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.

Gordy2000 wrote:Having a story/characters/terrain set-up really sets the scene and makes the game mean something. In our last game (yet to be posted) one side got an absolute pasting. The scenario really was stacked against them, but it wasn't about winning, it was about having fun and advancing the story.

See, I can't play that way. Those are the types of games that are meaningless to me, games where I lost before a single die was even rolled because the scenario was purposely unbalanced to favor the other side. I honestly don't see how that could have been at all fun for the guy who got "pasted". I'm sure it probably did make for a good story, but personally I don't like a shutout.

Winning isn't really that important, but having a level playing field when playing a competitive game ("competitive" in the sense that it's literally one person/team against another with a clear winner/loser) is. I can handle losing, but not when it feels like I lost through no fault of my own, as that game would have been for me if I were the one playing on the losing side. And if that's your idea of "cinematic" gameplay, where one player gets purposely fethed over and all semblance of balance and fair play gets thrown out the window then count me the hell out.

Fafnir wrote:

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics'

If gamers are as spoiled for chices as you suggest then why the need to rage about 40K

People can simply choose one of these many games you describe and play it instead. Problem solved.

Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

On of the things that have to change is how you build your list. Now if you don’t know what you are getting into you need to take Fast Attack and Heavy Support because 1/3 of the games will require them to win. This should cause more balanced list, not power wise, but SPAM wise. I am running a Mini-Campaign that I am asking for at least one choice form each FOC Slot. I don’t know how this is going to work, but it should be interesting. Once the list start to get more balance and the players stop building “Tabling” armies, what is left is “Why are we fighting?” I have even started to ask for our monthly meet to have the players come up with ideas for the game. it might take some time before everyone get into the “Cinematic” concept, but I think we will have a better time in the long run.

As for the Random Element, I love it! Once more it makes me think from the time I put my first unit down on paper. I have to consider everything from my Warlord Traits, to whether we are going to Night Fighting at the start of the game or the end of the game. I also have to think about whether my Long Fangs my be a scoring unit or if I might have t chase a red ball around the battlefield. I even have to think about the objective and wonder “Is that thing going to explode or give me Skyfire” and who I should send to take it.

I think Dynamic should have been the “Buzz Word” not Cinematic, but none of this is ruining the game for my, just enhancing it from the time I put Ink to Paper to the time we have put my Little Toy Plastic Soldiers away.

you need to take Fast Attack and Heavy Support because 1/3 of the games will require them to win

That's not actually true. In Scouring, FA become scoring; in Big Guns, HS do. You can still win either without having those slots filled. And there's also a potential penalty in those games for taking FA or HS insofar as they give away VPs when destroyed.

I do agree though that most (certainly not all though) of the random elements add tactical depth (though removing a level of control that some people falsely equate to allowing tactical depth).

The other thing is pissing some people off is how GW is using the phrase. "Cinematic Gaming"

Cinematic gaming has been around for a long time. It is nothing new I can go back to 1968 watching and playing Napoleonics on a 4 x 8 sand table. Cinematic gaming is done by people NOT by a set of rules. I "like" cinematic gaming. It is a great deal of fun if done write with a STABLE set of rules though.

Micro Armor, Squad Leader, BattleTech can all be done in a Cinematic Fashion and has been done in the past. Seen it. Done it. Promoted in conventions and in companies.

The Term "Cinematic gaming" used by Games Workshop to myself and to others is a catch phrase to be used as a cop out for a set of choppy rules put together to sell models. I really do not care any more about the rule book being the selling aspect of the models, but don't tell me that their marketing arm had no input in all of this. They Did. It has been posted on this site and other sites .

All I wanted was a stable set of rules. Cinematic or not. Games Workshop could have put something good together that would have shut down a great deal of the Naysayers. A good set of easy to read, thought out set of rules would have even shut down some of the people screaming about the steep price hikes on the models. They had the time, the money and the talent to do so. IMHO they chose the bottom line instead.

What we got Instead is this glossed over crap with sprinkles of Catch phrases.

Cinematic gaming works. That is not the problem. How it was implied, is.

I have to agree with everything you said, but this.

Adam LongWalker wrote:All I wanted was a stable set of rules. Cinematic or not. Games Workshop could have put something good together that would have shut down a great deal of the Naysayers.

No mater what they did someone would be unhappy.

