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.

I dont care if I'm agreed with or not. I'm not trying to force others to think the way I do. The granstands are already filled with those who are though.
Your purposely dodge the point though. the simple fact is that there is no such thing as a perfect game. Even chess or checkers or tic tac toe have flaws.

40k is a game that encompasses much more than simple rules however.it encompasses an entire mythos and storyline with a wealth of crativity that has gone into it. Some may like it, others may not. Some seperate it from the pure rules aspect of the game. it is up to the individual so people can be "right" while sounding different because it is purely opinion based.
the same goes for the hobby aspect of the game. Some may like the models or painting the while others may prefer to leave them blank grey out of the box are go to the extremes of empty bases with paper taped to them telling what it is supposed to be or go into conversion fits so that the model is so heavily "done up" it looks like a John Blanche model and you can no longer tell what it is supposed to be. This too is part of the game. A part many seperate or connect according to taste and perspective.

For the rules themselves, Throughout the history of 40k from rogue trader to today, you will find differences of opinion and ifferent people feeling that things SHOULD be different while others are happy with the way they are. Either way, the person concentrates on the specific rule they like or dislike and ignore or take for granted the rest. Because of that rule, you will find that they like or dislike the game based on it either singing the praises of the game or condemning it. Either way, they will be right as it is purely opinion based.

I feel GW should be less wishy washy in that each new edition it seems, they do some sort of pendulum swing from an extreme to another. Instead of swinging to the extremes, I feel a more moderate approach to change should be done.
I feel that they should do more indepentant playtesting to avoid many of the issues that arise that lead to the pendulum swings.
I also feel they should be more gamer friendly and listen to us players and price things more reasonably (or our benefit and because it would net them more profits as a company which leads to more expansion...

My mention of ramming it down other's throats is not an intent to say that I dont want anyone to disagree with me. I feel that differences of opinion are healthy so long as it remains respectfull. This because it can lead to growth and a greater understanding as well as an ability to see a "problem" from different perspectives that you otherwise would not have. This is why i maintain an open mind and do just that. I have been shown wrong on many occasions and changed my way of thinking while other times, i have not. Regardless, I have always remained polite and respectfull.
In contrast, i have found that on this particuler issue online in many places, I see those who have decided to hate 40k will refuse to even consider that others may have a different opinion than they do and will do their utmost to convince them to change their mind. I say, if someone likes the game, LET them like the game. Why try to ruin the game for them just because you are not satisfied (not you in particular but in general). Because this is what is happening. So much so to the point that if anyone has the temerity to say that there are aspects of the game that they like, the naysayers will follow them about and heckle or downright harrass them in an effort to get rid of them. The reason why? Who knows. it may be so that they no longer have to see any positive words or it may be to intimidate others who might say something positiveito ilent submission or imightt be pure revenge for not agreeing. Whatever the reason is, it is something I have seen.
There are MANY things about 40k I do not like, I have serious issues with the parent company and it's policies but why should I let all that ruin my fun? I much prefer to focus on the aspects I like and deal with the rest without dwelling or losing sleep over them.
Note that my post is not directed at anyone here, it is a general observation.

Thing is, Evil, people can disagree with you in the most respectful manner, and you still accuse them of attacking you, frequently citing things that never happened and subsequently refusing polite requests to substantiate your claims.

Just this thread, for example, why are you posting here when the thread is clearly focused on an opinion of the game you don't necessarily subscribe to?

I respectfully request you help us to help you by not participating in threads where the majority of posters are likely to hold demonstrably counter opinions to your own.

 Blacksails wrote:

Talys wrote:

One broader issue is that miniature wargaming is a declining industry. The number of hobby shops and their business is much lower than it used to be, say, 20 years ago, because there are video games and TCGs that compete for the same player pool. This means that the cost for the remaining players goes up.

Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Most of what I've read/seen/heard shows that miniature wargaming has increased in size in recent years.

According to ICV2, which is admittedly only covering north America and not taking *everything* into account but is still the best numbers we have, we are in our sixth year of consecutive double didgit growth.

They estimate that the industry has doubled in size since 08 and we are not even remotely close to being a declining industry. If anything this is a golden age for tabletop miniatures.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Talys wrote:

One broader issue is that miniature wargaming is a declining industry. The number of hobby shops and their business is much lower than it used to be, say, 20 years ago, because there are video games and TCGs that compete for the same player pool. This means that the cost for the remaining players goes up.

Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Most of what I've read/seen/heard shows that miniature wargaming has increased in size in recent years.

According to ICV2, which is admittedly only covering north America and not taking *everything* into account but is still the best numbers we have, we are in our sixth year of consecutive double didgit growth.

They estimate that the industry has doubled in size since 08 and we are not even remotely close to being a declining industry. If anything this is a golden age for tabletop miniatures.

Wow, that is awesome. I have no numbers at all, only the number of hobby shops, gaming groups and tables with miniature games in my area (west coast of Canada).

It seems that a significant part of the hobby shops' revenues are from TCGs; and many others have closed. I don't count board games and TCGs (which seem to have grown like crazy ever since MtG) in my anecdotal, non-scientific observations.

The only flaw I see to the ICV2 is that it groups wargaming in with card games and board games, unless I'm misreading it.

Either way, card games often are the staple of many hobby stores, but that doesn't mean wargaming is a shrinking business; it just means card games are a very high profit margin.

Still, I haven't found anything that points to wargaming specifically being a shrinking industry. Even the kickstarter numbers for miniatures has grown steadily for miniatures.

It just appears to be GW in the decline, when other companies are talking about serious growth.

Talys wrote:
Wow, that is awesome. I have no numbers at all, only the number of hobby shops, gaming groups and tables with miniature games in my area (west coast of Canada).

It seems that a significant part of the hobby shops' revenues are from TCGs; and many others have closed. I don't count board games and TCGs (which seem to have grown like crazy ever since MtG) in my anecdotal, non-scientific observations.

There are less hobby shops now around this area then there used to be, but I don't think it has to do with the hobby shrinking. A lot of it, I think, is from it becoming harder to maintain a shop front and compete with online store pricing. One store I know closed because of non-hobby related money issues. One hobby store that didn't carry wargaming stuff that has been open since I was a kid finally closed after years of not being profitable and I'm 90% sure because his business previously relied on people not knowing any better. The one non-GW store that has remained open close to me comes close to matching online pricing for most things and also makes money off the gaming area they have set up.

In this day and age it's hard to judge popularity at a glance like you could before the internet.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Talys wrote:
Wow, that is awesome. I have no numbers at all, only the number of hobby shops, gaming groups and tables with miniature games in my area (west coast of Canada).

It seems that a significant part of the hobby shops' revenues are from TCGs; and many others have closed. I don't count board games and TCGs (which seem to have grown like crazy ever since MtG) in my anecdotal, non-scientific observations.

There are less hobby shops now around this area then there used to be, but I don't think it has to do with the hobby shrinking. A lot of it, I think, is from it becoming harder to maintain a shop front and compete with online store pricing. One store I know closed because of non-hobby related money issues. One hobby store that didn't carry wargaming stuff that has been open since I was a kid finally closed after years of not being profitable and I'm 90% sure because his business previously relied on people not knowing any better. The one non-GW store that has remained open close to me comes close to matching online pricing for most things and also makes money off the gaming area they have set up.

In this day and age it's hard to judge popularity at a glance like you could before the internet.

Perhaps that is true in some areas, but definitely not mine. In Canada, there are no online retailers that sell at good prices, certainly not competitive with my remaining FLGSs. Hobby stores are selling at 15-25% below list, and online retailers more than that, plus shipping on small orders. Of course, there is the issue that you can't get GW online except through the official website in NA (or, in Canada for sure). I don't even know of a good Canadian PP online retailer.

The other thing for me is that it my FLGS prices for things like paints are much better, and a $6 online order for 2 paints wouldn't quite work. Paints are also tough if you don't already own one because for ranges like Vallejo, all the greens look the same in a booklet, and the actual paints all look quite a bit different, lol.

Anyhow, I am continuing my contribution to the hobby, with a solid $500-$800 spend every month, about half going to GW. PP gets a bunch of ky business, as well as all manner of companies that sell tools and consumables.

Canada sounds like a strange place I thought you could buy online, you just couldn't have a store with a "cart", so customers actually have to contact via phone/email to buy stuff?

