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.

OgreChubbs wrote:
All GW has to do is

1: Make everything 1/4 the price
2: give you the rules for free
3: Don't complain when people use their competitors models in their store
4: Make constant updates with out changing any rules or adding more
5: Change and update models While keeping the old ones

Then most people online would be happy for a while.

See, now this is a very typical white knight response (please note, I'm characterising the post, not the user, as white knight-ish, before anyone gets offended.)

Employing redactum ad absurdum to try and undermine what are, generally fairly valid complaints.

1. Nobody is seriously advocating a 75% price cut, in fact, few people argue for much of a price cut, more often, it is about poor value than excessive price, which are related but not the same.

2. The rules are probably too much money as they are now, many people cite the price of rules rather than models as a reason to stop playing when an update occurs, and it isn't like other companies don't function perfectly well while giving their rules away for nothing, is it?

3. This is a totally reasonable, who in earth is complaining they can't use third party products in GW stores?

4. Why is requesting timely updates to ensure under or over powered units or unintended consequences are addressed a bad thing? Surely making sure all units are equally viable in game (and therefore a valid purchase) isn't a problem?

5. This would actually be possible with many models, just establish a "Legacy" range, charge a small premium to cover the extra time investment and cast to order. Besides, GW seldom change or update models now, unless it is to switch to plastic, which is something they're doing for themselves as much as the customer, because it is a much lower risk to release a new kit nobody has than redesign a kit and risk people not liking it and sticking with their old version. Personally, I think it shows a lack of confidence in the studio and it's ability to produce quality sculpts as much as it shows an aversion to the financial risk.

It's true - only white knights could make a joke...

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
It's true - only white knights could make a joke...

I think that was more sarcasm than a "joke" (it was done in what appears to be a condescending manner), and he's right - that sarcasm is the typical anti-anti-GW sentiment, oh just let them give everything away for free and it'll make things better.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
It's true - only white knights could make a joke...

I think that was more sarcasm than a "joke" (it was done in what appears to be a condescending manner), and he's right - that sarcasm is the typical anti-anti-GW sentiment, oh just let them give everything away for free and it'll make things better.

Right, I don't think Reductio ad absurdum really qualifies as a joke. It was just meant to say all complaints are invalid.

ahzek wrote:
Agreed, there is too much negativity.
Gw have done plenty that is worthy of criticism, but really their biggest mistake is their poor communication, it's allowed the 'fans' to become a vocal cesspit of negativity.
They also seem convinced the internet isn't a big deal, which has allowed negative opinion to spread

The negativity has come from people who are unhappy with GW because of their poor rules, inflating prices and bad communication with the community.

I like how you put the word fans in quotation marks. As if to imply we somehow care less about the hobby because we're unhappy with GW. Classy. If we didn't care about the hobby why would bother complain? Its BECAUSE we care we complain. I wasn't aware things got fixed by just sitting about silently waiting for stuff to happen.

Also, negativity hasn't apread because GW doesn't engage the community, it spread because GW make stupid, stupid decisions and upset a lot of people.

Perhaps the positivity people could come up with some argument other than that there is too much negativity.

The pace was too slow before, but then it was too fast.
That's not my complaint. It was WHAT they were releasing.
Black Legion? Crimson Slaughter? Who asked for those? It's like they're avoiding putting out the supplements that would add more variety to the game.
And Sisters of Battle. All they got was a Digital only dex with no new units or a single new model. My favorite faction gets the bare minimum just to say "they haven't been squatted." It was one of my reasons for leaving I listed in the letter I sent to GW.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Balanced rules are objectively possible, but what exactly they would consist of is, I think, something the entire human race has not figured out yet throughout the entire history of games development.

infinity is balanced , warmachine too.

No, they're not. They're more complex (in a good way) and, because of that, the interactions on the table have a higher weight on the outcome relative to the discrepancies in raw model cost/effectiveness, which are actually every bit as bad and obvious as in 40k. I've not met anyone in person who hasn't had this same realization (after a few years of hardcore PP or CB fandom, usually).