If you don’t like the Random Elements, don’t use them. You don’t have to use them. Come up with your own “Cinematic Scenarios” and you problem is solved. Allow your players to pick or reroll there Warlord Powers and Psychic Powers.

Yes Cinematic Gaming is just a Buzz Word, they should have used Dynamic Gaming.

G. Whitenbeard wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:"Cinematic gaming" for me centers around your overall approach to game prep when it comes to terrain, scenario choice, and army design for said scenario: making choices that establish a theme/feel for a given game as the primary motivator.

When two or more players/teams have a shared goal of setting up a cinematic "what if" scene and then playing it out you get some great narrative/cinematic play.

Instead of "hey I have this killer tournamant list I want to try", the initial discussion starts with a desire to play a "last stand" or a "sewer sweep", or a "convoy ambush" or a "battle in a swamp", etc. Setting or an archetypical cinematic theme become the focus, not externally designed lists as is often the case. It is a totally different approach to the game in which you are working with your opponent to create a narrative as opposed to simply showing up to play chess.

For example in the narrative campaign I have been playing with my sons (see sig) we use the setting we have established as a basis for setting up our games, and build onto and expand it as we play more and more games.

In our campaign setting a city (Golov) is under siege by invading Orks. I recently made a themed table that represents a blasted apocalyptic wasteland of burning craters and blasted ruins. But how to use it in our campaign?

We decided that a whole corridor of land along the southern boarder of the city had to be orbitally bombarded to stop the massive approaching ork hordes from pouring into the city. We added this to our campaign narrative and described that the Imperial forces have set up long range artillery batteries to continue to bombard this area in response to continued ork advances through what is now a blasted wasteland. The Imperium has also established numerous forward observation bases to direct this fire. and deployed armoured battlegroups to patrol it's edge as a way to respond quickly to any ork breakthroughs.

So what does this all mean?

We used this narrative to shape games in that region of our campaign setting. We are about to play a "Purge the Alien" scenario in this region that will use this themed table/terrain. My son will be fielding an IG armoured company (IA list) to with an allied detachment of Cadians filled with mortars, griffons, basalisks, aegis line, etc. to represent one of the FOBs. The armoured company will have a number of the artillery strike choices to represent te long range artillery, Our fluff has shaped the table setup and roughly what the IG force should contain.

Likewise we determined that the orks know that trying to footslog across this no-mans-land is suicide and so have taken to trying to rush across it in trukks, on bikes, etc. Thus my force must all be a vehicle or be units in transports.

Narrative determines and guides setup. It is a challenge for my son to consider what those Imperial forces should be comprised of given the narrative, etc.

Terrain and army design sets a scene and meets a theme.

This post is truly phenomenal.

This is exactly what "cinematic" means. "Cinematic" does not, as some have wrongfully characterized it, mean "random" or "whacky." It is the story that answers the great question, "Why?" Why are these armies fighting each other? Why are they composed of the units that they are? Why are we fighting in an open field/desert/city/wasteland? What happens if I win? What happens if you win? Do we simply go on Dakkadakka and change our win/loss ration in our signature, or does something much more meaningful take place? I think "Forging a narrative" is a much more accurate term than "cinematic."

So Is "Cinematic" the new GW buzzword for "Narrative". Not being facetious, I'm just reading through this thread and wondering why we're introducting a new term for something that most folks already call "narrative"

Fafnir wrote:

Cinematics are not the job of the game designer. Cinematics, the stories themselves, come from the players. "Cinematics" are a side element of games, an element that develops in the presence of strong ludic context. They're not what happens on the table, but the stories that players take with them beyond it. You can't design a game around that.

In general I agree with this. Designers can make a game tilt towards or away from cinematic/narrative elements, but in general, people who favor these type of games are going to be operating a bit outside the box in terms of army list, scenario, etc. anyway.

Kaldor wrote:
I think both are important.

Firstly, I disagree that taking control away from the player is bad.

This is a very good point, though I think it's much more dependent on the style of game that players want, as opposed to being a right or wrong issue. Some folks want a more chess-like game, where they know if they sculpt the right army list and bring the right tactics, they have a very good chance of success. Folks who play this kind of game tend to gravitate toward games with a strong list-building component like 40k or Warmachine.

Some folks want a bit more random (possibly more realistic) game where as in war, everything can go to heck in a second and troops don't always do what you want them too. These folks want to participate, but are a bit more interested in seeing the game unfold in interesting ways than in victory. They tend to play games like 5150, where an order is given, but the results can quickly spiral out of a players hands with surprising results.