But either way, I'm not convinced that the number of open stores is representative of overall popularity even within a given area.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Canada sounds like a strange place I thought you could buy online, you just couldn't have a store with a "cart", so customers actually have to contact via phone/email to buy stuff?

But either way, I'm not convinced that the number of open stores is representative of overall popularity even within a given area.

Yes, you can buy stuff by email or phone, but they can't advertise prices online. Basically, mail order yes, online retail, no.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thing is, Evil, people can disagree with you in the most respectful manner, and you still accuse them of attacking you, frequently citing things that never happened and subsequently refusing polite requests to substantiate your claims.

Just this thread, for example, why are you posting here when the thread is clearly focused on an opinion of the game you don't necessarily subscribe to?

I respectfully request you help us to help you by not participating in threads where the majority of posters are likely to hold demonstrably counter opinions to your own.

THIS. If you hate the game and are dropping out, and your response to anyone who disagrees with you is to claim they're attacking you.... just... go get a life somewhere. stop trolling forums.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I agree... Warhammer is a terrible game. Bad mechanics, terrible fluff.... Thats why I play Warhammer 40k instead.

There are several rules issues which could lend to the game being badly designed but I find the majority of the time that it is the players which ruin the game/rules.

I'm not saying its brilliantly designed but if played properly it is at least fun.

He who finds the biggest rules loops and can afford to buy the army loop flavor of the week = loves this game. Me NSM.

@Rysaer.
The thing is the poorly made rule set for 40k/WHFB allows players worst excesses, and actually rewards 'poor sportmanship' , that spoils the game for everyone else!

Which is great for GW short term sales, because everyone gets the 'buy the latest cool unit or loose' mind set.
Or they adopt the will buy 'useless units' to make a point about how WAAC lists are wrong.
Or are genuinely caught out by how poor the game balance actually is, and spend ages trying to negotiating on how to fix /interpret the rules.
And fall in the 'I have spent a significant amount if time and money on my army I WILL have fun no matter how long it takes!' attitude.

So GW sells the latest under costed units to WAACs and the over costed units to FAACs.And the 'determined to have fun' cover the rest of sales.
So from selling models short term perspective, poor rules are just as effective and good rules.

However, as there are many more options than GW plc core game rule sets, (thankfully.)
Players can try out much better rule sets with their minatures, and pick the one they like best.

The rules to 40k/WHFB are objectively worse in terms of clarity brevity and elegance, when compared to the other rule sets currently available.

 Rysaer wrote:
There are several rules issues which could lend to the game being badly designed but I find the majority of the time that it is the players which ruin the game/rules.

I'm not saying its brilliantly designed but if played properly it is at least fun.

The problem then becomes what is your definition of "played properly?"

Because the biggest problem is the people who attempt to play the rules as they are written seem to be the players who are "ruining" the game. To me that's pretty indicative of a poorly written game.

If the rules were better written so that everyone understood the RAW and there weren't gaping holes in the RAW because they were properly worded, no one would be able to ruin the game/rules because they'd not be poorly written.

"You aren't playing it properly" sounds like some kid who made up a game in their backyard and didn't properly outline the rules, so they get huffy when their friends don't play it "right". It doesn't sound like something you expect from a company who charges over $100 for the core rules + only 1 army's worth of rules and then doesn't properly FAQ or errata their rules to fix them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Talys wrote:
I think it's an excellently made game, because the universe and models are great

When I say I think 40k is a poorly made game, I am talking exclusively about the GAME part, not the universe and models. 40k, the game, could be played with tokens if you really wanted. Likewise you could read the books and paint the models and never play an actual game.

This is a point I really think we as.. well non-historical wargamers need to look at in more depth.

In historicals you don't see company A produces models for game X, company B produces models for game Y, company C produces models for game Z.

Instead Companies A and B make say, Roman models. Companies C and D make rulesets for that historical time period, then there is a ton of mixing an matching.

I think the rest of us should learn from this and if we love the models for 40k stop thinking that we have to play them with the rules GW release. There is literally nothing stopping you playing a deathwatch kill team in Deadzone or a veteran guardsman squad in Infinity.

With that in mind the GAME of 40k is pretty awful, whatever models and fluff are used.