You do realize that you've just found a very convoluted way to contradict yourself, right?

If the interactions on the table (i.e. the tactical decisions of each player), have a higher weight on the outcome relative to the discrepancies in raw power of each model (i.e. the list choices), then you've just described a balanced game!

And since this is definitively NOT the case with 40k, where there are arguably models that no matter the tactical prowess of each player will always be more powerful or less powerful than other models, then this makes 40k much more unbalanced than Warmahordes...

No one is arguing for a perfectly balanced game, because that is virtually impossible to achieve, what we are arguing for is a game were, given a decent amount of thought put into your list building (because list building is also fun), no matter what models you choose, its the decisions that you make during the game that will decide the victor and THAT is definitively true in both Warmahordes and Infinity.

The problem is GW have no fething idea how their own game works nor what their customers actually want. So often they'll do something that appears to be what the community wanted, until you realise they've actually done it in such a way that to completely feth up the reason we wanted it in the first place.

People aren't being unfair to GW, GW are being moronic with their changes.

I wanted a faster release cycle in the context of smaller incremental changes that actually help balance and being small fast changes, you aren't left with codices that are horribly unbalanced.

So what do GW do? They implement faster release cycles, but are totally incapable of actually fixing the balance issues, so each new codex is just a roll of the dice as to what randomly improves, what randomly gets worse and over all you're still left with massive codex imbalance from one army to the next. Oh, and the change to hardback colour codices that cost so damned much really puts a damper on the idea of faster release cycles when you have to buy a new expensive book each time.

People wanted GW to FIX the problems with structuring an army list (like 0-1 restrictions), we didn't want them to completely feth off the restrictions, we wanted them fixed. Throwing all army list structure is not how you fix poor army list structure.

I won't comment on the White Dwarf thing because frankly I have barely touched White Dwarf in the past 15 years. I liked White Dwarf when it actually came with meaningful stuff in it, but that said, with the internet these days I don't really care for paying to get a magazine in the first place, they could get rid of White Dwarf completely for all I care.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.

£85.

I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.

I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.

Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes.
A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.

Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps the positivity people could come up with some argument other than that there is too much negativity.

How about "The game is fun and we enjoy it as it is?" which is my primary retort when people in my FLGS badmouth 40k and try to get me to play something else.

I play Field of Glory for my tourney ruleset, Flames of War for my "break from 40k" rulesset, and 40k the most because I find it entertaining, and some of the most fun I've had in recent weeks.

BOOM! Positivity!

Positives

1: If there is any damage or missing pieces they ship a replacement to you no questions asked free.
2: Friendly Staff
3: A play space for gamer's "haven't seen one for privateer press yet"
4: Princes may be high but do not increase or decrease with the changing exchange rates between countries"
5: Make you able to play what models you like and enjoy the game for "casuals"
6: Update the rules regularly " even tho most fans hate it" if you do the math just on a home printer. 300 pages = $10+ then the ink 30 a cartage = $40+ Then you need to to the binding ect.
7: Actually answer fans emails even if it is a copy paste.
8: Update paint range regularly
9: pretty good brushes for 10$
10: Ofter good terrean/ scenery for good prices.
11: Keeping up with the times with digital ect.
12: ect getting distracted by a spider on the wall be back soon.

Sim-Life wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.

£85.

I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.

I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.

Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes.
A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.

Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.

Gargossals, I like that

Anyways this needs to be restated. Picking a "Gargossal" in Warmahordes is simply a tactical choice; you don't get an immediate advantage just for picking the right unit, and your opponent isn't automatically penalized for not fielding one themselves. In 40k if you take a superheavy, while it might be a tactical choice, it grossly swings the balance in your favor because superheavies are generally miles better than anything else bar other superheavies. So if your opponent doesn't take one of their own, or at the least builds a list designed to take down a superheavy, you're going to stomp them for no other reason than you picked a unit that's insanely good. That's not tactics nor strategy, that's winning at deployment. That rarely, if ever, happens in Warmahordes.

