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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?

I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.

You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?

I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.

Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.

You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.

No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.

You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.

Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.

And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?

I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.

So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?

This is the thing nobody is answering.

When you buy a house, would you never improve it because the construction company didn't think to put an overhead light in your room?

What do you think baseball was like the first time someone bunted or stole a base... these are likely evolutions in the game that were later incorporated into the rules.

Do you think the hobby police are going to come and arrest you for playing a different game with your models? God forbid you use a 40k model in a pathfinder game as a mini!

Are you even obligated to play 40k if you buy the models?

Are you obligated to buy the models if you use the rules?

I bought the books, the rules, the models. My friends bought what they bought. Why can we not modify the rules to make our games and narratives more exciting for us? Maybe winning despite an advantage your opponent exclusively enjoys makes a great "against all odds" story. Why does it always have to be 100% balanced?

GW provides the framework we use to craft amazing stories and memories, on our terms, with no hostility over the fine (or missing) print. If we don't like something, we change or remove it. Going to come police us to make sure we don't?

Do you think we have diminished experiences because we play differently or not have any additional expectations?

Does any of this answer your question?

I believe a game should be tight enough that it requires minimal work on the part of the players to be balanced and fun. The fact that GW is putting out fairly frequent FAQs, Errata, and point changes says to me that they also want this; they're just failing at providing it.

I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC. Same deal. I want a ruleset that requires as little legwork on my part as possible. And this is something GW could provide. Yeah, I might still have to specify whether I wanna do competitive or narrative style game, but it CAN be better than it is now.

 flandarz wrote:
I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC.

In that same vein, I can homerule the PHB to suit my needs accordingly (say, removing or altering Goodberry in a survival heavy game, or playing a low magic setting and stripping lots of magic classes or nerfing them), no matter how balanced it currently is.

They provide the basic framework, and if I'm not satisfied with their core, I change it to suit myself and my group.

 flandarz wrote:
I believe a game should be tight enough that it requires minimal work on the part of the players to be balanced and fun. The fact that GW is putting out fairly frequent FAQs, Errata, and point changes says to me that they also want this; they're just failing at providing it.

I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC. Same deal. I want a ruleset that requires as little legwork on my part as possible. And this is something GW could provide. Yeah, I might still have to specify whether I wanna do competitive or narrative style game, but it CAN be better than it is now.

As MaRo laid it out in his 20 lessons for 20 years of MTG:

"It is not the job of the player to find the fun in a game. It is the job of the designer to put it where players can't help, but find it."
and also
"Make the fun part also the correct strategy to win" as army building is a big part of the experience, you should not be punished for picking the wrong choices.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC.

In that same vein, I can homerule the PHB to suit my needs accordingly (say, removing or altering Goodberry in a survival heavy game, or playing a low magic setting and stripping lots of magic classes or nerfing them), no matter how balanced it currently is.

They provide the basic framework, and if I'm not satisfied with their core, I change it to suit myself and my group.

I think you might've missed the point; that being that homebrewing/ruling should be choice, not a requirement.

Dudeface wrote:
You're mistaking making the rules work vs making a game work. I expect that my opponent will have some expectations on what sort of game they would like, as such I make moves towards enabling a mutually enjoyable game instead of the game I want singularly.

Grey knight player walks in, states they want a tight game - take a good list and have a competitive match. If their list can't compete then you know that they asked for that kind of game and you can advise them how to improve. If they want a casual game, include some fun or kooky units, dial back the big combos and play to the mission but in a relaxed manner, add narrative etc.

None of that facilitates amending rules, working with wonky sets, that's just social skills.

There seems to be the idea that in a "good" game with balance, there would be no need to "include some fun or kooky units, dial back the big combos and play to the mission but in a relaxed manner" and the fact there is in 40k IS the entire problem. At least that's what I've gathered from Slayer's posts. It's the entire fact that is even a "thing" that could come up (needing to "dial back" your list specifically, but more generally just needing to think about adjusting your list like that) is the "proof" that the rules are bad and not worth the money.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I believe a game should be tight enough that it requires minimal work on the part of the players to be balanced and fun. The fact that GW is putting out fairly frequent FAQs, Errata, and point changes says to me that they also want this; they're just failing at providing it.

