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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Because some of those expectations (namely Peregrine and Catbug) are for there to be 0% errors ever, and any issue is immediately a sign that the rules team is better off being fired and replaced, ect, ect, ect.

I have never seen bcb or Peregrine claim 0% is only good enough.

And for a company that rakes in that much money and is that long in the buisness it is a rather lacking ruleset.

Especially when you think about how many glaringly bad design choices they make over time.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Because some of those expectations (namely Peregrine and Catbug) are for there to be 0% errors ever, and any issue is immediately a sign that the rules team is better off being fired and replaced, ect, ect, ect.

I have never seen bcb or Peregrine claim 0% is only good enough.

And for a company that rakes in that much money and is that long in the buisness it is a rather lacking ruleset.

BCB's entire rules complaint threads are about pulling rules apart (sometimes even listing things out of context of the full rule), and Peregrine's complaints start at the IGOUGO and continue from there, meaning that even if the game was balanced to a way that everyone would be happy with the game would still be "broken" because it doesn't fall into a game play style they prefer more.

Those are things they claim are errors, which is a bar above and beyond what most people would be happy with.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Because some of those expectations (namely Peregrine and Catbug) are for there to be 0% errors ever, and any issue is immediately a sign that the rules team is better off being fired and replaced, ect, ect, ect.

I have never seen bcb or Peregrine claim 0% is only good enough.

And for a company that rakes in that much money and is that long in the buisness it is a rather lacking ruleset.

BCB's entire rules complaint threads are about pulling rules apart (sometimes even listing things out of context of the full rule), and Peregrine's complaints start at the IGOUGO and continue from there, meaning that even if the game was balanced to a way that everyone would be happy with the game would still be "broken" because it doesn't fall into a game play style they prefer more.

Those are things they claim are errors, which is a bar above and beyond what most people would be happy with.

Otoh it is a good sign that launch day faq are delivered?

As for igougo, it certainly is an issue, even chess admits that and chess has more reactionary actions then 40k.

See, of course bcb takes it to far sometimes aswell as Peregrine but let's not pretend gw is faultless in that situation.
106 documments is more then enough for the ammount of factions in the game.
Way to much imo.
And consequently making players pay for them and what amounts to a balance Patch certainly must make gw even in your eyes a bit questionable.

What i am getting at, some people may never be happy but just outright discarding their criticisms is also not Productive.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Otoh it is a good sign that launch day faq are delivered?

It's an improvement at least. I mean we deal with day one patches in video games all the time, I see this as basically the same thing. It's tolerable, even if some things in that FAQ tend to be head scratchers. Then again I started in 3rd and really got into the game in 5th where issues could go years before they were addressed.

Not Online!!! wrote:
As for igougo, it certainly is an issue, even chess admits that and chess has more reactionary actions then 40k.

It doesn't make or break a game though. I'd like to see the game to knick the "roll for priority" thing from AoS every turn since it shakes up the game a bit and works pretty well if we're going to stick to IGOUGO.

Not Online!!! wrote:
See, of course bcb takes it to far sometimes aswell as Peregrine but let's not pretend gw is faultless in that situation.
106 documments is more then enough for the ammount if factions in the game.
Way to much imo.
And consequently making players pay for them and what amounts to a balance Patch certainly must make gw even in your eyes a bit questionable.

What i am getting at, some people may never be happy but just outright discarding their criticisms is also not Productive.

I never said GW is faultless or that there aren't valid criticisms, I'm saying that there is a level of perfection that is demanded that can never be met and the community needs to chill out a little bit on what we demand out of the company. It's easier to have real issues heard when people aren't screeching constantly about how utterly broken they think the game is.

It doesn't make or break a game though. I'd like to see the game to knick the "roll for priority" thing from AoS every turn since it shakes up the game a bit and works pretty well if we're going to stick to IGOUGO.

maybe not for all factions, but it does hinder elite factions. and promotes the use of chaff units, and really punishs armies that don't have either chaff or super protection.

