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.

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

Adapt or die.

Amen.

May I second this?

Squigsquasher wrote:
Adapt or die.

That's certainly not the issue. The army I play is stronger than ever before in 6th edition.

After playing many games earlier this weekend with my mate, I can say there were many jokes on the cinematic-ness of the game.
" I'm going to charge your unit of genestealers with my deathcompany, I know they can make it, I only need 3 inches."
"Okay, go for it."
"*dice roll* FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! WHAT STOPS MY DC 1 INCH SHORT FROM KILLING YOU?"
"It's cinematic."
*Head hits table*

But seriously, as stated, cinematic implies that some story telling is being done. Not just being random for the sake of being random. It's more like game designer laziness. That said, I still am actually quite enjoying 40k. The new edition really isn't terribad.

I had a great game today (seriously though, it was a great game, had great fun), but it was quite silly when the charge that my opponent and I built up to between Draigo and his Paladins and Lysander and his boys completely fell apart because neither of us could roll well enough to get a decent charge.

So I just shot Lysander to death.

Cinematic.

It's also cinematic when a broodlord tanks for the genestealers until he actually get's wounded and than he's all "Oh, nope joe here is gonna take that one." It makes genestealers a little more sturdy than I had expected. Simply cinematic.

Gifblaur wrote:It's also cinematic when a broodlord tanks for the genestealers until he actually get's wounded and than he's all "Oh, nope joe here is gonna take that one." It makes genestealers a little more sturdy than I had expected. Simply cinematic.

Be careful about that. Broodlord has a different save from Genestealers, so he ends up taking his save AFTER wounds are allocated.

Although I've had Draigo do exactly as you describe for my Paladins plenty of times. It's practically the cornerstone of my entire army.

There are two things i sort of wish that they hadnt changed. Premeasuring and to a lesser degree random charge distance.

Premeasuring lent some tension to the game when you really couldnt tell if you would be able to reach a target with shooting or a charge. Now i guess every charge has some tension assoicated with it, but this random addition seems like one they could have neglected to include.

Fafnir wrote:

Gifblaur wrote:It's also cinematic when a broodlord tanks for the genestealers until he actually get's wounded and than he's all "Oh, nope joe here is gonna take that one." It makes genestealers a little more sturdy than I had expected. Simply cinematic.

Be careful about that. Broodlord has a different save from Genestealers, so he ends up taking his save AFTER wounds are allocated.

Although I've had Draigo do exactly as you describe for my Paladins plenty of times. It's practically the cornerstone of my entire army.

Ah wait. So really Broody only tanks one wound per round of CC? I'm still abit confused about how all of that works and imo the book isn't terribly clear. In shooting my impression is that broody can tank shots until he dies( in essence giving his unit a better save.) So I just carried it over to CC.

And I really and truely hate random charge distances. I know the odds and yadda yadda but I never roll what I need to when I need to. To heck with random charge.

Gifblaur wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

Gifblaur wrote:It's also cinematic when a broodlord tanks for the genestealers until he actually get's wounded and than he's all "Oh, nope joe here is gonna take that one." It makes genestealers a little more sturdy than I had expected. Simply cinematic.

Be careful about that. Broodlord has a different save from Genestealers, so he ends up taking his save AFTER wounds are allocated.

Although I've had Draigo do exactly as you describe for my Paladins plenty of times. It's practically the cornerstone of my entire army.

Ah wait. So really Broody only tanks one wound per round of CC? I'm still abit confused about how all of that works and imo the book isn't terribly clear. In shooting my impression is that broody can tank shots until he dies( in essence giving his unit a better save.) So I just carried it over to CC.

Not quite.

If a wound would allocated to a character (ie, a model with the "Look Out Sir!" rule), they may test to see if you (the model's controlling player) can allocate it freely. Now, the key here is when you actually allocate wounds. If all the models have the same armour save, then you make the saves and then allocate the wounds. But, if the models in a unit have different saves (for example, a brood lord with a 3+ save and his unit of genestealers with a 5+ save), then you must (one at a time) choose to allocate the wounds before they are saved.

