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.

Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

In the BL book about necron and SoB their flyers are common as hell and inside the necron tomb there are not only zounds of necron scyths , but also monoliths of various shapes and sizes. Besides the night scyth is the transport choice for necron . One may as well say that rhinos shouldn't be used too offten , because the space marines are old ones and very rare too.

But, fluffy lists are better than WAAC lists, because they have a connection to something in the game

What part of leaf blower in 5th or eldar lists that dominate nowadays isn't fluffy ? and from what I remember both of those were and are still called WAAC . Same with multi vendettas with vets , or demon armies .

Makumba wrote:

Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

In the BL book about necron and SoB their flyers are common as hell and inside the necron tomb there are not only zounds of necron scyths , but also monoliths of various shapes and sizes. Besides the night scyth is the transport choice for necron . One may as well say that rhinos shouldn't be used too offten , because the space marines are old ones and very rare too.

But, fluffy lists are better than WAAC lists, because they have a connection to something in the game

What part of leaf blower in 5th or eldar lists that dominate nowadays isn't fluffy ? and from what I remember both of those were and are still called WAAC . Same with multi vendettas with vets , or demon armies .

Haven't read that book yet, and as such I am willing to stand partially corrected.

As to Eldar lists, from everything I have heard, the dominant Eldar list is Taudar. I'm not sure what's so monumentally fluffy about Taudar.

*points to BL Guard novels* Show me the leafblower.

As to Vendetta Vets, that's not a terribly unfluffy list. I would probably take Valkyries, but that's just me.

Daemons can be made fluffy. I built a Tzeentch list at one point where all of the unit counts were focused around being multiples of nine, or adding up to nine, or actually being nine, etc. To the point that I took 54 Horrors, because it was 3 units of 18, which is 3 units of (1+8), totaling (5+4) models, with 18 being 3x6, with 3+6 being nine, and 6 being 3x2, which 3^2 is 9... Everything was nine. And it could smack the piss out of you if it got lucky in the shooting phase. Now, I'll admit it had to get lucky, but it was a fluffy as hell list, and it was fun as anything to play.

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

What could possibly be "unfluffy" about someone wanting to field a Necron airforce? What on Earth suggests that Necrons don't have squadrons of flyers? For that matter, what is unfluffy about the JetSeer? A Warlock Council is an elder fluff thing. They're renowned for their psykers and there's nothing unfluffy about an Eldar player wanting an elite group of Warlocks led by a Farseer. They may well just read the fluff for that and think it's cool. And yet it becomes virtually game-breaking.

There is no universal choice between fluffy and competitive. They are simply two different dimensions that sometimes overlap.

knas ser wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

What could possibly be "unfluffy" about someone wanting to field a Necron airforce? What on Earth suggests that Necrons don't have squadrons of flyers? For that matter, what is unfluffy about the JetSeer? A Warlock Council is an elder fluff thing. They're renowned for their psykers and there's nothing unfluffy about an Eldar player wanting an elite group of Warlocks led by a Farseer. They may well just read the fluff for that and think it's cool. And yet it becomes virtually game-breaking.

There is no universal choice between fluffy and competitive. They are simply two different dimensions that sometimes overlap.

Well, given that the traditional Necron army is footslogging, and we only see heavy use of flyers in one instance I've been made aware of...

My point is that if you're going to take a list, don't take a list because it's "the competitive necron list". Take it because it's interesting. Have a story. Be original. Don't be that guy with the flying circus, or three riptides, or a dozen helturkeys, or whatever other nonsense you want to do. Have a reason for every unit you have to be in your list, don't jsut go "These are the units that do the best killing. List built." It's boring to play against, and it''s uninspiring. If someone sets down four Heldrakes, I know everything I need to know about them, and I'm just going to walk away and find someone interested in playing a game, not winning at any cost.

I'd imagine more or less what we talk about now.

MIni MIehm wrote:

knas ser wrote:

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

What could possibly be "unfluffy" about someone wanting to field a Necron airforce? What on Earth suggests that Necrons don't have squadrons of flyers? For that matter, what is unfluffy about the JetSeer? A Warlock Council is an elder fluff thing. They're renowned for their psykers and there's nothing unfluffy about an Eldar player wanting an elite group of Warlocks led by a Farseer. They may well just read the fluff for that and think it's cool. And yet it becomes virtually game-breaking.