I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC. Same deal. I want a ruleset that requires as little legwork on my part as possible. And this is something GW could provide. Yeah, I might still have to specify whether I wanna do competitive or narrative style game, but it CAN be better than it is now.

As MaRo laid it out in his 20 lessons for 20 years of MTG:

"It is not the job of the player to find the fun in a game. It is the job of the designer to put it where players can't help, but find it."
and also
"Make the fun part also the correct strategy to win" as army building is a big part of the experience, you should not be punished for picking the wrong choices.

And what percentage of their card base, set by set, is overly ignored and garbage? Magic is not the super balanced game where every card has the same strategic value. You cannot take 60 random cards and expect to compete.

This is not some revolutionary way to deliver product that WotC has devised. It is the same junk GW does. Doesn't stop my wife from making theme decks and having a good time with those bad cards. Come to find out, enjoyment is subjective and threw best a company can do is make their product appeal to an audience. A feat which both GW and WotC have demonstrably achieved.

 flandarz wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 flandarz wrote:
I kind of look at it like this: if you bought a PHb for D&D and it was written so poorly that you had to home rule 50% of the classes, weapons, and magic just to have a "balanced" game, you'd probably be pretty upset with WotC.

In that same vein, I can homerule the PHB to suit my needs accordingly (say, removing or altering Goodberry in a survival heavy game, or playing a low magic setting and stripping lots of magic classes or nerfing them), no matter how balanced it currently is.

They provide the basic framework, and if I'm not satisfied with their core, I change it to suit myself and my group.

I think you might've missed the point; that being that homebrewing/ruling should be choice, not a requirement.

Also this. With the analogy, sure you could house rule the PHB to adjust things. But you shouldn't (and don't) NEED to in order to make it usable. It should be usable out of the box, and the argument is that Warhammer is not because so much of the game depends on the "social contract" that it really defines the nature of the game. That's the difference. D&D you expect the rules to be a framework. With a miniature game, like a board game, you expect a rules manual not a set of guidelines that you then need to "fill in the gaps" to make it serviceable.

And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.

The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.

The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.

If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?

Wayniac wrote:

I think you might've missed the point; that being that homebrewing/ruling should be choice, not a requirement. Also this. With the analogy, sure you could house rule the PHB to adjust things. But you shouldn't (and don't) NEED to in order to make it usable. It should be usable out of the box, and the argument is that Warhammer is not because so much of the game depends on the "social contract" that it really defines the nature of the game. That's the difference. D&D you expect the rules to be a framework. With a miniature game, like a board game, you expect a rules manual not a set of guidelines that you then need to "fill in the gaps" to make it serviceable.

And yet, 40k is useable. The hilarious thing though is historically speaking, wargames are absolutely no different to games like d&d in that they were very much a framework, with an expectation on players to 'social contract' and see he rules as 'guidelines', not 'manuals'. 40k started with a requirement to have a games master for gods sake. In some circles, especially amongst historical gamers, this is still very much one of the central tenets of how they build their games.

And the comparison to board games (collectible miniature games like 40k and warmachine are somewhat different beasts) is not a fair comparison. Board games are typically smaller, far more limited systems, with nothing like the scale, scope or variety you see in games like warmachine and 40k. Those systems are easier to balance, if for no other reason than by nature of being smaller of scale and scope. Now, add the ever required expansions and new waves of stuff, and you will also see that balance fall by the wayside pretty quick. Similarly, if you were to cut 40k down, and pare it to the bone so it could be boardgame scale rather than a mass model game, you would find I easir to balance too. Just don't expect the name 'wayniac' to be warmly received when you tell the community you killed 97% of their game.

Deadnight wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

I think you might've missed the point; that being that homebrewing/ruling should be choice, not a requirement. Also this. With the analogy, sure you could house rule the PHB to adjust things. But you shouldn't (and don't) NEED to in order to make it usable. It should be usable out of the box, and the argument is that Warhammer is not because so much of the game depends on the "social contract" that it really defines the nature of the game. That's the difference. D&D you expect the rules to be a framework. With a miniature game, like a board game, you expect a rules manual not a set of guidelines that you then need to "fill in the gaps" to make it serviceable.