So, if the entire unit would be making the same save, then you roll to save and then roll for LOS and allocate.
If the unit contains models that would be making different saves, then you roll to LOS and allocate, and then make any appropriate saves.

So you can't pass on a model's armour save to the rest of its unit.

And I really and truely hate random charge distances. I know the odds and yadda yadda but I never roll what I need to when I need to. To heck with random charge.

Yep. It's robbed me of a few great moments, that's for sure.

Squigsquasher wrote:Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame....

Infinty is perfect.

Really.
I have not played infinity but i have read that the rules are fraught with ambiguity. I also have read that some armies have choices available that can ... when taken together ... create a very tough to beat list. That coupled with the fact that the worst powergamer in our area really really loves the game.

This is not to say that i am not really interested in starting infinity. I downloaded the rules and have been mulling over the purchase of two starter armies in an effort to get my buddies into it. Beyond your statement that infinity is perfect, can you comment on the ambiguity in the rules.?

Nothing really ambiguous has popped up for me so far. The rules are really complex, which can make them somewhat difficult to understand, but most issues concerning ambiguity that I've faced so far end up being remedied by looking closely at the rules.

No ambiguity in the rules so far for me, too. You can follow the quick-start rules for easy, basic rules. And there are the actual rules that handles every ambiguity that I have encountered. And so far I haven't seen any tough to beat list too: this game is more about planning and tactics and knowing your troops abilities rather than getting a crazy list and wiping people on the floor with it.

CT GAMER wrote:So there are MANY other games with TIGHTER, BETTER rules that ALSO convery cinematic/narrative gaming BETTER yet nobody plays them and choose to play 40K instead and so you must likewise suffer to play 40K?

You poor thing.

Hang in there...

IF 40K/GW is as bad as some want to believe then why on earth would you continue? Certainly there are plenty of other hobbie (gaming and othrwise) that you could get more value for your time and money and not feel so 'dirty" for supporting...

As I have pointed out before, there isn't some binding contract between the players and GW that when we purchase a rulebook we suspend our capability to examine and criticize. So please, please will everybody give the "hurr durr, if you don't like it, go play something else" argument a rest. How do you think the INAT FAQ and other tournament rules are created, other than by playing the game and discussing its apparent flaws and limitations?

Moreover, true as "if you don't like it, house rule it" is, the same applies. When the game's rules are being critically discussed, the common ground we have is the rules as written; that's what we discuss. I'm glad you have fun playing narrative games without points values or standard victory conditions (though I doubt the implication that all of the enjoyment you take in that comes from trying to play in a "narrative-appropriate" manner, and none from trying to win a tactical contest, however imbalanced it is), and it's an example of what can be done with the game, but it's not, as you seem to present it, the only (let alone the "right") way to have fun playing the game.

To get back to the OP's question: I'll start to believe that "cinematic" isn't just a buzzword if GW, for instance, start publishing custom scenarios in White Dwarfs and codices, and start balancing codices in such a way that "fluffy" armies aren't vastly inferior to "tournament" armies. Oh, and when they make things more fun (or less annoying) for all their players by testing their rules sufficiently and writing with sufficient clarity that their game doesn't require 100+ pages of fan-written FAQs.

Fafnir wrote:I had a great game today (seriously though, it was a great game, had great fun), but it was quite silly when the charge that my opponent and I built up to between Draigo and his Paladins and Lysander and his boys completely fell apart because neither of us could roll well enough to get a decent charge.

So I just shot Lysander to death.

Cinematic.

And yet, in my games I've had nothing but fun - seriously.

In one particularly memorable one against my friends Dark Eldar, we unintentionally set up a pretty fluffy game using Infinity models as the objectives - humans. That he wanted for slaves, and I wanted to eat. The game was full of nail biting moments. His Scourges landing in my backline with a plethora of targets to kill, choosing badly, and being on the receiving end of a 17" charge (6" movement + 11" charge) from my Carnifex and being butchered. Duke Sliscus, a Wych squad and their Raider having a back and forth fight over an objective with a unit of Gargoyles, a Hive Guard and a pair of Zoanthropes, while my Hive Tyrant took flight, shredded a Hellion squad moving to take a meatsack from my Hormagaunts with its Devourers, winging to the other side of the board to get a lucky Crush against his Succubus, claiming the Warlord kill and immobilising another Raider with a vector strike along the way, then landing in his deployment zone and shredding the last Wych squad holding a captive with its Devourers.

