Switch Theme:

Games Workshop talks Rules Intent  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

Karol wrote:
turn priority should be rolled for,

Wouldn't that mean double turn possibility. Am not sure I would want to do nothing turn 1, get drop pod assaulted, and shot at, and next turn my opponent going before me, droping in more stuff, and shoting and assaulting me again, giving him two turns back to back without me being able to do a thing in game.

Double turn is a possibility for the person going second on a given turn. Which means if you go first on a turn you play with thst in mind, and neither player can play super defensively. It works well in AoS despite MWG whining about it (not that they play AoS correctly anyways).
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Andykp wrote:

This here is the difference. I understand your attitude but disagree with it strongly. It isn’t how I approach it. But can appreciate that you see a game as a competitive thing. I, and many others don’t view the game as competitive, it genuinely doesn’t matter at all to me who wins or loses. Its about the experience.


What if you stopped calling yourself a gamer.. as your not, and started calling your self something else, like a experincers or social hour person with purpose? It would stop confusing people no?

   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

Reemule wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

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.


So thats a no.. He hasn't.

I got a few games in, but not enough to claim a mastery of the rules in either game, and at least I have tried stepping out of my comfort zone.

My FLGS has a twitch channel and is trying to partner with PP so it looks like they'll be pushing WMH more which means I'll probably give it another go, but I make no promises.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





The double turn in AOS is the most controversial rule that has ever existed for any game.

For every person that says it works well, you will find another person that hates it.

My entire AOS group, all 100% (and that never happens) hates the double turn for the negative play experience it causes.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

Reemule wrote:
Andykp wrote:

This here is the difference. I understand your attitude but disagree with it strongly. It isn’t how I approach it. But can appreciate that you see a game as a competitive thing. I, and many others don’t view the game as competitive, it genuinely doesn’t matter at all to me who wins or loses. Its about the experience.


What if you stopped calling yourself a gamer.. as your not, and started calling your self something else, like a experincers or social hour person with purpose? It would stop confusing people no?

A gamer plays games. Why they play games is irrelevant to the discussion and trying to other people into a "not a real gamer" camp is elitist bs that is bad enough among video gamers, we don't need to bring it into wargaming too.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/11 16:51:37


 
   
Made in us
The Last Chancer Who Survived




On moon miranda.

 H wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Magic also generally doesn't allow one to take anything in whatever combination or quantity one wants. There are various formats with relatively strict rules on what can be included in a deck, and in what numbers, Wizards actively and intentionally shapes their metagame. 40k does almost none of this.


I think your framng here is rather misleading. Magic does, generally, "allow" pretty much "any" combination but indeed, does, intrinsically, restrict "quantity" either to 4-of or 1-of, depending on the format in question.
Right, but they also restrict what sets can be played. You can't show up to a Type 2 standard event with a Black Lotus or Emrakul for example (unless they rereleased those recently that I'm unaware of). If I'm playing EDH, I can bring these things, but there are dramatically more restrictions and changes to the deck involved there. In 40k, I can take whatever I want within the bounds of the points limits while the detachment/faction systems are open enough that they don't do anywhere near as much to curb and shape things, and often do much the opposite.




IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

Heavy Gear Painting Log, Northern Guard, Southern Republican Army, and Terrain
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 auticus wrote:
The double turn in AOS is the most controversial rule that has ever existed for any game.

For every person that says it works well, you will find another person that hates it.

My entire AOS group, all 100% (and that never happens) hates the double turn for the negative play experience it causes.

And yet I've seen plenty of people who like it who are both casual and competetive players because they plan for being double turned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kaiyanwang wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
Magic also generally doesn't allow one to take anything in whatever combination or quantity one wants. There are various formats with relatively strict rules on what can be included in a deck, and in what numbers, Wizards actively and intentionally shapes their metagame. 40k does almost none of this.
Yes they do.It's called undercosting their new OP unit.

That does not always happen to be honest. Think about the Ork Buggies. I don't know anymore.

James even made a point of saying they don't intentionally do that.

Under Kirby that could have been a thing, but the directives the studio is under now seem to let the studio focus more on trying to capture the lore and feel of the model in the rules.

Now if they can just adjust how they value certain attributes we'd be doing so much better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/11 16:53:56


 
   
Made in us
Wicked Warp Spider





I genuinely think that if it happened it's rare or unique. I critique the design team where I think is due but I don't think this is a thing.

Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis! 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 ClockworkZion wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Andykp wrote:

This here is the difference. I understand your attitude but disagree with it strongly. It isn’t how I approach it. But can appreciate that you see a game as a competitive thing. I, and many others don’t view the game as competitive, it genuinely doesn’t matter at all to me who wins or loses. Its about the experience.


What if you stopped calling yourself a gamer.. as your not, and started calling your self something else, like a experincers or social hour person with purpose? It would stop confusing people no?

A gamer plays games. Why they play games is irrelevant to the discussion and trying to other people into a "not a real gamer" camp is elitist bs that is bad enough among video gamers, we don't need to bring it into wargaming too.

Absolutely. Who the hell does this guy think he is with this gatekeeping bs?
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I genuinely think that if it happened it's rare or unique. I critique the design team where I think is due but I don't think this is a thing.
Yeah. They don't overpower the new releases consistently, they just kinda... Throw darts and hope for the best, it seems like.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I genuinely think that if it happened it's rare or unique. I critique the design team where I think is due but I don't think this is a thing.

I think it used to be more of a thing under Kirby with his ideas like "we sell minatures, not games". Nothing sells minis like constant escalation in the rules.

Roundtree reportibly actually plays the game so he would be more interested in a game that's fun to play than one that sells the newest mini, so this seems to have been fixed under him.

That said, we still have a ways to go, but we're a far cry from where we used to be.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I genuinely think that if it happened it's rare or unique. I critique the design team where I think is due but I don't think this is a thing.

I think it used to be more of a thing under Kirby with his ideas like "we sell minatures, not games". Nothing sells minis like constant escalation in the rules.

Roundtree reportibly actually plays the game so he would be more interested in a game that's fun to play than one that sells the newest mini, so this seems to have been fixed under him.

That said, we still have a ways to go, but we're a far cry from where we used to be.
I'll agree it's better. I don't agree it's good enough.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard




Nottingham

Reemule wrote:
Andykp wrote:

This here is the difference. I understand your attitude but disagree with it strongly. It isn’t how I approach it. But can appreciate that you see a game as a competitive thing. I, and many others don’t view the game as competitive, it genuinely doesn’t matter at all to me who wins or loses. Its about the experience.


What if you stopped calling yourself a gamer.. as your not, and started calling your self something else, like a experincers or social hour person with purpose? It would stop confusing people no?

Seeing as you seemed to have missed my comment, I'll repost it. After all, you sounded so sure in your conviction, I'm curious to hear your response to it.
Spoiler:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Reemule wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Reemule wrote:THe problem is that some "gamers" like to pretend their social hour that they tell their parents/wives/gf's is game time isn't. THey sit around and laugh and 1/2 heartedly play a turn or 2 while having a beer.
Why the quote marks on "gamers"? Are you implying that they're not "true gamers"?
Furthermore, how is how they play a "problem"? Are they not l33t enough for you? Not on the cutting edge of the meta and strictly following chess clocks?

They're gamers as much as anyone else.
If you don't actually finish a game.. are you a gamer? If you just go and spar at the gym, are you a boxer? How far do you want to go Sarge?
Yes to both of the above. You don't need to finish a game to be a gamer. You only need to play it.
You don't need to win boxing matches to be a boxer, as long as you're putting in effort. Sparring is effort.
Your point?

Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ClockworkZion wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Andykp wrote:

This here is the difference. I understand your attitude but disagree with it strongly. It isn’t how I approach it. But can appreciate that you see a game as a competitive thing. I, and many others don’t view the game as competitive, it genuinely doesn’t matter at all to me who wins or loses. Its about the experience.


What if you stopped calling yourself a gamer.. as your not, and started calling your self something else, like a experincers or social hour person with purpose? It would stop confusing people no?

A gamer plays games. Why they play games is irrelevant to the discussion and trying to other people into a "not a real gamer" camp is elitist bs that is bad enough among video gamers, we don't need to bring it into wargaming too.


Cause he doesn't play games... Game is a defined term.

a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. Certainly it has other definitions but this is the one for this discussion.

So you have person A saying well its a game, so do X. And he is saying "Well I call my self a gamer, but I don't actually play a game. I buy models and have social hour with my pals, and call it a game, and interject with sillyness when balance discussion comes up, but we don't play games..."

How is that making it easy?