There is no universal choice between fluffy and competitive. They are simply two different dimensions that sometimes overlap.

Well, given that the traditional Necron army is footslogging, and we only see heavy use of flyers in one instance I've been made aware of...

My point is that if you're going to take a list, don't take a list because it's "the competitive necron list". Take it because it's interesting. Have a story. Be original. Don't be that guy with the flying circus, or three riptides, or a dozen helturkeys, or whatever other nonsense you want to do. Have a reason for every unit you have to be in your list, don't jsut go "These are the units that do the best killing. List built." It's boring to play against, and it''s uninspiring. If someone sets down four Heldrakes, I know everything I need to know about them, and I'm just going to walk away and find someone interested in playing a game, not winning at any cost.

Then it sucks to be a poor kid who thinks Heldrakes or a Revenant TItan are just really cool and suddenly finds people say they "know all they need to know about them" and no-one will play with them. Why are you against us wanting to avoid such situations?

And yeah - I still don't see anything unfluffy about a Necron strike force of flyers. Sounds great in the fluff to me. You skipped over the fact that a Seer Council is very fluffy as well. And the TItan. And for someone who loves heavy armour to build a heavily mechanized IG force (can't say that's not fluffy - it's one of the things they're legendary for). And on and on... Face it - you're just flat out wrong to say that an overpowered force cannot also be very fluffy.

What's unfluffy is when a chaos player brings out his Word Bearers army which consists of nothing but plague marines and helldrakes and maybe an oblit or two. That's when it gets pants.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Yes. Since you are both attending a tournament, your expectations clearly align.

That might not always be the case outside a tournament, so it makes sense to take a minute (or less) before the game to make sure you have a similar "alignment of expectations" outside the tournament framework in order to re-create the same kind of mutual enjoyment.

It's not rocket-science, no?

Would you like us to get married before we play as well?

MIni MIehm wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
The thing is, a fluffy army isn't necessary an uncompetitive one. And in some cases, fluffy armies can be the most abusive. You won't find anyone sensible who would say that a Necron flying circus wasn't fluffy. But it sure was abusive as hell.
Neither could you call an Imperial Guard leafblower unfluffy. Or a mechanized Space Marine army (back in the day). Paladinstars were about as close to the oldschool Grey Knight fluff as the new GK codex could allow.

"Fluff" isn't a sudden excuse to run a poor list. Likewise, it's not justifiable to take offense at someone's competitive list for supposedly being 'unfluffy.' Abusive lists don't come from divergence from the fluff, abusive lists come from poor game design on GW's part. And who are you to take offense at someone who's running a list, overpowered as it may be, that might fit in with the fluff that someone likes? And no matter how fluffy you want to be, in a game that's so unbalanced as 40k, a metagame will develop so long as players even attempt to not lose, and it will always revolve around the most dominant armies, fluffy or not.

I would be willing to say that the Flying Circus is unfluffy. Unless I'm missing something(and I may be), the only fluff we have that's associated with Newcrons beyond the codices is Fall of Damnos. Incredibly heavy use of flyers isn't something I recall from any Codex where Necrons are mentioned, or from Fall. Just because you CAN take ALL THE FLYERS! doesn't mean that it's something that Necrons regularly do, or even EVER do.

So you're saying that the Necrons would not partake in an campaign that contained an attempt at air superiority (when they have established THE reputation for it, see Battlefleet Gothic)? Just because something isn't explicitly outlined in a horribly written codex doesn't mean it's not fluffy. You can only sum up so much of an entire fictional race's history and battle tactics in 100 overpriced pages.

It only makes sense to run an air force such as the flying circus would be, even in fluff terms. And the Necrons are nothing if not pragmatic.

That being said, not all fluffy lists are bad. Not all fluffy lists are good. But, fluffy lists are better than WAAC lists, because they have a connection to something in the game.

First of all, I'm glad you enjoy the game for a specific reason. But that does not make your method of enjoyment inherently more valid than any other. What's more, the statement that they "have a connection to something in the game" is asinine. What connection? A list built to win has as much 'connection to the game' as a list built around the fluff written around it.
Hell, when you consider just how far from the fluff the rules are divorced (just look at the basic marine statline), and that statement sounds even sillier.

 Fafnir wrote:


Would you like us to get married before we play as well?

No. Only the most basic of social skills are required.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:


Would you like us to get married before we play as well?

