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.

 EVIL INC wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way

Exactly, even in games such as chess, players will cry that it is not balanced when one wins almost every game. despite both sides starting with exactly the same pieces with exactly the same abilities starting at exactly the same locations. Sounds rather bland and boring doesnt it?
ANY game that allows you to "build" an army will have balance issues.
"The game is broke, the rules are horrible, it allows you to use a tank against my 50 guys I armed with toothpicks".

Likewise, if someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk regardless of the rules of the game they are playing. No one has ever contested the fact that the rules are not perfectly balancedor that some games are more or less balanced. It is what it is. If someone doesnt like it, they are free to go play something they enjoy more. It says more about the character of someone than the rules of the game if they spam the internet trying to convince others to hate the game as well instead of just moving on to a different game without looking back. A hobby is better off without them. Note that this is not to indicate anyone in this particuler forum.

I think its the DEGREE of unbalance that people are complaining about. Other games come to an acceptable level of balance and you see a few complaints, but not nearly as many as 40k. These complaints aren't mindless rants. They're legitimate complaints from consumers about a product they find unsatisfactory. Ignoring the huge amounts of complaints won't help anything and will only lead to the continued loss of players and revenue for GW.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way

Exactly, even in games such as chess, players will cry that it is not balanced when one wins almost every game. despite both sides starting with exactly the same pieces with exactly the same abilities starting at exactly the same locations. Sounds rather bland and boring doesnt it?
ANY game that allows you to "build" an army will have balance issues.
"The game is broke, the rules are horrible, it allows you to use a tank against my 50 guys I armed with toothpicks".

Likewise, if someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk regardless of the rules of the game they are playing. No one has ever contested the fact that the rules are not perfectly balancedor that some games are more or less balanced. It is what it is. If someone doesnt like it, they are free to go play something they enjoy more. It says more about the character of someone than the rules of the game if they spam the internet trying to convince others to hate the game as well instead of just moving on to a different game without looking back. A hobby is better off without them. Note that this is not to indicate anyone in this particuler forum.

I think its the DEGREE of unbalance that people are complaining about. Other games come to an acceptable level of balance and you see a few complaints, but not nearly as many as 40k. These complaints aren't mindless rants. They're legitimate complaints from consumers about a product they find unsatisfactory. Ignoring the huge amounts of complaints won't help anything and will only lead to the continued loss of players and revenue for GW.

Exactly this. It's not so much unbalance, because almost nothing is perfectly balanced. But the gulf between "good" and "bad" in 40k is magnitudes of depth; it's more than just "Unit A performs better than Unit B for the same points" it's often "Unit A is cheaper than Unit B and can perform 10x better, while Unit B will get shot up before it ever gets into combat and costs 30 points more than Unit A". It's almost as if every unit was designed and priced in a vacuum where it stood alone on its own merit instead of comparing it. In a hypothetical situation like that maybe Unit B would be worth taking if it was your only choice, but when Unit A is right next to it, fills the same role on the battlefield and often costs less or does more, it makes you wonder why on earth you would ever take Unit B if you had the choice.

That's what people are complaining about. If it was closer to other games where Unit A might be better than Unit B, but Unit B is a perfectly viable choice because Unit B offers this other thing that Unit A doesn't (more Wounds, for example), it would not be such a big deal. The gap in 40k though seems to range from "LOL are you serious?" to "WTFBBQ take as many of this as you can because it's that awesome and better than everything else" when in most other games it ranges from "Not great" up through "Very good".

 Anpu42 wrote:
I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.

Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.


The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.

It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.

The fact that the complaints are more vocal and loud does not mean that there are more of them. Since the 80s and even within the last 15 years, technology has advanced from pen and paper to computers to now we have people complaining in the heat of the moment on their smartphones.
Certain playstyles attract different "types" of people that ehibit different behaviors or are more or less vocal than others. A playstyle that attracts a more laid back quiet type of person will not have NEAR the "vocality' (is that even a word?) when it is weakened while a more in your face assaulty playstyle will attract a very loudly vocal type of player who will blow up the internet when it is weakened. I'm sure that you will agree with that.

Now40k is indeed IMO (because it is an opinion based matter after all) in the more unbalanced half of the spectrum. When looking at this, we have to look at the type of game it was designed to be. A beer and pretzels type of game designed to not be really serious or hardcore where you can sit and just enjoy the setting and storyline and the antics of what happenes in game win or lose. This is further examplified by the models themselves (heroic scale rather than realistic scale.

Then... players started wanting to take it more seriously, tournaments started and GW found they could make more $ off going that route. Then it escelated .