Sim-Life wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.

£85.

I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.

I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.

Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes.
A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.

Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.

See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.

The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?

OgreChubbs wrote:
Positives

1: If there is any damage or missing pieces they ship a replacement to you no questions asked free.
2: Friendly Staff
3: A play space for gamer's "haven't seen one for privateer press yet"
4: Princes may be high but do not increase or decrease with the changing exchange rates between countries"
5: Make you able to play what models you like and enjoy the game for "casuals"
6: Update the rules regularly " even tho most fans hate it" if you do the math just on a home printer. 300 pages = $10+ then the ink 30 a cartage = $40+ Then you need to to the binding ect.
7: Actually answer fans emails even if it is a copy paste.
8: Update paint range regularly
9: pretty good brushes for 10$
10: Ofter good terrean/ scenery for good prices.
11: Keeping up with the times with digital ect.
12: ect getting distracted by a spider on the wall be back soon.

Let's see here...
1) Can't argue
2) Can't argue
3) You mean the GW store? PP has these, just they are called "independent retailers" and aren't affiliated with the company
4) I think Australia would like to have a word with this?
5) True, but rules without balance mean that being able to play with what you like has a 50/50 chance of either making the game no fun for you (if you pick wrong) or no fun for your opponent (if you pick right)
6) Update the rules without actually addressing issues, completely ignoring some factions for almost 10 years (Orks, Dark Eldar) while giving other factions much more than they need (Marines)
7) I'll believe this but is it really a response if it's just a copy/paste answer? By that logic politicians answer mails frequently too...
8) But charge more than everybody else and give you less paint than everybody else
9) Haven't used their brushes, so possibly true
10) What? Their terrain is just as overpriced as everything else they offer. RoB board being the prime example - they discontinued a reasonably priced felt cloth that had a myriad of uses for a $300 plastic board that has molded-on terrain features (the hill) and out of place skull pit everywhere because skulls.
11) By releasing "digital only" supplements for the same price as a hardcover book, dataslates that amount to first day DLC, and removing things that used to be in the codexes (e.g. painting guides) to release as extras...
12) Hope you don't get eaten!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.

£85.

I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.

I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.

Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes.
A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.

Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.

See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.

The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?

Because game rules != reality. Combined attacks are a game mechanic to foster balance, so you don't render part of an army useless. From a real-world standpoint you are right, but this has to be ignored for the sake of a game (personally I'm not a fan of colossals anyways and think they should never have added them in), otherwise you'd run into the situation 40k does which is IMO worse - show up to play and find your army is useless because your opponent decided to field a colossal.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Because game rules != reality. Combined attacks are a game mechanic to foster balance, so you don't render part of an army useless. From a real-world standpoint you are right, but this has to be ignored for the sake of a game (personally I'm not a fan of colossals anyways and think they should never have added them in), otherwise you'd run into the situation 40k does which is IMO worse - show up to play and find your army is useless because your opponent decided to field a colossal.

See, I dislike games that sacrifice reality on the altar of balance. It's personal taste, and I don't hold PP personally responsible for my woes, but it's a perfect example of why a more 'balanced' game isn't necessarily the game for everyone.

And you could look at the flip-side: An army ill-prepared to fight a superheavy is just an ill-prepared army. Just like if you brought three Predator Annihilators against Green Tide - sometimes, armies are unprepared for the opposition they find themselves facing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW can't "win" because everything they do is objectively compromised or even gakky. Some examples:
Imperial Knights:
£110 for a single model (with rules) that while "cool" in that GW Imperial aesthetic actually has minimal poseability and options compared with Gundam kits of similar size that are half the price.

Because they're more likely for one bullet to find its way into that 1-in-a-million shot to hit a fuel line? Because if you fire 1000 rounds in roughly the same spot it'll eventually break? Because it balances the game?