Literally the most fun game of 40k I've had in a long, long time. There was a failed charge, miraculous Deny the Witch saving that rendered my Zoanthropes more useless than usual, ridiculous casualties on both sides (at the end, I had a Hormagaunt squad and my Hive Tyrant, he had Sliscus and a Wych squad), but still, an absolute nail biter for both players. This is what I think of when I hear GW say they emphasize cinematic gameplay. And personally, I think they've succeeded. Other games of 6th have been the same for me and my group.

Which brings up the point that sure, random can work for some people, but in most cases for me, the random elements just lead to me opening up on everything with a full wall of Paladin shooting, because Charging doesn't get me anywhere anymore.

And as much as I appreciate the raw power of Paladin shooting, it gets kind of boring when it's the only thing I use.

Fafnir wrote:Which brings up the point that sure, random can work for some people, but in most cases for me, the random elements just lead to me opening up on everything with a full wall of Paladin shooting, because Charging doesn't get me anywhere anymore.

And as much as I appreciate the raw power of Paladin shooting, it gets kind of boring when it's the only thing I use.

I used to think that to, but after some Ork Nobs pulled off a “What the Heck” 10” Charge against one of my Grey Hunter Packs. It made for a pretty exiting moment in the game. the next game I take my Dread Knight and decided if I could pull off a charge, i.e. if I was within 12”, I would go for it. I never failed a charge and by turn 4 he alone had racked up 9 VPs! The next game I went with the same attitude and had a Jump Pack Assault Squad fail a 3” Charge. It might have even cost me the game, but I decided that after a few games, failed charges is the price to pay for Pre-Measuring and it has made the game more exiting.

Indeed, there are times when you really don't have much else to do you might as well just charge. Who knows, you might get lucky! Also overwatch can sometimes be pretty hilarious depending on luck as well. Sometimes it does less than nothing and other times it kills half the enemy in one go.

Still, I like the game. Alot in fact. But I'm also not playing in tourneys all that often if even at all. Another side effect of the randomness actually tends to be the worse players have more chances against the better players, as is the case between my mate and I. She plays expecting to lose and plays accordingly but you know what? She's won more than half our 6th edition games. That's like 90% better than she did in 5th.(apparently I suck at rolling dice.)

So another good thread RUINED by whiners...

Goddammit im sick of people whining about "how bad the rules are" I really Dont care if you Dont like the rules if you all want balanced rules there's the door: go play Warmahordes, I personally love the new rules to me it seems now more of "here are your rules they are your template go create fun scenarios" I love it all the only thing I would say needs changing is get disallow the warlord traits for SC and that is it.

I was looking at the thread thinking "this seems like an awesome thread" then "oh look MORE whiners that want to butt-hurt all over a cool thread" look if you Dont like the rules Fair enough but please Dont go on threads like these and start ranting why the "rules are so (In your opinion) bad" its boring to see whiners on every thread that I see now about 40K relating to this kind of topics (instead make your own thread and that way you wont have arguments like the one I have read here).

/Rant over

Personally me and some friend down at my FLGS are playing a house rule which is "no SC" because we all liked what we read in the rule book which was "you are the warlord" then we were thinking "so im a daemon... Yes please" my friends were thinking "so we are overlords and captains...Yeah" so we disallowed SC because we were bored seeing the same guy over and over again when we knew SC are only in battles for the most dire of circumstances... and we love this rule

What I want to do next is create a campaign like the one CT GAMER was talking about for my friends in our FLGS because it would be awesome if I can get one together...

