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.

 vipoid wrote:

What you actually said was that people suck at the game and blame the rules as a result.

Copypaste this to me please, I wish to have a look.

 vipoid wrote:

If you weren't talking about me, why did you quote me above?

I replied to you, then proceeded to write my impressions about the type of personality/player as I described before. Maybe I should have added a comment to separate them better.

 vipoid wrote:

Wait... do games of 40k below 1750pts not count as games?

They do, but larger games take more time, effort, strategy and list building. I´d say if you played 100 games of 500 points that you were less active than someone playing 80 games of 1750 in a year. Although, 40K is quite clunky if you´re playing games of 1000 points. Haven´t played those in the last 3 editions.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:
Don't feed the troll guys.

Ah, the "dismiss him as a troll" -card. I must be putting so much effort into elaborating points and giving reasons to what I perceive because I´m trolling.

 Blacksails wrote:

People are growing tired of 40k because the company making it is charging a fortune for a game that is filled with issues, both in basic writing and gameplay including balance issues. Factor in other games that are cheaper, have cool models, and debatable better gameplay, and its easy to see why someone wouldn't stick with 40k as their primary wargame.

Yet we can read about people quitting or disliking the game for the things I described earlier on a daily basis on these forums for example. Especially the bit of having to be prepared to meet units on the field you have to gear up against. God knows how many kneejerk threads there have been about fliers in general, superheavies, Heldrakes and the like. Certainly the reasons you list apply with some too, but what I described applies to some just the same.

In any case, 40K isn´t for people who wish to wield exactly what they want to, no matter how ineffective, and simultaneously expect to come out on top most of the time.

40k isn't a game for people that rely on PUG's.

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k isn't a game for people that rely on PUG's while playing lists that aren´t powerful enough to take on most things out there.

Fix´d, I can play in PUG´s fine personally. Sure you get the occasional one-trick-pony list you weren´t prepared for, but that doesn´t ruin the whole game for me, as I come prepared for 90% of the other possibilities.

I do understand what you´re saying perfectly though, and it´s an undeniable fact WM/H in general allows you to play random opponents with less of these nasty "surprises." However, in turn WM/H gives occasionally makes your life difficult by a really bad matchup when it comes to Warcasters and the armies they usually built around them. Like I mentioned in another thread, High Reclaimer can completely shut down gunlines for example.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k isn't a game for people that rely on PUG's while playing lists that aren´t powerful enough to take on most things out there.

Fix´d, I can play in PUG´s fine personally. Sure you get the occasional one-trick-pony list you weren´t prepared for, but that doesn´t ruin the whole game for me, as I come prepared for 90% of the other possibilities.

I do understand what you´re saying perfectly though, and it´s an undeniable fact WM/H in general allows you to play random opponents with less of these nasty "surprises." However, in turn WM/H gives occasionally makes your life difficult by a really bad matchup when it comes to Warcasters and the armies they usually built around them. Like I mentioned in another thread, High Reclaimer can completely shut down gunlines for example.

You fixed nothing and only showed your lack of understanding of my argument.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k isn't a game for people that rely on PUG's while playing lists that aren´t powerful enough to take on most things out there.

Fix´d, I can play in PUG´s fine personally. Sure you get the occasional one-trick-pony list you weren´t prepared for, but that doesn´t ruin the whole game for me, as I come prepared for 90% of the other possibilities.

I do understand what you´re saying perfectly though, and it´s an undeniable fact WM/H in general allows you to play random opponents with less of these nasty "surprises." However, in turn WM/H gives occasionally makes your life difficult by a really bad matchup when it comes to Warcasters and the armies they usually built around them. Like I mentioned in another thread, High Reclaimer can completely shut down gunlines for example.

You fixed nothing and only showed your lack of understanding of my argument.

And how exactly did I not understand your argument? Please elaborate this claim of yours.

Next to that, I fixed it just fine, how is it possible for some players to be fine in PUG´s if what you say would be correct? They play in less competitive PUG´s than you, who said you aren´t competitive, aren´t into tournaments, and enjoy "gentleman" games?

Also, since there seems to be some incorrect ideas about why people leave GW, I provide a great source of many people's stories about why they left. Now you won't have to make stuff up and you'll actually understand their real reasons instead of the strawmen that have been set up.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603134.page

 MWHistorian wrote:
Also, since there seems to be some incorrect ideas about why people leave GW, I provide a great source of many people's stories about why they left. Now you won't have to make stuff up and you'll actually understand their real reasons instead of the strawmen that have been set up.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603134.page

I´ve already checked that thread, and I already mentioned to Blacksails that the reasons he mentioned ( also included in that thread ) also apply, next to the factually existing ones I described. You displayed complete lack of reading. But call reality a strawman all you like by all means.

Also, please answer the questions I posted above if you could ( without deliberate misinterpretation or putting words in anyones mouth if possible. )

Bonus question: You dislike both GW and WH40K, yet you are active on the 40K forums, why is this? Just out of curiosity.

Runic, you realized you quite literally and blatantly put words in MWH mouth, right?