No. Only the most basic of social skills are required.

I don't know. Having some poor kid turn up with their army and telling them they have to remove models any models I don't approve of or they can't play without making myself appear to be a complete arsehole, I think would take some quite adroit social skills. But that's because I am very polite and think it rude to tell someone else what they can and cannot choose from actual published books.

Anyway, we've once again returned to Zw's favourite and flawed premise - that if the game causes problems, it's an inadequacy on our part that is the issue because we should all be able to resolve everything with "social skills". Really Zw - it's transparent to all that the reason you keep coming back to this is because trying to put the blame on the players is the only defense you have against flaws in the rules.

knas ser wrote:


I don't know. Having some poor kid turn up with their army and telling them they have to remove models any models I don't approve of or they can't play without making myself appear to be a complete arsehole, I think would take some quite adroit social skills. But that's because I am very polite and think it rude to tell someone else what they can and cannot choose from actual published books.

Then don't do it. Who's forcing you to be rude against your own desire?

And nobody is asking you to resolve any flaws in the game by talking beforehand. Games Workshop is asking you to resolve different expectations, which might spoil the game between two strangers who go into it expecting different things.

The great variety of players and the incredible richness of the hobby is not a "flaw", it's the very thing that makes this hobby great.

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


I don't know. Having some poor kid turn up with their army and telling them they have to remove models any models I don't approve of or they can't play without making myself appear to be a complete arsehole, I think would take some quite adroit social skills. But that's because I am very polite and think it rude to tell someone else what they can and cannot choose from actual published books.

Then don't do it. Who's forcing you to be rude against your own desire?

Well a few posts above what I wrote, MIni MIehm said they will walk away from a player who brings certain things because "they know all they need to know about them" and you yourself keep advocating players saying what they will and wont play against as a means of resolving balance problems. In fact, solving balance problems through pre-game negotiation is pretty much your core argument. Well this is what it looks like in practice: someone turns up with something perfectly allowable by the rules and army lists, and you say don't use that if you want a game. That's the reality of it however many times you dress it up as "lacking social skills" on the part of any of us if we don't like holding whether or not the game happens hostage until the opponent is only using models we would like them to use.

 Zweischneid wrote:
And nobody is asking you to resolve any flaws in the game by talking beforehand

Again, that's pretty much your entire schtick - to tell anyone complaining about rules or balance that they shouldn't be concerned about them because it's all resolvable by pre-game negotiation. All that's happened is I stripped away the abstract nature of what you've been arguing and showed you how it commonly plays out in practice when you meet a stranger at a store and fancy a quick game. And now you have to pretend that this doesn't match what you've actually been saying to do.

 Zweischneid wrote:
The great variety of players and the incredible richness of the hobby is not a "flaw

Well there's enough straw there to put Edward Woodward inside it and set light to him. No-one is arguing that they want fewer players or less variance amongst them and you have yet to remotely convince that better rules and better balance will result in such. In fact, it's the other way around.

knas ser wrote:
Well this is what it looks like in practice: someone turns up with something perfectly allowable by the rules and army lists, and you say don't use that if you want a game. That's the reality of it however many times you dress it up as "lacking social skills" on the part of any of us if we don't like holding whether or not the game happens hostage until the opponent is only using models we would like them to use.

It's a possible (if sub-optimal) outcome. Yes.

All in all, it's not necessarily worse (or less rude) than wasting 2-4 hours of an afternoon playing against something you don't enjoy playing, legal or not (unpainted miniatures, Forge World, "power-lists", stupid proxy-miniatures, etc..).

Either way, in all cases, if no consensus can be found, it is preferable that people find out that they don't "match" before they start playing the game, giving everyone the time to do something more enjoyable instead, than either party having to sit through several hours of a game they don't enjoy and walk away frustrated after the fact, no?

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:
Well this is what it looks like in practice: someone turns up with something perfectly allowable by the rules and army lists, and you say don't use that if you want a game. That's the reality of it however many times you dress it up as "lacking social skills" on the part of any of us if we don't like holding whether or not the game happens hostage until the opponent is only using models we would like them to use.

It's a possible (if sub-optimal) outcome. Yes.

A grudging concession. Thank you.