40K now is a game more for having fun battles now and that the way I like it...

happygolucky wrote:
Goddammit im sick of people whining about "how bad the rules are" I really Dont care if you Dont like the rules if you all want balanced rules there's the door: go play Warmahordes,

Will you refund the ~$3000 I've spent on this game then? And what will be done about my personal investment and appreciation of the universe created around 40k?

I was looking at the thread thinking "this seems like an awesome thread" then "oh look MORE whiners that want to butt-hurt all over a cool thread" look if you Dont like the rules Fair enough but please Dont go on threads like these and start ranting why the "rules are so (In your opinion) bad" its boring to see whiners on every thread that I see now about 40K relating to this kind of topics (instead make your own thread and that way you wont have arguments like the one I have read here).

I'm sorry, but this is not the Warhammer 40k handjob thread. This is a discussion of what cinematic gaming is, how it applies to 40k 6th edition, and whether it is something done effectively. A considerable amount of people are in disagreement with what "cinematic gaming" is, whether the concept even exists from a design standpoint, and feel that it is just a cheap marketing buzzword by GW. Such arguments are entirely relevant to the thread, its title, and its opening post.

Personally me and some friend down at my FLGS are playing a house rule which is "no SC" because we all liked what we read in the rule book which was "you are the warlord" then we were thinking "so im a daemon... Yes please" my friends were thinking "so we are overlords and captains...Yeah" so we disallowed SC because we were bored seeing the same guy over and over again when we knew SC are only in battles for the most dire of circumstances... and we love this rule

What I want to do next is create a campaign like the one CT GAMER was talking about for my friends in our FLGS because it would be awesome if I can get one together...

40K now is a game more for having fun battles now and that the way I like it...

What I don't understand is how this wasn't possible with the previous ruleset, or with other games.

Fafnir wrote:

happygolucky wrote:
Goddammit im sick of people whining about "how bad the rules are" I really Dont care if you Dont like the rules if you all want balanced rules there's the door: go play Warmahordes,

Will you refund the ~$3000 I've spent on this game then? And what will be done about my personal investment and appreciation of the universe created around 40k?

I was looking at the thread thinking "this seems like an awesome thread" then "oh look MORE whiners that want to butt-hurt all over a cool thread" look if you Dont like the rules Fair enough but please Dont go on threads like these and start ranting why the "rules are so (In your opinion) bad" its boring to see whiners on every thread that I see now about 40K relating to this kind of topics (instead make your own thread and that way you wont have arguments like the one I have read here).

I'm sorry, but this is not the Warhammer 40k handjob thread. This is a discussion of what cinematic gaming is, how it applies to 40k 6th edition, and whether it is something done effectively. A considerable amount of people are in disagreement with what "cinematic gaming" is, whether the concept even exists from a design standpoint, and feel that it is just a cheap marketing buzzword by GW. Such arguments are entirely relevant to the thread, its title, and its opening post.

Personally me and some friend down at my FLGS are playing a house rule which is "no SC" because we all liked what we read in the rule book which was "you are the warlord" then we were thinking "so im a daemon... Yes please" my friends were thinking "so we are overlords and captains...Yeah" so we disallowed SC because we were bored seeing the same guy over and over again when we knew SC are only in battles for the most dire of circumstances... and we love this rule

What I want to do next is create a campaign like the one CT GAMER was talking about for my friends in our FLGS because it would be awesome if I can get one together...

40K now is a game more for having fun battles now and that the way I like it...

What I don't understand is how this wasn't possible with the previous ruleset, or with other games.

A) yes I would to buy more of a different game if I did not like the rules set of the current game I played.

B) The thread as for the title says "cinematic gaming" so as it would seem I was thinking that it would show me more of campaigns and house rules of what people have done. Not more whining.

C) I was trying to get back to topic this was not a thread to debate more of "what do you do to make a game feel more cinematic".

happygolucky wrote:
A) yes I would to buy more of a different game if I did not like the rules set of the current game I played.

As I've said, my ~$3000? Saying to just switch to another game is lofty, when you consider the investment people make into a game like 40k to begin with. Furthermore, I dislike many elements of 6th edition, and see many of them made in poor taste, but that doesn't mean I dislike them in their entirety. If 6th edition was painful to play, I wouldn't play it at all.