If my army goes first, and my opponent has an elite one, and I drop on him turn 1, and wipe out 800pts of his, then we are practicaly playing a 2000pts vs 1200pts game.
IMO that could be considered a big impact on the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Otoh it is a good sign that launch day faq are delivered?

It's an improvement at least. I mean we deal with day one patches in video games all the time, I see this as basically the same thing. It's tolerable, even if some things in that FAQ tend to be head scratchers. Then again I started in 3rd and really got into the game in 5th where issues could go years before they were addressed.

Not Online!!! wrote:
As for igougo, it certainly is an issue, even chess admits that and chess has more reactionary actions then 40k.

It doesn't make or break a game though. I'd like to see the game to knick the "roll for priority" thing from AoS every turn since it shakes up the game a bit and works pretty well if we're going to stick to IGOUGO.

Not Online!!! wrote:
See, of course bcb takes it to far sometimes aswell as Peregrine but let's not pretend gw is faultless in that situation.
106 documments is more then enough for the ammount if factions in the game.
Way to much imo.
And consequently making players pay for them and what amounts to a balance Patch certainly must make gw even in your eyes a bit questionable.

What i am getting at, some people may never be happy but just outright discarding their criticisms is also not Productive.

I never said GW is faultless or that there aren't valid criticisms, I'm saying that there is a level of perfection that is demanded that can never be met and the community needs to chill out a little bit on what we demand out of the company. It's easier to have real issues heard when people aren't screeching constantly about how utterly broken they think the game is.

1. Exemple is one of the reasons why the modern gaming industry sucks, hard.
as for editions, sure it's an improvement theorethically to have ca, but when ca misses the marks by miles and has the audacity to demand additional money then my comment to that is feth them.

2. Kt firepriority? Imo a good way maybee n
Certainly a removal of the stratagems imo.

3. They point out what is wrong, fix it and go on.
Also as a csm player that got allready dex 2.0 compared to the later sm dex 2.0, isn't frustration understandable?
The community imo has sometimes a tendency to go to far true, especially dakka but in 106 documments and questionable rules cycle with some allready getting the short straw again shortly afterwards a propper update is released is frankly absurd and shows that the gw rules team seriously lacks in communication and coordination within.

3.5 also it wouldn't hurt them to hire a competent Editor.

Karol wrote:

It doesn't make or break a game though. I'd like to see the game to knick the "roll for priority" thing from AoS every turn since it shakes up the game a bit and works pretty well if we're going to stick to IGOUGO.

maybe not for all factions, but it does hinder elite factions. and promotes the use of chaff units, and really punishs armies that don't have either chaff or super protection.

If my army goes first, and my opponent has an elite one, and I drop on him turn 1, and wipe out 800pts of his, then we are practicaly playing a 2000pts vs 1200pts game.
IMO that could be considered a big impact on the game.

We already have this issue in 40k where chaff is preferred over elites because the way leadership doesn't work to balance the chaff properly (too many ways to just ignore it). Regardless of the system I want the wounding from Apoc to be a thing in the game: stack markers on a unit and they roll at the end of the turn, but operate as normal during the turn. It gives the game more of a feeling that everything happens at the same time instead of a JRPG turn order sequencing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Karol wrote:

It doesn't make or break a game though. I'd like to see the game to knick the "roll for priority" thing from AoS every turn since it shakes up the game a bit and works pretty well if we're going to stick to IGOUGO.

maybe not for all factions, but it does hinder elite factions. and promotes the use of chaff units, and really punishs armies that don't have either chaff or super protection.

If my army goes first, and my opponent has an elite one, and I drop on him turn 1, and wipe out 800pts of his, then we are practicaly playing a 2000pts vs 1200pts game.
IMO that could be considered a big impact on the game.

We already have this issue in 40k where chaff is preferred over elites because the way leadership doesn't work to balance the chaff properly (too many ways to just ignore it). Regardless of the system I want the wounding from Apoc to be a thing in the game: stack markers on a unit and they roll at the end of the turn, but operate as normal during the turn. It gives the game more of a feeling that everything happens at the same time instead of a JRPG turn order sequencing.