Both points of view are valid, but it's an extremely different type of experience.

Sidstyler wrote:

Gordy2000 wrote:Having a story/characters/terrain set-up really sets the scene and makes the game mean something. In our last game (yet to be posted) one side got an absolute pasting. The scenario really was stacked against them, but it wasn't about winning, it was about having fun and advancing the story.

See, I can't play that way. Those are the types of games that are meaningless to me, games where I lost before a single die was even rolled because the scenario was purposely unbalanced to favor the other side. I honestly don't see how that could have been at all fun for the guy who got "pasted". I'm sure it probably did make for a good story, but personally I don't like a shutout.

Winning isn't really that important, but having a level playing field when playing a competitive game ("competitive" in the sense that it's literally one person/team against another with a clear winner/loser) is. I can handle losing, but not when it feels like I lost through no fault of my own, as that game would have been for me if I were the one playing on the losing side. And if that's your idea of "cinematic" gameplay, where one player gets purposely fethed over and all semblance of balance and fair play gets thrown out the window then count me the hell out.

I see your point, but alot of folks don't need a clear winner or even an even shot at victory to enjoy a wargame. Historically many wargames were/are affairs where the starting forces were unequal, and the end result could be predicted with some regularity, but the challenge was to see if you could do better than historical generals,

Would you be more interested in an "imbalanced" game if the victory conditions were modified?

Example: A last stand scenario where it's pretty likely you will be slaughtered, but your victory depends on how many turns you hold out for rather than survival or kill points.

High quality scenario planning and preparation with well-crafted objectives can make imbalanced games more "competitive". The problem of course is that this likely requires playtesting, and most narrative players would prefer to make a good guess at what the forces and objectives would be and fight it out even if they know that it won't be perfectly balanced.

It can almost be said that some folks emphasize the "game" which usually implies a balanced field of play and competitive equity, and some folks empahsize "war" which -in retrospect- has narrative and has little regard for fairness, equity or predictability.

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics'

If gamers are as spoiled for chices as you suggest then why the need to rage about 40K

People can simply choose one of these many games you describe and play it instead. Problem solved.

Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

Perhaps I still play 40k because I've invested well over $3000 in my 40k collection?

Or perhaps I still play 40k because, despite all the rules issues and poor practices of the company, I still enjoy (for the most part) the universe that they've created, and the models they make.

Or perhaps I still play 40k because it's one of the rulesets that everyone and their dog plays, so I know I can get a game even in the smaller communities.

Furthermore, it's not as if I don't play better written games. And I'm certainly not trolling if I hold GW, a multi-million dollar corportation, up to its contemporaries. I want 40k to be a good game, because despite all its glaring flaws, I do enjoy it, and I'd like to enjoy it as much as I can.

No one here hates GW or 40k. They just hate the way that GW treats them as a fanbase.

Fafnir wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics'

If gamers are as spoiled for chices as you suggest then why the need to rage about 40K

People can simply choose one of these many games you describe and play it instead. Problem solved.

Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

Perhaps I still play 40k because I've invested well over $3000 in my 40k collection?

Or perhaps I still play 40k because, despite all the rules issues and poor practices of the company, I still enjoy (for the most part) the universe that they've created, and the models they make.

Or perhaps I still play 40k because it's one of the rulesets that everyone and their dog plays, so I know I can get a game even in the smaller communities.

Furthermore, it's not as if I don't play better written games. And I'm certainly not trolling if I hold GW, a multi-million dollar corportation, up to its contemporaries. I want 40k to be a good game, because despite all its glaring flaws, I do enjoy it, and I'd like to enjoy it as much as I can.

No one here hates GW or 40k. They just hate the way that GW treats them as a fanbase.

So there are MANY other games with TIGHTER, BETTER rules that ALSO convery cinematic/narrative gaming BETTER yet nobody plays them and choose to play 40K instead and so you must likewise suffer to play 40K?

You poor thing.

Hang in there...

IF 40K/GW is as bad as some want to believe then why on earth would you continue? Certainly there are plenty of other hobbie (gaming and othrwise) that you could get more value for your time and money and not feel so 'dirty" for supporting...

Thank you for disregarding my post entirely, while at the same time antagonizing it.

Fafnir wrote:Thank you for disregarding my post entirely, while at the same time antagonizing it.

Perhaps you could clarify why you continue to spend time doing something that you consider subpar (supposedly intentionally made so by the parent company)and that others do better?

