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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.

People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.

Yes, and the point is that you're modifying the rules of the game when you do that. You're no longer playing the standard game of 40k according to the rules published by GW (which include a limit of three heavy support choices and allow you to take three Wraithknights), you're playing your own special version that includes unwritten rules about what is "fun" and social pressure to follow your rules.

Which, if you go back to the original statement that started this discussion, is exactly the problem. Instead of making a game where you can have an enjoyable pickup game with any legal list and no negotiation beyond "let's play a 1500 point game" GW keeps publishing rules like Escalation where there are blatant fun-destroying options and you have to negotiate about what things you're willing to include in the game. That leads to unhappy players (after all, who wants to be told that their chosen army isn't fun enough and they aren't allowed to play unless they change it) for no reason beyond GW's laziness and incompetence.

I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?

 Zweischneid wrote:

None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.

People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.

Same here.

I would rather play against a fun army with 4 HS slots than against a no-fun "fully legal" army.

(And I would rather play against an Adeptus Mechanicus army using rules adapted from 30k Forgeworld Legio Cybernetica rules with properly done models than against most "normal" armies, but then again I really enjoy the creative parts of the game, and that´s just me and a few more)

Yes but with the current, horribly unbalanced, rules a 3 Wraithknight Sam Hain* list is legal while having 4 predators** in an Iron Warriors list is not.

It's all well and good to say houseruling things makes everything better, but by saying that you are saying the system is fundamentally flawed to begin with.


*Not sure if I'm spelling that right, the one that's red and shouldn't be using wraithknights because they are, fluffwise, all about speed.
**AFAIK preds are not often taken, I'm guessing there is a reason for that.

 da001 wrote:
A really loose set of rules. That, according to its creators, you are expected to change.

That's not really expecting change, it's just an acknowledgement of the fact that GW isn't holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play by strict RAW. GW never includes actual rules about doing things like making your own army list instead of using a codex, they just make a vague statement about how cool those things are and how they aren't going to punish you if you want to do them.

We all need special arrangements. At least, if we want an enjoyable game.

Yes, and this is exactly the problem. Good games don't need special arrangements, you just play them "out of the box" and have fun. Unfortunately 40k is not a good game, and GW's latest releases are only making the problems worse.

At least it forces the players to talk to each other and try to reach an agreement.

Which means that there's a high chance of someone being unhappy with that agreement. If I show up with my chosen army and have to change everything because you're not going to play a game with me unless I do then I'm not going to be very happy about it. I made the army that way for a reason and I shouldn't have to change it just because GW insists on throwing out half-finished garbage and calling it a rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?

You're not a bad person, but that doesn't make Escalation a good product. The basic idea of "use bigger tanks" might have had some potential, but the execution was awful and the book we actually got has no place in normal games.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Yes but with the current, horribly unbalanced, rules a 3 Wraithknight Sam Hain* list is legal while having 4 predators** in an Iron Warriors list is not.

It's all well and good to say houseruling things makes everything better, but by saying that you are saying the system is fundamentally flawed to begin with.


*Not sure if I'm spelling that right, the one that's red and shouldn't be using wraithknights because they are, fluffwise, all about speed.
**AFAIK preds are not often taken, I'm guessing there is a reason for that.

The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.

Since nothing can be "enforced" in 40K and everything is based on consent, the concept of "legal" is a fallacy.

Hence the measure of "legal" or "not-legal" is irrelevant. The only worthwhile measure is "fun" or "un-fun", which two players can only ever decide between the two of them. It's not a decision any one person can take on his or her own.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
None of that changes the fact that if you show up to club night or to your FLGS with a "3 Heavy Slot" list that sticks pedantically to the rules, but looks like it'll offer no fun to play (e.g. 3 Wraithknights), nobody will have to play against you. And if the guy over there with his 4 HS-slot list seems to offer the more enjoyable Saturday-afternoon, he'll get my game, not you.

People are as free to turn down your 3-HS-list (or, in the spirit of finding a middle ground and get a good compromise going, politely ask for changes in the list as an alternative to not playing) as they are with a 4-HS-list.

Yes, and the point is that you're modifying the rules of the game when you do that. You're no longer playing the standard game of 40k according to the rules published by GW (which include a limit of three heavy support choices and allow you to take three Wraithknights), you're playing your own special version that includes unwritten rules about what is "fun" and social pressure to follow your rules.