 Zweischneid wrote:

All in all, it's not necessarily worse (or less rude) than wasting 2-4 hours of an afternoon playing against something you don't enjoy playing, legal or not

No, it's not necessarily worse than that. But this is a false dichotomy. The question isn't whether having to tell an opponent not to use models they'd like to use is worse than keeping quiet and playing against those models. The question is whether either is worse than not being put in that position in the first place. To which the answer of course is 'yes - they're both inferior to not having the problem in the first place'.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Either way, in all cases, if no consensus can be found, it is preferable that people find out that they don't "match" before they start playing the game, giving everyone the time to do something more enjoyable instead, than either party having to sit through several hours of a game they don't enjoy and walk away frustrated after the fact, no?

See above - false dichotomy. The Either / Or you propose only comes about under the scenario in which your argument is correct - that poor rules and bad balance are necessary. If we don't assume that then we don't arrive at having to make the above forced choice.

knas ser wrote:


No, it's not necessarily worse than that. But this is a false dichotomy. The question isn't whether having to tell an opponent not to use models they'd like to use is worse than keeping quiet and playing against those models. The question is whether either is worse than not being put in that position in the first place. To which the answer of course is 'yes - they're both inferior to not having the problem in the first place'.

No. Because "having put in that position" costs you nothing and will change nothing if both players will enjoy the game.

If you one player would not have enjoyed the game, but would have suffered through it, "having been in that position" to say "no, sorry", is an improvement for both.

That is why creating this "position", as you call it, is a win-win situation for everyone and everybody at all times, with the sole exception of those who want to win at the detriment of their opponent's enjoyment.

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


No, it's not necessarily worse than that. But this is a false dichotomy. The question isn't whether having to tell an opponent not to use models they'd like to use is worse than keeping quiet and playing against those models. The question is whether either is worse than not being put in that position in the first place. To which the answer of course is 'yes - they're both inferior to not having the problem in the first place'.

No. Because "having put in that position" costs you nothing and will change nothing if both players will enjoy the game.

If you one player would not have enjoyed the game, but would have suffered through it, "having been in that position" to say "no, sorry", is an improvement for both.

That is why creating this "position", as you call it, is a win-win situation for everyone and everybody at all times, with the sole exception of those who want to win at the detriment of their opponent's enjoyment.

Ah, the Chewbacca Defense...

It's a possible (if sub-optimal) outcome. Yes.

All in all, it's not necessarily worse (or less rude) than wasting 2-4 hours of an afternoon playing against something you don't enjoy playing, legal or not (unpainted miniatures, Forge World, "power-lists", stupid proxy-miniatures, etc..).

Because if you came to a shop you wasted 2 hours getting there anyway and it is not like there are people walking around shops with armies ready to play. Also out the two people who reserved the table who gets it ? then one who finds an opponent first , maybe dudes from another system that are waiting in line have the dibs on an unused table etc

If someone is stupid enought to buy FW stuff and expect people to let him use it , specialy of the eldar titan type . Then he has to learn that stupidy hurts on his own .

 -Loki- wrote:

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

Emphasis mine. Your primary interest is list building. Other people have primary interests in painting, modelling, converting, fluff and also actually playing the game.

If the game goes super casual and list building becomes less important, your primary interest will diminish. Your mistake is thinking your primary interest is everyones primary interest.

Agreed with Loki.

I find building random lists that I never intend to field fun from time to time, but I'd much rather build and paint.

How much of this web site is devoted to painting and building?

At least half or more of it is devoted to tactics and lists....

 Zweischneid wrote:
No. By reading just the first 2-3 pages in the rulebook, you learn that it is a cooperative game.

"At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible."

That is the overriding goal of the game. It just happens to be a cooperative game that is "themed" around a confrontational warfare in a fictional universe.

If I were to punch you in the face, that, at its heart, would be a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists too.

Doubt you'd be having much fun.

While I'm sure that would fail on the "enjoyable and fulfilling" clause of that statement from your side, that is an assumption on my part, you might enjoy getting punched in the face. Either way, if I'm allowed to punch you in the face, whether you enjoy it or not, because the framework allows me to, then that framework has failed.

The game being more competitive does not penalize casual gamers in any way. So saying "if 40k got more casual, then haha, competitive players, sucks to be you!" shows what a douchebag sentiment this is.

If the game got BETTER for competitive play, it could STILL be played casually, and a tighter and more balanced rules system does not detract from casual play whatsoever. If anything it improves it. And for everything else, casual gamers still have the houserules and custom modifications that have been hallmark to beer and pretzels 40k.