That aside its a bad choice tactically to expect something like some dudes with guns to down a colossal. If you're relying on your bog standard infantry to take it down something has gone horribly wrong. However, its not impossible. And that is whats important. Sure Winter Guard might be at -8 to their damage rolls against armour 20, but thats why you need 8 of them all focussing on it to dent it properly. But at least they stand a chanc of at least scratching it a bit and if you're lucky, taking out a system.

The same could not be said for 40 guardsmen shooting lasguns at a knight.

£85.

I looked up the Gargantuan for my old Hordes faction, £95 for a model that's analogous to the Knight both in size and play value.

I don't think either one is a sensible purchase, but only one gets complained about much at all. I conclude that goodwill, or lack thereof, will bias customers even when different companies pull the exact same gak.

Actually, Gargossals are pretty well balanced for Warhordes.
A heavy jack or warbeast can wreck one in two turns if you play well and they're often more than double the cost of a normal heavy. There are ways around Gargossals, multiple methods of dealing with them within armies and they don't need an entire army focussing every attack on them in order to bring it down. However, left unchecked, they can do a silly amount of damageamd are a major threat. Unless its an Archangel.

Imperial Knights however require a lot of heavy weaponry focussed on it to bring them down, and render other units in the opponents army completly useless.

See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.

The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?

Internet ate my post.

Jist was:

Its for balance and while normal guys can't reliably DESTROY a gargossal, enough concentrated shooting can maybe dent it enough to take out a system if you get lucky.

The same can't be said for 40 guardaman all concentrating fire on a Knight

OgreChubbs wrote:
Positives

1: If there is any damage or missing pieces they ship a replacement to you no questions asked free. That's something every company should do anyway.
2: Friendly Staff Depends which store.
3: A play space for gamer's "haven't seen one for privateer press yet" In my store there are two PP tables and two warhammer tables.
4: Princes may be high but do not increase or decrease with the changing exchange rates between countries" Australia may disagree with you.
5: Make you able to play what models you like and enjoy the game for "casuals" Which makes pick up games much more difficult to get in the same ballpark of power levels.
6: Update the rules regularly " even tho most fans hate it" if you do the math just on a home printer. 300 pages = $10+ then the ink 30 a cartage = $40+ Then you need to to the binding ect. Wait....what? If by "a new rule set every two years," then okay.
7: Actually answer fans emails even if it is a copy paste. The company that's notorious for shutting themselves away send copy and past answers. I've never even gotten that before.
8: Update paint range regularly There are better and cheaper paints.
9: pretty good brushes for 10$ There are better and cheaper brushes.
10: Ofter good terrean/ scenery for good prices. Subjective.
11: Keeping up with the times with digital ect. I'll give you that. The company that thinks the internet is a fad does make E-versions of their stuff, though the execution is often not the best.
12: ect getting distracted by a spider on the wall be back soon.

GW can win just fine, The mark up they are getting for selling molded plastic is crazy. They are winning all the way to the bank.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Because game rules != reality. Combined attacks are a game mechanic to foster balance, so you don't render part of an army useless. From a real-world standpoint you are right, but this has to be ignored for the sake of a game (personally I'm not a fan of colossals anyways and think they should never have added them in), otherwise you'd run into the situation 40k does which is IMO worse - show up to play and find your army is useless because your opponent decided to field a colossal.

See, I dislike games that sacrifice reality on the altar of balance. It's personal taste, and I don't hold PP personally responsible for my woes, but it's a perfect example of why a more 'balanced' game isn't necessarily the game for everyone.

And you could look at the flip-side: An army ill-prepared to fight a superheavy is just an ill-prepared army. Just like if you brought three Predator Annihilators against Green Tide - sometimes, armies are unprepared for the opposition they find themselves facing.

Yes, and that's ultimately destructive and a load of bullgak for pick-up games, which is why I'd rather take PP's approach any day of the week. Bringing three Predator Annihilators to 40k night and your opponent shows up with Green Tide... you aren't going to have a very fun night at all. Therein lies the problem with realism vs. balance. Realism is fine if you are only ever doing simulations or reenactments. You need some kind of balance when you have an environment conducive to pickup games at random that aren't prearranged (and despite what GW might think, 40k is mostly played in pickup games) to avoid that scenario happening.

