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.

Anathir wrote:


On top of that the factions feel flavourless fluff wise. The story is non existent compared to 40k. And if you don't love the steampunk robot stuff you won't be particularly attached to your miniatures, the way we are emotionally attached to our 40k factions.

I agree, it's been the biggest barrier to my committing to WMH. I often compare the game to the miniatures version of a CCG, and it seems to be players of the same mindset that really seem to connect with it. That said, GW have a massive head start on PP in this regard, and I can't believe PP are not aware. Whether they have the will or ability to do anything about it, is a different question.

There is also the small detail of model quality....I cant even describe how frustrating assembling the metal WMH models are, and how many mould lines the plastics have.

This is no different to GW, again, go back to the same point in GW's life as PP are at in theirs, and my memories are they were much worse. Tech may have improved in plastics, but the economic realities of the different production methods haven't all that much.

If you've not experienced building a metal Land Speeder, only to have the small peg flying base topple the first time you place it on, causing said LS to explode back into its component parts, you don't even know what frusttrating looks like!

As a final note I leave this thought: We often talk about a fun list vs a tuned list, well obviously the game is going to be one sided. In any game system the fine tuned list will have an advantage. (Don't think for a moment going to WMH is going to let you pick out whatever nice models and give you real chance of winning vs a tournament list). In the situation of 2 fine tuned lists, that is where the skill emerges. And before someone says "well then it comes down to some key dice rolls", that is also the case in WMH in many situations.

There's no rule that says a tuned list vs a fun list needs to be a foregone conclusion though, which is more often than not the situation with 40K. The key difference between 40K right now alongside those other games which are held up as better examples of what people are looking for is that the emphasis on decision making in-game is generally much higher, which in turn de-emphasises the importance of list building. A better built list will be at an advantage, which is as it should be, but, unlike 40K, I can, and have, throw down any old rubbish vs a world championship winning list in X Wing and still make a decent fist of beating it.

There's still room for a little of this in 40K, but honestly, once you've learned the stuff that poses your list difficulties and prioritise the elimination of those units, most games will play very similarly, unless you encounter the rock to your list's scissors, at which point there's little you can do.

That's not to say these issues don't exist outside of 40K, it's just in 40K they seem to be so much worse and occur much more frequently, and the creators seem much less bothered about addressing them.

@AllSeeingSkink

I'm not sure about that last paragraph. There were 200 players at adepticon... GWs in the UK always have a strong 40k presence. If its terrible why do we play?

When I first entered fantasy at the beginning of 6th, my army (high elves) was one of the weakest...and it only became apparent to me after I had a full army painted. I did ok in tournaments, made me a better player. I was a bit bitter sure, but mostly I was ok with the challenge of it...I had FUN. Even in a competitive environment, its not the end of the world to have one of the lower tiered factions. And if you're not competitive you can just simply decline playing any list you don't like.

Dex imbalance is not ideal but there are ways around it. There is also the added benefit that if your said dex of an underpowered unit gets buffed...you have everything ready to go at your disposal.

In the end though its down to people's mentalities. If they want to find a fault in something they will find it. If they want to have fun they will also find it.

@Azrael
Automatically Appended Next Post:

This is no different to GW, again, go back to the same point in GW's life as PP are at in theirs, and my memories are they were much worse. Tech may have improved in plastics, but the economic realities of the different production methods haven't all that much.

That's my point They're at different levels of quality.

There's no rule that says a tuned list vs a fun list needs to be a foregone conclusion though, which is more often than not the situation with 40K. The key difference between 40K right now alongside those other games which are held up as better examples of what people are looking for is that the emphasis on decision making in-game is generally much higher, which in turn de-emphasises the importance of list building. A better built list will be at an advantage, which is as it should be, but, unlike 40K, I can, and have, throw down any old rubbish vs a world championship winning list in X Wing and still make a decent fist of beating it.

There's still room for a little of this in 40K, but honestly, once you've learned the stuff that poses your list difficulties and prioritise the elimination of those units, most games will play very similarly, unless you encounter the rock to your list's scissors, at which point there's little you can do.

That's not to say these issues don't exist outside of 40K, it's just in 40K they seem to be so much worse and occur much more frequently, and the creators seem much less bothered about addressing them.

Yeah, you're right. Yet somehow I and many others still want to play 40k and don't care at all about any other game right now. Funny how that works. I'd definitely prefer a tight ruleset with balanced factions and I will remember that the next time I buy from ebay and not GW online store, but its not going to stop me from enjoying myself.

You keep playing a terrible game because your heavily invested and switching systems means those hundreds or thousands were wasted.

That's human nature, people defend bad video games for the same reason they spent £100 on the special edition so they have to like it because admitting it's bad is admitting you were taken as a fool.

Colonial marines is a great example it's a terrible game that lacks features that were promised and has atrocious A.I but still some defend it.

So you keep playing 40k because you're afraid to try other games in case you like them and show you the flaws of the creaking mess it's become.

Yet he clearly stated he's been playing WMH.

For gods sake, stop letting your venom get in the way of making logical arguments, not only does it make you look like a rabid hater it pollutes the arguments of anyone else who wishes to be critical by being tarred with the same brush.

Its ok he hasn't been reading my posts.

Are you up to date with WMH though?
Not knocking you in particular, but I see that someone mentioned Cryx and Legion win the most tournaments, without mentioning that Circle and Trolls were up there for a long while.

Even so, it is not like 40k where Eldar dominate with a few other factions joining in. In WMH most armies are able to win a tournament (you'll find minions and skorne winning occasionally, good luck finding CSM winning a major tournament).

WMH also has faqs. For example, someone mentioned 15% free (I think the real percent is much higher but ok) and its true that this list, EE, was a problem. But then an faq came out that nerfed the list without making it unplayable. The same thing happened to the strongest casters in the game, H2 and Denny2, to make them a lot more playable. No game is perfect, but at least WMH releases fixes and has been getting a lot better about boosting bad units and merging strong ones to create a more balanced game.

You really can't compare 40k and WMH from a balance perspective if you actively play both. I do and it's completely night and day.

Deadnight wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
"Forging the Narrative" works in an RPG where there is a GM that is playing one "side" and the other players are playing the other "side". In such a scenario, it is fine for the GM to "lose" almost every battle, because he/she is there to tell a story involving the heroics of the player-characters.

This is less-valid when you are talking about 2 players setting up a game where each has spent $500 dollars on their "side" and when Timmy says "My Blue Marines are the best in the galaxy, they never lose!" and Tommy says, "Feth you, my Evil Marines are going to win today"... but Tommy's Evil Marines are *designed* to lose the game. This is not fun for Tommy and, pretty soon, Timmy has no one to play against.... until Tommy returns (having spent another $500) and says, "Feth you and your Blue Marines, Timmy, I have Space-Cows and Giant Robots."

