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.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
He defined what he means when saying "house rules", you chose to ignore that definition.

You are deliberately misrepresenting his argument.

I'm really not, he literally said "by this i mean, no bs amendments here and there because its more thematic/makes more sense... just play it". People playing the game in the vast majority of cases when interpreting rules go with the interpretation that "makes more sense". Like cloud of flies. It can read as either your opponent can't target that unit unless it's closest or that if that unit is closest only it can be targeted. Clearly it's the first of those two options that it correct but the only thing GW have put out that clarifies that is a question in the FAQ about snipers targeting the unit. The only way to know how cloud of flies works outside of that single question in an FAQ is to go with what makes more sense.

Cloud of flies reads quite clearly unless you dont want it to read that way...... just like my post.

Obvious what kind of player you are....

 IronBrand wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
He defined what he means when saying "house rules", you chose to ignore that definition.

You are deliberately misrepresenting his argument.

I'm really not, he literally said "by this i mean, no bs amendments here and there because its more thematic/makes more sense... just play it". People playing the game in the vast majority of cases when interpreting rules go with the interpretation that "makes more sense". Like cloud of flies. It can read as either your opponent can't target that unit unless it's closest or that if that unit is closest only it can be targeted. Clearly it's the first of those two options that it correct but the only thing GW have put out that clarifies that is a question in the FAQ about snipers targeting the unit. The only way to know how cloud of flies works outside of that single question in an FAQ is to go with what makes more sense.

And this, my friend, is the difference between being a rules lawyer and playing the rules as written.

If it's clear how the rule works, you don't need a FAQ unless you are being a rules lawyer. Which is fine on YMDC, but utterly annoying in a game.

Comp-casual here.
Enjoyed the tourneys I've been to but definitely dont go in hardcore to them.

Process wrote:
Cloud of flies reads quite clearly unless you dont want it to read that way...... just like my post.

Obvious what kind of player you are....

Nope, that's just how you interpret things. You take what I post as me being some sort of rules lawyer. I'm not, I'm a magic player. I've played magic much longer and much more than 40k. I don't care what the ruling is I just expect there to be one. I do not like ambiguous rules, they only ever lead to arguments and ruin the game. Considering 40k is older than MTG it's far from unreasonable to expect them to actually go through and clarify rules in a similar way. I'm not saying MTG is perfect there are frequently cases where how magic cards need to work are clarified. The difference is WoTC actually clarifies them as they come up and don't just leave it to the playerbase arguing among themselves.

You must be rather new to WH40k then.

There have been decades where you couldn't even guess how rules are supposed to work, while MtG had already created an air-tight rule set.

 Jidmah wrote:
You must be rather new to WH40k then.

There have been decades where you couldn't even guess how rules are supposed to work, while MtG had already created an air-tight rule set.

I played in 5th then took a break until 8th. It's stupid that GW refuses to clarify anything with rules. They want to treat it like the rules for an RPG where it's ultimately less important to have clearly defined rules because the players are working together and there's a GM to make the call on any rule issue that comes up. It's even more important these days with how much popular tabletop gaming has become with board games becoming much more mainstream. Back in 5th I was less critical of rules so I don't remember any real arguments over rules. It really is baffling that a company that has been doing things as long as GW still refuses to explain the rules of their game.

None of the choices reflected my play. I play casual but when I know I am playing a power player I'll play in kind.

I always play to win but I won't be a jerk about it. I like healthy competition and will always give respect.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You must be rather new to WH40k then.

There have been decades where you couldn't even guess how rules are supposed to work, while MtG had already created an air-tight rule set.

I played in 5th then took a break until 8th. It's stupid that GW refuses to clarify anything with rules. They want to treat it like the rules for an RPG where it's ultimately less important to have clearly defined rules because the players are working together and there's a GM to make the call on any rule issue that comes up. It's even more important these days with how much popular tabletop gaming has become with board games becoming much more mainstream. Back in 5th I was less critical of rules so I don't remember any real arguments over rules. It really is baffling that a company that has been doing things as long as GW still refuses to explain the rules of their game.

This is probably an argument for another thread - perhaps a poll on RAW, RAI and the use of House Rules and how far people are willing to go with them. (I propose house rules all the time, but then never actually go through with trying to implement them).

I’m kinda surprised that Comp-Casual is winning so handily, but then Dakka never ceases to amaze me at its diversity.

I went with Competitive-Casual, though I play almost exclusively with the same friends I’ve had for 20 years.