At some point we all grow out of things we once liked. Sometimes we are just ready to move on, sometimes the product isnt good anymore, whatever.

Maybe you are at that crossroads...

Read the god damn post. I enjoy the universe that GW has created (especially the Inquisition). I do enjoy some aspects of their games (almost as many as I deride). I enjoy many of their models.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to fanwank all over them for doing a sub par job.
Despite all the franchise's problems there's a lot there of redeemable quality, even if you have to dig through the rubble of poor business decisions and sloppy product design for it.

Fafnir wrote:Read the god damn post. I enjoy the universe that GW has created (especially the Inquisition). I do enjoy some aspects of their games (almost as many as I deride). I enjoy many of their models.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to fanwank all over them for doing a sub par job.
Despite all the franchise's problems there's a lot there of redeemable quality, even if you have to dig through the rubble of poor business decisions and sloppy product design for it.

Truth be told what defines "subpar"? IS your definiton th same as mine? Can we even agree.

Look on just this forum: rarely do we have consensus on anything. Army lists, rules, scenarios, what is balanced, etc., etc. We don't agree on any of it as a collective community. We are a fickle and opinionated group by nature who demand perfection but have no way to define wha that actually is.

Now imagine you are GW: you have no possible way to answer those questions either because the peopel you are answering them for are a divided, opinionated, nerdraging, whiny, entitled rabble of know-it-alls that think that everything you have done you could do differently or better. I certainly don't envy them on this front...

40K will never have a totally balanced rules set. Nor will it ever please 100% of the fanbase. IF you are waiting for that to happen you are going to be sadly dissapointed.

Take what you like, house rule the rest and hope that down the road the next edition swing more your way. That is the way it has always been...

Fafnir wrote:Read the god damn post. I enjoy the universe that GW has created (especially the Inquisition). I do enjoy some aspects of their games (almost as many as I deride). I enjoy many of their models.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to fanwank all over them for doing a sub par job.
Despite all the franchise's problems there's a lot there of redeemable quality, even if you have to dig through the rubble of poor business decisions and sloppy product design for it.

Agree with this post as there are people within the entertainment industry who will say the same thing.

Secondly, I like the term Fanwank. Think I'll borrow it future use. A new term to piss off some people I know. Thanks!

This is why I like Dakka so much. I get to learn something new every day.

Right off let me point out that a lot of modern warfare in the real world takes place in an environment that is constantly shifting and changing. Weather, and battlefield conditions are not static. In the real world you can choose where your opponent within reason, but they are making the same choices. Where you choose to confront your foe, they may fall back and attack later at their convenience. Modern warfare is conducted under the sembalence of control but it is far from the controlled affair that some people would choose to promote. Therefor i support the move to include random battlefield effects.

I think the inclusion of challenges and other more personal aspects to the game which serve to increase the impact that champions have on the battlefield, do create a more cinematic atmosphere. afterall, in movies often there are hordes of faceless redshirts locked in battle while the heros are the ones breaking the enemy lines and advancing the story as it were. Therefor i aso support any move that serves to add character to HQ and champion units beyond just a buffed stat line.

I believe that these changes as well as others are the nods to cinematic gaming that GW is promoting. I dont really feel that it has any relationship to them using these buzz words to cover up the fact that they may or may not have written a tight rules set as some here have implied. That is totally besides the point.

With regard to the rules set. Yes GW could invest more time into the writting of the rules in an effort to increase playability and reduce ambiguity. If they were so motivated they could also likely do something to increase the level of balance in the game. But none of this has anything to do with the argument about cinema and 40k.

Any changes to the ruleset are beyond resolving ambiguity will result in upsetting some members of the player base. Even actions that create a more balanced rules set are going to aggravate some. There is no way that GW can release new rules without a few of the vocal minority preaching their displeasure, yet an unchanging rules set risks becoming stagnant.

There are conditions that change in real combat, and that does make some random elements entirely permissible. But that doesn't mean all of them are.

As much of a control freak that I am, I do agree that random elements can and do have a place in games. That said, the implementation is very important.

Things like Warlord traits and entirely random charge distance have no place. They replace the use of tactics and strategy within the game, and take away an element of play.
Warlord traits being random in general is just something that I feel is entirely broken. And although not the biggest fan of them in general, especially since some are ridiculously overpowered, I feel that if the random element were removed and more thought put into making them overall balanced, it would improve their implementation considerably.