There is no incentive for cheap units to go over msu.
Just as there is no incentive for elite armies to field anything not msu.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Because you can see from their loadouts that no thought went into making them functional or coherent.

Brightsword: wielding fusion blades, a target lock and a counterfire defence system. Yes, because re-rolling his 2 overwatch shots which hit on 6s was better than having another gun or a shield generator.
Bravestorm: Plasma Rifle, flamer, Onager gauntlet, shield generator, ATS. What is this suit trying to do? Who is it trying to kill that a single plasma rifle and flamer is optimal? The gauntlet would suggest vehicles but the plasma rifle and flamer do not mesh well with that.
Sha'vastos: Plasma rifle, flamer, shield gen, drone controller. Again, what is this suit trying to do? What target is it meant to threaten with a single plasma rifle and flamer?
Arra'kon: AFP, CIB, Plasma Rifle, CDS. Again, who is it trying to target? Does it fire each of its guns at a separate target? They're pretty short range to do that.
Torchstar: 2 flamers, ATS, drone controller. Because two -1AP flamers are the best weapon choices for the only BS2+ model we've got.
Ob'lotai: Just a standard missileside, so no real issue here.
O'vesa: Ion Accelerator, target lock and velocity tracker Riptide with re-roll 1s to hit and ignores mortal wounds from nova on a 4+.

Which honestly just shows that you have not understood how the unit works. There is no shame in that, I underestimated how well they work until I put them on the table and played with them. Until you playtest them you will fail to understand them - it is a hugely complex unit with lots of moving parts that it would appear people just cannot work out on paper. What I can assure you is that nobody who has played against my Eight list has left the table thinking that they are underpowered and overcosted, a few thought so before the game but they learned better the hard way.

That applies more generally to the online analysis of stuff. Too many hasty opinions based on insufficient evidence are taken as facts and "proof" of balance problems in the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're picking examples out after the fact and claiming the playtesters don't do anything just because you don't know what the rules looked like before they were released. For all we know the rules we got now came out because testers gave feedback that resulted in buffing or nerfing of things based on the feedback which lead to the problems you mentioned. If anything it shows we likely need a second round of playtesting after the first to ensure that the changes made based on playtester feedback doesn't swing too far the opposite way.

We don't get to see the beta rules so it's hard to know what they exactly play with versus what we get as an end product, but assuming the playtesters do nothing is ridiculous. Especially when you have tournament players/organizers who chase a highly competitive play style in their games involved in the process.

If a dermatologist successfully removes a blackhead and ignores a melanoma, is not a good dermatologist.
Edition after edition we have witnessed so many examples of badly written rules, silly combos, blatant favoritism, ludicrous math etc to the point that we cannot just defend all of this with "good things have been done".
I will never forget my friends putting money together to buy an Ork army for a friend as a gift and then 6th-7th edition happened.
The value of the gift is still great, so it's the friendship, but not the enjoyment this friend could have had from a similar gift if the army was Eldar.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...That said, I don't want people assuming I don't think the rules should be tighter, I just think that there is a level of expectation people keep setting themselves up for that can never be met.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever played any wargames not made by GW?

I tried to get into Warmachine, but the density of stuff to memorize just to play the game was too much of a wall. I know people really loved in in 2nd, but between that and the models being metal or plastic resin just killed it for me. I don't have an interest in historicals, and the only other game I've seen make a dent here (X-wing) dried up almost as fast as it popped up, which is a shame because I did like that, though I barely managed to get any games in.

And there is your problem right there. You've only ever experienced the GW ecosystem of games.

WMH's rules clarity is like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Now, the game does have a few rock paper scissors matchups but not entire FACTIONS like 40k does. It even has in its own tournament rules a feature to simply swap out your list with a second one if you have one of those matchups.