The problem with trying to port models from GW to other rules is that it's such a unique and expansive universe. If you play a German WW2 army, every rules system is going to have rules for an MG42, a Panzer IV or whatever. Only 40k has rules for Leman Russes, Heavy Bolters and Chimeras.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thing is, Evil, people can disagree with you in the most respectful manner, and you still accuse them of attacking you, frequently citing things that never happened and subsequently refusing polite requests to substantiate your claims.

Just this thread, for example, why are you posting here when the thread is clearly focused on an opinion of the game you don't necessarily subscribe to?

I respectfully request you help us to help you by not participating in threads where the majority of posters are likely to hold demonstrably counter opinions to your own.

Actually, i only say that i am attacked when I actually am. For example name calling, personal insults and so forth that have nothing to do with the actual discussion. I dont mind if ya disagree with me in a subjective matter such as which set of rules is "better". just understand that which is "better" is subjective.
Why am I posting in the thread? Because it is a forum and I have just as much right to post in it as you do. The same reason so many feel the need to go into other threads and post a differing opinion. I see members post in here saying that they dislike 40k and everything about it yet they are on a 40k forum.
It could also be as I mentioned that there are aspects of the 40k rules that I dislike. Just because I am willing to see the positives do not mean that I do not see negatives as well. I am a positive person so I focus more on the positives.
I feel that I could "hlp you more" by trying to help you see a few positives in order to produce a more positive outlook. If all you see is bad and all you focus on is bad you are pouring negativity into your life and this is simply not a healthy thing to do. If you look at and focus on a few positives, you usually begin to feel better about the subject, yourself and life in general.
I also want to help by working in a constructive manner to "fix" what you see as wrong (remember, others may not see it as a wrong which can lead in some cases to a feeling that anyone who disagrees with you on these items are "wrong"). I feel that constructively addressing the things you dont like rather than destructively saying everything about it is bad because of those things can lead to a more productive "meeting of the minds".

FeindusMaximus, You have a great point. Unfortunately, I see this in pretty much all the gmes on the market (outseide the "set" games like normal boardgames and so forth. I feel this is a sad trend. I try to get around it by conversions and counts as and other lil tricks but the ones who have the cash to buy the "real deal" usually frown on it because it undermines their advantage. It also does not help the company as much because when I do that, I am not buying their product (or at least, I'm buying a product from them they are not making as much on). This is one of my "beefs" with GW. I hope the petition works (remember the petition is actually about marketing and company poicies rather than about 40k). I feel that by GW addressing these other things can lead to them improving the games themselves and issues such as this. Something that hopefully the petition and us in general can also hope for is that they hire on more people who think like us. I've noticed that over the years, the company outlook has changed as the faces have changed. Possibly supporting the particular people in the company who think as we do can help or as younger people age and get career, maybe we can get lucky and find some going into the industry to help us. This last is a long shot but it's worth a wish or two. lol

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thing is, Evil, people can disagree with you in the most respectful manner, and you still accuse them of attacking you, frequently citing things that never happened and subsequently refusing polite requests to substantiate your claims.

Just this thread, for example, why are you posting here when the thread is clearly focused on an opinion of the game you don't necessarily subscribe to?

I respectfully request you help us to help you by not participating in threads where the majority of posters are likely to hold demonstrably counter opinions to your own.

Actually, i only say that i am attacked when I actually am. For example name calling, personal insults and so forth that have nothing to do with the actual discussion. I dont mind if ya disagree with me in a subjective matter such as which set of rules is "better". just understand that which is "better" is subjective.
Why am I posting in the thread? Because it is a forum and I have just as much right to post in it as you do. The same reason so many feel the need to go into other threads and post a differing opinion. I see members post in here saying that they dislike 40k and everything about it yet they are on a 40k forum.
It could also be as I mentioned that there are aspects of the 40k rules that I dislike. Just because I am willing to see the positives do not mean that I do not see negatives as well. I am a positive person so I focus more on the positives.
I feel that I could "hlp you more" by trying to help you see a few positives in order to produce a more positive outlook. If all you see is bad and all you focus on is bad you are pouring negativity into your life and this is simply not a healthy thing to do. If you look at and focus on a few positives, you usually begin to feel better about the subject, yourself and life in general.
I also want to help by working in a constructive manner to "fix" what you see as wrong (remember, others may not see it as a wrong which can lead in some cases to a feeling that anyone who disagrees with you on these items are "wrong"). I feel that constructively addressing the things you dont like rather than destructively saying everything about it is bad because of those things can lead to a more productive "meeting of the minds".