You can't in one breath tell someone not to do something and then immediately do just that.

If you want to have a discussion with someone, you also need to not be rude and condescending.

 MWHistorian wrote:
40k isn't a game for people that rely on PUG's.

Agreed, that's why I'm saying people are getting pushed towards other formats. It was never great for PUGs and the new rules just make it worse.

 Blacksails wrote:

If you want to have a discussion with someone, you also need to not be rude and condescending.

I´d say what he said two posts above fits both of those quite nicely. And what words did I put in his mouth by mentioning he missed what I said earlier, or asking him questions?

Does it matter!?

Doesn't give you the right as well, not to mention the incredible hypocrisy of telling someone not to do exactly what you just did.

Honestly Runic, do you ever wonder why discussions with you always seem to run sour?

 Blacksails wrote:
Doesn't give you the right as well, not to mention the incredible hypocrisy of telling someone not to do exactly what you just did.

Honestly Runic, do you ever wonder why discussions with you always seem to run sour?

They only run sour with a few select GW critic individuals, who judging by their message history have a habit of having sour discussions. Next to that look around the forums; you´ll see quite many threads with similiar issues. Which leads me to wonder why only give me advice.

And I still don´t understand how I put words in his mouth by asking a few questions and telling him his linking of the thread is obsolete as you and I already discussed the reasons and I wrote I´m sure the ones described by you apply.

Whatever you say Runic. Keep on keeping on.

I'll leave you alone from now on. I promise.

 Blacksails wrote:
Whatever you say Runic. Keep on keeping on.

I'll leave you alone from now on. I promise.

Ah you finally got it, I assume.

Sometimes I hope too much.

Ah well.

Anyways, I've said my piece that's actually on topic.

I see someone posted a new thread about the reasons people left 40k. Good. After this there should be no more imaginative strawman theories about why people left. It's much better when opinions are drawn from primary sources.
I think "the spirit of the game" affects why people come into the hobby, stay or leave and is helpful to the overall discussion here.

 Blacksails wrote:
Whatever you say Runic. Keep on keeping on.

I asked what I asked sincerely, and without any bad intent await your explanation.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I see someone posted a new thread about the reasons people left 40k. Good. After this there should be no more imaginative strawman theories about why people left. It's much better when opinions are drawn from primary sources.
I think "the spirit of the game" affects why people come into the hobby, stay or leave and is helpful to the overall discussion here.

I take it you concess your earlier claim as it seems you are unable to deliver an answer.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Internet tough guy syndrome?

Why should we believe you're any more qualified than Azrael?

In Jancorans defense, Azreal comes off as supposedly being expert on any subject imaginable.

Well thank you, a reasonable level of general knowledge and some relevant life experience can have a powerful effect on the weak minded I suppose.

This is not the thread you are looking for.

*wavy finger thing*

 Azreal13 wrote:

Well thank you, a reasonable level of general knowledge and some relevant life experience can have a powerful effect on the weak minded I suppose.

How rude and condesending of you!

OK. I think it's time for a mod to lock this down.

I think that for me, the new "spirit of the game" is what helped drive me away.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

Anyway listening to GW, they say the game is for narrative players. But what have they done for narrative players in the past few editions... they've removed things like doctrines and maybe this is just me, but it feels like they aren't promoting creating your own chapter/regiment/whatever as much as they did back in 3/4e. They added unbound, but I doubt a narrative player has ever said "oh no the FoC is in the way, guess I'll have to cancel my narrative event".

Agreed.

Though, one thing that really annoys me is how GW handles characters. They give you the tools to build your own characters, but then give their Special Characters rules and equipment that your characters can never have. Why? Why are none of my Lord Commissars allowed to have Iron Will, or issue Senior Officer Orders? Why can't I give my Haemonculus Clone Field or an Ichor Injector?

Yes, GW characters have fluff behind those rules, but surely any of us could also create fluff as to why our own characters also have those rules? Almost as if we were writing (or forging, if you will) our own narrative.

 RunicFIN wrote:

I can understand this, but you have this in WM/H aswell, it´s just not as harsh. Khador Destroyer for example is a unit that hasn´t seen the light of day in the competitive scene for god knows how long. It´s an awful Warjack. And I´d say it´s meaningful to talk about the competitive side, as you can wield a fluffy crap army in casual 40K games just the same as you could a Khador Destroyer in WM/H.

Kurt Hindman, one of the players that the USA took to the WTC in its "Stripes" team, used the Destroyer in his Sorscha list and he won every game that he made with that list.

 vipoid wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

Anyway listening to GW, they say the game is for narrative players. But what have they done for narrative players in the past few editions... they've removed things like doctrines and maybe this is just me, but it feels like they aren't promoting creating your own chapter/regiment/whatever as much as they did back in 3/4e. They added unbound, but I doubt a narrative player has ever said "oh no the FoC is in the way, guess I'll have to cancel my narrative event".

Agreed.

Though, one thing that really annoys me is how GW handles characters. They give you the tools to build your own characters, but then give their Special Characters rules and equipment that your characters can never have. Why? Why are none of my Lord Commissars allowed to have Iron Will, or issue Senior Officer Orders? Why can't I give my Haemonculus Clone Field or an Ichor Injector?