B) The thread as for the title says "cinematic gaming" so as it would seem I was thinking that it would show me more of campaigns and house rules of what people have done. Not more whining.

Expressing concerns about a system that we enjoy or have once enjoyed is not whining.

C) I was trying to get back to topic this was not a thread to debate more of "what do you do to make a game feel more cinematic".

And as I've already made my stance, "cinematics" are not something that can be forcefully put into a game, but rather something made by the players.

Fafnir Wrote:

What I don't understand is how this wasn't possible with the previous ruleset, or with other games.

You see that is the Crux of the argument that can't be glaze over with the simple BS that fanbois been throwing out. I agree with you and your comments. I've been running tournaments for 14+ years. From 2nd ed and on. They are successful because of how they were ran which is the current catch phrase that people and GW are using today, "Cinematic gaming". People have been running "Cinematic gaming" for years. No I just do not buy the crap GW and the Fanbois are slinging.

As a previous poster stated they should have used another term instead of these catch phrases. Wording is a key element in how you express a line of thought from one person to another, and in this case bad execution by the designers in general.

Fafnir wrote:

happygolucky wrote:
A) yes I would to buy more of a different game if I did not like the rules set of the current game I played.

As I've said, my ~$3000? Saying to just switch to another game is lofty, when you consider the investment people make into a game like 40k to begin with. Furthermore, I dislike many elements of 6th edition, and see many of them made in poor taste, but that doesn't mean I dislike them in their entirety. If 6th edition was painful to play, I wouldn't play it at all.

B) The thread as for the title says "cinematic gaming" so as it would seem I was thinking that it would show me more of campaigns and house rules of what people have done. Not more whining.

Expressing concerns about a system that we enjoy or have once enjoyed is not whining.

C) I was trying to get back to topic this was not a thread to debate more of "what do you do to make a game feel more cinematic".

And as I've already made my stance, "cinematics" are not something that can be forcefully put into a game, but rather something made by the players.

A) You asked I ansered. I know a friend who has an army which probably costed around £600-£800 (I know thats not a lot compared to $3000 but still that is a lot of money) and now he is selling that army off to buy warmahordes also you see on Ebay people who sell armys that may have the same value or more, so yes I still would...

B) while you may be expressing your concerns it dose sound like you are whineing...

C) it needs to be both you cant have narrative battles without narrative rules look at warmahordes that game is designed to be a GT game with no space for narritivity while 40K is a game that is all narrative but with little space for GT play basicly i isnt the players who make it narrative but it needs to be a co-operation of both something of which GW has done in 6th ed, as it gives you there ruleswhich allow you to do a hell of a lot more than what it did in 5th...

Also if you do not like a rule take it out make house rules, add stuff you want in and ask your opponent if they like that rule or scenario and play it make tottaly new scenarios if you dont like the one in the book, after all the goal of the game is to have fun not to win...

happygolucky wrote:

A) You asked I ansered. I know a friend who has narmy which probably costed around £600-£800 (I know thats not a lot compared to $3000 but still that is a lot of money) and now he is selling that army off to buy warmahordes also you see on Ebay people who sell armys that may have the same value or more, so yes I still would...

While the nature of his investment may be very different. I spend a lot of time converting and scratch building specific, often times very fluff oriented elements of my armies. I couldn't sell many of them for any worthwhile profit.

B) while you may be expressing your concerns it dose sound like you are whineing...

And I could say that you're argument sounds like blind fanwankery, but I don't.

C) it needs to be both you cant have narrative battles without narrative rules look at warmahordes that game is designed to be a GT game with no space for narritivity while 40K is a game that is all narrative but with little space for GT play basicly i isnt the players who make it narrative but it needs to be a co-operation of both something of which GW has done in 6th ed, as it gives you there ruleswhich allow you to do a hell of a lot more than what it did in 5th...

See, this is where I'm going to have to call bs, straight up. Warmahordes may be a game built with a technical and competitive mindset, but it allows just as much narrative play as 40k does. Narrative and cinematics are built around a game, not within it. I can create epic stories with a game like Warmahordes just as much as I can with 40k.