Random charge distance is a difficult one. Some people like the gamble aspect. Some people argue that there's some tactics involved in picking whether or not to charge with the distance being random. If that's the case, why not up it a notch, a compromise, and make it so that there actually is some player choice in this. Give every unit a standard charge of 6-7", and then give them the option to replace that with a 2D6 roll. You can play it safe and guarantee a standard charge, or you can go big and hope to clean up with a good roll. Risk management becomes much more involving than just rolling a dice and moving the model.

Mysterious terrain is ridiculous in itself. I'm not a fan of the off chance that someone lands on the terrain that my entire army is crippled. Especially when, in some cases, it will be utterly impossible to prevent it from happening.

Honestly though, one thing that I would think would be a great implementation of a random element, and would perfectly outline Sennacherib's post, far better than any of the random mechanics in 6th ed so far, is a weather system.
At the beginning of the game, before deployment, roll a D6. On a 1-3, clear skies. On a 4-6, you get a certain weather condition.
For example, you could get a sandstorm that rages across the battlefield. At the beginning of the turn, you could roll a dice, and on a 4+, you get a sandstorm that makes everything move through difficult terrain and reduces shooting range.

I'm not entirely opposed to random elements, but you have to be careful when you implement them. They should be things that do not replace player interaction, most importantly. And their effects should not be something that will replace the need for a player taking action (ie, half your army is dead because I rolled this random result on a table). They should act as variables that players play with or around.

Anpu42 wrote:No mater what they did someone would be unhappy.

sennacherib wrote:Any changes to the ruleset are beyond resolving ambiguity will result in upsetting some members of the player base. Even actions that create a more balanced rules set are going to aggravate some.

CT GAMER wrote:40K will never have a totally balanced rules set. Nor will it ever please 100% of the fanbase. IF you are waiting for that to happen you are going to be sadly dissapointed.

So, just for those who weren't clear, the gist of the argument in this thread so far is: "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."

Good fething advice, "Never try."

Sidstyler wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:No mater what they did someone would be unhappy.

sennacherib wrote:Any changes to the ruleset are beyond resolving ambiguity will result in upsetting some members of the player base. Even actions that create a more balanced rules set are going to aggravate some.

CT GAMER wrote:40K will never have a totally balanced rules set. Nor will it ever please 100% of the fanbase. IF you are waiting for that to happen you are going to be sadly dissapointed.

So, just for those who weren't clear, the gist of the argument in this thread so far is: "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."

Good fething advice, "Never try."

Just to be clear. Not one of the quote you chose match what you said in any way shape of form. The only common theme being that no matter what someone is going to be upset. So sorry it had to be you Sidstyler.

Just to be clear. Not one of the quote you chose match what you said in any way shape of form.

Yeah it does.

BTW nice trolling. I don't know who's doing it better though, you or CT GAMER.

I stand my original assertion.
Not one of the posts that you chose to site makes the assertion that "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."
Instead they all assert that no matter what GW does, they will never be able to satisfy all of their player base, and that some of their player base will be upset no matter what. You are clearly upset validating all three quotes which you chose to site.
Just saying.

Sidstyler wrote:

Anpu42 wrote:No mater what they did someone would be unhappy.

sennacherib wrote:Any changes to the ruleset are beyond resolving ambiguity will result in upsetting some members of the player base. Even actions that create a more balanced rules set are going to aggravate some.

CT GAMER wrote:40K will never have a totally balanced rules set. Nor will it ever please 100% of the fanbase. IF you are waiting for that to happen you are going to be sadly dissapointed.

So, just for those who weren't clear, the gist of the argument in this thread so far is: "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."

Good fething advice, "Never try."

Instead of quoting people (badly) to be a cool guy, why not actually participate intelligently in the conversation and either refute something that has been said or offer an opinion of your own?

I know it is easy and cool to throw "troll" around these days, but maybe actually offer something a little more valid to the discussion.

I answered Fafnir's points with ones of my own. That isnt trolling, that is debate/discussion, and is the point of a "discussion forum".

I's still waiting for some names/links to the "MANY" games that are tighter and do cinematics/narratives better btw...

CT GAMER wrote:Instead of quoting people (badly) to be a cool guy, why not actually participate intelligently in the conversation and either refute something that has been said or offer an opinion of your own?

Like my opinion means anything to you anyway. All I'll get for sharing my opinion is half a dozen people chiming in about how I'm playing the game "wrong" and need to "chill out".