I don´t think this is correct.

There is no such limitations in the Rulebook. See the quotes above or read the previous posts. This "standard game" never existed.

Just look at the Battle Reports: they don´t even care about having the same amount of points.

Which, if you go back to the original statement that started this discussion, is exactly the problem. Instead of making a game where you can have an enjoyable pickup game with any legal list and no negotiation beyond "let's play a 1500 point game" GW keeps publishing rules like Escalation where there are blatant fun-destroying options and you have to negotiate about what things you're willing to include in the game. That leads to unhappy players (after all, who wants to be told that their chosen army isn't fun enough and they aren't allowed to play unless they change it) for no reason beyond GW's laziness and incompetence.

True. I think we all agree on that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?

I like it a lot too.

But it needs a lot of work: tweaking, fixing and talking. It is broken, and if used as given to us it can easily turn your game into a boring experience.

I would never use it against a stranger, only against friends or in pre-arranged games. And if you bring a Warhound to a 1500 game against someone you don´t even know, expect a lot of people saying "no thanks".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?

You're not a bad person, but that doesn't make Escalation a good product. The basic idea of "use bigger tanks" might have had some potential, but the execution was awful and the book we actually got has no place in normal games.

Wait, so I like it, and it's ok to like it. Except that it has no place in normal games.

Meanwhile, in Harrisburg, PA, my friends and I (and the other FLGS goers besides) are having a blast with it in normal games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 da001 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I agree with you that the implementation is terrible, but am I bad for actually liking Escalation?

I like it a lot too.

But it needs a lot of work: tweaking, fixing and talking. It is broken, and if used as given to us it can easily turn your game into a boring experience.

I would never use it against a stranger, only against friends or in pre-arranged games. And if you bring a Warhound to a 1500 game against someone you don´t even know, expect a lot of people saying "no thanks".

I brought a Warhound in a 1500 point game against the Tau without pre-planning. He killed it and won 18-20.

I brought a Baneblade in a 1500 point game against a Chaos Warhound. We killed eachother and tied 6-6.

Zweischneid wrote:
The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.

Since nothing can be "enforced" in 40K and everything is based on consent, the concept of "legal" is a fallacy.

Hence the measure of "legal" or "not-legal" is irrelevant. The only worthwhile measure is "fun" or "un-fun", which two players can only ever decide between the two of them. It's not a decision any one person can take on his or her own.

So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?

What if they tell you that their model is supposed to be a better shot than their rules say and so they should be allowed to hit on a 3 not a 4?
A marine should certainly be able to hit a land raider more than 66% of the time when they are 5 meters away from it.
For that matter a lasgun wound should not kill a marine 33% of the time.

Just because there is not a TO present at random pick up games does not mean the rules do not apply.

*Editied the quote in, the rest of you guys are posting too fast for me

I think that what Perigrin says is right . GW doesn't realy care about the rules . When someone starts the game ,he just wants to blast the other army off the table . But after some games , when you suddenly understand that some armies have very limited options in doing that , the game becomes a lot less fun . From what I understand GW thinks that the way to fix this is people buying ton of random stuff , far more then they need for 1500 or what ever points they play . Then those same people can pick random lists , based on what they like and because everyone would be doing this , no one would be too powerful or too weak . And if somehow that did happen , his friends would just tell him to play something else and he would because of the big collection he owns . Good for GW ,because people would not just buy X points of armies , but huge collections from different armies to use all those formations , ally , FW etc. Not so good if you don't live in a country where the avarge salary is 1/6 of what people in UK get and everyone just buys X pts of the best stuff and plays with that. if the army you bought is a lot weaker then everyone elses , you may have just as well set the money on fire .

Oddly enough for a very long time , I thought that most table top games were like that. Then I saw warmahordes and there were more options , sure the game still wasn't ,play with what you like, but balanced wasn't even a problem . Almost everything was OP , so almost everything could be used.
this christmas I watched some infinity games and I was struck how people are using different stuff then what tournaments list as the best. Again I asked why they do something like that , when the same people playing w40k/WFB pick the best of the best every time, and they told me that it is , because all models working well more or less . Sure this units maybe weaker , then those , but taking them or not taking them doesn't criple you.
In w40k not playing with certain units or models makes no sense , specialy now with escalation and stronghold codex out.