Now Timmy is sad that his Blue Marines are dying in droves to the long-range firepower of the Space-Cows and their untouchable Giant Robots. Timmy doesn't have another $300 to spent on the Yellow Marines needed to beat Tommy's Giant Robots, and so, as far as he is concerned, the narrative being forged is Not Fun... so now Tommy (having spent $1000 on this game) has no one to play with.

And yet the co-operative, think-like-a-gm approach that you dismiss as unworkable for Timmy and Tommy would in fact make most of their arms race irrelevant, and solve a lot of the issues when you think about it. In other words, it's just as true to state that their petty games of pay to win and one-upsmanship is what is actually 'less valid' as an approach.

You are essentially saying that 'forging the narrative' is incompatible with a toxic, self-centred, self-defeating, and fundamentally hostile approach to wargaming and community. Yeah, that sounds like a good thing to me, being perfectly honest.

'Forging the narrative' works just fine. With the right approach and mentality, along with a bit of emotional intelligence and maturity. historical players have been 'forgive the narrative' for decades, telling the stories of the heroics of their Normans and Saxons and Romans and celts. I mean, we do the same thing as 40k players - folks name their space marine captains and far seers, and our chapters, guard regiments and craft worlds. It's not 'just' a game if you don't want to to be.

players can also wear gm hats. Once the dice are rolling, fair enough - go for the throat. But there is no reason thst two players can't co-operate pre-game in terms of 'game-building' and game design and work out an interesting scenario, and good match ups that fit the theme of the scenario. You'd be surprised - wargamers have been doing this for decades, and it predates the idea of points, pugs, and tournaments. All it takes is a change in perception in how you approach wargames.

As for your two players - it's certainly less valid for the simple reason that they are self centred, entitled idiots. Timmy and Tommy need to grow the hell up and step out of the arms race, petty one-upsmanship and 'pay to win' mentality. Assuming tommy's army is curpstomping timmy's, and assuming that they're friends (shocking, I know - nerds socialising and building connections with other people?! Gasp!) Couldn't thry just as easily have a chat, and work out a compromise in terms of making a fair game? Drop some stuff (hey, you've proved you can best me with that list, let's move on) Or build it up against an interesting story or scenario. I mean, if they're mates and all, surely it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they'll (gasp!) talk, and (gasp!)co-operate if they want to have fair, fun games, if thst arms race means one of them is miserable. If they insist on the pay to win approach, then they're the ones that are wrong, it's their approach that is the problem and all they're doing is destroying their own hobby and probably friendship. But I suppose though that I'm probably expecting too much though when I talk about gamers having emotional maturity .

Why should Tommy have to agree to lose the game to have fun? The game is not written with that in mind, it is not presented with that in mind, and it, most importantly, includes no suggestions, rules, concepts or ideas to play in that manner.

I think you will find that most people are self-centered idiots, especially when they're teenagers. That is a hallmark of that age-range, and has been since humanity crawled out of the seas.

Telling someone to "forge the narrative" is all well and good, but absolutely worthless advice when there are no tools provided (other than crappy list options and sub-par units for the predefined losers of the game) to actually forge that narrative. This, then, becomes a game where one player puts his models on the table... and then just picks them back up to put back into the box. Gee, that certainly sounds like fun! Again, returning to Timmy and Tommy, they are both equally invested (money-wise) in the game at the outset. Even if we let Tommy take twice the number of models than Timmy, Tommy is going to lose the game because he plays CSM and they, in three words, suck out loud. This is not a particularly interesting game, for either player.

In the historic gaming community, let us say that the rules for the game are written in such a manner that, no matter what the Celts, Saxons, Goths, Visi-Goths or Teutons do... Rome beats them in every game. I mean, not just winning the game, but loses 2 models to the barbarians' 300. You would not see many people choosing to play the barbarians in this situation. However, this is the situation we find ourselves in with certain lists in 40K.

Couldn't thry just as easily have a chat, and work out a compromise in terms of making a fair game?

Could they? Sure. But why the feth would you spend $500 on a game that you have to re-write? This is where GW fails as a company. I should not have to spend $50 on one of their books and then re-write the book to create a balanced, fun game for me and my friends. I would much rather just make up the rules myself/with friends and 3D print the models (which, thanks to Poser and 3DS, I can now do. I can even custom-build models and wargear, given enough time in designing the OBJ files in 3DS.)

Further, having to house-rule every game one plays, especially when one plays in a FLGS or similar environment where there are new people arriving, or PUGs are the norm, is... impractical. You will always encounter someone who is going to say "Eh, no... I mean, I bought this army and its rules to play it like this. It sucks that your army isn't better, but I didn't create the rules to the game." In a lot of areas, this will be the difference between playing and not-playing, and, in general, it is not possible to say that either player is being unreasonable. After all, these are premium products, at premium prices, one expects to "get what they paid for".

As for the "pay to win" approach? No, not really. After all, the models for 40K are similarly priced for the roles they have in a given list (troops are troops, HS is HS, etc), but one can be extremely disadvantaged (or heavily advantaged) because you spent $50 on the Blue Guys instead of the Red Guys. After all, in the scenario, again, Timmy and Tommy come into the game equally-invested... but GW failed, utterly, to provide equal value for Tommy's Evil Marines compared to Timmy's Blue Marines.

Anathir wrote:
Its also not as balanced as people claim it is. It is often the same 1-2 factions (cryx/legion) dominating the big tournaments, and the same few casters at that. In the rare situation where a rules errata changes the meta some previously competitive casters are nerfed the players of those casters often have to go re purchase nearly brand new armies, and so do the players that have lists to counter the meta and all that. Its insane. The army comp rules don't have troop tax or anything like that so there are few units that are mainstays in all lists of a certain faction. Good for variety, bad for $ and painting time investment.

You say that, and yet at Adeptionon Convergence, a side faction, took 1st, mercenaries, another faction that is not intended to be a 'full' faction, took 2nd. Yes Cryx took 3rd, but that sounds rather different from the game you described. Las Vegas Open was Retubution, Trollbloods, and Mercenaries. Smogcon was Cygnar, Circle, Cygnar.
Everyone can check the numbers for themselves right here: http://www.discountgamesinc.com/tournaments/
I suspect it is a much wider field than the 40k equivalent.