Can you post links to where you were personally attacked?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thing is, Evil, people can disagree with you in the most respectful manner, and you still accuse them of attacking you, frequently citing things that never happened and subsequently refusing polite requests to substantiate your claims.

Just this thread, for example, why are you posting here when the thread is clearly focused on an opinion of the game you don't necessarily subscribe to?

I respectfully request you help us to help you by not participating in threads where the majority of posters are likely to hold demonstrably counter opinions to your own.

Actually, i only say that i am attacked when I actually am. For example name calling, personal insults and so forth that have nothing to do with the actual discussion. I dont mind if ya disagree with me in a subjective matter such as which set of rules is "better". just understand that which is "better" is subjective.
Why am I posting in the thread? Because it is a forum and I have just as much right to post in it as you do. The same reason so many feel the need to go into other threads and post a differing opinion. I see members post in here saying that they dislike 40k and everything about it yet they are on a 40k forum.
It could also be as I mentioned that there are aspects of the 40k rules that I dislike. Just because I am willing to see the positives do not mean that I do not see negatives as well. I am a positive person so I focus more on the positives.
I feel that I could "hlp you more" by trying to help you see a few positives in order to produce a more positive outlook. If all you see is bad and all you focus on is bad you are pouring negativity into your life and this is simply not a healthy thing to do. If you look at and focus on a few positives, you usually begin to feel better about the subject, yourself and life in general.
I also want to help by working in a constructive manner to "fix" what you see as wrong (remember, others may not see it as a wrong which can lead in some cases to a feeling that anyone who disagrees with you on these items are "wrong"). I feel that constructively addressing the things you dont like rather than destructively saying everything about it is bad because of those things can lead to a more productive "meeting of the minds".

Can you post links to where you were personally attacked?

Haven't we already established that he either is just making it up or thinks that someone disagreeing with him is "attacking" him.

I guess this means I attacked him too.

Yes, EVIL, please provide evidence of people attacking you.

Quotes and links. Otherwise stop this nonsense of making unfounded claims and de-railing threads in the process.

Besides, no one is entirely looking at the negatives and completely ignoring the positives. You need to stop this black and white way of looking at discussions.

If you want to help and be constructive, start engaging in rational discussions that are actually on topic and refuting points being made, and not fictional ones you constantly make up.

If you want to contribute and wish to point out the positives, just start doing it. No need to grandstand about negativity and how my life is affected by my views about a single wargame. Just type your points and people will discuss them as they see fit based on their merits.

Its really quite simple.

I'm getting the strangest feeling of deja vu...

Maybe someone will type "hell" again and will be reported for it being incredibly offensive.

 Grimtuff wrote:
hell

How dare you!?

Enjoy your bane.

I am doing so. Rationally discussing positives and negatives that is. My last post contained a few of the ones i have put forth over the last few years.
if you wish to take a few days to review, I can provide a few of the links through PM as they are off topic in the threads and likely to create more disturbances.

In the interest of actually staying on topic a few additional things i think GW could address to improve the game,...

Greater playtesting- do extensive playtesting in a tournament style RAW environment. This could improve the bookwriting and editiong as a side effect. Just a few guys playing for fun games in the office as playtesting allows them to gloss over stuff " You know what I mean Bill. It shouldnt be able to do that. its a given".
In this way, they can come up with the RAW issues and come across many loopholes as well as being moreprecise in wording in the books.

teams- Not sure how to address this. Different teams o groups of peopleheading different projects. This has led to a disparity of codexes and such in terms of power. I think have a dev team manager or 'the buck stops here"guy ould create a greaterstability in this. And no, it shouldnt be a wishy washy guy who can be run over either.

Conversion guidelines (i'm sure I'll catch flak for this idea lol)- a guideline for conversions. Maybe a set standard of deviency (that just doesnt sound right) in terms of how far a conversion can go. For example, saying that changing the pose on a model is fine but have set limits like maybe it cant go lower than the "waiste" level" or no taller than half again as high". This would allow for a great margin for height differences without going hugely overboard. Whatever the set standards are, would be reasonable and totaly negate the question of MFA and take away the basis for a lot of arguments between players.