There are a laundry list of games that do stuff far far better than GW's writers ever did, but people will never know a they're only willing to try 40k. As Auticus says- It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

 Grimtuff wrote:
And there is your problem right there. You've only ever experienced the GW ecosystem of games.

I disagree that it's a "problem".

 Grimtuff wrote:
WMH's rules clarity is like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Now, the game does have a few rock paper scissors matchups but not entire FACTIONS like 40k does. It even has in its own tournament rules a feature to simply swap out your list with a second one if you have one of those matchups.

There are a laundry list of games that do stuff far far better than GW's writers ever did, but people will never know a they're only willing to try 40k. As Auticus says- It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I gave WHM a try, and couldn't get into it. I'm sure it's plenty fun for those who like it, but it wasn't my taste (even if the Convergence models are really cool looking being all Art Deco).

I came from WMH actually. It was too crunch-before-feel for me. I liked the more narrative approach that 40k offered.

Although one of the big motivators was I was sick of superheavies in every single game...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marine Battle Companies don't suck.

Outside Gladius and metas where everyone buys one-of-everything and doesn't bother to optimize by even a percent, they suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
If the intent is just a vehicle for cool stories, why does it cost so damn much money?

Which is the crux of the issue. I don't need to spend 40$ to tell stories. I already know Marine fluff, and I can get summaries of new fluff for inspiration.

The game should try harder for balance, period.

The $40 rules you are so upset about aren’t all rules. More of the codex space marines is fluff than rules. Rules don’t kick in until late 108 of 192. You are paying for story.

As for balance, it’s just fine we don’t need any more. PERIOD.

See I can make repetitive and baseless arguments purely in my subjective view. Doesn’t make me any tighter than you.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
And there is your problem right there. You've only ever experienced the GW ecosystem of games.

I disagree that it's a "problem".

 Grimtuff wrote:
WMH's rules clarity is like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Now, the game does have a few rock paper scissors matchups but not entire FACTIONS like 40k does. It even has in its own tournament rules a feature to simply swap out your list with a second one if you have one of those matchups.

There are a laundry list of games that do stuff far far better than GW's writers ever did, but people will never know a they're only willing to try 40k. As Auticus says- It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I gave WHM a try, and couldn't get into it. I'm sure it's plenty fun for those who like it, but it wasn't my taste (even if the Convergence models are really cool looking being all Art Deco).

Give MEDGe a try. Or Zone Raiders. Heck, pick up a few hot wheels and play Gaslands. All far better written, with deeper and more enjoyable gameplay than anything GW has put out.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

If a dermatologist successfully removes a blackhead and ignores a melanoma, is not a good dermatologist.
Edition after edition we have witnessed so many examples of badly written rules, silly combos, blatant favoritism, ludicrous math etc to the point that we cannot just defend all of this with "good things have been done".
I will never forget my friends putting money together to buy an Ork army for a friend as a gift and then 6th-7th edition happened.
The value of the gift is still great, so it's the friendship, but not the enjoyment this friend could have had from a similar gift if the army was Eldar.

It’s not cancer though is it. It’s a game. If a doctor misses cancer people can die. If a rule set is loose then people can still enjoy the game. Some people even more so. No one dies. Or suffers at all. AT ALL!!!

If you don’t like the game don’t play it. The game plays great if you play with nice people who also want to tell stories with the models they care about. No body dies. The reason 40k is still so popular after so many years isn’t the rules, it’s the story and the models. The reason the black library is making money hand over fist is the stories. The reason GW is the market leader and has been for decades, the story and the models. And . NO ONE DIES!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You're picking examples out after the fact and claiming the playtesters don't do anything just because you don't know what the rules looked like before they were released. For all we know the rules we got now came out because testers gave feedback that resulted in buffing or nerfing of things based on the feedback which lead to the problems you mentioned. If anything it shows we likely need a second round of playtesting after the first to ensure that the changes made based on playtester feedback doesn't swing too far the opposite way.