Anathir wrote:
On top of that the factions feel flavourless fluff wise. The story is non existent compared to 40k. And if you don't love the steampunk robot stuff you won't be particularly attached to your miniatures, the way we are emotionally attached to our 40k factions.

You should try the Iron Kingdom's RPG material. Puts anything GW has done fluffwise recently to shame.

I have always been curious about the IK RPG, what would be the best way to start?

 kodos wrote:
I have always been curious about the IK RPG, what would be the best way to start?

Old d20 material, if you can find it. The world guide is immense.

The current 'series' with pp's proprietary system is the ikrpg core rules (the city/urban side), and the iron kingdoms unleashed (adventuring in the wilds), with kings,nations and gods being the expansion specifically for the warmachine 'nations', urban adventures being set in the city of five fingers and great for, ready, urban campaigns. Oh, and you have the skorne supplement if you fancy a campaign in the east. Further releases are planned - the next one is 'wild adventures'.

Well worth investing in - the books do a great job of bringing the continent to life.

 Psienesis wrote:

Why should Tommy have to agree to lose the game to have fun?

Never said he had to lose to have fun, I said if he is winning so effortlessly, they should think about changing things up for a fair or interesting game. Because it very much implies that something isn't right in that scenario.

 Psienesis wrote:

The game is not written with that in mind, it is not presented with that in mind, and it, most importantly, includes no suggestions, rules, concepts or ideas to play in that manner.

I'd argue that when you read between the lines, the intent of all gw games is a fundamentally co-operative approach.
If you need rules to tell you how to be nice to your opponents or how to co-operate, then frankly, you're doing it wrong and it doesn't say much for you (btw I'm not saying this about you psi!) as a person in terms of empathy or creativity. The the whole idea of friendship itself must go over their heads if this is the case. I mean, when we all were kids, we just did this kind of stuff in the playground naturally. It's not really that hard to do, nor is it incomprehensible either.

 Psienesis wrote:

I think you will find that most people are self-centered idiots, especially when they're teenagers. That is a hallmark of that age-range, and has been since humanity crawled out of the seas.

Which, like I said, doesnt invalidating the idea of 'forging the narrative'.

 Psienesis wrote:

Telling someone to "forge the narrative" is all well and good, but absolutely worthless advice when there are no tools provided (other than crappy list options and sub-par units for the predefined losers of the game) to actually forge that narrative. This, then, becomes a game where one player puts his models on the table... and then just picks them back up to put back into the box. Gee, that certainly sounds like fun! Again, returning to Timmy and Tommy, they are both equally invested (money-wise) in the game at the outset. Even if we let Tommy take twice the number of models than Timmy, Tommy is going to lose the game because he plays CSM and they, in three words, suck out loud. This is not a particularly interesting game, for either player.

Then they should try and make it interesting. if their games suck because the game mode they're planning is bad, unbalanced, or unsustainable, and they do nothing about it, then they are both also partly to blame for it. Being a bit more pro-active goes a long, long way to mitigating, or resolving a lot of these issues.

I agree that gw could do more to give ideas and suggestions as to 'how' to spproach this, but fundamentally its not really all that difficult to do in the first place. I mean, we learned about playing together, playing nice, sharing, working together and all that way back in kindergarten. It really is not beyond anyone, and you don't necessarily really need an instruction manual, just an imagination, some creativity, and a desire to co-operate and build something together with your mate. It boils down to just homebrewing an interesting scenario involving a specific, or even themed/interesting and fair match up, rather than a scenario out of the book, and just pitting two 'blind' lists against each other. (Eg Wouldn't it be cool to run a scenario where your half company of tactical marines, And maybe some terminators are trying to clear out an underground complex from, say, waves of gene stealers and gaunts. We could put in traps, ambushes, and maybe some units get the 'endless' special rule if it looks like it's one sided'?' Make it into a story, make it fun. and make it more than 'just' a 'line em up, move em forward, and kill em all in the middle' game, Rather than the usual pug-based 'blind' match up thst involves some 1500pts of my (overpowered) codex - and typically the top 0.5% of that codex, just spammed to the point of ridiculousness versus 1500points of some bottom of the heap mess.

If it's the kind of game where you're putting models on the table onto to put them straight back into the bag, it's not much of a game, is it? So why are you wasting your time approaching games in this manner? There are better ways of spending your time, and using these pieces. Especially if they're both equally invested in the gsme in terms of money, then surely it makes sense to try and maximise your return in terms of hobby enjoyment? Personally I just wouldn't play those kinds of skewed one-sided games in the first place - my gaming time is too precious and limited. My first recourse will always be the work around.

Regarding Timmy and Tommy, how about Timmy leave some of the op stuff at home, if the other guys army suck out loud? Being 'honest' about the game and it's issues and limitations is the first thing you should do, and the second thing is seeing if there is some way of working around it.

 Psienesis wrote:

In the historic gaming community, let us say that the rules for the game are written in such a manner that, no matter what the Celts, Saxons, Goths, Visi-Goths or Teutons do... Rome beats them in every game. I mean, not just winning the game, but loses 2 models to the barbarians' 300. You would not see many people choosing to play the barbarians in this situation. However, this is the situation we find ourselves in with certain lists in 40K.

So seemingly, The situation in 40k is a crumby rules set played by people who have no interest in approaching their games in a different manner to try and get the most out of them? Ok, gotcha.

Well, firstly you'll have to show me this terribly designed historical game. and I'll show you a way to work around it.

But to answer your question, the first thing most historical players will do is either home brew That game, or use a different rules set for their Romans, celts, Saxons and whatever. The second thing they'd probably do is look towards tweaking, and modifying scenarios and writing specific lists to have some interesting match ups and scenarios. That's the great thing about historicals - there are a lot of rules sets out there, models are interchangeable between them and celts, frankly, are celts (or in my case, warriors and riders of Rohan are celts, Germans, Saxons, Franks, Normans, Roman auxiliaries), Whatever rules set you use.

 Psienesis wrote:

Could they? Sure. But why the feth would you spend $500 on a game that you have to re-write? This is where GW fails as a company. I should not have to spend $50 on one of their books and then re-write the book to create a balanced, fun game for me and my friends. I would much rather just make up the rules myself/with friends and 3D print the models (which, thanks to Poser and 3DS, I can now do. I can even custom-build models and wargear, given enough time in designing the OBJ files in 3DS.)

BecauseThere is a difference between 're-writing a game' and having a chat about putting down an interesting match up, or having a gentleman a agreement about 'leaving the Knights at home for this game' or 'let's do a skirmishers-only kind of battle!' ultimately, it's just a change in perception. You have rules for infantry, vehicles, super heavy vehicles, walkers, aircraft, monstrous and gigantic creatures, along with whether your guy has a pistol or a chain-whip. And options are just thst. All of these things exist, and they all have value, but they don't necessarily always 'fit' in every single game or match up, every time together. They don't necessarily need to all be lumped in together into some horrible paste - no, just pick and choose. Play what's interesting.