 Zweischneid wrote:
The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.

*sigh*

Seriously? Do you really not understand how "legal" in this context means "following the published rules of the game", or how having a standard set of rules makes it a lot easier to have a random pickup game?

The only worthwhile measure is "fun" or "un-fun", which two players can only ever decide between the two of them.

Only in bad games. In good games you just play by the rules of the game and you have fun. You only need that mutual negotiation and agreement when the rules are so awful that using them without modifications is unlikely to be an enjoyable experience

 jonolikespie wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:
The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.

Since nothing can be "enforced" in 40K and everything is based on consent, the concept of "legal" is a fallacy.

Hence the measure of "legal" or "not-legal" is irrelevant. The only worthwhile measure is "fun" or "un-fun", which two players can only ever decide between the two of them. It's not a decision any one person can take on his or her own.

So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?

No.

If both players in a game decide to re-roll a miss would make the game more fun, they should be allowed to do it? Why shouldn't they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
The concept of "legal" does not exist. Legal means rules that are enforced! If you violate a law, there are sanctions that can be brought to bear against your will for breaking a law.

*sigh*

Seriously? Do you really not understand how "legal" in this context means "following the published rules of the game", or how having a standard set of rules makes it a lot easier to have a random pickup game?

I do.

I understand it perfectly. I know that this is how probably 99% of all other (miniature) games out there work.

Why is it so hard to understand that Warhammer 40K simply doesn't and Games Workshop is putting a different emphasis here with their constant repetition of shared experience, narrative, etc.. .

Like it or not, Warhammer 40K is more like LARP with painted models than "classic" wargaming. I don't even claim that this is the best way to handle it, but it is, as a fact, how Games Workshop is currently promoting their game as the "regular" way to play Warhammer 40K. If you approach it the same way you approach a game of .. say .. Warmachine or Monopoly, you are not playing "regular" Warhammer 40K.

 jonolikespie wrote:

So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?

If you agree with him? Of course. It is all about reaching an agreement. And if you disagree, then he is not allowed to do that.

House Rules are not about forcing people to do things. Actually, it is the other way around.

In many games, I have let my opponents to reroll some dices. In one of my last games, my Chapter Master ordered an Orbital Bombardment in turn two and killed most of my enemy´s best unit. So we rerolled it. Otherwise, it would have been a boring game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I brought a Warhound in a 1500 point game against the Tau without pre-planning. He killed it and won 18-20.

I brought a Baneblade in a 1500 point game against a Chaos Warhound. We killed eachother and tied 6-6.

I hope you enjoyed the battle. That is what really matters.

At 1500 points against a stranger I would rather take a "skirmish" approach. Few points, yet lots of models. MSU, tactical options, "normal" units with few explanations needed... I wouldn´t like the game reduced to "can I kill the Warhound?". I would find it boring. I would play against such a list, but only if there is absolutely no one else around to play with. Opinions, I guess.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that Warhammer 40K simply doesn't and Games Workshop is putting a different emphasis here with their constant repetition of shared experience, narrative, etc.. .

Because those things don't actually make 40k a better narrative/casual/whatever game, they just make it a bad game. All that talk about "forge the narrative" is nothing more than a flimsy "don't question our rules, just give us your money" excuse for lazy game design. The sad thing is that somehow they manage to convince people like you to be proud of how bad the rules are instead of being outraged that you paid $50 for half a rulebook.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that Warhammer 40K simply doesn't and Games Workshop is putting a different emphasis here with their constant repetition of shared experience, narrative, etc.. .

Because those things don't actually make 40k a better narrative/casual/whatever game, they just make it a bad game. All that talk about "forge the narrative" is nothing more than a flimsy "don't question our rules, just give us your money" excuse for lazy game design. The sad thing is that somehow they manage to convince people like you to be proud of how bad the rules are instead of being outraged that you paid $50 for half a rulebook.

Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.

And they don't need to convince me of anything. I play plenty of other games too, Chess, DreadBall, Risk, X-Wing. And sometimes, to get that special narrative experience (which none of the previously mentioned games can create), Warhammer 40K.