What's more, with Warmahordes strong emphasis on decisive situations and actions, it's potentially more narrative, since the bulk of most Warmahordes games is spent building momentum for a single, climatic moment.

Coincidentally, my experience with 40k has been largely devoid of these epic moments so far. Most of these decisive moments tend to fall apart in my 6th edition experience, since the random elements go against most of my careful plans that would normally lead up to climactic moments. I've spent more time going "Oh, well, that charge isn't going to make it. I guess I'll just shoot you to ribbons next turn anyway." It's much more disconnected, really.l

Cinematic and narrative elements aren't built by the game, but by the stories players take away from it. There's only so many times you can talk about "well, none of us could make that 6 inch charge, so I just shot him instead" while still making it sound interesting.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't play Warmahordes either. I don't care for most of the models (there are some winners in the bunch, but a lot that are undesireable. Furthermore, as much as I appreciate the technical and 'tight' nature of the ruleset and it's writing, I see a lot of unnecessarily convoluted elements in it. These factors make it a game that, while I can admit that there's obviously a degree of quality to it, make it not entirely appealing to me.

Also if you do not like a rule take it out make house rules, add stuff you want in and ask your opponent if they like that rule or scenario and play it make tottaly new scenarios if you dont like the one in the book, after all the goal of the game is to have fun not to win...

I go to my club once every week or so for pick up games that I can play with a standardized ruleset with which I can start a game with a player who I may never have met before, and know that I'll have a standardized ruleset that allows the both of us to enjoy a game with minimal time spent doing the work of the people who are supposed to design a solid ruleset in the first place.

happygolucky wrote:So another good thread RUINED by whiners... [over and over again]

"Whiner" is not a helpful word. It's like "fanboy" in that regard.

If you disagree with the criticisms voiced, why don't you try engaging with them; ideally with arguments more sophisticated than "Well, I'm having fun, go play something else if you want balanced or elegant rules.". I for one don't find 6th edition's added randomness and time-consuming rules in the least "cinematic", and in my critical opinion I have yet to see anything to convince me that all this "forging a narrative" business is anything but window-dressing for a confused and cumbersome set of additions which have done nothing to address 5th edition's principal flaw: poorly-balanced codices. When GW start publishing story-driven scenarios in White Dwarf, and when they balance codices sufficiently that thematic armies are not vastly inferior to tournament armies, then I'll change my opinion.

Fafnir wrote:

happygolucky wrote:

A) You asked I ansered. I know a friend who has narmy which probably costed around £600-£800 (I know thats not a lot compared to $3000 but still that is a lot of money) and now he is selling that army off to buy warmahordes also you see on Ebay people who sell armys that may have the same value or more, so yes I still would...

While the nature of his investment may be very different. I spend a lot of time converting and scratch building specific, often times very fluff oriented elements of my armies. I couldn't sell many of them for any worthwhile profit.

B) while you may be expressing your concerns it dose sound like you are whineing...

And I could say that you're argument sounds like blind fanwankery, but I don't.

C) it needs to be both you cant have narrative battles without narrative rules look at warmahordes that game is designed to be a GT game with no space for narritivity while 40K is a game that is all narrative but with little space for GT play basicly i isnt the players who make it narrative but it needs to be a co-operation of both something of which GW has done in 6th ed, as it gives you there ruleswhich allow you to do a hell of a lot more than what it did in 5th...

See, this is where I'm going to have to call bs, straight up. Warmahordes may be a game built with a technical and competitive mindset, but it allows just as much narrative play as 40k does. Narrative and cinematics are built around a game, not within it. I can create epic stories with a game like Warmahordes just as much as I can with 40k.

What's more, with Warmahordes strong emphasis on decisive situations and actions, it's potentially more narrative, since the bulk of most Warmahordes games is spent building momentum for a single, climatic moment.