This is why we have the fluff players and the competitive players. The game was not originally designed to be competative at all and without a total redo, it never will be a good compettive game. Its trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

This is why if your wanting to have perfect balence for competetiveness sake, your better off just finding another game. trying to ruin the fun of those who play it for what it was originally designed for is only making yourself look bad. Even if your in the majority, your making yourself look bad.

I think that if you totally redid the rules for that, then you would find the players who play it for what it was originally designed would start complaining. Your just not gonna make everyone happy.

The thing is, rather than trying to run everyone off who doesnt agree with you (not you in particuler, but in general), working to find a solution might be better. Recently, i've started looking at Dust Tactics cause i think the walkers are cooland all but thats a different story and found that they have different sets of rules for the same "mythos". I think something along these lines might be something that could be a decent pipe dream. A set of fluffy rules and a set of competetive rules. That way, you could make both "sides" happy (or at least less unhappy).

 EVIL INC wrote:
A beer and pretzels type of game designed to not be really serious or hardcore where you can sit and just enjoy the setting and storyline and the antics of what happenes in game win or lose.

Explain to me how a game that does neither encourage narrative play through its rules, nor provide simple and easy to use rules, nor cost cheap enough to be considered casual, nor is easy to carry on and set up, a beer and pretzels game.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.

Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.


The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.

It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.

So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.

Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.


The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.

It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.

So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.

Are you serious?! It is most certainly the fault of the rules to allow abuses in the first place, and it is the pinnacle of lazy design to try and pass the fault off on the players for not fixing your broken rules.

Some abuses that are unforseen can be excused, but this is basically deliberate to do as little balance as possible and put the blame on the person who uses your rules in a valid way that turns out abusive. The player who brings an army of Riptides is not free of blame, by any means, but to pretend that the rules are okay for allowing it unrestricted in any way, shape or form?

 Anpu42 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.

Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.


The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.

It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.

So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.

What exactly are they abusing?
The rule says "take anything you want." Then you say they shouldn't take anything they want. Seems contradictory to me.
Or maybe it's because "taking anything you want" means taking the really good stuff and not the bad stuff and thus have an OP army.
The problem is that there is really good stuff and really bad stuff.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.

Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.


The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.

It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.

So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.

Are you serious?! It is most certainly the fault of the rules to allow abuses in the first place, and it is the pinnacle of lazy design to try and pass the fault off on the players for not fixing your broken rules.

Yes it is The Player Fault.
If you see there is a problem with the Rules that let you Pull out a 6-Riptide list and you know that nothing in your Meta can deal with it, but still chose to do it, You made that decision, not the Rule Books.

 Blacksails wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
A beer and pretzels type of game designed to not be really serious or hardcore where you can sit and just enjoy the setting and storyline and the antics of what happenes in game win or lose.

Explain to me how a game that does neither encourage narrative play through its rules, nor provide simple and easy to use rules, nor cost cheap enough to be considered casual, nor is easy to carry on and set up, a beer and pretzels game.

Different conversation. Read through the Rogue Trader book and remember the gaming scene at the time it was published.

 EVIL INC wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
That's what i mean they all say its in the rules so can play that way

Exactly, even in games such as chess, players will cry that it is not balanced when one wins almost every game. despite both sides starting with exactly the same pieces with exactly the same abilities starting at exactly the same locations. Sounds rather bland and boring doesnt it?
ANY game that allows you to "build" an army will have balance issues.
"The game is broke, the rules are horrible, it allows you to use a tank against my 50 guys I armed with toothpicks".

Likewise, if someone is going to be a jerk, they will be a jerk regardless of the rules of the game they are playing. No one has ever contested the fact that the rules are not perfectly balancedor that some games are more or less balanced. It is what it is. If someone doesnt like it, they are free to go play something they enjoy more. It says more about the character of someone than the rules of the game if they spam the internet trying to convince others to hate the game as well instead of just moving on to a different game without looking back. A hobby is better off without them. Note that this is not to indicate anyone in this particuler forum.

No good reason to make it easier being a jerk...

 MWHistorian wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.

Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.


The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.

It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.

So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.

What exactly are they abusing?
The rule says "take anything you want." Then you say they shouldn't take anything they want. Seems contradictory to me.
Or maybe it's because "taking anything you want" means taking the really good stuff and not the bad stuff and thus have an OP army.
The problem is that there is really good stuff and really bad stuff.

 Anpu42 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I also no of no game where you should not have that opening 10-15 min discussion.

Never heard of Magic, have you? That's a game that is very specific in what you may and may not play in any given format. The closest thing you get is deciding which format to play.


The point of the rules for a game is for them to be the rules for the game. Unbound requires the players to make their own additional rules and I shouldn't even have to tell you why this is a problem. It can work fine in a game group of like-minded people but it's really difficult to introduce someone from another environment because they can't just bring their rulebook, they have to first learn the often unwritten additional rules. This fractures the player base and makes discussion on a higher level more difficult than it needs to be. If every group had their own additions and changes then any discussions of tactics or balance would be impossible.