Different tools for different purposes.

 da001 wrote:
.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I brought a Warhound in a 1500 point game against the Tau without pre-planning. He killed it and won 18-20.

I brought a Baneblade in a 1500 point game against a Chaos Warhound. We killed eachother and tied 6-6.

I hope you enjoyed the battle. That is what really matters.

At 1500 points against a stranger I would rather take a "skirmish" approach. Few points, yet lots of models. MSU, tactical options, "normal" units with few explanations needed... I wouldn´t like the game reduced to "can I kill the Warhound?". I would find it boring. I would play against such a list, but only if there is absolutely no one else around to play with. Opinions, I guess.

Fair enough. Opinions indeed - just don't try to remove my ability to play with my Superheavies over here in Harrisburg while you play wherever it is that you are.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.

And they don't need to convince me of anything. I play plenty of other games too, Chess, DreadBall, Risk, X-Wing. And sometimes, to get that special narrative experience (which none of the previously mentioned games can create), Warhammer 40K.

Different tools for different purposes.

I agree with you. The fluff and the narrative of the games you make up is where the strenght of 40k really lies.
I also play FoW, and while you can also create great narratives for that, you do not have the freedom you have with 40k.

That does not mean however that the rules should be as unbalanced as they are. Fantasy manages to create the same narrative experience, but it is still a lot better balanced than 40k.
It should be possible to create a game that caters to both the tournament and casual players. I am pretty sure that GW would be capable of doing that. If other, smaller companies can do it, so can GW.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.

I have yet to hear any explanation for how these problems make 40k a better game. The best I've ever heard in 40k's defense is that the problems aren't so horrible that you can't enjoy the game despite them, and that's not even close to the same thing.

See here is the issue with the way GW is handling things....they don't need to provide you with bad rules to forge a narative...nor do they need to grant permission for people to house rules things. If they actually put out reasonably balanced rules you could still do these things. Prior to escalation the only thing stopping super heavies in revular games was your opponent saying no thanks....you could already pre arrage taking one to take on your opponent. The only difference now is that they sold you a new book to use, and created an expectation that they will be allowed...which leads to more games turned down....


Essentially saying "Hey buddy, want to take on my titan?" is different than showing up at a game and throwing a titan at an unprepared opponenet.

Is it wrong to enjoy casual house ruled games...no.

But the fact that it is expected is the problem.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.

And they don't need to convince me of anything. I play plenty of other games too, Chess, DreadBall, Risk, X-Wing. And sometimes, to get that special narrative experience (which none of the previously mentioned games can create), Warhammer 40K.

Different tools for different purposes.

But if you don't play the game by the rules , but just reinvent them for every game , it would mean total chaos . No one would know what is legal and what is not , one dude would claim that this stones give +5 cover and another +4 , you would have to constantly roll for everything , because there would be nothing that stops your opponent from let say claiming +4 cover in the open . It would be a horror to new players too . He would have to do ton of research what is accepted or what isn't , because the rules may say he can take 3 riptides , but opponents won't let a noob play with those . On the other hand the Quarterback version of a w40k community could do what ever he wants , because of the status he holds . He would be able to "get away" with taudar as ad mecha , while a noob wouldn't . I would rather play in a place where everyone can play with the army he wants accodring to the core ruels and not with armies , that his opponents let him play with .

Essentially saying "Hey buddy, want to take on my titan?" is different than showing up at a game and throwing a titan at an unprepared opponenet.

Is that how it works ? here is is I play sm want to play me and you never know , if he plays SW drop pods , SM graviton bikers etc. No one would say his army is an eldar titan one , because no one would accept the game . But if he says eldar you pay for the table and then he plops down his LoW .

Well I generally don't pay for a table...but typically for me it goes

Want a game?

Sure, what you playing?

X Army, how competitive a game are you looking for?


The last question is important because I try to avoid (after negative experiences) dropping my tournament army on new players or players who don't want that level of difficulty because it makes for a bad game.


Now if I wanted to play a super heavy it would include....do you mind if I use X unit?

I was also talking about before escalation you could already include titans in a game simply by asking if your opponent wanted to try his hand at fighting one...now with esclation the scenario you spell out is what can happen...

 da001 wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?