And also, because bring creative, and being in the driving seat of your own hobby, doing your own things and not slavishly defining how you play by the 'book', and 'how' you play can be an immensely rewarding and enjoyable experience.

 Psienesis wrote:

Further, having to house-rule every game one plays, especially when one plays in a FLGS or similar environment where there are new people arriving, or PUGs are the norm, is... impractical. You will always encounter someone who is going to say "Eh, no... I mean, I bought this army and its rules to play it like this. It sucks that your army isn't better, but I didn't create the rules to the game." In a lot of areas, this will be the difference between playing and not-playing, and, in general, it is not possible to say that either player is being unreasonable. After all, these are premium products, at premium prices, one expects to "get what they paid for".

It can be impractical, but this is also the age of Facebook and the internets. What's stoping you organising a game ahead of time and working things out from there's. If pugs are the norm, and pugs aren't working, as per your examples, then why are people continuing to play in a broken manner? In this scenario,The players aren't entirely without blame here either psi.

Second issue is that whilst playing at flgs's is fine, and fun, it's not the only way of playing your wargames. We usually play at my mates house for example. And I've been through in Glasgow for 'all day gaming' at a friends house, rather than an lgs. Far more of a laid back and friendly setting, if you ask me.

Third issue - guy says no. Fair enough, as you say, he's not being unreasonable. If he likes power lists, then fair enough. But if he's talking down to me like that, with that attitude, handwaving away any sense of responsibility, or community spirit, it's probably not a game I'm actually interested in playing either, or a player for that matter. I dislike people who shrug off their own responsibility towards others in a game that is based around social interaction. Amusingly - even Page 5, has a bit about all that. Not playing beats playing rubbish games, if you ask me. If he wants to play a broken list against someone whose codex is nowhere near his level of power, then it doesn't say a lot about him, Either as a player or as a person, does it? But By all means, he's not nessessarily wrong for wanting a powerful list - hr should play his super powered list against something equally super powered, (and that's perfectly fair and reasonable, and more power to him) whilst I go and play mine in the equivelant of the lower leagues. But surely that just reinforces what I was saying earlier, about designing specific, and fair match ups between the forces in the game, and playing 'what's appropriate' rather than a 'blind' pug?

 Psienesis wrote:

As for the "pay to win" approach? No, not really. After all, the models for 40K are similarly priced for the roles they have in a given list (troops are troops, HS is HS, etc), but one can be extremely disadvantaged (or heavily advantaged) because you spent $50 on the Blue Guys instead of the Red Guys. After all, in the scenario, again, Timmy and Tommy come into the game equally-invested... but GW failed, utterly, to provide equal value for Tommy's Evil Marines compared to Timmy's Blue Marines.

Ah but their story is about one upsmanship and 'pay to win' too, which is what I was referring to! Remember the part where he went out and spent another £500 to curb stomp his mate? Pay to win. Like I said, they could have tried to act like adults, and had a discussion about it.

Gw failed in producing a balanced game. I don't know about 'equal value' though. Value is what you make of it. I mean, if you are a painter, and love the sculpts, then the value is the painting, and not the in-game relevance. Speaking about value though, Gw aren't the only ones here who failed.Timmy and Tommy also failed 'utterly' to step up to the plate as mates,cseemingly happy to just play oneupsmanship. They also failed in their approach to their game. They played a broken game in a broken manner and it didn't work. And they didn't do anything about it.They failed in thinking a little bit out of the box, and the failed in considering an alternative approach to their gsmes, and their friendship, which could very easily have provided the 'value' they sought in their wee plastic doods.

Here's the thing. Gw's points costs are all over the place, and the gsme is a schitzofrenic mess. Playing it 'as is' is literally an exercise in frustration. If 40k is what you want, for whatever the reason (and there are plenty legitimate ones - love the lore, lore the models, all your friends play, you've invested plenty already and it would be a shame to not get anything out of it...) then, at the very least, a consideration towards the approach I'm suggesting is merited.

 kodos wrote:
I have always been curious about the IK RPG, what would be the best way to start?

I know that Unleashed has a starter adventure with soft plastic models and tiles if you're interested in the more beastly aspects, if you want a proper Urban Adventure you're best off with this PDF: http://files.privateerpress.com/ironkingdoms/documents/adventures/IKRPG_Scenario_Fools_Rush_In.pdf
It has the quickstart rules, premade characters, and an into adventure.
The Full Metal Fantasy book, along with Nations, Kings and Gods are both great sources of fluff, as is the Unleashed book (which had to have a whole faction cut from it and released as a softback supplement because otherwise the core book would have had to be far too big).

Akiasura wrote:
Are you up to date with WMH though?
Not knocking you in particular, but I see that someone mentioned Cryx and Legion win the most tournaments, without mentioning that Circle and Trolls were up there for a long while.

Even so, it is not like 40k where Eldar dominate with a few other factions joining in. In WMH most armies are able to win a tournament (you'll find minions and skorne winning occasionally, good luck finding CSM winning a major tournament).

WMH also has faqs. For example, someone mentioned 15% free (I think the real percent is much higher but ok) and its true that this list, EE, was a problem. But then an faq came out that nerfed the list without making it unplayable. The same thing happened to the strongest casters in the game, H2 and Denny2, to make them a lot more playable. No game is perfect, but at least WMH releases fixes and has been getting a lot better about boosting bad units and merging strong ones to create a more balanced game.

You really can't compare 40k and WMH from a balance perspective if you actively play both. I do and it's completely night and day.

I'm not up-to-date entirely. But I understand what you're saying and I agree... WMH is way more balanced and supported, and the range of armies that win is greater than 40k. The point I'm making in particular is that it is supposed to be the main attraction of the game, as a whole the game lacks (my opinion) in story/theme, aesthetics and model quality. I felt that the balance was not enough to offset the these other issues. Its a totally subjective point of view, but that was how I felt after my experience with it. Those last 3 issues is why we play tabletop games right? Or else we'd play computer games or stuff like chess that are pure tests of wit without any of the extra stuff. Its the 3D spectacle that is the defining feature of a tabletop game compared to other kinds of games. 40k for me excels in those last 3 points, but struggles in rules/balance....the difference being that community comp can help marginally rectify that issue whereas community can't fix a game a player finds ugly.