It should be immediately obvious why a well-written game that brings people together in common understanding is better than one that first requires filtering a set of all players not because they're bad people but because of the perfectly legal army they have.

So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.

Are you serious?! It is most certainly the fault of the rules to allow abuses in the first place, and it is the pinnacle of lazy design to try and pass the fault off on the players for not fixing your broken rules.

Yes it is The Player Fault.
If you see there is a problem with the Rules that let you Pull out a 6-Riptide list and you know that nothing in your Meta can deal with it, but still chose to do it, You made that decision, not the Rule Books.

I won't argue that the player is not *at* fault, because he is, but the fault IMHO lies more with the rules that allow a 6-Riptide list with nothing to reign it in. The player is still a jerk for bringing it when they know nothing in their meta can deal with it, but the rules are not innocent because the rules of the game should at least try to stop abuse.

Cant it just be both?

 EVIL INC wrote:

Different conversation. Read through the Rogue Trader book and remember the gaming scene at the time it was published.

You did say about 40k now, unless I'm misinterpreting when you 'Now 40k...' and the rest of the sentence I quoted.

As long as think 40k currently isn't a beer and pretzels game, I'm happy.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
A beer and pretzels type of game designed to not be really serious or hardcore where you can sit and just enjoy the setting and storyline and the antics of what happenes in game win or lose.

Explain to me how a game that does neither encourage narrative play through its rules, nor provide simple and easy to use rules, nor cost cheap enough to be considered casual, nor is easy to carry on and set up, a beer and pretzels game.

Different conversation. Read through the Rogue Trader book and remember the gaming scene at the time it was published.

Nope, very much the same conversation.
This is a thread about how the game should be played and "beer and pretzals" signifies an easy to play, casual game without much thought put into it.
If the rules were easier to use and the game weren't so convoluted and expensive, it could be a beer and pretzals game.
But it isn't.
"Casual" shouldn't be an excuse for sloppy rules.
The world has changed since RT days. RT was a blast because it was new and different. (And I was much younger and didn't know better.) But now I'm older and have seen better games out there and when I see the mess that is 7th ed rules, I see how bad it really is.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.

Why do you still read and post in the 40k topics then? Don't you expect more from your time as well?

 Paradigm wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
In the FLGS/pickup game culture the issue is, I think, that you're more likely to play a game against someone you don't really know, so it's rude to present a list of restrictions or whatnot. While in a gaming club it's not that unheard of to have "club rules" that outline things like games are X points unless agreed upon, no Titans/superheavies, etc.

In a club that's fine because club members are expected to abide by the rules, but it's not the same if Bob goes down to the game store and expects Jim to adhere to his rules for a game. Jim might play, but it doesn't seem right.

It's hard to explain, honestly.

Hmm, I kind of see where you're coming from, but still don't entirely get it. I wouldn't advocate turning up to a game and handing over a list of restrictions, but I don't quite see why you can't police yourself. If, when making lists, everyone were to think 'would I enjoy seeing this across the table?', and all built so that the answer was yes, there wouldn't be need for swapping house rules at the start of the game. Anyone who's read a forum knows that bringing 3+ Wave Serpents or a Knight in a small game is no fun to face, so why take it?

Like I say, maybe I'm putting too much faith in people to put others first, but I do find it odd.

Not at all. I've played with many groups, and the vast majority are decent guys to play with. As I've said before, the number of players who actually show up to play with six serpents or riptides is pretty rare. They don't last long in most gaming groups because nobody wants to play then, and they end up finding somewhere else to play or hating 40k since their legal army doesn't get much table time. And, after an hour of whining someone plays a tailored list to squish them like a bug, after which they hate 40k even more.

What 40k is not terrific for is pickup games, although it's certainly possible to see good ones of those.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.

Why do you still read and post in the 40k topics then? Don't you expect more from your time as well?

If enough people complain firms and sells drop most firms tend to change stuff. And considering how random GW writes rules, one never knows, maybe the next codex for my faction will be more fun to play with.

They don't last long in most gaming groups because nobody wants to play then, and they end up finding somewhere else to pls or haying 40k since their legal army doesn't get much table time. And, after an hour of whining someone plays a tailored list to squish them like a bug, after which they hate 40k even more.

Hmm what is more possible. People buying the best units for their army to get the highest chance for fun games or people spending an impossible number of cash to counter every good build possible.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.

Why do you still read and post in the 40k topics then? Don't you expect more from your time as well?

Are we back to this again? Really? He's an ex customer who might return to being a customer if things changed. That's reason enough to talk about it.

Makumba wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.