We don't get to see the beta rules so it's hard to know what they exactly play with versus what we get as an end product, but assuming the playtesters do nothing is ridiculous. Especially when you have tournament players/organizers who chase a highly competitive play style in their games involved in the process.

If a dermatologist successfully removes a blackhead and ignores a melanoma, is not a good dermatologist.
Edition after edition we have witnessed so many examples of badly written rules, silly combos, blatant favoritism, ludicrous math etc to the point that we cannot just defend all of this with "good things have been done".
I will never forget my friends putting money together to buy an Ork army for a friend as a gift and then 6th-7th edition happened.
The value of the gift is still great, so it's the friendship, but not the enjoyment this friend could have had from a similar gift if the army was Eldar.

Also if you’re friend liked eldar more than ORKS then get him them not ORKS. If he likes ORKS then great. Edition doesn’t matter at all. I like ORKS, played them for 8 editions now. Did not prefer eldar in 6th and 7th.

Andy, I admit my comparison was quite daring, but the point is that one can appreciate some nice work only if some the most essential elements are well done.
I cannot appreciate my clean pores if i am dying of melanoma. I cannot appreciate many design choices if some unit is cannot been deployed or terrain rules are a joke. I just cannot enjoy that part of the game.
And no. My friend could not enjoy the orks because they were unplayable in that period. The system made them non enjoyable for him.
"If you don’t like the game don’t play it." It's exactly what happened with him. When I go back to the old country I always talk with him, have a beer or go and listen him playing. But for sure we never played Warhammer anymore, he occasionally built and painted what he already had.
We were all very casual players in that group, but there should be a minimum of playability. Such playability should allow you to field a decent list without forcing other players to cripple themselves or to make too many sacrifices about which models could be fielded in order to win. To have an interesting game.
And that did not happen, especially when other players had 7th edition tau to field.

You cannot just dismiss other people's claim about balance and rule writing outright. There is no way is all "baseless" if this is a returning topic, am I right?

Blastaar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
And there is your problem right there. You've only ever experienced the GW ecosystem of games.

I disagree that it's a "problem".

 Grimtuff wrote:
WMH's rules clarity is like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Now, the game does have a few rock paper scissors matchups but not entire FACTIONS like 40k does. It even has in its own tournament rules a feature to simply swap out your list with a second one if you have one of those matchups.

There are a laundry list of games that do stuff far far better than GW's writers ever did, but people will never know a they're only willing to try 40k. As Auticus says- It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I gave WHM a try, and couldn't get into it. I'm sure it's plenty fun for those who like it, but it wasn't my taste (even if the Convergence models are really cool looking being all Art Deco).

Give MEDGe a try. Or Zone Raiders. Heck, pick up a few hot wheels and play Gaslands. All far better written, with deeper and more enjoyable gameplay than anything GW has put out.

So try games no one plays in my area? At least WHM has people who play.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
And there is your problem right there. You've only ever experienced the GW ecosystem of games.

I disagree that it's a "problem".

 Grimtuff wrote:
WMH's rules clarity is like a breath of fresh air by comparison. Now, the game does have a few rock paper scissors matchups but not entire FACTIONS like 40k does. It even has in its own tournament rules a feature to simply swap out your list with a second one if you have one of those matchups.

There are a laundry list of games that do stuff far far better than GW's writers ever did, but people will never know a they're only willing to try 40k. As Auticus says- It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I gave WHM a try, and couldn't get into it. I'm sure it's plenty fun for those who like it, but it wasn't my taste (even if the Convergence models are really cool looking being all Art Deco).

Give MEDGe a try. Or Zone Raiders. Heck, pick up a few hot wheels and play Gaslands. All far better written, with deeper and more enjoyable gameplay than anything GW has put out.

So try games no one plays in my area? At least WHM has people who play.

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Blastaar wrote:

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Nice assption of how my FLGS operates. They try to branch out a fair bit but my local area has two pillars: Mtg and Warhammer. Everything else, even WHM is more like dust in the wind.

We have one guy trying to get Flames of War started but it doesn't seem like it's catching on.