Deadnight wrote:
BecauseThere is a difference between 're-writing a game' and having a chat about putting down an interesting match up, or having a gentleman a agreement about 'leaving the Knights at home for this game' or 'let's do a skirmishers-only kind of battle!' ultimately, it's just a change in perception. You have rules for infantry, vehicles, super heavy vehicles, walkers, aircraft, monstrous and gigantic creatures, along with whether your guy has a pistol or a chain-whip. And options are just thst. All of these things exist, and they all have value, but they don't necessarily always 'fit' in every single game or match up, every time together. They don't necessarily need to all be lumped in together into some horrible paste - no, just pick and choose. Play what's interesting.

And also, because bring creative, and being in the driving seat of your own hobby, doing your own things and not slavishly defining how you play by the 'book', and 'how' you play can be an immensely rewarding and enjoyable experience.

The point of having a ruleset is to have a common ground with anyone else who knows the game. Certainly any organised or tightly knit playgroup will tweak things to suit them but with good rules you shouldn't have to do that. You should be able to have a decent game with anyone else by following the rules as written. That people can do whatever they want is not a reason to accept bad rules.

When I hear about adjusting the game in accord to the imbalances the company puts into it (willingly or out of negligence), I cannot help smiling.

Is something I can do now, because I am a veteran, but it was not something I would have been able to do properly as a beginner. Actually at the beginning I was really naive and assumed that the system provided by the company was the bestest evar and if something was not working, it was because it was my fault.
Moreover, I was surrounded by people (like me) less mature and less prone to such compromises. Compromises come with maturity. If you want new blood, a game for kids, better it works out of the box.

You know, now that I think about it... better that it works out of the box anyway, because with maturity I am more prone to compromise and I have more money, but my time is a rare currency. So is not that this crap GW keeps churning out is acceptable right now, either.

Rosebuddy wrote:
The point of having a ruleset is to have a common ground with anyone else who knows the game. Certainly any organised or tightly knit playgroup will tweak things to suit them but with good rules you shouldn't have to do that. You should be able to have a decent game with anyone else by following the rules as written. That people can do whatever they want is not a reason to accept bad rules.

I don't disagree with you rosebuddy. But even with good rules, you'll sometimes come at cross purposes with people. And it's not that people 'shouldn't have to do that', with regard to tweaking rules or homebrewing it's that if you chose to approach your wargames in this way, you'd be surprised at how enjoyable the approach can be by doing things a little bit different. Despite my stance on diy gaming, I also appreciate and enjoy pick-up-games and tournaments, and enjoy organised formats in gsmes like warmachine immensely. Having a common ground to play on is certainly a good thing, but bear in mind, the 'forge the narrative' gaming I speak about is not necessarily incompatible with it either. I mean, we're using the same rules and everything, I'm just saying that playing 'blind' lists into blind lists isn't always clever, playing the same scenarios out of the book gets boring, and having a chat and organising things beforehand can go a long way towards keeping your hobby interesting. Doubly so if a game has structural issues or has such a varied mix of things in it that it's easy for things to get skewed.

And I'm not accepting or comdoning bad rules. I'm working around them. It's the eternal battle between idealism and pragmatism. The ideal would be nice, certainly, but when you get down into the blood and guts in the trenches, ideals are of very little use frankly, and pragmatism carries more weight and is the order of the day. Gw won't fix their rules, and really, they don't care about my enjoyment of their products. Our relationship ended the second money changed hands. And honestly, I'm quite ok with that. What it means though is that gw isn't going to fix the problems. So I either (a) suck it up, play the game as is, and get more and more frustrated, (b) walk away and play my other wargames, of which I'll happily play warmachine, infinity or lately Lord of the rings sbg/historicals (which is altogether a shame as it makes my ten years of 40k purchases pointless, and dammit I like my marines, I love the lore, and would love to do something fun with them!) meaning (c) I will work around the issues in the game, adapt to the landscape, find and co-operate with a bunch of like minded folks (not necessarily as hard as you'd imagine - I'm probably not the only horse in town with issues with the current state of affairs of game x or y)and build 40k into the game we want to play. And like I said, in my experience, home brewing, and adding that 'personal touch' has added a lot of value and extended the lifespan to a lot of the gsmes I play, as well as broadening my gaming horizons. It's why I encourage this approach.

At the end of the day, I believe in pragmatism. I believe it goes further I also play competitive sports (and the eyes would pop out of my teachers' heads if they heard I run marathons and enjoy boxing these days, considering the book worm that I was!) and competitive wargames like warmachine, and funnily enough, what they've taught me, and what I've learned to love and embrace is the idea of self responsibility, self-respect, self-motivation, self improvement and above all else, made me appreciate the value of a proactive approach to whatever I do, rather than to wallow in inertia (that marathn won't run itself! And no one other than me can do the work for it) I am quite ok with the idea of putting in the legwork myself in what I do.

In other words, the question I always ask myself with regard to gaming is lifted straight from American history x and is this: 'what have you done to make your gaming experience/community better?' My gaming happiness is, at the end of the day, entirely in my own hands, and it's entirely within my power to improve it, or destroy it. And if I haven't stepped up, and if I haven't reached out and made the attempt to make sure both me and my opponents have had a good time, then the simple fact is I have not done enough. And I don't want to be that person.

Kaiyanwang wrote:When I hear about adjusting the game in accord to the imbalances the company puts into it (willingly or out of negligence), I cannot help smiling.

Is something I can do now, because I am a veteran, but it was not something I would have been able to do properly as a beginner. Actually at the beginning I was really naive and assumed that the system provided by the company was the bestest evar and if something was not working, it was because it was my fault.
Moreover, I was surrounded by people (like me) less mature and less prone to such compromises. Compromises come with maturity. If you want new blood, a game for kids, better it works out of the box.

You know, now that I think about it... better that it works out of the box anyway, because with maturity I am more prone to compromise and I have more money, but my time is a rare currency. So is not that this crap GW keeps churning out is acceptable right now, either.

I dunno kaiyanwang. Things 'working out of the box' is a lot harder than you think. I mean, even warmachine, which is (rightfully) held up as an example of being a very well balanced game is flat out broken out of the box. it's their specific formats, like steamroller, journeyman, and the recent abc that 'twist' the game into a well balanced product, with various shock absorbers and what not being built in. But if we're being technical, steamroller is a distinct entity to warmachine.

I'm like you - I'm a bit older, have a bit more life experience and some might say, maturity. Like you, time is a rare currency for gaming (Work/travel is fifty hours a week, and the after work cooking for the missus, Ten-k jogs and whatever, along with a big run at the weekend and all the usual little things in life that need done means my gaming time is limited, and quite valuable to me - I want to get the most out if it that I can.)

