules they want as they go along. In my opinion it's one step above playing with green army men in the sandbox, you might as well just say "Bang bang bang, you're dead!" and knock your opponents dead models over instead of rolling dice and looking at tables.

Not that I'm trying to gak on fan-made codices at all, but honestly, most of them aren't as balanced as the creators claim them to be. More often than not the person writing the codex doesn't play any other army but that one, or it's their "main" army, and they have rather strong opinions about how that army should play on the tabletop. You know how often people bitch about the Space Marine statline not representing the fluff well? Imagine if everyone wrote their own codex to "fix" that, you'd have Movie Marines all over the fething place. Tau are another good example, imagine 6 point fire warriors with BS4, T5 crisis suits with BS4 base and 2+ saves, power weapons all over the place to make up for that lame CC deficiency, etc.

GW may not be perfect, but when it comes down to it I trust them more when it comes to game balance than Random Fanboy #1,168. And if nothing else at least we'll all be playing by the same rules.

It doesn't hurt us in the least. While we're somewhat expected to play the current Codex, we're pretty darn casual about stuff.

Sidstyler wrote:I think it goes without saying that your way to play is not the only way to play.

It is if he's a ... *angels sing* casual gamer.

Sidstyler wrote:

The point I'm trying to make here is that my group believes getting hung up on the codexes as unalterable law takes a lot of enjoyment out of the game. There is no way that any codex is going to come out that makes everyone happy, and the best way to view them is as the pirate code in Pirates of the Carribean and think of them more as guidelines.

I think it goes without saying that your way to play is not the only way to play.

You might not find it enjoyable, but I personally don't find it very enjoyable to play a game where everyone just makes up whatever fething rules they want as they go along. In my opinion it's one step above playing with green army men in the sandbox, you might as well just say "Bang bang bang, you're dead!" and knock your opponents dead models over instead of rolling dice and looking at tables.

Not that I'm trying to gak on fan-made codices at all, but honestly, most of them aren't as balanced as the creators claim them to be. More often than not the person writing the codex doesn't play any other army but that one, or it's their "main" army, and they have rather strong opinions about how that army should play on the tabletop. You know how often people bitch about the Space Marine statline not representing the fluff well? Imagine if everyone wrote their own codex to "fix" that, you'd have Movie Marines all over the fething place. Tau are another good example, imagine 6 point fire warriors with BS4, T5 crisis suits with BS4 base and 2+ saves, power weapons all over the place to make up for that lame CC deficiency, etc.

GW may not be perfect, but when it comes down to it I trust them more when it comes to game balance than Random Fanboy #1,168. And if nothing else at least we'll all be playing by the same rules.

I think you're overreacting.

There's a BIG difference between random fanboy codexes and little green army men, and using a codex which is one generation out of date. We're talking rules that in many cases just a few months ago were completely legal.

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with people still using Kroot or LATD with old, and now unofficial, rules. You seem to be advocating that anyone with a Kroot army immediately put them into storage as soon as GW say they're 'not legal' any more...

I don't think that new codii are bad ideas in general... It's just that every now and then something will be a little... broken.

When I play orks I curse the lash like nothing else, but at the same time I'm relatively sure that the next update will nerf it down or do away with it altogether. I can always challenge that player for a rematch with a mech army anyway.

Competitive, win-at-all-costs gamers don't tend to care about broken lists unless they're financially impaired and can't get their hands on that broken army for themselves. Other types of competitive gamers enjoy the challenge of smashing kids-with-internet-lists up a wall with a White Dwarf list.

Good 'casual' gamers (and I pretty much mean the opposite of HBMC above, referring rather to those who err from RAW and competitiveness) shouldn't care about rules they can easily change or remove in their respective gaming environments, where all of those involved agree. Unfortunately, such 'house rules' can cause even more trouble where even the tiniest spark of competitiveness glows. It does rub out the issue of 'illegal' or retired army lists though, as their rules can be pdated to fit with newer codexes, and re-costed to balance.

To be honest, and backed up by their own claims, I don't think that GW is onside with the competitive groups of players, or at least those who derive all their enjoyment of what should be a hobby from always gunning to win when and wherever possible.

Then again, you wouldn't be an outwardly competitive person if you weren't constantly complaining about someone else's efforts regarding your preferred sport or hobby.

The group I game with is an assortment of local hobbyists, casual and competitive players, general socialites, general nerds, and various combinations thereof. Far too varied for individual army books to inspire an overall upset. Lash might be broken, but it also trumps Daemons more decisively than it handles most other armies.

I figure people should play what gives them enjoyment...but your ongoing gaming experience will be limited by the way that you enjoy that freedom.

I guess it all comes down to exposure. If you have bad experiences in gaming you'll be shell shocked to someone coming in and being able to have the same freedoms which might again be abused.

As mikhaila said - the abuse happens within the codex or without. Proving that 40k isn't a competative game isn't the issue...the sooner that some people learn that they want a poker game out of a miniatures game and move on or change attitudes towards it the better.

In the end it all comes down to expectation. Learning what each other "expects" out of the game is a good way to both enjoy it more, or avoid the experience entirely.

Unfortunately, such 'house rules' can cause even more trouble where even the tiniest spark of competitiveness glows.