Customizable characters. Allow for greater variences in characters instead of cookie cutter-ing them. I dont mean make a few no brainers and then a bunch that will never be used, i mean make them all usefull but force us to decide which ones with the possibility of them affecting other units or skills.

Allies....Isay keep them as it allows us to do a lot of things we always wanted to but couldnt do before. For example, For example, I can have a group of crazy bloodthirsty marines like death company in a space wolf army. Instead of calling the blood angel allies, i can give them space wolf colors and give them a berserker type name while still using the death company rules. it allows for greater variations in this way.
HOWEVER, I see that the battle brothers can be abused. I think removing the battle rothers aspect of it would be a good idea.

Yeah... Another anti GW rant. I cant believe it. Just stop playing their games if you don't like them! I will take your models and "dispose" of them for you.

 Icelord wrote:
Yeah... Another anti GW rant. I cant believe it. Just stop playing their games if you don't like them! I will take your models and "dispose" of them for you.

Yeah...another anti-anti-GW post. I can't believe it. Just stop posting in these threads if don't like them!

Obviously if I think the game is flawed, I can't still enjoy it with friends or find certain aspects appealing. Its so obvious that if I'm to like something I have to blindly praise it all times and can in no way hold a negative opinion at all.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I am doing so. Rationally discussing positives and negatives that is. My last post contained a few of the ones i have put forth over the last few years.
if you wish to take a few days to review, I can provide a few of the links through PM as they are off topic in the threads and likely to create more disturbances.

In the interest of actually staying on topic a few additional things i think GW could address to improve the game,...

Greater playtesting- do extensive playtesting in a tournament style RAW environment. This could improve the bookwriting and editiong as a side effect. Just a few guys playing for fun games in the office as playtesting allows them to gloss over stuff " You know what I mean Bill. It shouldnt be able to do that. its a given".
In this way, they can come up with the RAW issues and come across many loopholes as well as being moreprecise in wording in the books.

Yep, totally agree.

teams- Not sure how to address this. Different teams o groups of peopleheading different projects. This has led to a disparity of codexes and such in terms of power. I think have a dev team manager or 'the buck stops here"guy ould create a greaterstability in this. And no, it shouldnt be a wishy washy guy who can be run over either.

I think I see what you're saying, personally, I think from the first point they sit down to discuss the next edition, they should have an overall plan for every faction and at least a thumbnail sketch of what the new units will be featuring in each new codex, even if they have no idea what it will be called, what it will look like or exactly how it will function. Just having the concept of "Eldar Heavy Interceptor" or "Ork Boar Cavalry" pencilled in so everyone knows and doesn't design units that either utterly ruin the concept by their very existence by accident.

Conversion guidelines (i'm sure I'll catch flak for this idea lol)- a guideline for conversions. Maybe a set standard of deviency (that just doesnt sound right) in terms of how far a conversion can go. For example, saying that changing the pose on a model is fine but have set limits like maybe it cant go lower than the "waiste" level" or no taller than half again as high". This would allow for a great margin for height differences without going hugely overboard. Whatever the set standards are, would be reasonable and totaly negate the question of MFA and take away the basis for a lot of arguments between players.

I think the Warmachine idea works here - a unit's classification determines it's effect on LOS, not the actual size or position of the model. Therefore you can say that 30mm infantry base blocks LOS to other 30mm base, gives cover to 40mm base and bikes and cavalry but no protection to anything larger. It's no good having guidelines, for the game to be playable fairly by everyone, you need rules. But the idea is a good one, I have many non GW, non standard and converted models in my armies, and it shouldn't impact my army positively or negatively as a result.

Customizable characters. Allow for greater variences in characters instead of cookie cutter-ing them. I dont mean make a few no brainers and then a bunch that will never be used, i mean make them all usefull but force us to decide which ones with the possibility of them affecting other units or skills.

Yep

This is just a sub division of the balance argument, on many occasions those who have said they like all the options and wouldn't want a more balanced system to compromise this (it wouldn't) - only to have the counter point thrown up that 20 choices are irrelevant if people only every use the same two or three.