If you agree with him? Of course. It is all about reaching an agreement. And if you disagree, then he is not allowed to do that.

And if neither player can reach an agreement what then? Obviously one of you isn't playing in the spirit of the game but would you argue that if someone was saying that their marine should hit on a 2+ because a land raider is a big target and won't take no for an answer then the person saying no is the one at fault for not coming t an agreement?
Of course not. Because the one saying 'no' is the one abiding by the rules where the other one is just being a jerk.

Likewise if someone is saying you should be hitting on a 4 not a three because you're guardsmen are at 23 inches away and deserve a -1 for being so far away and they push the issue you are not being a jerk because you are playing by the rules.

If you can't reach an agreement I understand you probably don't want to be playing that person to begin with but none the less the actual, published rules have to be the default. Because they are the rules.

There is an implicit agreement in the "ask for game" phase that you will both play by the rules unless an error in the rules presents itself.

This is in addition to the other phases of negotiation (what army, what points, how hardstyle, et cetera).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Fair enough. Opinions indeed - just don't try to remove my ability to play with my Superheavies over here in Harrisburg while you play wherever it is that you are.

How would I do that? Believe me, I am not a god. Not yet.

And even if I were able to stop you from playing the game the way you like it, why would I ever do that? I am for House Rules and Escalation. I just think a Warhound is a little too much for a 1500 points game against a stranger. I don´t want to remove your ability to do anything.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 da001 wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

So if someone in a game with you decided to reroll a miss for no reason at all they should just be allowed to do it?

If you agree with him? Of course. It is all about reaching an agreement. And if you disagree, then he is not allowed to do that.

And if neither player can reach an agreement what then?

The game ends.

Obviously one of you isn't playing in the spirit of the game but would you argue that if someone was saying that their marine should hit on a 2+ because a land raider is a big target and won't take no for an answer then the person saying no is the one at fault for not coming t an agreement?
Of course not. Because the one saying 'no' is the one abiding by the rules where the other one is just being a jerk.
(...)

I disagree.

Some players play "for the fun" and would like to reroll stuff that has too strong an influence on the game, for the sake of "having fun". I gave you an example before. Other players will refuse because they want to win (nothing wrong with that) and see no point in the game if stuff is changed on the go. I enjoy both types of games, but some people do not. And neither side is "right".

The most common example I can think of is the 5-turn end-game roll in a disputed game. "So we stop it now? And we don´t get to know what happened? No way. Let´s play a sixth turn to see who wins".

I see the same playing chess with strangers, a lot. Someone makes a bad move and then says "eh wait! sorry" and takes back the piece. Some people are fine with it because the objective is to have a "good game with your friends", one that reaches beautifulness and complexity, and is determined by complicated tactics, instead of being decided by a silly bad move due to a lapse of concentration. Other people see chess as a fight between two minds and would claim that mistakes like that can not be taken back, since they are trying to establish who is the best player. Again, I enjoy both types of games. In chess, this is something you should talk through before the game begins, or you are in for some arguments. It happens a lot.

The difference being that chess can be played competitively because it is a balanced game with well thought rules. It lacks the setting and the narrative feeling of w40k though, so I will always take a game of 40k over a game of chess.

 jonolikespie wrote:

If you can't reach an agreement I understand you probably don't want to be playing that person to begin with but none the less the actual, published rules have to be the default. Because they are the rules.

Rules we all agree are terrible

And that their own creators stated that they shouldn´t be taken too seriously.

"So we stop it now? And we don´t get to know what happened? No way. Let´s play a sixth turn to see who wins".

But we know what happened . we played 4+turns and one dude lost , and now that he lost he is trying to get extra turns to turn his lose in to a draw or a win . The narrative was forged , two players played and the game ended . I have never seen a player of the supposed non-B&P kind to ask for one turn more , but those B&P players , which have wining unimportant on their banners , do . They are also the ones that try to change other people armies and make other armies easier for them to play , not carring what the other players may want or not. Those bad Tournament players on the other hand always want more lists and more different armies and remove stuff from the game only , if adding a unit or rule would drop the number of players in their area. oddly enough GW who claims their games are B&P are very good at splashing game breaking stuff . cheap multi shot D weapons , demons in WFB in 7th .