And yet, 40k is useable. The hilarious thing though is historically speaking, wargames are absolutely no different to games like d&d in that they were very much a framework, with an expectation on players to 'social contract' and see he rules as 'guidelines', not 'manuals'. 40k started with a requirement to have a games master for gods sake. In some circles, especially amongst historical gamers, this is still very much one of the central tenets of how they build their games.

And the comparison to board games (collectible miniature games like 40k and warmachine are somewhat different beasts) is not a fair comparison. Board games are typically smaller, far more limited systems, with nothing like the scale, scope or variety you see in games like warmachine and 40k. Those systems are easier to balance, if for no other reason than by nature of being smaller of scale and scope. Now, add the ever required expansions and new waves of stuff, and you will also see that balance fall by the wayside pretty quick. Similarly, if you were to cut 40k down, and pare it to the bone so it could be boardgame scale rather than a mass model game, you would find I easir to balance too. Just don't expect the name 'wayniac' to be warmly received when you tell the community you killed 97% of their game.

How much does it cost to play D&D 5E?

$50 for a PHB.
$50 for a DMG.

That's $100 minimum, across usually 5 players. Now, the Monster Manual ($50) is an important buy and one I'd consider essential for a starting DM, and a second PHB wouldn't go amiss so there's more to reference. $200 total.

Add on dice and whatnot, call it $50 miscellaneous. $250 across 5 people is $50 a person.

Now, how much does it cost to play a game of 40k? I'll use my example above, with Iron Hands and Grey Knights.

$40-Space Marines Codex
$40-Grey Knights Codex
$30-Iron Hands Supplement
$35-Chapter Approved (2018, or 2019 when it comes out)

$145 across two people for rules alone. That's more expensive than D&D, and I went pretty high on the miscellaneous costs.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.

The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.

If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?

"Perfect balance" is a fiction. Tournament balance isn't a good benchmark. JNA is describing here exactly what the flaw in 40k is: two new players decide they're going to start 40k. They go out and buy armies (Iron Hands v. GK in this analogy). They start playing games. The GK player gets steamrolled 100% of the time, gets pissed off, and quits.

This is an undesirable outcome.

Whose fault is it? Is it the GK player's responsibility to buy a new, stronger army? Is it the Iron Hands player's responsibility to buy a new, weaker army? Or should it be GW's responsibility to make sure that random people just starting their game in good faith don't run into trap options and feel pressured to buy models they don't like because the ones they do like have trash rules?

 JNAProductions wrote:

How much does it cost to play D&D 5E?

$50 for a PHB.
$50 for a DMG.

That's $100 minimum, across usually 5 players. Now, the Monster Manual ($50) is an important buy and one I'd consider essential for a starting DM, and a second PHB wouldn't go amiss so there's more to reference. $200 total.

Add on dice and whatnot, call it $50 miscellaneous. $250 across 5 people is $50 a person.

Now, how much does it cost to play a game of 40k? I'll use my example above, with Iron Hands and Grey Knights.

$40-Space Marines Codex
$40-Grey Knights Codex
$30-Iron Hands Supplement
$35-Chapter Approved (2018, or 2019 when it comes out)

$145 across two people for rules alone. That's more expensive than D&D, and I went pretty high on the miscellaneous costs.

How much does it cost to play 40k? Might as well ask how long is a piece of string.

I get what you are saying, but I would argue it Depends how you want to approach the game though, doesn't it. You have a very specific example. What happens when both players are space marines, or armies are built on the shadowspear box?

I don't think price comparisons are fair, either. You pay what you pay. Different things cost differently. I spend £100 a month on diesel. That's a warcry starter every month.

Personally speaking, for one, ive never 'split' the cost of a set of rulebooks for an rpg. I am happy to go out and buy the books for my own use (for me, it's the iron kingdoms rpg), so that's $250 on me. Which I don't mind paying, for what it's worth.

Similarly, when it comes to 40k, or gw games in general 'the cost' isn't something that bothers me negatively. I like the models, I like painting, assembling and converting them. To me it's worth it for that. Your mileage may vary and that's cool. My Current project is Warcry (after my last 2 necromunda warbands are painted up!). Hundred quid and I'm pretty certain this will become our game of choice. Seems like a reasonable price though.

Except that's not models. That's EXCLUSIVELY rules. And I would wager that it's far more common for people to start different armies, rather than two armies that can be built from the same Codex. Hell, if they do what you recommend and split a starter box, like Dark Imperium, they need two Dexes.

You can, quite reasonably, get into D&D at $50 or less per person. It's unlikely to reach above $200 per person unless everyone wants all the books-even if each person has their own PHB and dice, you don't need five Monster Manuals or Xanathar's. Whereas to start 40k, you're looking at more money spent on JUST RULES.

I agree that 40k needs some kind of social contract to work. As does any other game. But where I can say "Hey, let's play some D&D! Make a level 3 character, Core only, and have 1k gold to spend on equipment" and you can have a good game with just that information, in 40k (if I want to play a "fair and fun game") I have to provide and be provided far more information. Sometimes right on down to my opponent providing me their army list so I can tailor an "enjoyable experience" around it. To me, that's a problem. It's one thing to go "Let's do a 40k. 1k pts, casual, matched play." And another to go "Ok, I wanna run this Faction, and I'd like to play these units, but only if you don't take these units and please don't play this Faction, and if this mission comes up, I auto-lose, so can we redraw if that happens, oh, and this one unit is about 200 pts too expensive, so do you mind if I play it at the 'right' point cost, and I promise not to use this overpowered stratagem if you promise not to use YOUR overpowered stratagem..." and this can continue on for literal hours before the first model touches the board.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.

The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.

If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?

I don't think, aside for buying non GK,there is much a GK player can buy to have an actual game vs an IH army. Doesn't even matter if IH list iss uper o ptimised or just primaris stuff or just classic marine stuff. Same with the reverse thing. Even if the IH player decides to skip all tanks, all flyers, all the stuff which is characterful for IH, and just build an army out of a starter sets times x3, it is still going to be a bit too good vs a GK casual list.

I don't think price comparisons are fair, either. You pay what you pay. Different things cost differently. I spend £100 a month on diesel. That's a warcry starter every month.

well price comperation are also hard to do when one country has 4xtimes lower avarge salary then another. It is good for you if paying as much GW games cost now, is okey for you, it may not be okey for someone with 1/10th or 1/100th of income. And worse thing is everyone at forums and stores give people the idea that somehow starter sets or just a few units are enough to play, but they are not. Specially if the meta is shifting or nerfs happen on 6month cycles.
It is confusing also as GW does not put any numbers for how much they expect from people to pay to be able to play their games, on a level where it is fun. If a mobile game has a minium cost of 50$ monthly for basic stuff, I just won't play it. GW on the other hand makes it seem so, as if buying models or even an army ment anything. But it doesn't.

Thing is though for most other wargames, you don't. At least nowhere near the same level. I've never heard of, in Warmahordes, for example, sitting there before a game discussing if you should field Denny2 or Goreshade1 because Denny2 is pretty hardcore. Sure it might happen rarely (I have no idea) but it's not the normal approach. Same with games like Bolt Action, or Infinity, or King of War and others. You don't need to decide if your list is too strong, or if your opponent wants a more laid back game; again sure you can do it, but it's not the normal approach

It's only Warhammer that has such a large level of imbalance that you need to do that.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


Nowhere, that's just how I approach any game: I'll attempt to follow the rules as best I can, applying a bit of RAI and streamlining where necessary, but at the end of the day, I treat any rules as a mechanism by which to base a framework of playing the same.

In the same vein, is it written down or actually told that I should be expecting a tightly written and watertight game?

Rules are there to be followed. I mean if I could change the rules how ever I please what would stop me from saying that all my GK always have blessed ammo loaded and don't need to use stratagems, or that termintors can take stormshields etc

I don't even know what RAI is. I read one article about how GW said they thought GW should be played. turn one mass deep strike and mass use of psychic powers and multiple, as in more then 3, units like apothecaries etc. I don't know what what GWs intentions are right now with how GK should work, when they removed all those options from the game. They don't say a thing about their intentions.

plus how would such social rules be enforced. I come up with a set of rules for my army. My opponent doesn't play it. His army works okey within the existing frame work of rules, why should he want to learn or use my rules, when he can just find someone else to play. He doesn't have to spend money to rent a table just so I can play with my made up rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.