I also think this should be reflected in a kit too, all the key HQs really need a Space Marine Commander type kit, not monopose, zero option mini sprues.

Allies....Isay keep them as it allows us to do a lot of things we always wanted to but couldnt do before. For example, For example, I can have a group of crazy bloodthirsty marines like death company in a space wolf army. Instead of calling the blood angel allies, i can give them space wolf colors and give them a berserker type name while still using the death company rules. it allows for greater variations in this way.
HOWEVER, I see that the battle brothers can be abused. I think removing the battle rothers aspect of it would be a good idea.

The argument here was that allies done for appropriate reasons could always be done. If you wanted to run a Chaos Marine Warband with an associated Traitor Guard detachment for fluff reasons, then most fair minded players wouldn't have an issue. What happened with the inclusion of allies, and got even worse with the revisions in 7th, is the players who are always pushing the limits got handed a whole load more loopholes and imbalances to exploit. However, if we are assuming that balance is somewhere closer to reasonable thanks to the hypothetical increased play testing, then yes, allies allow for much more interesting and unique armies and should be a feature, they just need better implementation.

Lol I like that haha

Everyone agrees the game has issues. But why does someone have to post about it everyday. As if it's new news?

That was funny lol

I have been playing Warhammer a long time. 17 years. If you have a good group to play with you can always have a good time. Every edition I have played has had some over powered or seemingly overpowered stuff. I love it anyways. Stop worrying about unbalance and think of ways to enjoy it.

 Icelord wrote:
Lol I like that haha

Everyone agrees the game has issues. But why does someone have to post about it everyday. As if it's new news?

That was funny lol

I have been playing Warhammer a long time. 17 years. If you have a good group to play with you can always have a good time. Every edition I have played has had some over powered or seemingly overpowered stuff. I love it anyways. Stop worrying about unbalance and think of ways to enjoy it.

Cool story bro.

 Icelord wrote:
Lol I like that haha

That was funny lol

I'm glad you enjoyed that.

Everyone agrees the game has issues. But why does someone have to post about it everyday. As if it's new news?

There are hundreds of repeated threads that pop up every month on all the sub boards. The background section is constantly filled with 'Which Primarch is the best!?' or 'Who would win in a fight?' style posts. Its the nature of forums. Further, many of these threads about GW are different in some ways, at least in the initial question and discussion. If it bothers you so much, you could always just ignore them.

I have been playing Warhammer a long time. 17 years. If you have a good group to play with you can always have a good time. Every edition I have played has had some over powered or seemingly overpowered stuff. I love it anyways. Stop worrying about unbalance and think of ways to enjoy it.

I haven't been playing that long, only 5 odd years now I suppose, and I've fortunately only ever played with good friends. I have plenty of fun with friends, but the balance issues, mechanics issues, and price are all things that do affect my enjoyment. Telling people to stop worrying isn't productive for a discussion aimed around how GW is not a good game. I'm glad you can ignore all the problems, but some of us become annoyed with all the random changes, and the distinct lack of improvement in their ability to write quality rules after 7 editions and a few decades of experience, especially when the price is factored in.

For what its worth, I've spent plenty of time in the proposed rules back in 5th/6th doing just that; fixing the game. From helping balance things, to fan codices, to re-writes. None of that stops me from also spending the time to post in these forums about the quality of 40k.

If you have something to add about the quality of the game, feel free to do so. But telling us to stop worrying isn't really adding anything.

The game has issues with balance and rules. There are more powerful and less powerful units, as there is in everything.

I don't really care, and like the game regardless of it's issues.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I also think this should be reflected in a kit too, all the key HQs really need a Space Marine Commander type kit, not monopose, zero option mini sprues.

I would love plastic Warboss and Mek kits for my Orks. For my SM's, a Techmarine kit would be very nice.

True, I think kits like that for all of the armies might be the facter in them deciding to start that army when otherwise, they might not have.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Icelord wrote:
Lol I like that haha

Everyone agrees the game has issues. But why does someone have to post about it everyday. As if it's new news?

That was funny lol

I have been playing Warhammer a long time. 17 years. If you have a good group to play with you can always have a good time. Every edition I have played has had some over powered or seemingly overpowered stuff. I love it anyways. Stop worrying about unbalance and think of ways to enjoy it.

Cool story bro.

Thanks