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.
Local scene uses a Swedish Comp variant. The Swedes have a system based on the mathematical analysis of tournamen statistics to work out their weighting. It's used primarily because it tries to place restrictions in the most objective way possible and eliminating opinion from the design.
I'm pretty sure the developers don't like this, as well. Having spoken to ex-GW guys scattered around the country, they all pretty much share the same sentiment. It's management that's killing this game, not the devs. I miss the "jovial" days of blame it on Ward...
Jimsolo wrote: I utilize a handicap system, although I've lapsed recently. The original idea was to keep track of your total games against an opponent, and for every two victories you have over them, handicap yourself by 5% of your overall points.
Wouldn't it better to give them the 5% increase and then ween them back down? By pulling punches like that, does it really get them to play better?
Just thoughts. I usually just actively take crappier units or stupid upgrades to make squads lose points efficiency. I then allow my opponents to ask me my thoughts as we play if the game is for fun or for getting better at the game. It was very enjoyable to see someone take a fluffy army, course correct but keep in the same goal of the theme, and become more powerful. Usually it came down to proper play, such as a new Eldar player not fully utilizing his Farseer properly.
I would stop pimping your 40k thesis until it passes peer review. As it stands and I pointed out, it's heavily critical with an opinionated slant, takes an aggressive stance on specific codecis, and fails as an analysis because wargames arein't a void; you cannot look at 40k alone and say it's good or not good because it's a microcosm.
There's proof enough that GW isn't looking to so hot in the market. The ability to enjoy their game is strongly tied to that.
Prices, lack of communication, lack of support for a greater variety of games, etc...,etc... are all causes of their demise. The game is the main reason they aren't gone yet.
If the game was good and well written, people wouldn't need more communication as they wouldn't be waiting on FAQs to make their army playable.
I hear their Hobbit Game is fantastic*, well written, needs barely any FAQ and is everything the balance-fetishists and tournament-freaks could ever hope to see from a GW-game.
Of course, nobody cares. GW's balanced game certainly cost them a lot more than their "poorly balanced" one.
*as GW-haters tend to use the term in describing allegedly superior non-40K-games.
Swing and a miss. But thanks for playing.
BONUS ROUND:
Oh, which of the two Hobbit players did you hear that from?
Cool, the Hobbit is a better game and is balanced?
Or I could just go buy one of the many others that are cheaper, aesthetically pleasing, and balanced games with companies that don't treat you like a wallet with legs.
Warhammer 40k survives on iconography, nostalgia, and generally being an awesome setting. As stated, most people don't know about The Hobbit and playing games of it just isn't an option without a player base. Most Warhammer players started with Warhammer and just assume the false splitting of a player base is common in all other tabletop games until they branch out.
It's like, if GW had this team of devoted fans that would have promoted their games in local communities to demo their good products and support league, campaign, and competitive play, the Hobbit might have succeeded? Huh...
((And note: the Hobbit / LotR figures are the reason I don't play that game more so than anything else. Malifaux 1E could have been the second coming and I'd have still ignored it because it has the same problem as the current Hobbit game... the models look/looked like they were sculpted out of luke warm butter.))
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 02:40:34
Don't engage with Zwei. Everything he's parroting here has been shot to pieces in the 14 page thread. His avatar is as he acts; a troll. Until he brings facts to the table and answers questions in the other thread (which he won't), there's no point talking with him.
Competitive 40k is Deathstar 40k. I like the "Deathstar" in theory because the thought of elite units championing the battlefield by themselves is awesome. But some are just far too powerful to even be considered reasonable for anything but competitive play, even though they are fluffy. They should be high risk, high reward playstyles not the default strategy for success as they are now.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think he's a troll. I think his view of the game is so different that he looks like a troll.
You may have differing view, that's fine. But by not providing any facts, sticking to said views, and ignoring questions that readily make the platform you stand on topple, makes you a troll. We may disagree on game design, but at least I can point to several well accredited resources on the topic versus anything he has offered. And what he has offered only supported his opposing view, not his own.
Grimtuff wrote: I've literally never met anyone that plays with unequal points values.
What. World. Do. You. Live. In?
Try it.
Or better yet, try gaming without even counting the point values or the victory points. It's a good way to get people more used to other types of games to ease into the 40K-mindset. Less bureaucracy too, which is also a plus. Pure gaming.
K
*sets Revenant Titan on Skyshield with 9 Farseers behind it*
I don't have fun tabling my opponent. I don't have fun getting tabled. I enjoy having armies be generally a surprise when I sit down. I don't have fun with list tailoring as it takes away from building a theme and can result in tabling my opponent, see before.
In better designed games, these are not concerns. I may have a harder or easier game, but not typically not lopsided.