Nothing wrong with not being a gamer. Just be clear what your doing.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






Just imagining this guy telling himself what a cool dude he is for taking his gaming super-seriously, not like all those other losers who do it for *fun*. Mate, get over yourself. You’re a big nerd just like everyone else who’s into playing games with little toy spacemen. Stop trying to be the toy spacemen police and telling people their experiences are invalid.
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





I like how you deem your Definition and opinion superior to others.

Newsflash, even at tournaments matches aren't finished, are they also not "gAmErS"?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




At minimum, if you haven't set a point limit, created a list, played the games using all relevant rules to the criteria your playing, finished the match, and have a winner, I don't believe your competent to express opinions on balance in the game.

Clear Sarge?
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 JNAProductions wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Kaiyanwang wrote:
I genuinely think that if it happened it's rare or unique. I critique the design team where I think is due but I don't think this is a thing.

I think it used to be more of a thing under Kirby with his ideas like "we sell minatures, not games". Nothing sells minis like constant escalation in the rules.

Roundtree reportibly actually plays the game so he would be more interested in a game that's fun to play than one that sells the newest mini, so this seems to have been fixed under him.

That said, we still have a ways to go, but we're a far cry from where we used to be.
I'll agree it's better. I don't agree it's good enough.

Hence why we "have a long ways to go". I freely admit the game could be better, I just.don't want to dismiss the improvements made as they did a lot to improve the mess we had before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Reemule wrote:
Andykp wrote:

This here is the difference. I understand your attitude but disagree with it strongly. It isn’t how I approach it. But can appreciate that you see a game as a competitive thing. I, and many others don’t view the game as competitive, it genuinely doesn’t matter at all to me who wins or loses. Its about the experience.


What if you stopped calling yourself a gamer.. as your not, and started calling your self something else, like a experincers or social hour person with purpose? It would stop confusing people no?

A gamer plays games. Why they play games is irrelevant to the discussion and trying to other people into a "not a real gamer" camp is elitist bs that is bad enough among video gamers, we don't need to bring it into wargaming too.


Cause he doesn't play games... Game is a defined term.

a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. Certainly it has other definitions but this is the one for this discussion.

So you have person A saying well its a game, so do X. And he is saying "Well I call my self a gamer, but I don't actually play a game. I buy models and have social hour with my pals, and call it a game, and interject with sillyness when balance discussion comes up, but we don't play games..."

How is that making it easy?

Nothing wrong with not being a gamer. Just be clear what your doing.

40k is a game. He plays 40k. Ergo he is a gamer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/11 17:14:26


 
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





Reemule wrote:
At minimum, if you haven't set a point limit, created a list, played the games using all relevant rules to the criteria your playing, finished the match, and have a winner, I don't believe your competent to express opinions on balance in the game.

Clear Sarge?


Again, do you need to finish games for that? What about draws.

Atleast if you deem your opinions oh so worthy make a consequent Definition.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

Reemule wrote:
At minimum, if you haven't set a point limit, created a list, played the games using all relevant rules to the criteria your playing, finished the match, and have a winner, I don't believe your competent to express opinions on balance in the game.

Clear Sarge?

You just described open play which is outlined in the rules as a valid means of pkaying 40k, so it's still playing the game as intended and thus still counts as being a gamer.

You can play the elitist card all you want but at the end of the day a gamer is just a person who plays games. Nowhere in the definition is completion even mentioned.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not Online!!! wrote:
I like how you deem your Definition and opinion superior to others.

Newsflash, even at tournaments matches aren't finished, are they also not "gAmErS"?


What tourney are you speaking of? Be more clear.

Nearly every tourney I know of, if you reach time, the match is declared over. Defacto by the end of the time, the match is over. THis was seen as a problem.. so here comes Chess Clocks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Reemule wrote:
At minimum, if you haven't set a point limit, created a list, played the games using all relevant rules to the criteria your playing, finished the match, and have a winner, I don't believe your competent to express opinions on balance in the game.

Clear Sarge?

You just described open play which is outlined in the rules as a valid means of pkaying 40k, so it's still playing the game as intended and thus still counts as being a gamer.

You can play the elitist card all you want but at the end of the day a gamer is just a person who plays games. Nowhere in the definition is completion even mentioned.


So your making a new definition. I do something vaguely resembling something else, I'm now the original? No doubt your driving a car makes you a pilot? You plugged in your Fan your a electrician?