We share a do your best with models you like... and occasionally supplement with powerful models you aren’t fond of (for me, Chapter Master on bike with Grav Biker retinue...) if you’re regularly getting the beat-down in 7th edition.

That’s my cup of tea for 40k. I like taking on top-teir lists with my semi-competitive lists. I enjoy a tough battle. Been playing long enough that a quality win is better than quantity of wins.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
You must be rather new to WH40k then.

There have been decades where you couldn't even guess how rules are supposed to work, while MtG had already created an air-tight rule set.

I played in 5th then took a break until 8th. It's stupid that GW refuses to clarify anything with rules. They want to treat it like the rules for an RPG where it's ultimately less important to have clearly defined rules because the players are working together and there's a GM to make the call on any rule issue that comes up. It's even more important these days with how much popular tabletop gaming has become with board games becoming much more mainstream. Back in 5th I was less critical of rules so I don't remember any real arguments over rules. It really is baffling that a company that has been doing things as long as GW still refuses to explain the rules of their game.

The previous CEO basically dictated that rules were unimportant. Up until his retirement GW collected next to no experience in proper rules writing. You might as well assume that GW's learning curve started with 8th (or more accurately, with AoS).

I just consider the Kirby era like the Dark Ages when science made next to no progress.

Considering 5th edition: My 4th edition ork codex had a list of rules written on the inside of the cover which I needed to clarify before the game started. For none of those you could do anything but guess on how to play them, and only one of them were ever FAQ'ed from its release in 4th until it was replaced in 7th edition.

 Jidmah wrote:

The previous CEO basically dictated that rules were unimportant. Up until his retirement GW collected next to no experience in proper rules writing. You might as well assume that GW's learning curve started with 8th (or more accurately, with AoS).

I just consider the Kirby era like the Dark Ages when science made next to no progress.

Considering 5th edition: My 4th edition ork codex had a list of rules written on the inside of the cover which I needed to clarify before the game started. For none of those you could do anything but guess on how to play them, and only one of them were ever FAQ'ed from its release in 4th until it was replaced in 7th edition.

Easy to blame previous ceo while forgetting 8th still is mess yfu literally cannot play without houserules

Only thing that has really changea at gw is pr. Smoke and mirror. Their best seller is Duncan. Rules writing is mess as usual

I try to put together an army of models I like* that are also competitive enough that I don't get trounced.

* Both in terms of aesthetics and rules.

tneva82 wrote:
Easy to blame previous ceo while forgetting 8th still is mess yfu literally cannot play without houserules

Our group literally plays multiple games a month without a single house rule.

If your game breaks down because you can't figure out how assault weapons work, I'd argue that's not solely GW's fault.

I am not sure that I buy the paradigm offered, especially with the descriptors offered but I voted anyway! I think that some will answer with what they would like to be rather than what they really are. A 360 degree evaluation would be illuminating.

I really enjoy narrative gaming where individual events are much more important than the overall result. That's how I play with friends and family on my basement gaming table.

At the FLGS I suppose I'm competitive-competitive with caveats. I try to play to the spirit of the rules rather than get into rules-lawyering. This doesn't mean house rules - it means playing to the intent/spirit of the rules. I happily fire my assault weapons after advancing. I would also never even think about conducting a Heroic Intervention with a non-Flyer character into something with the Airborne ability. I suffered enough Advanced Squad Leader in the early 90s to never want a game of 40K to turn into rules debate. I think that 40K was designed to be played by reasonable people.

I enjoy list-tinkering/building for a tournament, but I wouldn't net-list and I would never Forgeworld (I apologize for my bias). I play Dark Angels win or lose. I take Deathwing terminators, but I also carefully work out my lists. So I guess I'm a competitive player but not a very good one! I am comfortable placing in the middle to upper middle tier with my carefully worked-out intentionally sub-optimal list. I like to build within the constraints/restraints of my chosen army and I wouldn't change armies or bring in a Knight and AM CP Battery for all the LVO/Adepticon trophies in the Imperium of Man.

In Flames of War a few years ago I won a few tournaments, came 2nd or 3rd in several others and I had a national ranking. When I found myself checking my ranking I realized that I was falling into a trap. Now I just take what appeals to me and I truly don't care. I will play to win, but often with a wonky build just to see what I can do. I prefer to run FOW tournaments now rather than play in them.

Cheers

tneva82 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

The previous CEO basically dictated that rules were unimportant. Up until his retirement GW collected next to no experience in proper rules writing. You might as well assume that GW's learning curve started with 8th (or more accurately, with AoS).