I think a lot of it depends on how you were introduced to wargames, and what your 'wargaming upbringing' and 'wargaming exposure' was.
When I got into wargames as an eighteen year old, it was, like a lot of people, via 40k. And in my group, it was all about the competitive. pugs and tournaments were the order of the day. Gaming out of the box was the done thing, and there was no alternative viewpoint. As you say, if it didn't work, the assumption was it was my fault - it's funny to think back to then!

Anyway, Life happens, blah blah blah and I get into warmachine. I move to Scotland and get involved with gaming here (obviously non-40k!). And for the first time in my life, I met people who got into gaming through games other than 40k. Kids, teenagers and adults who were playing flames of war, and whose dads got them into the hobby with historicals. I was surprised at how large and varied the historical playing community actually was - fantasy/sci fi really felt like 'a bit on the side'. They'd never experienced the pug/tournament culture that I had grown up with, took for granted and assumed Was 'the norm'. As a tangent, The idea of getting into gaming via something other than 40k would have been hilarious more than ten years ago for our age group, I would have thought, but it's getting to be more and more of a thing. And what I saw of these guys and girls was their approach to games could not have been more different to my own at their age. They home brewed, they modified, they were happy to play unique scenarios. Essentially, they played (and always played) in the style that I speak about above, because it's what they knew, and it was how they had been brought up to Wargame and how they, and their friends had always done it at their clubs and with their parents. Thry just shrugged their shoulders when I asked them about it; it was just kind of obvious to them, to be honest, and it really got me thinking - having that attitude back when I played 40k, or even having folks in our group who played this way, and encouraged this line of thinking to make it part of our culture - well, it would have made 40k a better game, and a better experience, and I'd still probably be playing 40k if that was the case! I spoke to them about Aos recently and they just shrugged their shoulders - they actually quite liked it - 'but you have to house rule it' I was told, which is what they would automatically do, anyway, even in a game that works right out of the box.

It takes all sorts, eh?

I dont know... I get this weird feeling about GW.


It is like when they pay sculptor get new models casted ship them world wide they try to make them flashy and with better rules....so peope almost want to buy them rather then the old models....... Its like they want to make new models and keep their buisness growing....it is almost like they dont make money off of no one buying new models amd sitting in their basement playing with their rules for models they already have.

After all if everyone who played bought the updated rules every 4 years they would keep growing.

Balance cant exist because they need people to keep buying. If everyone have everything they need there would be no new sales. They make units better for people to buy them so they stay in buisness.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I dont know... I get this weird feeling about GW.


It is like when they pay sculptor get new models casted ship them world wide they try to make them flashy and with better rules....so peope almost want to buy them rather then the old models....... Its like they want to make new models and keep their buisness growing....it is almost like they dont make money off of no one buying new models amd sitting in their basement playing with their rules for models they already have.

After all if everyone who played bought the updated rules every 4 years they would keep growing.

Balance cant exist because they need people to keep buying. If everyone have everything they need there would be no new sales. They make units better for people to buy them so they stay in buisness.

The problem is that this isn't how they always operate. They often come out with stinker rules for new units or new kit (Pyrovore, Ogryns, Scions, etc) and then make rules for existing units and kits markedly over the top (e.g. Wave Serpents, Wraithguard, etc).

OgreChubbs wrote:
I dont know... I get this weird feeling about GW.


It is like when they pay sculptor get new models casted ship them world wide they try to make them flashy and with better rules....so peope almost want to buy them rather then the old models....... Its like they want to make new models and keep their buisness growing....it is almost like they dont make money off of no one buying new models amd sitting in their basement playing with their rules for models they already have.

After all if everyone who played bought the updated rules every 4 years they would keep growing.

Balance cant exist because they need people to keep buying. If everyone have everything they need there would be no new sales. They make units better for people to buy them so they stay in buisness.

Except this theory has so many exceptions as to be self evidently false.

For every Wraithknight there's half a dozen Nephilims.

A weird thing happens when you produce a game that people are excited about and enjoy playing - it makes them happy.

Happy people spend more money.

Balance can absolutely exist, because the game that's spanking 40K right now by all accounts is a fairly decently balanced game. The makers of that game have even employed some fairly blatant methods to induce purchases, such as including popular upgrades with less popular ships, or including retrospective fixes in premium products with little regular gaming use.

Thing is, because I enjoy playing X Wing, I don't begrudge FFG making money off me, and I'll tolerate a little clumsy cash grabbing. Whereas thanks to the constant barrage of stuff that's pissed me off about 40K and GW in the 6 or 7 years since I started playing again, I'm on a hair trigger to flick the V at them for the same behavior, purely because my general disposition is so much worse.

Happy people spend more money.

I dont know maybe I am wrong, probly am I spend little to no time trying to figure out balance.

I just ordered a eldar phantom 2 reavers and a bunch of wraiths because I got a box of eldar stuff for free lol.

But I play fluffy more then anything.... Well my fluff.

My friend fields warhounds so I picked up the titans and a bunch of wraiths and hawks because... i likes them lol.

Thank heavens for China, huh?

Not even China can save 40K in my country. X-Wing became the winner.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thank heavens for China, huh?

china sells them for 700$ each.... Where my guy sells them for 500 each

The local 40k scene here is very competitive.
We've got one player who seems to have unlimited funds, a huge Tau army and also runs a Dark Angels list with free drop pods and razorbacks. Another dude who runs double save Necrons and another still that wields Khorne Daemonkin in crazy ways.
I run Space Wolves and refuse to pay for thunderwolf cavalry because I like dreadnoughts and bikers, all of which apparently suck. Its a huge drag and I don't even go to tournaments.

Sure, there are about 4 or 5 players that indulge narrative games... but I don't get invited to those games nor do I feel comfortable enough to ask for an invitation. Asking someone to run non-cheese is either laughed at or seemingly not possible. (necrons pretty much run on autopilot anyways)

I can only hope that 8e is better.

Perhaps you should talk more with these guys that make narrative games. and if it happens that you have a good talk with them in general you can mention that you also like narrative games. usualy in my experience it is very easy to get invited to such stuff when its obvious that the people involved feel comfortable to spent time talking bout 40k in general and that it shows they share the same views of how a fun game can be played.

so there is no need to direktly ask for a invitation. just check out how you and these guys behave each other in general.

keep in mind that i dont speak english so try to get the idea behind my words although the exact wording i use could sound kinda ... weird.

 Vaktathi wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I dont know... I get this weird feeling about GW.