Why do you still read and post in the 40k topics then? Don't you expect more from your time as well?

If enough people complain firms and sells drop most firms tend to change stuff. And considering how random GW writes rules, one never knows, maybe the next codex for my faction will be more fun to play with.

I post on forums when I'm waiting around (getting an oil change atm) or when I'm watching tv. In either case, I'm not giving anything up to post

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I didn't accept it and stopped playing. I expect more for my money.

Why do you still read and post in the 40k topics then? Don't you expect more from your time as well?

What's it to you? You rather skirt the issue of what I'm saying and attack the messenger?

Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.

Unbalance can also take place in more Balanced Games and not because of the Rules.
BattleTech which is one of the More Balanced Unbound games out there had its Balance issues especially when the Clans Showed up. It was so bad that our group did not allow them in games for years.
The a couple of us managed to set up a Game where the Clan Players used the Clan Challenge Rules [I forgot the name]. After the game the others were willing to play vs the Clans, except one player who would only use 100% Customized Mechs with Mixed Technology. [He is no longer with the group because no one would play him].
These are the People who immediately gave Unbound it Bad name. Who most likely were the Same People caused all of those 1999+1 List in 6th and were playing Cheese in 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and RT
The Game suffers from them as well as Rules Issues, but that does not make the Game the Only Problem, because there are players out there that will push Any Game to its breaking point.
I also don't mind the 6x Riptide Players as long as they are polite and on occasion want to change things every once in a while and play something different, but for me that has more to with I get board facing the same thing every single time win or loose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.

If that is how you play Beer and Pretzels I wish I was part of your group.
This how we do it, the only pressure is looser pays for the Pizza next week, but not two weeks in a row.
We also play by the Rules 99.999999%. Out house rules are Fluffy things like allowing Salamanders to take a Heavy Flamer in place of any Heavy Bolter, Rough Riders being aloud to replace their Hunting Lances with Las-Pistols and Harker makes his Squad Relentless. We have really seen a reason to add a bunch of Rules Fixes.
The funny thing is we have had people quit because we did not take the game serious enough.

 Anpu42 wrote:

So the problem with Unbound is The Games Fault not the Players Fault?
It is Players who use the Abuses that can be taken in the game that makes the Rules the Problem, that is not the Fault of the Rules.

Unbound isn't abused. It's played the way that the rules explicitly let you. It's difficult for it to be abused because you can just take 2000 points of Riptides or whatever without jumping through the min-maxing hoops that the FOC system requires. Manipulating detachments is much more abusive than the unbound system.

The problem isn't what any one individual decides to do against the wishes of their local group but what these rules mean on a large scale. An unstable game environment isn't something you can blame individual players for. This is a systemic problem. The fault lies with the game designers.

I think the phrase "beer and pretzels" can no longer really be applied to 40k. When you've got armies as big as they are, with the huge wide-ranging issues of balance and simple scale, the investment and time requirement is far beyond "beer and pretzels".

OGRE is a beer and pretzels game. 40k is not.

I can't think of another game where players have to have as much pre-game negotiation, or that have to deal with four or five different rules channels.

The pre-game negotiations is why you need the beer....

 EVIL INC wrote:
Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.

Then every game is a beer and pretzels game.

All of that isn't a unique ability only granted by 40k.

However, unlike 40k, other games are cheaper, simpler, better balanced, have less ambiguous wording, and require less 'policing' to ensure everyone brought a suitably fun list.

Which is why very few people seriously consider 40k a beer and pretzels game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Youve never played a game n your dining room without caring who wins or loses so long as you enjoy spending time with your buddies while you snack and drink beer (or in my case soda)? You know where you can stop mid game to go on a pizza run or stop and watch a movie and come back and just pick up where you left off because there was no pressure on time? Where if someone thinks they can do something and moves their model they are allowed to move it back since they were confused? Where you can have a game master set up the table according to a custom scenerio they designed and want to run the others through and the others are happy for the challenge? This is the sort of game 40k was originally designed for. To me, this is a "beer and prezels" game. If I got my terminology wrong, I'm sorry.

Yeah, exactly. My basement is set up for gaming, with a 6x4, two 4x4's and a pool table that can double as a gffame surface. I have a couple of couches and a big screen tv. Lots of pop and snacks, 50 cent honor system. We argue more about which show or football fame to put on the tv than whether GOI constitutes movement. And if someone is really a dick, I just don't have them back.

Golden Eye was a great game, but there would always be TFG that would select Oddjob (and indeed would consider selecting Oddjob really quickly just to deny it to the other players to be part of the skill of the game)!

I can't point the finger; I loved it when they added the tactical shield to counterstrike. I was always TFG there . People hated the shield, but I just saw it as part of the game to be used.

Talys... man, nice set up; can I play if ever in Canada?