And your implying being a gamer is better than not being a gamer. Stop that elitist crap son.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/11 17:19:17


 
   
Made in us
Wicked Canoptek Wraith






 Vaktathi wrote:
Right, but they also restrict what sets can be played. You can't show up to a Type 2 standard event with a Black Lotus or Emrakul for example (unless they rereleased those recently that I'm unaware of). If I'm playing EDH, I can bring these things, but there are dramatically more restrictions and changes to the deck involved there. In 40k, I can take whatever I want within the bounds of the points limits while the detachment/faction systems are open enough that they don't do anywhere near as much to curb and shape things, and often do much the opposite.


Again, I think this framing is misleading. Formats do constrain choice, to some degree (although, no, you cannot run Black Lotus in EDH, unless you are playing by house rules) but, that is not really the point. However, since we are there, 40K does to thing like this, although not as "formally." Within the format of 40: 8th Edition, I cannot run Necron Pariah as Necron Pariah, because there simply are no rules for them. This is not an explicit banning (like Black Lotus is in EDH) but an implicit one, since there are just no rules for such. What other MTG formats have is a formal rules of inclusion (like Standard), that is, say the latest X number of sets.

So, in some ways, 40K does operate in vaguely similar ways with respect to "legality" it is just that MTG has a much more explicitly formal system of it.

But, I would contest that 40K's detachment system has no effect in shaping the way people build lists or how the games play out. Just like you can make a Magic deck that has or needs no lands, you could make a 40K list that has or needs no CPs. But that doesn't mean it is sensical or winning strategy. It doesn't mean it is not. However, given the general "utility" of abilities that use CPs, it rarely would make sense to not access them. So, while there are almost a vast quantity of 40K lists possible in a given point range, given the fact of the way the game plays, there is a much smaller subset of plausible, sensible lists. In this way, the rules system, from detachments and on, do "force" the game in some direction.

What I object to is what seems like you trying to draw a categorical difference, where I can see only minor differences in degrees. But maybe I am just biased here.

"Wir sehen hiemit wieder die Sprache als das Dasein des Geistes." - The Phenomenology of Spirit 
   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




United States

Man the last two pages of this thread took a turn. At least you guys managed to keep me entertained through 3/4 of my work shift today.

My opinion: coming from X-wing before this. My local community had two types of game nights. Tournament prep (bring the best list you can and see what happens) and "Jank night" (bring the list that you feel will be the most fun to play, don't expect an even match, your jank list might turn out to be the next meta-list)

40k doesn't even have the possibility of that happening. Sure we have an established meta and people can choose not to bring those lists. But there are still armies that have to bring their best tournament list, to beat another armies Jank list.


Also let's not gatekeep the term gamer maybe?
   
Made in ch
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos





What tourney are you speaking of? Be more clear.

Nearly every tourney I know of, if you reach time, the match is declared over. Defacto by the end of the time, the match is over. THis was seen as a problem.. so here comes Chess Clocks.


yeah except all the tourneys at the start of 8th and before wouldnt count in your definition.

And your definition wouldn't even cover draws as a result.

Congrats.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





And yet I've seen plenty of people who like it who are both casual and competetive players because they plan for being double turned.


Hence the part of my post where I said for every person that I see that likes it, I know of another person that hates it.

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Wicked Warp Spider





balmong7 wrote:

40k doesn't even have the possibility of that happening. Sure we have an established meta and people can choose not to bring those lists. But there are still armies that have to bring their best tournament list, to beat another armies Jank list.

Essentially this.
Also, I agree that the gamer-gatekeeping etc should be its own thread, albeit I fully understand where Reemule was coming from.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/09/11 17:43:11


Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis! 
   
Made in us
Courageous Space Marine Captain




On the Internet

 auticus wrote:
And yet I've seen plenty of people who like it who are both casual and competetive players because they plan for being double turned.


Hence the part of my post where I said for every person that I see that likes it, I know of another person that hates it.

I feel like a lot of that comes from not planning to deal with a double turn. Plus a lot of the feel bads of losing units to a double turn (or even an alpha strike) would be mitigated if casualties were taken at the end of the game turn like Apoc since you'd be able to use that unit for at least your half the game turn before potentially losing it.
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison




Bristol

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 catbarf wrote:

Seriously? Nobody's telling you what to buy. They're saying if you've never played a game outside of GW, you lack the perspective of seeing what is attainable by a capable writing team.

You're saying that people have unreasonable expectations for balance, when all most of us are expecting is the kind of balance and writing quality we can readily get outside the GW sphere. If you have no familiarity with what we're talking about, you're not in a position to comment, let alone defend GW on this.