It is like when they pay sculptor get new models casted ship them world wide they try to make them flashy and with better rules....so peope almost want to buy them rather then the old models....... Its like they want to make new models and keep their buisness growing....it is almost like they dont make money off of no one buying new models amd sitting in their basement playing with their rules for models they already have.

After all if everyone who played bought the updated rules every 4 years they would keep growing.

Balance cant exist because they need people to keep buying. If everyone have everything they need there would be no new sales. They make units better for people to buy them so they stay in buisness.

The problem is that this isn't how they always operate. They often come out with stinker rules for new units or new kit (Pyrovore, Ogryns, Scions, etc) and then make rules for existing units and kits markedly over the top (e.g. Wave Serpents, Wraithguard, etc).

This.

Moreover, if it was the case, one could argue that for WFB did not work so well...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:


At the end of the day, I believe in pragmatism. I believe it goes further I also play competitive sports (and the eyes would pop out of my teachers' heads if they heard I run marathons and enjoy boxing these days, considering the book worm that I was!) and competitive wargames like warmachine, and funnily enough, what they've taught me, and what I've learned to love and embrace is the idea of self responsibility, self-respect, self-motivation, self improvement and above all else, made me appreciate the value of a proactive approach to whatever I do, rather than to wallow in inertia (that marathn won't run itself! And no one other than me can do the work for it) I am quite ok with the idea of putting in the legwork myself in what I do.

For me is pragmatism as well. You balance costs and benefits, you look at your time, and decide that GW does not deserve your money anymore. Is just accepting the Realität.

I dunno kaiyanwang. Things 'working out of the box' is a lot harder than you think. I mean, even warmachine, which is (rightfully) held up as an example of being a very well balanced game is flat out broken out of the box. it's their specific formats, like steamroller, journeyman, and the recent abc that 'twist' the game into a well balanced product, with various shock absorbers and what not being built in. But if we're being technical, steamroller is a distinct entity to warmachine.

true my friend - but who provided the playerbase with such rule alteration, scenarios and so on? The company (perhaps hearing the players feedback), or the players by themselves because the company could not give a flying disk?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


For me is pragmatism as well. You balance costs and benefits, you look at your time, and decide that GW does not deserve your money anymore. Is just accepting the Realität.

Is it accepting the realitat, or is it just ‘running away’?

It’s certainly a valid way of looking at it Kai. I alluded to it myself in that walking away is a valid option – heck, six years ago, I did exactly the same thing and walked into the tender, loving arms (well, technically it was an arm/head lock!) of Warmachine/Hordes and Infinity. I do not regret it, and PP essentially were the reason that I fell in love with this hobby again.

Going back to what you said though, I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a minute. And no, I’m not dismissing what you say – I’ve walked that road myself. As you say, you balance ‘cost’ and ‘benefits’. If you decided GW doesn’t deserve your money, that’s certainly one way of looking at it. But I could argue it’s also an approach that could be seen as too one-dimensional and zero-sum. I mean, look at what I’m saying and suggesting in terms of playing 40k – I say embrace things like ‘forge the narrative’, ‘co-operative game building’and ‘chatting with your opponent, and organising ahead of time in terms of building a good game’. Fair enough?

Now, you speak about ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’.

What’s the ‘cost’? A change in attitude. That is essentially free. Speaking ‘words’? Also free. ‘Co-operating’ with people to make enjoyable games? Also free. I mean, they’re mates. It should be second nature to work with them. All it costs you is a bit of time. I doubt you are the only horse in town who is unhappy with 40k’s state of play and would like something to be done. I just suggest doing something yourselves…

What’s the benefit? You get to take charge of your own games. You’d be surprised how much fun you can have doing this. You get to do something different every time. You can ‘freshen up’ your 40k games constantly, and avoid the staleness that seeps into games when you focus on playing one game one way constantly and slavishly ‘chasing the meta’. And most importantly, your ten-plus years of 40k purchases stays valid, stays playable and has worth. I think it’s a terrible shame to just walk away from ten years of hobby, ten years of investment and joy and a universe that a lot of us genuinely enjoy, especially when a change of attitude to ‘how’ you play could be all it takes to make it all ‘fun’ again. This means you don’t necessarily have to abandon all of this investment (not just the models, but embracing the lore, and so on) It won’t just sit there on the shelf gathering dust, and frankly, stepping away from chasing the meta means you can appreciate the thoughts of purchasing other stuff for your games that wouldn’t necessarily be viable in the competitive circuits. These days, for example, when I look at units, I don’t think just in terms of their power – I think of various scenarios I could build with them in it. In other words, one of the biggest benefits as I see it is the potential that you can save ‘your’ 40k for you and your group.

Furthermore, whilst ‘walking away’ is valid, you talk about accepting the reality. What is the reality? For some, walking away might be impossible. New game. means big investment. In terms of time, hobbycraft, money, books, learning game-time and so on. It’s a legitimate consequence of picking up an entirely new game. And that’s also assuming there are people playing this other game, (that are folks you want to spend time with too!) which won’t always be the case. This should also be factored into the ‘cost’ versus benefits arguments, as the ‘cost’ concerns aren’t just on the GW end. So like I said, the reality may very well be that a change in perception, and a change in approach ends up being the ‘cheapest’ option with the most benefits. If that’s what you want. At the end of the day, I think its still worth considering.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


true my friend - but who provided the playerbase with such rule alteration, scenarios and so on? The company (perhaps hearing the players feedback), or the players by themselves because the company could not give a flying disk?

Does it really matter?

there’s also a difference between not giving a damn, and letting the players play the game mould their games into what they themselves want to play. Perception. And really, there is no one way to do this, let alone one right way. PP offer a brilliant top-down defined and structured ‘organised play’ experience. It’s great. But not everyone wants this. Some will call it stifling. They’re not wrong. Despite all the variety in unit types, scenarios often boil down to ‘grab the geometric shape or invisible flag in the middle of the board’. Let’s be clear – I like PP’s organized play. I think it’s great for playability and for helping to get the communities organised and cohesive. But there is an alternative approach which also has merit. Like I said – ‘let the players decide’. GW’s approach has changed over the years. They used to do tournaments and all that, and then they stopped officially supporting them. When they did support them, people complained (as they always do). Gw made changes, and people still complained. In the end, they decided it wasn’t working, and it was best for them to just walk away from it with the intention that, rather than having and enforcing a top-down, defined ‘organised play’ approach like PP does, they’d be more hands-off, just focus on making shiny models and essentially leave the game in the hands of their players, and essentially let the players take control, and organise the tournaments, leagues, events, and comps and so on. They’re not wrong for feeling that maybe, the best people to organise ‘how’ they play are the players themselves.