We have a playerbase of maybe 15-20 people of various levels of competetiveness and actually showing up.

EDIT: Basically stop telling me to blow my money on IPs I don't even care about to try and get other people hooked on them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Nice assption of how my FLGS operates. They try to branch out a fair bit but my local area has two pillars: Mtg and Warhammer. Everything else, even WHM is more like dust in the wind.

We have one guy trying to get Flames of War started but it doesn't seem like it's catching on.

We have a playerbase of maybe 15-20 people of various levels of competetiveness and actually showing up.

Less assumption, more inference from the little information provided. My LGS is similar- 40k, MTG, Pokemon and Keyforge is all anyone seems interested in. They used to carry Mlalifaux, but stopped before I started hanging out there. I'm planning to bring two forces for a few different mini games in to run demos- I just haven't had the time to finish them yet.

Blastaar wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Nice assption of how my FLGS operates. They try to branch out a fair bit but my local area has two pillars: Mtg and Warhammer. Everything else, even WHM is more like dust in the wind.

We have one guy trying to get Flames of War started but it doesn't seem like it's catching on.

We have a playerbase of maybe 15-20 people of various levels of competetiveness and actually showing up.

Less assumption, more inference from the little information provided. My LGS is similar- 40k, MTG, Pokemon and Keyforge is all anyone seems interested in. They used to carry Mlalifaux, but stopped before I started hanging out there. I'm planning to bring two forces for a few different mini games in to run demos- I just haven't had the time to finish them yet.

Either way I'm not dropping money for games blind just in the hopes I'll like them and start a desire for people to play them.

The thing is until you play other games and get a feel for what other games can do in terms of balance, and just rely on 40k and say 40k is just fine balance wise, you don't have a real argument to stand by because 40k is far down the balanced fun ladder in the hierarchy.

It survives because everyone plays it, and because everyone plays it it survives. It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People like to play games that everyone else plays, rules quality be damned.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Nice assption of how my FLGS operates. They try to branch out a fair bit but my local area has two pillars: Mtg and Warhammer. Everything else, even WHM is more like dust in the wind.

We have one guy trying to get Flames of War started but it doesn't seem like it's catching on.

We have a playerbase of maybe 15-20 people of various levels of competetiveness and actually showing up.

EDIT: Basically stop telling me to blow my money on IPs I don't even care about to try and get other people hooked on them.

The point isn't to say you should spend your money on other stuff. The point I think was just some game systems are cheaper, more fun and just over all better than GW systems. Now, don't get me wrong I love Warhammer, despite the things they do amazingly wrong imo. It's a shame others don't expand out a bit more there. Flamers of war is pretty nice, but then I've played a ton of different games so I've seen the good and the bad with all of them. I would say unless you spread your gaming wings though, you won't ever fly and settling down with just one system does tend to have someone overlook the errors and accept far more than they should from that one company.

No judgement from me on that, as I said I still have enjoyed every game of warhammer I played, and I hated they got rid of fantasy as I enjoyed it and even enjoyed my games in the dark days of 7th ed. I just won't keep my peace if they are doing things I dislike.

 auticus wrote:
The thing is until you play other games and get a feel for what other games can do in terms of balance, and just rely on 40k and say 40k is just fine balance wise, you don't have a real argument to stand by because 40k is far down the balanced fun ladder in the hierarchy.

It survives because everyone plays it, and because everyone plays it it survives. It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People like to play games that everyone else plays, rules quality be damned.

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Nice assption of how my FLGS operates. They try to branch out a fair bit but my local area has two pillars: Mtg and Warhammer. Everything else, even WHM is more like dust in the wind.

We have one guy trying to get Flames of War started but it doesn't seem like it's catching on.

We have a playerbase of maybe 15-20 people of various levels of competetiveness and actually showing up.

EDIT: Basically stop telling me to blow my money on IPs I don't even care about to try and get other people hooked on them.