So if I refuse to play with house rules or homebrewed codices, then I'm a WAAC gamer?

I think you're overreacting.

I've never overreacted to anything in my life! Take it back!

Sidstyler wrote:

The point I'm trying to make here is that my group believes getting hung up on the codexes as unalterable law takes a lot of enjoyment out of the game. There is no way that any codex is going to come out that makes everyone happy, and the best way to view them is as the pirate code in Pirates of the Carribean and think of them more as guidelines.

I think it goes without saying that your way to play is not the only way to play.

You might not find it enjoyable, but I personally don't find it very enjoyable to play a game where everyone just makes up whatever fething rules they want as they go along. In my opinion it's one step above playing with green army men in the sandbox, you might as well just say "Bang bang bang, you're dead!" and knock your opponents dead models over instead of rolling dice and looking at tables.

Not that I'm trying to gak on fan-made codices at all, but honestly, most of them aren't as balanced as the creators claim them to be. More often than not the person writing the codex doesn't play any other army but that one, or it's their "main" army, and they have rather strong opinions about how that army should play on the tabletop. You know how often people bitch about the Space Marine statline not representing the fluff well? Imagine if everyone wrote their own codex to "fix" that, you'd have Movie Marines all over the fething place. Tau are another good example, imagine 6 point fire warriors with BS4, T5 crisis suits with BS4 base and 2+ saves, power weapons all over the place to make up for that lame CC deficiency, etc.

GW may not be perfect, but when it comes down to it I trust them more when it comes to game balance than Random Fanboy #1,168. And if nothing else at least we'll all be playing by the same rules.

That's why I didn't say my group's way was the only way. As far as house rules go, as I said, a lot of times the rules that come up in our group seem to anticipate the rules GW comes up with far ahead of any official release. The people in my group aren't just slapping stuff down trying to get an edge, but people that have played 40k since Rogue Trader days and have a pretty good handle on what balances or unbalances a game.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Good 'casual' gamers (and I pretty much mean the opposite of HBMC above, referring rather to those who err from RAW and competitiveness) shouldn't care about rules they can easily change or remove in their respective gaming environments, where all of those involved agree. Unfortunately, such 'house rules' can cause even more trouble where even the tiniest spark of competitiveness glows. It does rub out the issue of 'illegal' or retired army lists though, as their rules can be pdated to fit with newer codexes, and re-costed to balance.

I wouldn't call that just a casual gamer. That's a casual gamer with a dedicated group of like-minded individuals.

Amen brother Relapse, you can change the rules for reasons other than trying to win more often.

It just makes more sense to have more fun!!!!!!

rdlb wrote:Amen brother Relapse, you can change the rules for reasons other than trying to win more often.

It just makes more sense to have more fun!!!!!!

Thanks for that. We've got some guys that have made incredible looking LATD armies and they aren't about to shelve them because they are no longer "official" lists. I bet if someone were to watch for fun games between the designers, they'd find quite a few unofficial armies being run.

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with people still using Kroot or LATD with old, and now unofficial, rules.

Location: London

I feel like a right dick for selling off my kroot merc army now
couldnt find a game anywhere with em :(

Im more than happy to play against kroot, LaTD, old chaos.
Doesent bother me in the slightest.
Allthough, there are tons of people who refuse to play against any of them (even when kroot are at a huge disadvantage lol)

My 2o cents

Is that GW has a staff with all the expererience and game designing skills, and knowledge of the fluff and the culture you could possibly ask for....

Have no excuses for any big mistakes.

Since CSM they haven't really messed anything up too badly. There is more intelligence and logic visible in their design. Looks like they are now working from principles and math checking the army lists.

Recent codexes offer variety but they haven't slipped into creating any overpowered options.

So the codexes are definitely getting better as game rules.

Where they change, lose or invent new fluff they would be courteous to offer clear design explanations in the codex itself or elsewhere, so that the begrieved would have some official debate to enter, rather than the present mist of silent wondering (Why the F....? )

I would like to see more explanation from the studio for their decisions.

More openess about their method of making choices (which codex to do next)

And for godsake, in the age of the internet, why aren't they opening the process up, and letting us make input.

GUYS, most people who post here know the games better than the guys who write the codexes, have more armies more builds, play more.....certainly than the corporate types who make the decisions.

I would like to see GW enter the 21st century and use the internet to give committed fans some voice.

Because they could definitely use the imput advice and help of dedicated Chaos players to design Legions.

And if they asked us, they might find that what we really want is Dark Eldar, or whatever it is. By allowing our vote and imput we would have something more constructive to do then come and complain in here. And by giving us imput they secure their future business by giving us reasons to deepen our loyalty and "hobbying experience".
(Ho Ho)

They should get internet active and recruit us into the process.

Experienced playing veterans have excellent discimination about what is best for the hobby.

thats the one damn sure way to guarantee that there will be more interest and less griping about the dumb-assed way they sometimes go about doing things,

And the even dumber way they keep it all so (ha ha ha...) SECRET......


OTG.

Remember when White Dwarf used to have experimental army lists just for fun? Like Genestealer Cults, Adeptus Arbites and movie-style Space Marines?

Man I miss those.

I remember when Citadel Journal had experimental lists like Harlequins and Genestealer Cult...