Deadnight wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


For me is pragmatism as well. You balance costs and benefits, you look at your time, and decide that GW does not deserve your money anymore. Is just accepting the Realität.

Is it accepting the realitat, or is it just ‘running away’?

It’s certainly a valid way of looking at it Kai. I alluded to it myself in that walking away is a valid option – heck, six years ago, I did exactly the same thing and walked into the tender, loving arms (well, technically it was an arm/head lock!) of Warmachine/Hordes and Infinity. I do not regret it, and PP essentially were the reason that I fell in love with this hobby again.

Going back to what you said though, I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a minute. And no, I’m not dismissing what you say – I’ve walked that road myself. As you say, you balance ‘cost’ and ‘benefits’. If you decided GW doesn’t deserve your money, that’s certainly one way of looking at it. But I could argue it’s also an approach that could be seen as too one-dimensional and zero-sum. I mean, look at what I’m saying and suggesting in terms of playing 40k – I say embrace things like ‘forge the narrative’, ‘co-operative game building’and ‘chatting with your opponent, and organising ahead of time in terms of building a good game’. Fair enough?

I played 40k and fantasy (mainly) with people I played RPG with. We do not play competitively, we are just able to tell if something is of bad quality and the company is taking advantage of the fidelity of the customer. And this is the reality: GW is not giving us enough for the money we pay.

Now, you speak about ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’.

What’s the ‘cost’? A change in attitude. That is essentially free. Speaking ‘words’? Also free. ‘Co-operating’ with people to make enjoyable games? Also free. I mean, they’re mates. It should be second nature to work with them. All it costs you is a bit of time. I doubt you are the only horse in town who is unhappy with 40k’s state of play and would like something to be done. I just suggest doing something yourselves…

The cost is spend money and time for a company that does not care anymore and still has a margin because is the biggest animal on the market and because keeps cutting corners (and we don't know for how long).
Is the same reason people wonder why I demand good quality movies (even popcorn one, I do not talk about Dersu Uzala) and I can be pissed the Hobbit is not like the original Lotr trilogy. "LOL just turn off the brain bro". NO. Life is too short to spend it on crap. GW produces crap now.

What’s the benefit? You get to take charge of your own games. You’d be surprised how much fun you can have doing this. You get to do something different every time. You can ‘freshen up’ your 40k games constantly, and avoid the staleness that seeps into games when you focus on playing one game one way constantly and slavishly ‘chasing the meta’. And most importantly, your ten-plus years of 40k purchases stays valid, stays playable and has worth. I think it’s a terrible shame to just walk away from ten years of hobby, ten years of investment and joy and a universe that a lot of us genuinely enjoy, especially when a change of attitude to ‘how’ you play could be all it takes to make it all ‘fun’ again. This means you don’t necessarily have to abandon all of this investment (not just the models, but embracing the lore, and so on) It won’t just sit there on the shelf gathering dust, and frankly, stepping away from chasing the meta means you can appreciate the thoughts of purchasing other stuff for your games that wouldn’t necessarily be viable in the competitive circuits. These days, for example, when I look at units, I don’t think just in terms of their power – I think of various scenarios I could build with them in it. In other words, one of the biggest benefits as I see it is the potential that you can save ‘your’ 40k for you and your group.

I can do this. With well designed games. If I have the choice to do the same thing, my money go on the company that gives a damn. Or on ebay right now. I didn't take tha ball and went home crying. I just decided to stop rewarding a company made half of greedy ****** and the other half of underpaid hacks. I did with with pleasure

Furthermore, whilst ‘walking away’ is valid, you talk about accepting the reality. What is the reality? For some, walking away might be impossible. New game. means big investment. In terms of time, hobbycraft, money, books, learning game-time and so on. It’s a legitimate consequence of picking up an entirely new game. And that’s also assuming there are people playing this other game, (that are folks you want to spend time with too!) which won’t always be the case. This should also be factored into the ‘cost’ versus benefits arguments, as the ‘cost’ concerns aren’t just on the GW end. So like I said, the reality may very well be that a change in perception, and a change in approach ends up being the ‘cheapest’ option with the most benefits. If that’s what you want. At the end of the day, I think its still worth considering.

Already considered and I am super happy giving up 40k. 40k players are battered wives, especially CSM players. Look up at the rumors threads. I used to be one years ago, mind it.

Does it really matter?

It matters if the effort to make the game playable is from the part of the company, and not from the players, because the time and energy to make the game work was spent by the company (deserving my money) and not by me. How this is not obvious, is beyond me.

People complain of the changes GW makes because more often than not they have no idea what they are doing. Melee too strong? Next edition melee is pointless. Heck, I even joked some time ago that in the next Eldar codex, after all the complaints about OP Eldar, we will see the Howling Banshees nerfed Is a joke, but comparatively dumb stuff happened in the past and will keep happening.

Change for the sake of change is not enough. Changes must be fix. You do not rush the IG codex just changing the prices of vehicles in an completely illogic manner, remove the units you do not have models of, and call it a day. I bought that codex time ago. I felt, and still feel, deceived. It was a mediocre 5th edition codex in the pre-7th end of 6th edition of 40k.

How the hell one can take them seriously after the Wulfen? Or abominations of design like Grav? Or after a non-fix for CSM spread in two pointless books, one dedicated to a warband of newbs while is years people ask for legion rules?

Do you people realise they just cut what it was possible to cut in the studio? They fired the competent personnel, now what is written is written, who ha a good codex is in good shape, the others have a bad ones, and is shallow formations (encouraging spamhammer) until the end of times. Perhaps a literal one. How many times we did have evidence they do not even proofread?

LOOK AT THE SECOND CHANCE REDUX. People are praising GW for take the mick out of them. Battered wifes. "He loves me. he promised me this time is for real".

GW behaviour is inexcusable and people buying their crap justify such behaviour.

I love 40k. I don't think I've found another hobby that's brought me as much entertainment, intellectual stimulation, and time well spent. Well, so long as I avoid negative people like Kaiyanwang. The hobby is great, you just have to be careful who you share it with. Share it with negative people and like everything else you share with negative people it turns to poop.

Nomeny wrote:
I love 40k. I don't think I've found another hobby that's brought me as much entertainment, intellectual stimulation, and time well spent. Well, so long as I avoid negative people like Kaiyanwang. The hobby is great, you just have to be careful who you share it with. Share it with negative people and like everything else you share with negative people it turns to poop.

Well, after this articulated, point-by-point rebuttal, I cannot do anything else than surrender.

It's worth trying some war games outside 40K, for interest and new challenges.