The point isn't to say you should spend your money on other stuff. The point I think was just some game systems are cheaper, more fun and just over all better than GW systems. Now, don't get me wrong I love Warhammer, despite the things they do amazingly wrong imo. It's a shame others don't expand out a bit more there. Flamers of war is pretty nice, but then I've played a ton of different games so I've seen the good and the bad with all of them. I would say unless you spread your gaming wings though, you won't ever fly and settling down with just one system does tend to have someone overlook the errors and accept far more than they should from that one company.

No judgement from me on that, as I said I still have enjoyed every game of warhammer I played, and I hated they got rid of fantasy as I enjoyed it and even enjoyed my games in the dark days of 7th ed. I just won't keep my peace if they are doing things I dislike.

I have something I enjoy playing and am already spending money on, so I should stop playing it and take the money I'm setting aside for those hobby purchases just to go play something else? Not a friggin chance. I get -why- people are arguing this, but I don't think I'm the only one who is resistant to blowing my hobby budget on something I don't care about just to see how other games work.

Having finally watched most of that video I don't entirely disagree with his sentiment but take issue with GW essentially wanting to have it's cake and eat it too. This has pretty much been the purge edition between more and more options either being flat out eliminated or put on the bus in some weird gray area that leaves no one all that satisfied.

He talks about 40k almost as if it's a D and D style rpg when rules wise GW has pretty much doubled down on making the game a CCG with plastic tokens. 8th is essentially combo hammer at this point with a lot games being determined on who can stack more auras, strats and army rules together to have so much offensive output that you sweep your opponent off the table.


Things like range, positioning, terrain and movement have not mean less than any edition I've played in and GW continue to prune units and options kills any idea of this being a narrative game were I can tell stories with in the framework of the official rules.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Having finally watched most of that video I don't entirely disagree with his sentiment but take issue with GW essentially wanting to have it's cake and eat it too. This has pretty much been the purge edition between more and more options either being flat out eliminated or put on the bus in some weird gray area that leaves no one all that satisfied.

He talks about 40k almost as if it's a D and D style rpg when rules wise GW has pretty much doubled down on making the game a CCG with plastic tokens. 8th is essentially combo hammer at this point with a lot games being determined on who can stack more auras, strats and army rules together to have so much offensive output that you sweep your opponent off the table.


Things like range, positioning, terrain and movement have not mean less than any edition I've played in and GW continue to prune units and options kills any idea of this being a narrative game were I can tell stories with in the framework of the official rules.

I'd argue the bit I bolded described competetive 40k. To be fair, that's generally how all competetive games go: who can get their win condition out the most efficiently.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The thing is until you play other games and get a feel for what other games can do in terms of balance, and just rely on 40k and say 40k is just fine balance wise, you don't have a real argument to stand by because 40k is far down the balanced fun ladder in the hierarchy.

It survives because everyone plays it, and because everyone plays it it survives. It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People like to play games that everyone else plays, rules quality be damned.

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Nice assption of how my FLGS operates. They try to branch out a fair bit but my local area has two pillars: Mtg and Warhammer. Everything else, even WHM is more like dust in the wind.

We have one guy trying to get Flames of War started but it doesn't seem like it's catching on.

We have a playerbase of maybe 15-20 people of various levels of competetiveness and actually showing up.

EDIT: Basically stop telling me to blow my money on IPs I don't even care about to try and get other people hooked on them.

The point isn't to say you should spend your money on other stuff. The point I think was just some game systems are cheaper, more fun and just over all better than GW systems. Now, don't get me wrong I love Warhammer, despite the things they do amazingly wrong imo. It's a shame others don't expand out a bit more there. Flamers of war is pretty nice, but then I've played a ton of different games so I've seen the good and the bad with all of them. I would say unless you spread your gaming wings though, you won't ever fly and settling down with just one system does tend to have someone overlook the errors and accept far more than they should from that one company.

No judgement from me on that, as I said I still have enjoyed every game of warhammer I played, and I hated they got rid of fantasy as I enjoyed it and even enjoyed my games in the dark days of 7th ed. I just won't keep my peace if they are doing things I dislike.