So what are you to propose people like myself should do? Either way have to accept the fact that to have one good game, we have to find the player with the right mentality on list design, to not swing too hard the either way, and accept the fact that many games are going to mismatched affairs that result in one player not enjoying themselves?
We all have different definitions of fun. Some people like sports, some like reading, some like singing, some like painting, etc. The same theory applies to wargames. A better designed game ensures that each concept of fun in army composition is still valid to play.
One player's Elysian themed Imperial Guard, decked to the nines with flyers, is another person's cheese spam list. My pure SoB couldn't even fight that army. The same with Cron Air and other flyer heavy strike forces.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 20:09:08
I am hearing rumblings that Bolt Action is doing quite well. If the company that makes it can keep up with their plastics and make a Sci-Fi offering, I think you'll see fan loyalty tested when someone else offers a company scale sci-fi 28mm game.
Hollismason wrote: Please direct me to the website that has a listing of rankings according to win loss ratio as well as a unified rule set for tournaments. Then I will acknowledge the existence of a actual competitive scene in Warhammer 40k.
If you are buying models to win tournaments or to specifically play in tournaments to win items or whatever you are functionally slowed.
Saying 40k is a competitive game is like saying you are a expert at back alley dice games.
StarTrotter wrote:Didn't GW used to have tournaments as well?
No, it's made by one guy, Chip. He's pretty awesome.
Hollismason wrote:That literally means nothing as there is no underlying structure to any of those tournaments to have a baseline starting or rules requirement that match.
Listen, if you're that inept, would you please stop flaunting it? I don't feel like explaining what the statistics mean. And since reading comprehnsion isn't your strong suit, I won't waste time further arguing with you outside of this statement:
The underlying structure is the poorly written rules of Warhammer 40k. Anything you level towards a group of individuals you obviously know nothing about doubles back to the root cause problem, a bad product from a company that doesn't support it. Every other game succeeds because they have the unifying voice of the company. Enjoy being a shallow jerk to people on forums when the game you love loses support due to these bad business decisions.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 23:05:05
Or the concept that no matter the "format," meaning compisition restrictions, FAQs, and mission, we always see the top certain armies meaning that they are flat out better not only in strength, but adaptability.
And the theme is all the same: Deathstars.
Also, way to take a complete dismissive tone to the tournament crowd.
And yes, I *am* selling my stuff. I've been eBaying stuff since September, and I've gone through about half of it and have pulled in about $3k. It's liberating. But it's not this BS "if you don't like apples, buy oranges," crap. I put a lot of time and effort into those models, and it makes me sad that the game sucks so hard that I can't find anybody that I enjoy playing with anymore. The only upside is the ridiculous amount of money that I'm getting out of selling all of it.
Debated about this, but I can't pull the trigger because I still like the models too much. I could sell my Eldar NIB or I could invest the time to make it awesome, go pew pew a few times, and then sell it for a much higher cost. Plus, it's hard to let go of 2.5k or so of legit SoB. Rare army and all. Plus, I doubt anyone would be crazy enough to buy Dayglow Wing
There are, however, 4 armies I want to buy and build that are being actively resisted for things like fattening my Cryx or buying Malifaux (it's cheap). It doesn't scratch the 40k itch, for certain, but I like my hobby dollars going to a company that cares about me as the consumer.
Plus, I just open the Bolt Action guys knuckle down and make a 28mm sci-fi company level game.
Consequently, you're happy and couldn't give a gak about the happiness of the player base in general and the general state of the game.
My new SoB codex deleted a character, made two units that were bad before now almost unplayable, dumbed down Acts of Faith a second time to the point they are forgotten usually, and contained nothing new outside of some pieces of wargear that can be taken on our worst HQ choice.
My local play scene is "two source" meaning I cannot even play the "Witchhunters" codex anymore through allies. Game's so much fun for me right now, tell you what...
But even if they "turn back", I would argue that this little experiment thus far - reading all the Jervis Johnson articles, etc.. .- was fully intentional.
Ah yes, quoting the other sci-fi product that's done nothing bu crap the bed and infuriate the fans to make a quick buck.
I think young Anekin had a quote that fits the nature of Zwei and his posting...
I played two games of Infinity last night and watched a third. More narratives were forged than any of my recent games of 40k. I didn't need to worry about list composition or anything, just points level and play.
Seeing a man-sized God trying to steam roll an army being put down by a brave trooper that stood up to face him was hilarious.
Seeing a remote control mech being wasted by soul-less automatons standing their ground to the bitter end was awesome.
And the games were done in 40 minutes. So you got creamed, wanna do it again?
What is so important about maintaining game imbalance that improvements cannot be made to bring my fellow SoB, Ork, BA, GK and Nid players back into the hobby?