CT GAMER wrote:I know it is easy and cool to throw "troll" around these days, but maybe actually offer something a little more valid to the discussion.

Well, I learned from the best.

CT GAMER wrote:Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

CT GAMER wrote:I answered Fafnir's points with ones of my own. That isnt trolling, that is debate/discussion, and is the point of a "discussion forum".

Did you? I must not have noticed. I must have been distracted by how you blatantly ignored one of his posts where he explained why he continues to give a damn about 40k despite GW putting out gakky rules, just so you could continue to question and antagonize him about why he's still interested in the game at all and won't just give it up like you want him to. And calling him a troll.

About your points: I don't see what your point is in bringing up the fact that not every single person on the planet who plays GW games can agree 100% on every minute detail. Yeah, we're fickle and opinionated, most geeks/nerds are. No matter what you do someone will probably complain, but that's no excuse to put out a sub-par product and shrug your shoulders saying "Good enough for the plebs who play our games." I disagree that just because we can't come to a consensus on every issue that 40k can't ever be balanced. You're also wrong because GW could at least attempt to answer those questions, but instead they've chosen a complete blackout of all information and would rather just tell us what we want. One very easy step for them to take towards a more balanced ruleset and/or making more people happy would be to allow the community to playtest new rules: release free "beta" versions on the website and give people a contact e-mail to get back in touch with GW to let them know what they feel worked and what didn't. GW will get a lot of mail to go through, and a lot of it will likely be completely worthless crap, with people complaining about damn near everything in the book or offering suggestions that aren't realistic, but you can write down the most common issues and address them before the book goes off to print, which will likely prevent the need for an FAQ to be released within weeks of the book dropping and maybe fix glaring balance issues that the design team don't catch because they're too busy playing Apocalypse. If you get the community directly involved in the rules and we actually have a say in what goes to print it would probably go a long way.

In any case, here's the main reason why I'm upset...you guys didn't really gain much from 6th edition. If you ever wanted to use allies or come up with your own wacky terrain rules you were always able to do that...the "Most Important Rule" in the rulebook sure as hell isn't there for the competitive players, anyway. You also had a plethora of expansions and the Imperial Armour books for more army lists, scenarios, campaigns, whatever the hell you wanted. GW has been catering to the casual crowd this whole time, the only thing the competitive players have are the core rules and the codices, and we've pretty much been at GW's mercy as far as that goes...sometimes they're reasonably balanced, sometimes they're not. Now we don't even have that, if you want to play 40k at all, even "out-of-the-box", you're fethed. You either have to house rule all the stupid gak out or find a different game to play, because honestly, if you play with all the new 6th edition rules the game will be downright unplayable.

For a guy like me who 9 times out of 10 doesn't care about telling a "story", worrying endlessly about "how" or "why" our armies ended up fighting each other, why I use this or you use that, etc., there's nothing in 6th edition for me except more headaches. When I go play pick-up games at the store I'll never know if me and my opponent will even be playing the same game or not, each game will require a small discussion beforehand about what rules we'll be ignoring and which interpretations of the ones we'll be using that we actually agree on, etc. Also, just because I don't take the "story" as seriously as you do doesn't mean I don't like the setting of 40k, I do read the background in my codices (and probably take the fluff more seriously than you guys do, since I'm opposed to the new allies rules mainly because it allows some really stupid combinations that make literally no sense) and obviously I like the models or I wouldn't be playing, I'm just not interested in acting or role-playing when I play 40k, if I want that there are other games I can play that are better-suited for it. D&D in my eyes is a straight-up role-playing game, there is no real competition there, the whole point is to work together with a team and to tell a story, your stereotypical high fantasy heroes taking down the big bad. It's also a hell of a lot cheaper and doesn't require a ludicrously expensive army of models to play. I don't have any desire to play 40k in that way, no matter how desperately Dakka and GW both try to make me. It's comparable in my mind to trying to tell some kind of "story" when playing Magic: The Gathering, or when playing Tribes online. I'm sure there's a reason why Diamond Sword and Blood Eagle hate each other, but I don't really give a feth because I want to cap flags and pew pew people with spinny blue discs. Same with 40k, except with a disturbing lack of spinny blue discs.

Not to say I would never play a one-off "last stand" or big stupid Apocalypse game here or there, but most of the time I just want to play a normal game. I don't want Apocalypse in my normal games, I don't want scary trees that kill my guys and broken-ass warlord traits, either.