Which is what I said earlier. But apparent such a thing is not a "problem".

Now, full disclosure- I often say "You don't need to eat dog gak to know it is going to taste bad.". There's the caveat. Anyone can see real bad stinkers of things, anywhere, without needing the relevant qualifications. However, it's the idea of "good enough" that trips a lot of people up. OP needs to have that universal perspective to see why GW's rules are unnecessarily complex in places for no reason.


Also, many games out there have free rules. You could download the rules for infinity, grab a load of household items of varying sizes (cereal boxes, tissue boxes, shoes, etc.) and your existing 40K model collection and play a game of infinity with absolutely no need to spend a single penny.

No one was recommending Infinity earlier when they listed games I should be trying.


Ah yes, because of course I was not using Infinity as an example but instead posting a complete list of games with free access to their rules.

But since you mention it, here's a couple other wargames with free rules:
Warmachine/Hordes
Beyond the Gates of Antares has free rules resources here

I'm sure others can chime in with some more

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/11 17:58:54


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in gb
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard




Nottingham

Reemule wrote:Cause he doesn't play games... Game is a defined term.

a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. Certainly it has other definitions but this is the one for this discussion.
Emphasis mine. On what authority was it decided what definition of "game" we were using? Yours, in all your l33t gam3r gl0ry?
I think not.

So you have person A saying well its a game, so do X. And he is saying "Well I call my self a gamer, but I don't actually play a game. I buy models and have social hour with my pals, and call it a game, and interject with sillyness when balance discussion comes up, but we don't play games..."
But no-one is saying "I don't actually play a game". The only problem here is you, saying "reeeeeeeeeeee you're not allowed to call throwing dice and casually moving models while engaging in social activity a game HOW DARE you sully the name of GAMERS everywhere".

That's just as much gaming as whatever you call it. Stop pretending like your way is the One True Way.

Reemule wrote:At minimum, if you haven't set a point limit, created a list, played the games using all relevant rules to the criteria your playing, finished the match, and have a winner, I don't believe your competent to express opinions on balance in the game.
So you can't have a draw in a game? You're telling me there's no such thing as a draw result in any games, because CLEARLY that wouldn't make them games? And if we decide to finish the game on turn two because we've got something else happening which we want to do, and mutually agree on that, that's not "finishing the match", despite it patently being over?

That's ridiculous.

I wouldn't exactly call you competent to express your opinions over what a "game" is, if you lack this level of awareness over what other people deign to do.
Clear Sarge?
No, not really. You seem fixated on proclaiming some weird elitist view of what a True Gamer is, but it's complete nonsense.

Please, elaborate. Why is playing with 40k models purely for the express purpose of social enjoyment, as opposed to tactical achievement, not classed as gaming?
I suppose someone playing Call of Duty purely for entertainment instead of trying to get a sweet K/D ratio isn't a true gamer either?
Nonsense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/11 17:56:59


 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





 ClockworkZion wrote:
 auticus wrote:
And yet I've seen plenty of people who like it who are both casual and competetive players because they plan for being double turned.


Hence the part of my post where I said for every person that I see that likes it, I know of another person that hates it.

I feel like a lot of that comes from not planning to deal with a double turn. Plus a lot of the feel bads of losing units to a double turn (or even an alpha strike) would be mitigated if casualties were taken at the end of the game turn like Apoc since you'd be able to use that unit for at least your half the game turn before potentially losing it.


There have been many threads on this topic. Needless to say, it has a lot to do with a lot of issues that have nothing to do with someone not planning on dealing with it. That is kind of the equivalent of saying "git gud", which doesn't really negate the negative play experience.

Its standing there for two whole turns doing nothing for up to an hour or more while your opponent removes your models and you can't respond.

Its being forced to have screens to mitigate alpha striking (which is essentially what the double turn is emulating) and if you don't have screens, don't bother. Really screens are the only way to mitigate double turn melee units because in AOS things can literally cross the table and charge in one turn, so you can't even distance yourself properly in a lot of cases and terrain is largely irrelevant in managing movements like it would be on an actual battlefield.

Against shooty heavy lists its just taking models off the table twice.

IGO UGO is a negative by itself. Double turn takes that to the next level. For a lot of people, its a game killer and it has nothing to do with not being prepared for the double turn, because after you have played the game four or five times, you know it can be coming. Not being prepared for the double turn is valid for brand new players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/11 18:09:16


GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: