cvtuttle wrote:
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!

 ashrog wrote:
I'm confused. Am I the only person here who doesn't own a Revenant Titan? Because it sounds like they are suddenly springing up everywhere.

 Selym wrote:
Actually, thinking about it, I'd quite like to see a WH40k musical (but only if it's a comedy)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Actually, thinking about it, I'd quite like to see a WH40k musical (but only if it's a comedy)

So what you're asking for is a... Space Opera?

Space Opera is something 40k often gets defined as (check the first one under "Tabletop Games").

 ClockworkZion wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Can someone please explain this "Forging the Narrative" thing to me? Cause I think I've been doing this wrong. I've been using the little models as part of a table top game using dice. Am I supposed to be putting on a play or something? If so then how many, if any, musical numbers am I supposed to perform?

Basically if you play 40k as nothing more than a dispassionate set of data, you're doing it wrong. Try reading some of the background fluff/material, especially in your codex.

Pretty much on the money. That's why I laugh at the people who complain about 40k being, well 40k. It's more than just mechanics, it's a narrative game, meant to tell stories, inspire players to write their own missions, units or even full codexes and be more than just a means to make yourself feel better by pasting the other person's army.

xruslanx wrote:

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
What people are pointing out, though, is that a balanced game isn't just better for competitive play. It's *ALSO* better for casual play, for beer-and-pretzels games, for forging a narrative, etc. etc. etc.

Not only that, but a truly successful wargame needs both casual players and hardcore competitive players. The casual players are necessary for commercial success. The competitive players are necessary to drive deep thought about tactics and strategy, that the casual players can then use.

Except, 40k *is* balanced for casual play. You just want it balanced for competative play. Just admit that and we can all move on.

xruslanx wrote:

knas ser wrote:

By 'balanced for casual play' but not 'balanced for competitive play', do you mean 'it's not balanced but if it's a casual game you should have lower standards' ?

No, I mean it's balanced for casual play. By that I mean that units' powers and abilities are not grossly disproportionate to the extent that it would be obvious during a casual match (or more accurately, in a casual list). One vendetta is not over-powered, nor is one rip-tide, or a small unit of screamers without re-rollable 2++.

I wouldn't say 40k was *perfectly* balanced, as there are examples were some armies are simply more powerful than other armies, though that was a lot worse in 5th edition. But I certainly wouldn't want 40k to become the boring mess that many want it to become.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

knas ser wrote:
How lovely to be laughed at.

I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

knas ser wrote:
Why you think that good background makes game balance unnecessary I neither know nor care, but different people have different leanings and as there is zero reason why game design and fluff need to be mutually exclusive things, it's pretty tiresome when every complaint about one is followed by you saying we should only care about the other.

Unnecessary? I wouldn't go that far. Better balance is always good. As for the game design/fluff being different I'd like to introduce you to Gameplay and Story Segregation. It's a common thing in games where the story says, or shows one thing, but the mechanics work differently. It happens all the time.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

knas ser wrote:
Okay, first, let me preface my reply by saying I appreciate a more nuanced reply than the "laugh at people" one, which did annoy me. So in the same spirit, let me try and address your points in a calm way.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

knas ser wrote:
How lovely to be laughed at.

I apologize, I should have been clearer: I'm not laughing at the person, but rather this idea that the game needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance to be enjoyable or fun. I see a lot of comparisons to MtG but why not reference the real thing that 40k has more in common with: D&D. Both are narrative games meant for the enjoyment of the players involved, are not balanced to the fine edge that I see demanded of 40k (but never seems to be demanded of any other wargame), and they're still fun games if you go into it with everyone wanting the same thing out of the game.

Really, MtG (though I've never played it and don't know much about it), is likely a much better comparison than D&D because the former is a game played by people against each other, and D&D is a co-operative team-based game against an adventure that a (traditionally) neutral arbitrator creates and attempts to pitch at the right level. Of course you can play WH40K as a co-operative story-telling tool, but even you must admit that the set up two players fighting a battle against each other to determine a winner lends a need for "balance" in a way that D&D does not. Also, if we're talking about 4th, D&D actually does a very, very good job of achieving its design goals. I'm not sure about later supplements but the early stuff - very well thought out and structured. Never liked it on account of the lack of non-combat rules and the very game-y feel to it, but I respect the thought and play-testing that went into it. Anyway, I respectfully say that your "better comparison" is seriously misplaced for the reasons given.

MtG was made to be a competetive game while 40k started as a game that required a GM (go Rogue Trader) to keep things "fair". 40k started much closer to being a RPG than a wargame, and that lineage carries through today which is a large part of the problems we have. It's not designed in the same kind of mindset as MtG or Warmachine and that's the large issue with the game: it's archaic junk that no dev seems to want to replace with a better system.

knas ser wrote:
Furthermore, you exaggerate what others are saying for the sake of making it easier to denounce. You say "the idea that the games needs to be some kind of perfect bastion of balance". I don't think anyone has used the term "perfect bastion of balance" other than you. Nor is anyone expecting it to be better. What we expect, is for a company like this to produce something without huge and very obvious flaws. There's a marked difference between what we are saying: "D-weapons marginalize other aspects of the game" (what I wrote) and your "perfect bastion of balance" that you make out our arguments to be so that you can highlight them as absurd pipe-dreams. One could even reasonably call that a strawman in that you are saying our demands are far more than they actually are.

Term? No. Attitude that if 40k isn't perfectly balanced (and the claims that because it's not perfectly balanced) it sucks, yes. Can some of that be hyperbole? Perhaps. This is the internet after all and it's hard to remove the hyperbole to make a point from the people who firmly believe such things easilly when it comes to the internet.

I'm not exaggerating claims, I'm just going to the furthest extremes ones I've heard, much like how some people who cry for balance point to the arguments that "balance = boring" from the other side of the fence. Is it the far end of the spectrum and farther than most want to go? Sure, but it's also a milemarker that let's everyone else see each end of the spectrum and judge where they stand in relation to it.

Am I trying to whitewash everyone's claims and arguments? No, not really. I just can't argue against 12 different sides of the same thing who all have 12 different viewpoints about things and claim 12 different things about the game, so I go for the most extreme and let everyone else measure their stance from their.

knas ser wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can they be better? I will never not say something can't be "better" but it's a very subjective term that means something to everyone, even when you start adding in quantifiers like "balance" in there. But does the game have to be designed to please a competitive side of the hobby? Not a chance. I get that some people like to rank themselves against others and see who is the best, but the game doesn't have to do that to be good or fun. Skyrim is a buggy mess with no multi-player but it's still fun. Competition doesn't make a game better, it just gives people some kind of imaginary stand to put themselves or others on and judge "skill" and "tactics" in games that still largely involve luck.

And that is just insulting, quite frankly. You may not mean it to be (conceivably), you may even believe it. But what you are saying is that anyone playing a competitive game is doing so to make themselves look better than other people. I don't know if you play any sports at all, but I do and I can assure you when I'm on the field or a court, I'm enjoying trying my hardest and competing with someone. And when I lose, which happens plenty, I don't suddenly find I've wasted my time. I shake hands with members of the other team or my opponent and congratulate them on a good game and you know what? I mean it. I have had fun. We have tried hard to beat each other and enjoyed the attempt. That simple fact that it's still fun to have tried my hardest and lost disproves your idea that we're all about feeling superior to other people. No, don't start replying that we're actually enjoying other aspects of the game because that doesn't fit the facts - if we were just doing exactly the same things but it wasn't competitive, we were just passing the ball to each other in a friendly fashion, it would not be anywhere near as much fun. We enjoy the act of competition in itself. It engages us. Do not call me a liar. This is how I feel. This is how most sportspeople feel most of the time.

Wargames are not sports for one. And two, competition doesn't always make things "better". Competition ruins cooperative play for instance (ever play a table top RPG where the whole team is competing against each other for something? It tears the party apart), and as I've said, 40k has more roots in a RPG system than it does a traditional competitive one.

It doesn't mean you can't compete, but it's like running track in tap shoes: it's nowhere near as effective as you'd like.

And yes, I've seen plenty of people who behave the way I've described. It's why I washed my hands of tournaments: I have no desire to end up getting so wrapped up in my ability to win that it consumes my ability to enjoy the game's other offerings.

Does it do that to everyone? No. But we have to remember that there are always Lance Armstrongs in every group, people who care more about winning than anything else. I'm not saying that they're all cheats, but they do let the idea consume them to the point it's detrimental to everything else.

knas ser wrote:
Furthermore your argument contradicts itself. If you're denigrating people being happy about winning "in games that still largely involve luck" then you should be applauding those of us that want to make it more tactical rather than running us down and insulting us. Instead of taking multiple opportunities in this thread to tell us how what we enjoy is less important because of some preconceived idea you have that we're just trying to make ourselves on "some kind of imaginary stand". If you're starting from such a prejudiced place, no wonder you are being so offensive in this thread. You are presuming we are inherently wrong to enjoy this aspect because you see it stemming from some sort of character flaw. From this point on in the thread, try and put that idea aside because whilst it might be true of some (typically the youngest players, but not exclusively), it isn't true for all and, I like to think, not true for most. Certainly not in my experience.

No it doesn't. If you read my posts you'll see I do agree that 40k, can and should be better, but not this 40k. 6th edition is not the system you can make into what you're trying to make it into. It's got too much legacy crammed into it's veins, too much bloat, too much necrotic flesh wrapped around it's frame, to be the game you want it to be. It can't be competitive because it needs to be taken out back, shot and replaced completely to really do what you're asking.

No one is wrong for wanting a better game in general, they're wrong for trying to do it with one that's so blatantly unsalvagable instead of either pushing to a new game built for it, or pushing GW to make it better with a new edition. The only character flaw I've seen is an inability to recognize when they're kicking a maggot-ridden dead horse when they rally on and on about making 6th edition "more competitive" and "better balanced" instead of pushing GW to recognize what the customer base wants and demands from them. People want a better balanced game where the fluff, mechanics, options and competitive game all mesh smoothly? Push them to make 7th edition that game, otherwise get off the soapbox because it's getting old.

Everyone bitches that GW doesn't listen, but all I ever hear about is a bunch of complaints on the internet. I never see any massive letter writing campaigns, or petitions, or even people trying to visit GW and talk to the people there. No, instead I see people kicking that same dead horse. Why? Because it's easier than actually being proactive and trying to get what you want instead of just complain about what you want.

Mean of me to say? Perhaps. But I've been reading post after post after post after post since I got back into this game in 2008 on multiple forums about how GW is always doing everything wrong, but then no one ever does anything, so maybe I'm just tired of the pity parties about how everyone cries the game is ruined, when no one wants to actually do anything about it.

knas ser wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Can 40k have a competetive scene anyways? Sure. But it's not the actual game. Try as you might to say otherwise, competitive play isn't what this game is made for. And I don't mean the balance either.

Again, there is nothing incompatible about fluff and game balance. Us asking for GW to actually balance things does not in anyway detract from the fluff. Most of us love both. So again, it's profitless for you to keep leaping in here and say we're missing the point and we should pay attention to the fluff. We're not missing the point and we pay plenty of attention to the fluff - it's probably the main reason many of us haven't moved on to more balanced game systems. You are missing the point that whilst you are happy with X, we want X and Y. We KNOW that you are just happy with X, and we're happy for you that you are. What we don't get is why you keep insisting that it is and should only be about X. If X and Y were in conflict, by all means complain. But they're not. They complement each other because people who love X and people who love Y will both get drawn in. You do a disservice when you argue against those of us trying to build up Y because all you're going to be left with when we leave (which we do as we get fed up), is those who only care about X. Such as yourself. And X is a smaller group than X+Y. So if you care about your hobby, care about what other people like too, not just yourself.

Go read Rogue Trader, then read 2nd and 3rd Edition and get back to me. This game is carrying 6 editions of luggage with it. Some good, but a lot bad. Until it gets rid of that it can't get better.

And honestly, it really doesn't matter what people say they want, because all they do is tell the internet what they want then just play whatever GW gives you anyways. I've spent 5 years now reading posts about how "I want X" and "I want Y" and "I want GW to tuck me in with warm milk and a story" but no one ever does anything with it. You want it so bad, stop telling me you want it and tell GW you want it.

Don't take no for an answer. Use "no" as a springboard to refine your points, make them better and work towards a "yes". You want X & Y then work for X & Y instead of telling the internet about how the game will only get better if GW would somehow read your mind and do X & Y.

It won't change that this edition is all about X, and ignores Y, sure. But it would make the future editions a lot better.

knas ser wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Now in a perfect world we'd have a system that's set up in such a way the mechanics and the fluff would skip merrily hand in hand into the sunset. The problem is that the game needs to be redone from the ground up. You're not going to get that in the system we have now and complaining that you don't have that in this current game is a bit silly because the mechanics are so abstracted they don't make for a good means of actually showing the fluff completely.

There is such a thing as a matter of degree. Again, you are taking the position of 'it's not perfect, so accept its faults'. Nothing is ever perfect, but you can still make it better or avoid obvious flaws. Again, if you don't care about the flaws, that's fine and we're happy for you. Just stop pronouncing on people when they try to head such flaws off by highlighting them.

No, my position is "it's not perfect, the way it is can't be perfect so stop beating a dead horse and do something about it if you want it so bad". This game is where it is because of the failures of the past and it needs to exorcise those so it can get better. Even if it's only in matters of degrees.

5th edition was likely the best competetive ruleset you can get out of the game as it exists now. And how great was that with Razorback spam, and the nonsense of the time? The issues are deeper than you're admitting here and need more than just a little touch up work to get right.

A few issues that keep this game from being able to be better: the stat mechanic is currently a mess (Marines, who are super soldiers are only a single degree away from a human on a number of stats), points costing makes no sense, there isn't a system in place to make sensible points costing occur on any scale, there isn't a set standard that the game is built towards, and if it does exist it's too lower when compared to what people are playing at, there are no alternate rulesets to make tournament play streamlined and possible, and you roll for Mysterious Terrain after you run into it, not when you deploy. Need I keep going on, or can we agree that there is more than a few changes that need to be made already?

knas ser wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So with what we have, it's enough. It's as good as it can be with what we have and the fact that people can't see the fact that the game needs a rework to be any more than that is a bit distressing.

Then you're going to have to be distressed because I think only a madman could think that WH40K can't be improved somewhat in terms of balance in many ways, even without "a complete re-work from the ground up". Sure, the latter would help, but it's absurd to say that you can't improve things in dozens of small ways. You could easily amend how 2+ re-rollables and D-weapons worked without such a "ground-up" revision, obviously. I surely hope you don't need anyone to point out how that could be done. But if you don't, then you must admit you're wrong to say "it's as good as it can be".

Saves need to be chucked out in favor of a system that Warmachine has where they are counted into a sort of toughness value, or moved to before wounding rolls are made for one.

I can have fun with the game as it is because I'm not trying to contort it into something it can't do (fat kid who can't play dodgeball again). I play to it's strengths and minimize the weaknesses.

Does it mean I fail to recognize weaknesses, or don't understand how this game could be improved? Not at all. I think about it a lot because it poses a lot of interesting design questions. But I realized a long while ago that because this game clings to the past so hard and spends so much time trying to continue these legacy rules into the game as it is now that most of it's problems can't really be fixed without working that delete key and starting completely anew.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To steal a quote: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Which is what people keep doing everytime they expect GW to hear their cries and change the game when they post their grievances on a message board again, and again, and again.

So who really is the madman? The person who believes change will come because they keep complaining about something on Dakka, or the person who accepts the faults of the game, plays to it's strengths?