So i get that you are angry.
I get that you dont like the new rules set.
What are you going to do about it.

Sidstyler wrote:[the competitive players have are the core rules and the codices, and we've pretty much been at GW's mercy as far as that goes...sometimes they're reasonably balanced, sometimes they're not. Now we don't even have that, if you want to play 40k at all, even "out-of-the-box", you're fethed. You either have to house rule all the stupid gak out or find a different game to play, because honestly, if you play with all the new 6th edition rules the game will be downright unplayable.

I'll ignore the antagonistic elements of your previous post for the sake of the children. As to the above quote, event organizers and their ilk have been house ruling the game since the dawn of time. They tell you what is and isnt allowed in their events, design their own scenarios, make up their own scoring systems that impact standings, etc., etc.

I think they had a thread on that very practice within about 15 minutes of the new rulebook hitting the shelves. So how is 6th any different in this regard? No matter what form it took it would have been house ruled/event ruled and given the INAT treatment. Nothing wrong with that if that is your thing, but something that I think can just as easily be done to 6th if you desire. Set up a club or 40K night in which you present your house rules and great "fixes". IF your vision for the game is as clear as you and others suggest than you should have no problem finding others to pla it with you.

So whats the issue again?

For a guy like me who 9 times out of 10 doesn't care about telling a "story", worrying endlessly about "how" or "why" our armies ended up fighting each other, why I use this or you use that, etc., there's nothing in 6th edition for me except more headaches. When I go play pick-up games at the store I'll never know if me and my opponent will even be playing the same game or not, each game will require a small discussion beforehand about what rules we'll be ignoring and which interpretations of the ones we'll be using that we actually agree on, etc. Also, just because I don't take the "story" as seriously as you do doesn't mean I don't like the setting of 40k, I do read the background in my codices (and probably take the fluff more seriously than you guys do, since I'm opposed to the new allies rules mainly because it allows some really stupid combinations that make literally no sense) and obviously I like the models or I wouldn't be playing, I'm just not interested in acting or role-playing when I play 40k, if I want that there are other games I can play that are better-suited for it. D&D in my eyes is a straight-up role-playing game, there is no real competition there, the whole point is to work together with a team and to tell a story, your stereotypical high fantasy heroes taking down the big bad. It's also a hell of a lot cheaper and doesn't require a ludicrously expensive army of models to play. I don't have any desire to play 40k in that way, no matter how desperately Dakka and GW both try to make me. It's comparable in my mind to trying to tell some kind of "story" when playing Magic: The Gathering, or when playing Tribes online. I'm sure there's a reason why Diamond Sword and Blood Eagle hate each other, but I don't really give a feth because I want to cap flags and pew pew people with spinny blue discs. Same with 40k, except with a disturbing lack of spinny blue discs.

All I can do in response ot this is shrug and say your loss. But know that just because you may be set in your ways, but that doesn't mean that others don't want to discuss the matter. So in the future just because we are talking about the subject try to remember that we aren't talking only about you, nor is our goal to make Sidstyler a narative gamer. This isn't about you, so you don't need to be a self-imposed Martyr every time this is discussed.

In fact if I can take a play from the tournamant gamers when I tried to discuss this in 'THEIR" section of dakka: Why are you here then and why are you posting if it doesnt interest you and you have no intention of changing? Plenty of threads exist about tournamant play and how to "fix" sixth in that neck of the Dakka woods.

Play how you want. Find somee people that share your outlook on the game (Lord knows there are many of them) and get on with "pew pewing and capturing flags"...

Fafnir wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:Maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is to do something a lot of players have forgotten how to do: have fun.

Or maybe the point of "cinematic gaming" is that it's a copout to excuse poor game design on GW's part.

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics' (whatever the feth GW wants that to mean). "Cinematics" is what occurs between the players, not the game. The game is only a tool that the narrative builds itself around.

Would these be the rulesets that have only one book, therefore negating the need to keep 15 rulebooks balanced? Some of you act like 40k is a job, and that loopholes in the rules risk your income, like defective equipment. It is a game, people! Get a grip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sennacherib wrote:I stand my original assertion.
Not one of the posts that you chose to site makes the assertion that "If there's a chance it might make someone unhappy, it's not worth doing."
Instead they all assert that no matter what GW does, they will never be able to satisfy all of their player base, and that some of their player base will be upset no matter what. You are clearly upset validating all three quotes which you chose to site.
Just saying.