Yes, GW characters have fluff behind those rules, but surely any of us could also create fluff as to why our own characters also have those rules? Almost as if we were writing (or forging, if you will) our own narrative.

Agreed, "we give you a toolkit to build the army you want, but don't go abusing it now!"

But when it comes down to it, there's large portions of the game that, if played RAW, get in the way of building the army you want.

I'm currently doing a CSM Emperor's Children army, which is modelled as a late Heresy/Scouring force.

In order to echo the way they fight in the FW Heresy books, I'm focussing on Chosen to represent the veterans of the big fight and taking advantage of the WL trait that gives Infiltrate to reflect the special Legion formation they have.

Now, in order to achieve that, I can't just take an HQ choice and give them the Master Of Deception trait, I have to either rely on a 16% of rolling it, or take Ahriman (expensive and not fluffy) or Huron (not a great choice - but the one I've gone with)

 Azreal13 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

Anyway listening to GW, they say the game is for narrative players. But what have they done for narrative players in the past few editions... they've removed things like doctrines and maybe this is just me, but it feels like they aren't promoting creating your own chapter/regiment/whatever as much as they did back in 3/4e. They added unbound, but I doubt a narrative player has ever said "oh no the FoC is in the way, guess I'll have to cancel my narrative event".

Agreed.

Though, one thing that really annoys me is how GW handles characters. They give you the tools to build your own characters, but then give their Special Characters rules and equipment that your characters can never have. Why? Why are none of my Lord Commissars allowed to have Iron Will, or issue Senior Officer Orders? Why can't I give my Haemonculus Clone Field or an Ichor Injector?

Yes, GW characters have fluff behind those rules, but surely any of us could also create fluff as to why our own characters also have those rules? Almost as if we were writing (or forging, if you will) our own narrative.

Agreed, "we give you a toolkit to build the army you want, but don't go abusing it now!"

But when it comes down to it, there's large portions of the game that, if played RAW, get in the way of building the army you want.

I'm currently doing a CSM Emperor's Children army, which is modelled as a late Heresy/Scouring force.

In order to echo the way they fight in the FW Heresy books, I'm focussing on Chosen to represent the veterans of the big fight and taking advantage of the WL trait that gives Infiltrate to reflect the special Legion formation they have.

Now, in order to achieve that, I can't just take an HQ choice and give them the Master Of Deception trait, I have to either rely on a 16% of rolling it, or take Ahriman (expensive and not fluffy) or Huron (not a great choice - but the one I've gone with)

And that's something that can't be fixed by unbound. You'd have to ask your opponent if they mind your HQ having MoD without rolling for it.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Well thank you, a reasonable level of general knowledge and some relevant life experience can have a powerful effect on the weak minded I suppose.

How rude and condesending of you!

*condescending

PhantomViper wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

I can understand this, but you have this in WM/H aswell, it´s just not as harsh. Khador Destroyer for example is a unit that hasn´t seen the light of day in the competitive scene for god knows how long. It´s an awful Warjack. And I´d say it´s meaningful to talk about the competitive side, as you can wield a fluffy crap army in casual 40K games just the same as you could a Khador Destroyer in WM/H.

Kurt Hindman, one of the players that the USA took to the WTC in its "Stripes" team, used the Destroyer in his Sorscha list and he won every game that he made with that list.

However, 3 Winterguard Mortars would´ve done it´s job better for the same points cost, as Kurt´s list was all about ranged firepower used in conjunction with Sorschas feat ( unless he really needed the melee power, I just doubt it since he had Behemoth and Great Bears aswell. I´ll just say fair enough, it can be used in this configuration to decent effect. Other than that, it´s still a horrible warjack for its points, one of the worst in the entire game.

If it being usable in this one ( or maybe two ) configurations is enough to make it good or even decent ( not that you claimed this, just saying in general ) then by same logic any generally useless unit that can have it´s place in one or two army compositions in 40K should be considered good/decent aswell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Well thank you, a reasonable level of general knowledge and some relevant life experience can have a powerful effect on the weak minded I suppose.

How rude and condesending of you!

*condescending

The c -is there, you are just unable to perceive it due to your omnipotent knowledge physically manifesting and blurring your vision...

The ironic thing about unbound is that I've seen a lot of defenders say that it's great because it offers complete freedom.

And yet, I still end up feeling constrained.

e.g. Why can't I have a mad Haemonculus, leading a unit of augmented guardsmen?

Why can't I have a DE force, led by an insane Necron Overlord?

Would either of those be broken? I highly doubt it. So, why doesn't this massive freedom we apparently have stretch to that?

Now, you could (fairly) argue that letting every race be battle-brothers with all others would create some broken combos. But, isn't that exactly what Unbound is doing anyway? Is the honour system not working then?

It's almost like it's a half arsed excuse that doesn't really bare close scrutiny!

Ya'll just ain't forgin' hard enough. Forge that narrative harder! Spirit! Forging! Narrative! Money!