The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.

If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?

You decide if you're playing open, narrative, or competitive.

Done. People aren't infants.

If the only way you have fun is by winning then games just aren't for you.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?

I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.

You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?

I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.

Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.

You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.

No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.

You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.

Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.

And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?

I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.

So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?

This is the thing nobody is answering.

When you buy a house, would you never improve it because the construction company didn't think to put an overhead light in your room?

What do you think baseball was like the first time someone bunted or stole a base... these are likely evolutions in the game that were later incorporated into the rules.

Do you think the hobby police are going to come and arrest you for playing a different game with your models? God forbid you use a 40k model in a pathfinder game as a mini!

Are you even obligated to play 40k if you buy the models?

Are you obligated to buy the models if you use the rules?

I bought the books, the rules, the models. My friends bought what they bought. Why can we not modify the rules to make our games and narratives more exciting for us? Maybe winning despite an advantage your opponent exclusively enjoys makes a great "against all odds" story. Why does it always have to be 100% balanced?

GW provides the framework we use to craft amazing stories and memories, on our terms, with no hostility over the fine (or missing) print. If we don't like something, we change or remove it. Going to come police us to make sure we don't?

Do you think we have diminished experiences because we play differently or not have any additional expectations?

Does any of this answer your question?

Your house analogy would make more sense if you were actually correct.

The real comparison would be like someone buys a house and then realize they need to tent for termites, which have been there for a while, and not getting mad at the realtor for not telling them this would be an issue.

You don't need the light fixture, but you need a solid foundation. 40k's balance is NOT even close to that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And then you join a party with half the people wanting to follow the GMs story and the other half just out to cause chaos.

The premise that there's some huge hurdle for warhammer is bs. That other games are simple with no issues is also bs.

If I play a strong Iron Hands list, because I like the idea of robo-Marines, and you play a Grey Knights list, who's job is it to buy more models and tweak their list to make it a fair game?

You decide if you're playing open, narrative, or competitive.

Done. People aren't infants.

If the only way you have fun is by winning then games just aren't for you.

You didn't actually answer the question.

Infants by nature don't have 700$ dollars and the ability to play w40k. So the example is strange.

Plus this still doesn't anwser the question who is suppose to buy the second army though. Although in the example given it is kind of a hard to match one with the other, because the GK player would have to buy a tournament list and the IH would have to buy something very casual.

When you buy a house, would you never improve it because the construction company didn't think to put an overhead light in your room?

People can actually do stuff like that on their own? Because here you need to have a legal permission for it, anything larger requeries hiring an architect and having local goverment okeying any changes. To have new electrical lines put down, you need a certified electrician, and you still have to have permission from the commune or house owner.

Open, Narrative, or Matched don’t address GK being way worse than Iron Hands.

Lifting some restrictions can help, such as Psychic Focus, but overall the GK player will still get stomped far more often than not.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Open, Narrative, or Matched don’t address GK being way worse than Iron Hands.

And? Do you think Magnus can beat Iron Hands?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Open, Narrative, or Matched don’t address GK being way worse than Iron Hands.

And? Do you think Magnus can beat Iron Hands?

What does Magnus have to do with this at all?

The the fix doesn't work, or works only for good armies who don't need fixs. This like 15year olds decide that they want to wrestle without head gear in their weight class, which to them is a different way of playing, but for the 13-14 year olds matched up against them it only means they get wrecked harder. In fact most trainers wouldn't even allow 13 year olds to do fights without head gear on.

So by that example we could just say that GK should be baned from being played in any setting, as they have an unfixable ruleset right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Open, Narrative, or Matched don’t address GK being way worse than Iron Hands.

And? Do you think Magnus can beat Iron Hands?

you seem to not like the example right? What if it is a GK and BA player. Or GK and Orc player, Or GK and eldar player, or knight or any other army player? Who in the case of one army being much weaker is considered to be the person who is suppose to make the investment to buy a new one. The people that have armies that are good, or at least better, or the person with the bad army.

Because if it is the person with the bad army, then wouldn't it be better, if they just bought a different army? Even if they like the one they play right now? if their army is the worse, they would just be buying in to more bad.