A friend and I picked up warmachine recently. Granted we haven't gotten much beyond 25pt games but it's more "beer and pretzels" than 40k ever was.

There's this thing called "buzzkill" and if you have to spend 30 minutes talking about who's bringing what and basically coordinating your wardrobe to go out on the town with the other girls, you might as well toss the crap in a trashcan and just go have the beer and play something fun like smallworld or king of tokyo which ARE beer and pretzel games.



No, 40k is for people who like to argue over esoteric vaguely written rules. I have yet to see a game go by without both players at some point picking up a rulebook. That's not beer and pretzels.

Peregrine, quit being such a downer dude, I still own some GW stock and I need people like Zweischneid to make sure my dividends still get paid.

 agnosto wrote:

No, 40k is for people who like to argue over esoteric vaguely written rules. I have yet to see a game go by without both players at some point picking up a rulebook. That's not beer and pretzels.

Ding ding ding, winner. I'll never understand why people will defend GW's rules when they're so horribly convoluted. You can not care about balance, not care about realism, not care about other player's enjoyment, whatever but you CANNOT say that the rules, as they stand, are intuitive, well written and clear. The fact that the rules are what, 131 pages long, plus the length of all the codices and supplements, yet STILL have huge glaring rules issues is ridiculous. I'm yet to see a good answer to the newbie question which is always asked:why doesn't cover affect how well the models shoot; it's still absurd to me now. This is not a game which should be complex at all. There's 4 phases to the game, yet the rules are absolutely colossal and, if we're honest, barely any of them are used with any frequency (when was the last time you used random allocation, split fire, shot a T10 creature, took cover behind razor wire, failed a shooting morale check, used dangerous terrain at all, had to regroup, threw a frag grenade,had a vehicle split from a squadron after immobilisation, etc). Why? What benefit does that add to the game which simple rules wouldn't? The few times it matters are no less realistic than half the stuff built into the rules like being able to run out a transport but not charge, or standing around in the open after completing a combat. How can you describe this game as beer and pretzels when you need to always lug around a huge rulebook, any relevant codices, your entire army, an army list, any IA books, maybe Escalation and Stronghold Assault, etc and THEN play with delicate, finely painted models? It's too much guff to bother IMO.

GW writes bad rules because GW doesn't care and people still have fun. It seemingly doesn't matter to them that it's putting people off or that many people hate the changes, because they have no consumer goodwill anyway. They just want money without actually having a clue about how to get up sales.

The idea that I spend 30 minutes looking up rules and that I love arguing about them is mistaken.

I do not. I get 2k point games done in 1.5-2.5 hours with little fuss and lots of fun.

I also like 40k.

*edit*

I won't be convinced this is a beer and pretzels game until every box of mini's comes with Finebeer (TM) and Citadel Pretzels.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Speak for yourself. Personally, I think they make Warhammer 40K vastly superiour to other games out there.

I have yet to hear any explanation for how these problems make 40k a better game. The best I've ever heard in 40k's defense is that the problems aren't so horrible that you can't enjoy the game despite them, and that's not even close to the same thing.

Because you keep insisting that they are "problems", when they are not. They are a surplus of options, added to the game in the understanding that it is not the type of game where all available options are appropriate at all times. Players need to exercise "pre-game-negotiations" to make sensible use of those options. The advantage is the infinitely greater number of options.

It's the difference between the little store at the corner and Walmart.

If you simply want to buy "beans", the little store might only have one type of beans, getting the "job done" somewhat faster. If you want more selection however, Walmart offers more (though the price-quality ratio might not be "balanced" on all of them).

But if you keep running into Walmart to buy "beans" and buy everything they have at the same time, all the time, because you insist that "beans" means "everything that "legally" qualifies as "beans" all the time, no exception", than yes, Walmart is probably "broken".

But at the end of the day, the "problem" isn't Walmart, it's a "problem" with the person going in there to shop, who is incapable of taking a selection from a larger range of available options.

One has to keep the "goal" in mind, which is cooking a tasty meal for two persons, which both people enjoy. To achieve this goal, a greater selection of "beans" can be helpful, but you have to use the selection to this end, not simply go for the most cost-effective "beans" all the time because they are there. And certainly it helps to make sure to not take any "beans", that the other person you are cooking for doesn't like.