 MWHistorian wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Positives

1: If there is any damage or missing pieces they ship a replacement to you no questions asked free. That's something every company should do anyway.
2: Friendly Staff Depends which store.
3: A play space for gamer's "haven't seen one for privateer press yet" In my store there are two PP tables and two warhammer tables.
4: Princes may be high but do not increase or decrease with the changing exchange rates between countries" Australia may disagree with you.
5: Make you able to play what models you like and enjoy the game for "casuals" Which makes pick up games much more difficult to get in the same ballpark of power levels.
6: Update the rules regularly " even tho most fans hate it" if you do the math just on a home printer. 300 pages = $10+ then the ink 30 a cartage = $40+ Then you need to to the binding ect. Wait....what? If by "a new rule set every two years," then okay.
7: Actually answer fans emails even if it is a copy paste. The company that's notorious for shutting themselves away send copy and past answers. I've never even gotten that before.
8: Update paint range regularly There are better and cheaper paints.
9: pretty good brushes for 10$ There are better and cheaper brushes.
10: Ofter good terrean/ scenery for good prices. Subjective.
11: Keeping up with the times with digital ect. I'll give you that. The company that thinks the internet is a fad does make E-versions of their stuff, though the execution is often not the best.
12: ect getting distracted by a spider on the wall be back soon.

You've never seen a company send copy & paste answers? Go check out the Dutch mail, then!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.

Except that we aren't talking about war, we are talking about a game. And games are supposed to be fun. And having whole swats of your army rendered useless because your opponent chose a single model isn't fun.

If your argument is that 40k is trying, in any way, to simulate actual warfare, then I'll just be forced to laugh.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?

Are 10 rounds fired against almost the same spot in bullet proof glass or a bullet proof vest more or less effective than a single round?

Also, I find it pretty hilarious that you have problems with CRA / CMA because they apparently aren't realistic enough, but you are completely fine with guns that can't fire past the length of a tank, people attacking each other with swords when things like plasma weapons exist, fixed wing jet aircraft that can practically hover in the area equivalent to a football field, all the guns fired by more than 10 guys all only hit a single person (and its always the nearest one), an entire squad that can apparently trip at the same time when they are charging, etc, etc, etc...

This is exactly the mood in our gaming group.
On the other hand, not everything is wrong with GW. But they are doing many things in the wrong way.
I guess there is no hope for an improvement in the near future.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Because game rules != reality. Combined attacks are a game mechanic to foster balance, so you don't render part of an army useless. From a real-world standpoint you are right, but this has to be ignored for the sake of a game (personally I'm not a fan of colossals anyways and think they should never have added them in), otherwise you'd run into the situation 40k does which is IMO worse - show up to play and find your army is useless because your opponent decided to field a colossal.

See, I dislike games that sacrifice reality on the altar of balance. It's personal taste, and I don't hold PP personally responsible for my woes, but it's a perfect example of why a more 'balanced' game isn't necessarily the game for everyone.

And you could look at the flip-side: An army ill-prepared to fight a superheavy is just an ill-prepared army. Just like if you brought three Predator Annihilators against Green Tide - sometimes, armies are unprepared for the opposition they find themselves facing.

Yes, and that's ultimately destructive and a load of bullgak for pick-up games, which is why I'd rather take PP's approach any day of the week. Bringing three Predator Annihilators to 40k night and your opponent shows up with Green Tide... you aren't going to have a very fun night at all. Therein lies the problem with realism vs. balance. Realism is fine if you are only ever doing simulations or reenactments. You need some kind of balance when you have an environment conducive to pickup games at random that aren't prearranged (and despite what GW might think, 40k is mostly played in pickup games) to avoid that scenario happening.

That's fine - if you prefer the other method, I won't tell you you're wrong. Where you cross the line, though, is trying to impose your method of fun upon mine by sacrificing realism on the altar of balance.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


See, that illustrates a problem I have with Warmachine's rules - superheavy tanks SHOULD render part of an army useless! Tiger II heavy tanks in World War 2 rendered all of the American 75mm Shermans (and arguably the 76mm) useless - it's just what happens when a huge, over-expensive, and over-engineerd colossal machine goes up against a more reasonably designed one.