I agree that you shouldn't have to win to have fun. However, it quickly becomes "not fun" if you NEVER win, too. If, when you try your absolute hardest, and field the best possible army you can build, your friend's casual list that he built randomly destroys you while he plays Candy Crush and forgets to use Abilities and Stratagems, you probably ain't gonna feel very fulfilled. If it's the Mission or the dice rolls, you can just say: "I'll try again on a different Mission" or "just unlucky today". But when everything goes your way and you still lose, it hurts.

Then you play to the best of your ability and army limits and take the time to explore new facets. GK has a 43% win rate, so hyperbole about never winning or the game being unplayable because of some imaginary social contract is a bit silly.

Karol wrote:Rules are there to be followed. I mean if I could change the rules how ever I please what would stop me from saying that all my GK always have blessed ammo loaded and don't need to use stratagems, or that termintors can take stormshields etc

When I talk about changing rules, I obviously mean with my opponent's consent. If your opponent is fine with GK having all those things (perhaps because their list repeatedly beats yours, and they want to even things out), then why shouldn't you be able to play like that?

The idea that "those are the rules, we can't break them!" is a bit odd for me. Obviously, don't just disregard them on one player's whims, but if both players really don't care, why should they stick to them?

Again, I want to highlight your comment - it's not about "if I could change the rules however I please", it's about "if we could change the rules however [we please". Don't try and play non-rules stuff with people you haven't talked about it to with, but don't be afraid to talk to people about changing things so you have a more enjoyable time.

I don't even know what RAI is.

Rules As Intended.
An example of this is Assault weapons technically not working in the game because of initial restrictions on firing weapons (something like "weapons cannot be selected to fire if the wielder Advanced" - with the Assault Weapon not being able to be selected to fire, it's ability to fire when Advancing cannot come into effect). However, for other people, they are happy to come to an agreement on what they thought GW meant, and are happy to play the game how they believe GW "intended".

plus how would such social rules be enforced. I come up with a set of rules for my army. My opponent doesn't play it. His army works okey within the existing frame work of rules, why should he want to learn or use my rules, when he can just find someone else to play. He doesn't have to spend money to rent a table just so I can play with my made up rules.

You can't enforce social rules. I can't "enforce" someone holding the door for me if I'm late, I can't "enforce" someone picking up my wallet if I drop it, I can't "enforce" someone saying 'bless you' if I sneeze, but those are all social rules (for my culture, at least). Same way as someone can't "enforce" me to play with ITC/ETC rules, or play competitively - but if you talk to me, maybe we can come to some sort of agreement.

You can't enforce social rules, but if we normalise the idea of talking and discussing what we want from a 40k game in advance, maybe we can all have a better time?

Essentially, don't rely on social rules, but definitely try to talk to people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 flandarz wrote:
I agree that you shouldn't have to win to have fun. However, it quickly becomes "not fun" if you NEVER win, too. If, when you try your absolute hardest, and field the best possible army you can build, your friend's casual list that he built randomly destroys you while he plays Candy Crush and forgets to use Abilities and Stratagems, you probably ain't gonna feel very fulfilled. If it's the Mission or the dice rolls, you can just say: "I'll try again on a different Mission" or "just unlucky today". But when everything goes your way and you still lose, it hurts.

Won't disagree. However, in this case, my advice would be either to talk to your opponent to see what they can do to make things easier for you (potentially by halving their list, or playing with the Sudden Death Only War cards), playing games where you switch armies, or, in the most drastic of situations, stepping away from the hobby until something changes.

I really do get the feeling of "I can't win, no matter what", but there are options. Talk to people. Try and get them to see your perspective. And if they refuse, honestly, they sound like people I wouldn't want to be near the same table with.

Honestly, many of the people here sound like the type I wouldn't step near a table they were at. The absolutism is pretty abundant and the authoritarian perspectives are everywhere. I'd show up with a milk-toast shoddy GK level custom codex that they would wipe up easily, but it brings a smile to me to simply play my custom force... and they would refuse because it isn't GW written... all the while complaining at how GW writes only the worst of the worst for rules.

Also, didn't 40k start off as a narrative game, not a balanced competitive PvP game?