I have something I enjoy playing and am already spending money on, so I should stop playing it and take the money I'm setting aside for those hobby purchases just to go play something else? Not a friggin chance. I get -why- people are arguing this, but I don't think I'm the only one who is resistant to blowing my hobby budget on something I don't care about just to see how other games work.

Miniature wargame conventions are a low cost way to try other systems without buying in. Someone else brings the terrain and minis and runs the game for other players. Admittance is usually $15 or less for a whole day ticket. Most post an events list online beforehand, so you can decide if it's even worth the time and/or money. Secondary is that many also offer flea market tables, so that attendees can unload their projects that they've lost interest in.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The thing is until you play other games and get a feel for what other games can do in terms of balance, and just rely on 40k and say 40k is just fine balance wise, you don't have a real argument to stand by because 40k is far down the balanced fun ladder in the hierarchy.

It survives because everyone plays it, and because everyone plays it it survives. It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People like to play games that everyone else plays, rules quality be damned.

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Nice assption of how my FLGS operates. They try to branch out a fair bit but my local area has two pillars: Mtg and Warhammer. Everything else, even WHM is more like dust in the wind.

We have one guy trying to get Flames of War started but it doesn't seem like it's catching on.

We have a playerbase of maybe 15-20 people of various levels of competetiveness and actually showing up.

EDIT: Basically stop telling me to blow my money on IPs I don't even care about to try and get other people hooked on them.

The point isn't to say you should spend your money on other stuff. The point I think was just some game systems are cheaper, more fun and just over all better than GW systems. Now, don't get me wrong I love Warhammer, despite the things they do amazingly wrong imo. It's a shame others don't expand out a bit more there. Flamers of war is pretty nice, but then I've played a ton of different games so I've seen the good and the bad with all of them. I would say unless you spread your gaming wings though, you won't ever fly and settling down with just one system does tend to have someone overlook the errors and accept far more than they should from that one company.

No judgement from me on that, as I said I still have enjoyed every game of warhammer I played, and I hated they got rid of fantasy as I enjoyed it and even enjoyed my games in the dark days of 7th ed. I just won't keep my peace if they are doing things I dislike.

I have something I enjoy playing and am already spending money on, so I should stop playing it and take the money I'm setting aside for those hobby purchases just to go play something else? Not a friggin chance. I get -why- people are arguing this, but I don't think I'm the only one who is resistant to blowing my hobby budget on something I don't care about just to see how other games work.

Easy- it was merely a suggestion. Many games have rules online for free, as well, if you found yourself so inclined.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...That said, I don't want people assuming I don't think the rules should be tighter, I just think that there is a level of expectation people keep setting themselves up for that can never be met.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever played any wargames not made by GW?

I tried to get into Warmachine, but the density of stuff to memorize just to play the game was too much of a wall. I know people really loved in in 2nd, but between that and the models being metal or plastic resin just killed it for me. I don't have an interest in historicals, and the only other game I've seen make a dent here (X-wing) dried up almost as fast as it popped up, which is a shame because I did like that, though I barely managed to get any games in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why can't they be met?

Because some of those expectations (namely Peregrine and Catbug) are for there to be 0% errors ever, and any issue is immediately a sign that the rules team is better off being fired and replaced, ect, ect, ect.

There is definitely a vocal minority who demand a level of perfection no product ever reaches and then complain about how bad something is because it's not perfect.

I just observe a false dichotomy at work here when you claim I'm demanding an unachievable level of perfection from GW when all I'm doing is demanding it reach the level of any other miniatures wargame I've played (Warmachine, Infinity, X-Wing) in terms of not casually rendering peoples' armies invalid. You lose games of 40k because you bought the wrong models; you don't lose games in any other system I've ever played just because you bought the wrong models, there's always something you can do other than switch sub-factions and get the OP special characters/switch factions/throw everything out and start over because all the stuff you had is unplayable sh**.