I just consider the Kirby era like the Dark Ages when science made next to no progress.

Considering 5th edition: My 4th edition ork codex had a list of rules written on the inside of the cover which I needed to clarify before the game started. For none of those you could do anything but guess on how to play them, and only one of them were ever FAQ'ed from its release in 4th until it was replaced in 7th edition.

Easy to blame previous ceo while forgetting 8th still is mess yfu literally cannot play without houserules

Only thing that has really changea at gw is pr. Smoke and mirror. Their best seller is Duncan. Rules writing is mess as usual

You are exactly the kind of customer which no company would ever take in consideration.

I can understand those saying that they don't like 8th edition, fine, but saying that you don't see a difference in GW behaviour between now and 7th, means that your opinion is completely locked and transparent to facts, in other words it is useless.

This thread is hilarious

On reflection, I’m not sure the two can be so neatly divided.

For instance, my local club tend to do quite a lot of Tournaments, and as such between events, there’s a lot of practice to hone lists.

Yet few of the members are ‘hardcore’. They don’t tend to Netlist, or number crunch to find ‘optimal’ lists. Rather, they more or less settle on an approach, and the practice games are to get them used to their army, help figure out how it works best, and sometimes even discover sneaky synergies they didn’t originally intend.

Sometimes it leads to no tweaking at all - they just work with what they’ve got. Other times they’ll swap out units, characters and/or wargear here and there. And on occasion, it leads to more sweeping changes.

But ultimately, they’re mostly about enjoying playing new opponents. They do keep track of positions, but aren’t driven by them. They, like I dare say the majority of gamers, don’t feel they’ve wasted their time if they don’t place in the top five or ten.

Whilst I rarely play these days, I’m happy to play those guys and their Tournament Armies, despite being a gamer more interested in using models I like over what may or may not be considered efficient and effective.

The upside to my experience here is that sometimes I’ll come up with a horrifically powerful list, and simply ROFLstomp my foe. Ref my Dark Elf army which was mostly Chariots and Monsters. Put together when Hydras were crap, and Dark Elves considers a bit rubbish, it got a massive boost with their next army book (when Hydras went down in points, and got sickeningly hard). Other times, my army just doesn’t show much cohesion within itself, and I really struggle to make an impact.

I enjoy both of those extremes, and everything in between. And for the most part, so do my opponents (though they do get a bit bored of the super hard lists, and entirely fair enough!). But I personally don’t do Tournaments. Sadly I’ve had a few bad experiences at them before (not representative of the scene, just of my luck!), so I’m wary of finding my already restricted gaming time kind of ruined by someone taking it more seriously than I do. And finally, because I don’t get to play terribly often, I fear some opponents would find my ropey rules knowledge a pain, and I don’t want to harsh their gaming mellow. Otherwise, I’d likely be the same as the Club - Tournaments are about meeting new people over beating new people (though it is nice to win!)

Now this is something for me to work on. Right now, due to my commute and the Club being on Thursdays, I game maybe once every couple of months. But with Kill Team and Underworlds, I’m hoping to make more use of my home facilities and wider gaming circle to roll dem bones far more often. Once I feel I’m up to speed enough, maybe I will go to Tournaments for greater variety and insight. Some may feel that would tip me into the ‘competitive’ category, but I disagree. I’d still be my old casual self, just looking for a game

Dai wrote:
Casual-casual. Have never played a game in a store or in a tournament. Take what I consider fluffy armies, and for me they have to look like armies. This is medieval/classical warfare in space after all. Don't take duplicates of units that are not core/troops/battleline/whatever and try to take at least 25% of the power/points of the same.

Don't demand this from those I play but most seem to have a similar outlook in my small group of gaming friends.

Part of me thinks it would be fun playing a super maxed out list for the experience but it would be a bit easy mode unless both are doing the same and I don't think it's an experience I'd like to repeat.

I suppose at heart I am just a roleplayer who just loved those High Elves and Goblins in the boxed set and got sucked in from there.

I suspect this is what creates a lot of the "divide" in the community (this probably doesn't exist in real life outside of some banter but boy people like to get sensitive online), 'roleplayers' and 'gamers'.

Yep, this basically nails my take on the whole business. Roleplay That gak.

What is best in life?

My list is driven by fluff, not crunch, and I play casual (when I play), but I still want to crush my enemy and see them driven before me.

GW has made mistakes with 8th but overall they've made huge steps forward with AoS and 8th. How they handle the imperial soup CP farm issue will be big. Hopefully they've learned from their heavy handed rules fixes and the issues those have caused.