And there are too many "GW sucks" threads on here anyway. If you hate the game so much, find a new one and move on! I hear solitaire is a nice, balanced game...

i agree entirely.
The upset crowd is currently a small minority here if you take the sampling given by the poll i posted in the discussion forum.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/467703.page
Currently 70% of gamers feel that 6th ed is an improvement to 13% who feel its a step down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

salvadorjer wrote:I'd just like to get the ball rolling for a discussion covering two main topics.

1) Since cinematic play seems to be tthe writing on the wall for 6th ed does anyone know of great ways to increase that in play? I find custom scenarios to work quite often especially with a special rule or two added.

2) Given the discussions that often occur around TFG articles maybe we could discuss how to make the game not more enjoyable for yourself but for your opponent. This can be both cometitive anf fluffy play. (I'll insert bath here before the trolls get to it) I find taking 5 minutes to define all the terrain at the start of the game is a must.

Have at it dakka.

Getting off the haters gonna hate and back on topic....
1) if you really want to have more cinema in your games the terrain is huge. I sometimes try to set up the terrain so that it isnt just a random collection of stuff strewn evenly about the battlefield. Setting up a cohesive diorama feeling set creates a much more visually appealing game than one where its evenly arranged. Also, i have tried using or allowing players to choose some of the battlefield effects that are available in the supplements like planet strike and city fight.

Some of the best games i have been in that were set up for cinema were played as part of an unfolding plot. I am part of a large Chaos only gaming group that has regular and immense apoc. games. They are all played as part of an unfolding story much like a D&D game. makes for a good time when you are battling for control of a munitorium building that is key to the invasion.

While the warlord table is apparently at the heart of a lot of whining, a way to mitigate it would be to allow players to barter with each other over fair traits that their own warlord could use in the game. That way these traits would not be at random, nor would they by useless or OP since your opponent would have to sign off on a trait pre game. If you cant agree, then roll at random.

2) as with all games i think discussion of terrain, model upgrades and psychic powers before the game is really important. As for making the game fun, it is fun when you take the super competative attitude out of the game. I played in a large, tournament down south last year. One of my foes had a dual lash list (this was before last got nerfed). He was tearing me apart until the final round when a single scout sniper who had for several rounds held off a khorn berzerker and a demon prince in melee, killed them both and one the game. Statistically improbable yes, but my foes reaction was priceless. He cheered and high five'd me. It was a tournament and instead of grimly battling with our man dollies, he and i were both really enjoying the game. Winning does not really matter, having fun does.

I for one welcome the unpredictability of 6th edition. It means that even the most beardy, cheesy list played by the most unsporting munchkin in the known universe isn't guaranteed to win. Also, I felt it brought 40K more in line with WHFB, which to me is a good thing. The latest edition of Warhammer is the best yet (something most people agree on) so taking hints from it seems a smart move.

Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame. I present you with the Tyranid philosophy...

Adapt or die.

Adapt or die.

Amen.

Squigsquasher wrote:I for one welcome the unpredictability of 6th edition. It means that even the most beardy, cheesy list played by the most unsporting munchkin in the known universe isn't guaranteed to win. Also, I felt it brought 40K more in line with WHFB, which to me is a good thing. The latest edition of Warhammer is the best yet (something most people agree on) so taking hints from it seems a smart move.

Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame. I present you with the Tyranid philosophy...

Adapt or die.

Finally someone with a mind not tainted by sweat stains and unshowerdness. I agree with you and once again the community shows its true face. 6th is in my mind a much welcomed change from 5th, that where a game of cookie cutter builds and vet spam

sennacherib wrote:i I played in a large, tournament down south last year. One of my foes had a dual lash list (this was before last got nerfed). He was tearing me apart until the final round when a single scout sniper who had for several rounds held off a khorn berzerker and a demon prince in melee, killed them both and one the game. Statistically improbable yes, but my foes reaction was priceless. He cheered and high five'd me. It was a tournament and instead of grimly battling with our man dollies, he and i were both really enjoying the game.

This is the kind of player that can make even a competetive (I'm a narrative guy) game fun for me. Players who can keep their celebrations to themeselves when they do well, and cheer when their opponent does well make games infinitely more enjoyable and friendly. This is the type of player I try to be. I want to be the first to congratulate my opponent when they are victorious and to always be a gracious winner.