So I have to ask, why deny one party what they want and need at no expense to yourself? That's called being an donkey-cave.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
The game being more competitive does not penalize casual gamers in any way. So saying "if 40k got more casual, then haha, competitive players, sucks to be you!" shows what a douchebag sentiment this is.

What gets me is those posters that, realizing it makes them sound like jerks, attempt to create post-fact rationales why improving the game rules and balance would cause problems for casual gamers - none of which stands up to any examination and the most extreme of which being that people should be able to use any models they like at any time and thus a ruleset is 'restrictive'. A jerk attitude of the highest order and ultimately a damaging one for the hobby and well-being of GW as the attitude would (and no doubt does) drive away those that like to play competitively.

Could the game be better?

Sure. Every game could be better.

But for me (and a lot of other people), Warhammer 40K is the best game out there, and has been getting even better over the last few months. Of all the miniature games in existence, Warhammer 40K is the "least in need" of "getting better", as all the others are relatively worse.

If you want to test your magic "this-makes-any-game-better-without-hurting-anyone"-formula, try it on some other game. Certainly, Warmachine, Infinity, Malifaux, etc.. are all infinitely less enjoyable than Warhammer 40K. These games need your miracle-solution a lot more than Warhammer 40K does.

I am sorry you don't like the direction it is taking, but that doesn't make that direction bad or a mistake.

Who is "driving away" people from the game? The person trying to show people the upside of this fantastic game, the best miniatures game in the world and the best iteration of Warhammer 40K that ever existed, or the whiners who keep trying to convince GW's happy customers that the thing they enjoy is supposedly gak, just because one or two "competitive types" don't like it and try to drag everyone down with them into their jaded nerd-rage?

Again, it's your god-given right to not like the game. If that is the case, leave it to the people that do like it. Why are you trying so hard to destroy a good thing for people who enjoy it?

 Zweischneid wrote:

Who is "driving away" people from the game?

 Zweischneid wrote:

leave it to the people that do like it.

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Who is "driving away" people from the game?

 Zweischneid wrote:

leave it to the people that do like it.

Well, I tried very hard to convince you of the positives. To no avail, it seems. I'd still prefer if you'd come around and enjoy 40K for what it is. But you seem dead-set to bite off the nose just to spite the face.

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Who is "driving away" people from the game?

 Zweischneid wrote:

leave it to the people that do like it.

Well, I tried very hard to convince you of the positives. To no avail, it seems.

I was just pointing out that all of us here arguing for better rules and balance are doing so because we believe it is inclusive and stops a large segment of players being put off or having a less enjoyable experience, whilst in the very same post that you demand to know who is driving away players, you express the attitude that those who don't like it how it is should "leave". Kind of answers your own question, imho.

Not 100% certain how your reply relates to that but no, you haven't generally tried to convince anyone of "positives", you've only argued why the negatives we highlight are not a concern to "people with basic social skills" or argued that there are negatives to improving the rules and balance without ever building a supportable case for that unlikely position.

As far as "positives", all you've ever done is talk vaguely about narrative battles and agreeing with your opponent to use non-standard lists, Well I can do all that just as easily with a good rules system and better balance as I can with the current system. Better in fact.

Things are getting a little heated here. Relax yall.

Me, when I play with strangers, I act more competitively. But when I play with friends or family we do house rules and make a story up as we go along. Very non-competative. If a rule gets in the way of fun, we toss it. But if I'm at a store playing a pick up game, then that doesn't fly. Try to be friendly and professional and above all have fun.

knas ser wrote:


I was just pointing out that all of us here arguing for better rules and balance are doing so because we believe it is inclusive and stops a large segment of players being put off or having a less enjoyable experience, whilst in the very same post that you demand to know who is driving away players, you express the attitude that those who don't like it how it is should "leave". Kind of answers your own question, imho.

And it was a good catch. Put it down to my bewilderment how somebody could spend so much effort and energies to badmouth something good and enjoyable. It was a personal reaction. If I'd be so dissatisfied with something, anything, I'd personally would walk away. It was not a "logically coherent argument", admittedly.

knas ser wrote:

Not 100% certain how your reply relates to that but no, you haven't generally tried to convince anyone of "positives", you've only argued why the negatives we highlight are not a concern to "people with basic social skills" or argued that there are negatives to improving the rules and balance without ever building a supportable case for that unlikely position.