Coincidentally, my experience with 40k has been largely devoid of these epic moments so far. Most of these decisive moments tend to fall apart in my 6th edition experience, since the random elements go against most of my careful plans that would normally lead up to climactic moments. I've spent more time going "Oh, well, that charge isn't going to make it. I guess I'll just shoot you to ribbons next turn anyway." It's much more disconnected, really.l

Cinematic and narrative elements aren't built by the game, but by the stories players take away from it. There's only so many times you can talk about "well, none of us could make that 6 inch charge, so I just shot him instead" while still making it sound interesting.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I don't play Warmahordes either. I don't care for most of the models (there are some winners in the bunch, but a lot that are undesireable. Furthermore, as much as I appreciate the technical and 'tight' nature of the ruleset and it's writing, I see a lot of unnecessarily convoluted elements in it. These factors make it a game that, while I can admit that there's obviously a degree of quality to it, make it not entirely appealing to me.

Also if you do not like a rule take it out make house rules, add stuff you want in and ask your opponent if they like that rule or scenario and play it make tottaly new scenarios if you dont like the one in the book, after all the goal of the game is to have fun not to win...

I go to my club once every week or so for pick up games that I can play with a standardized ruleset with which I can start a game with a player who I may never have met before, and know that I'll have a standardized ruleset that allows the both of us to enjoy a game with minimal time spent doing the work of the people who are supposed to design a solid ruleset in the first place.

Look I get what your trying to say: you want a balanced rulebook I get that and who dosnt? What I cant abide by is when people just constantly complain about the rules wanting a better book by tomorrow now I can understand somones opion I mean I live in a democracy therefore we are all entitled to our opinions bit what really gets on my nerves is when every thread I see about the rules (whether it is on topic or not) is people complain about the rules and it gos on and on for 4 pages, I mean that is all I see every time I go on a thread is people complainig about the rules... And what slightly fustrates me is that people dont do anything about it everytime you hear a person complain you never hear what they have done to fix it so that both players are satisfied with the game and forums like these are meant to help you relax about a thing you enjoy games are made to enjoy yourself with not be fustrated with the mechanic so instead of being bitter with the rules do something to fix it if your not happy with them...

happygolucky wrote:
Look I get what your trying to say: you want a balanced rulebook I get that and who dosnt?

I don't mind some slight imbalance. It's impossible to be perfectly balanced. What I don't like is a ruleset that has a multitude of problems, with balance only being one of many. What's more, what I hate most is when they use bs buzzwords in order to try to cover the failings of their ruleset up.

What I cant abide by is when people just constantly complain about the rules wanting a better book by tomorrow

Actually, I want a better rulebook on June 23rd, 2012.

what really gets on my nerves is when every thread I see about the rules (whether it is on topic or not) is people complain about the rules and it gos on and on for 4 pages, I mean that is all I see every time I go on a thread is people complainig about the rules...

That might be indicative of something about the ruleset. As long time customers and potential customers in the future, we're stakeholders in GW and its properties. It's only natural to express concern when something looks to be awry.

And what slightly fustrates me is that people dont do anything about it everytime you hear a person complain you never hear what they have done to fix it so that both players are satisfied with the game and forums like these are meant to help you relax about a thing you enjoy games are made to enjoy yourself with not be fustrated with the mechanic so instead of being bitter with the rules do something to fix it if your not happy with them...

Contrary to popular belief, and to what GW would like to happen (evident of their old forums), forums are not just for mindless fan-pander. It's about discussion, viewpoints, and opinions, even conflicting ones. That's what a dialogue is all about.

As for fixing the game itself, that's not my job. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to even be the job of the people working at GW, as it's evident that the motion of codex creep and the constant (although at times, ineffectual, as the future continued dominance of mechanized guard armies will demonstrate) shift in balance is done more in mind of selling new and previously unwanted models.
As I've said, when I play 40k, I'm looking for a standardized system that I can play and enjoy with anyone. A major reason why I do play it is its popularity, since I know I can get a game. I am writing a ruleset for Inquisimunda to play with my friends (which itself will be very narrative focused, but, as I've established in previous posts, moreso in the narratives told around games than through any attempt to force them into the rules themselves), but such a ruleset will only work with so many people in a very small group.