Except that we aren't talking about war, we are talking about a game. And games are supposed to be fun. And having whole swats of your army rendered useless because your opponent chose a single model isn't fun.

If your argument is that 40k is trying, in any way, to simulate actual warfare, then I'll just be forced to laugh.

1) I disagree - I think the uselessness of rifles against a tank is a pretty awesome rules mechanic that illustrates the strength of tanks vs riflemen.

2) I don't think 40k is a simulator, but my suspension of disbelief is easier with 40k than WM/H, which should tell you something about WM/H!

PhantomViper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The Combined Ranged Attack and Combined Melee Attack rules epitomized this for me - how is firing 10 AK-47s at an M1 Abrams any more effective than firing 1?

Are 10 rounds fired against almost the same spot in bullet proof glass or a bullet proof vest more or less effective than a single round?

Also, I find it pretty hilarious that you have problems with CRA / CMA because they apparently aren't realistic enough, but you are completely fine with guns that can't fire past the length of a tank, people attacking each other with swords when things like plasma weapons exist, fixed wing jet aircraft that can practically hover in the area equivalent to a football field, all the guns fired by more than 10 guys all only hit a single person (and its always the nearest one), an entire squad that can apparently trip at the same time when they are charging, etc, etc, etc...

1) Well, the 10 rounds into the same spot in the vest or the glass will be more effective. Now you just need to demonstrate that inches-thick steel plates have the same properties as vests and glass. Because neither Warjacks nor 40k tanks are made of glass or kevlar.

2) I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to suggest a weapon that can't fire past the length of a tank - these are usually high-powered energy weapons, which realistically would dissipate incredibly quickly in an atmosphere. People hitting eachother with swords when plasma weapons exist is fine and dandy - there are protective systems that can mitigate the effects of plasma about as well as modern body armor mitigates the effects of bullets, and, well: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10. The fixed-wing jet aircraft are a problem, and I hate them, but they're not as core to the game as warjacks are to WM/H so I can tolerate their existence. The rest of your post is just inane nonsense justifications for rules mechanics that don't even function the way you claim they do in your post. All 10 people don't hit one person (unless he makes all of his saves, and has a different save value than the rest of the unit, which only happens rarely), and a failure to charge the full distance isn't "tripping," it's a multitude of factors including but not limited to one's footing on the terrain.

Okay then, how would you approach the subject of pickup games while balancing realism and mechanics? Or is your solution that it should be okay for the guy who shows up with 3x Predator Annihilators to get crapped on by the Ork Tide and walk away feeling they just wasted a few hours?

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that balance is bad because it's unrealistic, but having a gakky night of gaming because you brought the wrong units or the wrong army to the store on miniatures night and got matched up with the wrong opponent so you had no chance of winning, since if you know what they bring you just tailor a list to beat them and then their night is ruined, or if you don't then your night could be ruined.

That doesn't sound very fun.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps the positivity people could come up with some argument other than that there is too much negativity.

How about "The game is fun and we enjoy it as it is?" which is my primary retort when people in my FLGS badmouth 40k and try to get me to play something else.

I play Field of Glory for my tourney ruleset, Flames of War for my "break from 40k" rulesset, and 40k the most because I find it entertaining, and some of the most fun I've had in recent weeks.

BOOM! Positivity!

That is simply opposed by "The game is not fun and we don't enjoy it", and "because of various documented features such as" clinches the argument.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, people can "like" anything they want. Some people like girls pissing in their mouths and will pay good money for it.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Okay then, how would you approach the subject of pickup games while balancing realism and mechanics? Or is your solution that it should be okay for the guy who shows up with 3x Predator Annihilators to get gak on by the Ork Tide and walk away feeling they just wasted a few hours?