Different argument, but yeah. Anybody who thinks that spending a minute to ensure/improve your fellow-hobbyist's enjoyment is a "bad thing" has some issues going on.

knas ser wrote:

As far as "positives", all you've ever done is talk vaguely about narrative battles and agreeing with your opponent to use non-standard lists, Well I can do all that just as easily with a good rules system and better balance as I can with the current system. Better in fact.

 Zweischneid wrote:
.

But for me (and a lot of other people), Warhammer 40K is the best game out there, and has been getting even better over the last few months. Of all the miniature games in existence, Warhammer 40K is the "least in need" of "getting better", as all the others are relatively worse.

Opinion. You're fully entitled to yours, but Plenty folks will happily disagree with you that other games are 'relatively worse'. I pointed out previously a whole slew of flaws in the actual in game mechanics of the game of 40k. I don't face these issues in other games. So the argument that other games are relatively worse is seriously flawed to begin with.

 Zweischneid wrote:
.

If you want to test your magic "this-makes-any-game-better-without-hurting-anyone"-formula, try it on some other game. Certainly, Warmachine, Infinity, Malifaux, etc.. are all infinitely less enjoyable than Warhammer 40K. These games need your miracle-solution a lot more than Warhammer 40K does.

Certainly? Really?Are they? By what objective analysis? I, and many others find warmachine, infinity, flames of war etc infinitely more enjoyable than 40k. It's why I've seen whole gaming scenes in Ireland and Scotland drop 40k like a rock and move on. 'Miracle solution' indeed.... Whether it's straight up competitive, or (gasp!) narratives, I can have fun with any if these games. Just none of the issues with sloppy rules or poor balance that plague 40k.

Please, don't confuse 'opinion' with what you're stating as fact.

At the end if the day,

 Zweischneid wrote:
.

I am sorry you don't like the direction it is taking, but that doesn't make that direction bad or a mistake.

Arguable. If it doesn't benefit me, it's hardly practical for me to think the direction is good. this is entirely subjective though.

 Zweischneid wrote:
.
Who is "driving away" people from the game? The person trying to show people the upside of this fantastic game, the best miniatures game in the world and the best iteration of Warhammer 40K that ever existed, or the whiners who keep trying to convince GW's happy customers that the thing they enjoy is supposedly gak, just because one or two "competitive types" don't like it and try to drag everyone down with them into their jaded nerd-rage?

What is driving people away? Lots of varied reasons.

Take me. Easy. Two Main reasons.

Shocking levels if balance, and utter contempt for playtesting and proofreading. Very much hurts the game as a whole.
clunky, counter intuitive, bloated, excessive and badly thought through game mechanics. Fundamentally this is my problem with the 'game' of 40k. I just can't view it's OS as anything less than rubbish.

The 'whiners' pointing out flaws? Yeah, heaven forbid people point and discuss some of the glaring issues in the game. And it's far more than one or two competitive types, bud. Folks on all sides of the spectrum have pointed out and discussed these issues. Don't lay it at the doorstep of folks you don't like. the Objective analysis. Enjoy it all you want, but after playing warmachine and infinity, no one on gods green earth will be convincing me that 40ks mechanics are anything other than shoddy.

And funnily enough, I play great narrative games with infinity and flames of war

 Zweischneid wrote:
.
Again, it's your god-given right to not like the game. If that is the case, leave it to the people that do like it. Why are you trying so hard to destroy a good thing for people who enjoy it?

We're not seeking to destroy it. All I want is less of the issues that plague 40k - see my previous post, and better, more fundamentally sound game mechanics and balance. Thus won't hurt your games either bud.

@Zweischneid
Lets see.
'At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between two fellow hobbyists - and it should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible.'

Is a simple modification of the definition 'what a good two player game should be.'

'At its heart ANY TWO PLAYER GAME is a shared experience between two PLAYERS , and should be as enjoyable and fulfilling for both players as possible.'

So we can agree 40k is a game.

We can also see it is a competitive game .

We can also see the 40k 6th ed rules are NOT well defined ,and are poorly written and implemented.(Compared to other games.)

The fact you CAN spend time trying to fix a car crash of a rule set to get some sort of enjoyable experience at the end of it.And may even enjoy this process.

Does NOT mean every other gamer out there is happy to do this.When other rule sets tend to deliver much better rules in terms of clarity brevity and elegance.