40k needs to scrap its rulebook, and apply those of AT43

Blood and Slaughter wrote:

you need to take Fast Attack and Heavy Support because 1/3 of the games will require them to win

That's not actually true. In Scouring, FA become scoring; in Big Guns, HS do. You can still win either without having those slots filled. And there's also a potential penalty in those games for taking FA or HS insofar as they give away VPs when destroyed.

I do agree though that most (certainly not all though) of the random elements add tactical depth (though removing a level of control that some people falsely equate to allowing tactical depth).

Why not randomise every movement and gun range then? There has to be a line somewhere for random elements and I'm quite positive random charge is behind it.

Fafnir wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

As I've said, there are many games with tighter, better written rulesets that convey a much stronger element of 'cinematics'

If gamers are as spoiled for chices as you suggest then why the need to rage about 40K

People can simply choose one of these many games you describe and play it instead. Problem solved.

Of course some people have an axe to grind or feel the need to troll with all that time they could be spending playing one of those many tighter games...

Perhaps I still play 40k because I've invested well over $3000 in my 40k collection?

Or perhaps I still play 40k because, despite all the rules issues and poor practices of the company, I still enjoy (for the most part) the universe that they've created, and the models they make.

Or perhaps I still play 40k because it's one of the rulesets that everyone and their dog plays, so I know I can get a game even in the smaller communities.

Furthermore, it's not as if I don't play better written games. And I'm certainly not trolling if I hold GW, a multi-million dollar corportation, up to its contemporaries. I want 40k to be a good game, because despite all its glaring flaws, I do enjoy it, and I'd like to enjoy it as much as I can.

No one here hates GW or 40k. They just hate the way that GW treats them as a fanbase.

Exactly. 1000$+ equivalent spent here but that's the only difference and still a lot for me.

Fafnir wrote:Read the god damn post. I enjoy the universe that GW has created (especially the Inquisition). I do enjoy some aspects of their games (almost as many as I deride). I enjoy many of their models.But that doesn't mean I'm going to fanwank all over them for doing a sub par job.Despite all the franchise's problems there's a lot there of redeemable quality, even if you have to dig through the rubble of poor business decisions and sloppy product design for it.

Yep. That's why it is still worth to bother and post about 40k instead of not giving a crap anymore.

sennacherib wrote:Right off let me point out that a lot of modern warfare in the real world takes place in an environment that is constantly shifting and changing. Weather, and battlefield conditions are not static. In the real world you can choose where your opponent within reason, but they are making the same choices. Where you choose to confront your foe, they may fall back and attack later at their convenience. Modern warfare is conducted under the sembalence of control but it is far from the controlled affair that some people would choose to promote. Therefor i support the move to include random battlefield effects.

Does not apply at all. 40k is not modern warfare and Swarmlord is not going to trip over a rock or hesitate about charging resulting in 2" instead of his usual distance. Same time real world battlefield is in some ways more predictable than 40k ruleset, like weather forecast, terrain research including forests, general abilities etc. It's a bad excuse for GW out of the ass ideas for rules imo

sennacherib wrote:i agree entirely.
The upset crowd is currently a small minority here if you take the sampling given by the poll i posted in the discussion forum.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/467703.page
Currently 70% of gamers feel that 6th ed is an improvement to 13% who feel its a step down.

... in a poll where the only really negative option about 6th edition is "I hate it" and below 200 people voted. I did some proper poll research in my study time also a few proffesional ones and it takes 50 pages of methodology, sample characterisation, questions pre-testing and a much more people voting to even start an adequate poll research. Your poll is meaningless.

Squigsquasher wrote:Is 6th Edition perfect? No. But then neither is Warmahordes, Infinity, Flames of War or any other wargame. I present you with the Tyranid philosophy...

Adapt or die.

Yes I will. Buying used stuff instead of new models, probably staying with 5th edition so not buying new codieces, bashing the new ruleset as another mediocore one deserving it etc. Good point btw for accepting every crap the lazy company throws at you.