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that balance is bad because it's unrealistic, but having a gakky night of gaming because you brought the wrong units or the wrong army to the store on miniatures night and got matched up with the wrong opponent so you had no chance of winning.

I dunno, really. I've played in three different gamestores over the course of my life, and I've never had much trouble with what you describe. I've been on the receiving end of the Green Tide horde when I brought three Predator Annihilators, but I gritted my teeth and griped about my army's Quartermaster giving us the wrong equipment.

I've played my Armored Company against an IG foot horde and crushed it, and neither the foot player nor myself had any problem - the game was entertaining for both of us.

I really do think you can enjoy a game like that - the idea that 'because a loss is guaranteed, no fun can be had' is a fallacy imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps the positivity people could come up with some argument other than that there is too much negativity.

How about "The game is fun and we enjoy it as it is?" which is my primary retort when people in my FLGS badmouth 40k and try to get me to play something else.

I play Field of Glory for my tourney ruleset, Flames of War for my "break from 40k" rulesset, and 40k the most because I find it entertaining, and some of the most fun I've had in recent weeks.

BOOM! Positivity!

That is simply opposed by "The game is not fun and we don't enjoy it", and "because of various documented features such as" clinches the argument.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, people can "like" anything they want. Some people like girls pissing in their mouths and will pay good money for it.

Right, and you're allowed to like whatever you want.

Except 40k. If you say anything good about 40k, fifteen people cram how gakky it is down your throat (citation: this thread).

So in other words... forge the narrative harder

I'm glad that works for you, sincerely, not trolling or being sarcastic. I've only ever seen pickup games that tend to be more on the competitive end than the "Eh let's have fun" end so if you turn up and play the guy who fields 3x Riptides in a 1k army because he can, you don't get to have fun.

WayneTheGame wrote:
So in other words... forge the narrative harder

I'm glad that works for you, sincerely.

Thanks. I'm glad to meet someone who doesn't have the "HOW DARE YOU LIKE 40K!" attitude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
not trolling or being sarcastic. I've only ever seen pickup games that tend to be more on the competitive end than the "Eh let's have fun" end so if you turn up and play the guy who fields 3x Riptides in a 1k army because he can, you don't get to have fun.

IDK where you've been playing; I really haven't had that problem. Maybe I'm the not-competitive one, but I've faced 3 Riptides under 1k points and had a blast!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
So in other words... forge the narrative harder

I'm glad that works for you, sincerely.

Thanks. I'm glad to meet someone who doesn't have the "HOW DARE YOU LIKE 40K!" attitude.

Honestly, I want to like 40k. I loved the fluff, and the background, and I played it from 1996-2002 and enjoyed it then. Just the way GW operates makes me refuse. I refuse to spend hundreds of dollars to get started, I refuse to deal with rules that can break down if you don't have a group of people who share your views (e.g. a casual player in a competitive setting), and I refuse to deal with a company that acts the way GW does. Couple the fact with some of the gamers in my area that I've seen are more of the competitive type, and always want to play high points games, and it's not something I'd enjoy, because I like tactics and strategy to win not the fact I brought 3x Imperial Knights and my opponent has nothing that can deal with them.

I've started Warmachine and I find it fun; it's not for everyone this is true as it is more... mechanical is the best word I can use to describe it (pun intended, i guess). It feels very game-y, whereas when I played 40k before it still felt like a battle with more immersion, I guess would be the way I'd describe it. I don't feel any immersion in Warmahordes; it's a game I play to play a game, not immerse myself. I guess I can compare it to how World of Warcraft (which I also play) is for many people - the RPG part of MMORPG isn't really meaningful; you don't care that the merchant asked you to kill 10 wolves because they are attacking his supplies and he's losing business, you just care that there are 10 wolves you need to kill for XP and gold. That's how Warmahordes feels - the lore is there but the mechanics are what I care about e.g. I don't care that my Juggernaut's axe is magically coated with ice by the Greylords, I just need to know that if I roll a crit it freezes my enemy. 40k always felt like the opposite - the lore is the selling point.