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.
insaniak wrote: The designer of a spoon isn't incompetent for not designing their spoon to function properly as a knife just because you choose to use it that way.
A terrible analogy, which ignores the fact that knives and spoons have conflicting design requirements while competitive play and casual/narrative play do not. There is nothing stopping GW from making a better competitive game without sacrificing anything about narrative play, the issue is purely GW's incompetence at doing the job.
Hey, lil Perri. I'll let you in on a secret. We we're talking about lists, not the game. WMH is a tight rule system, so is X-Wing- which I know you're familiar with. Both systems have lists and models in them the internet has deemed "trash".
But... but, these are tight rule systems with clear rules? How can this be? GW tightening up their game rules won't magically make some units "good".
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
And let's not forget that, for every player that brings a ''Fluffy list of vanguard marine using lots of recon, scout, and reivers.'' There another casual player that brings a ''Fluffy list of 2 knights and 2 armigers''. Sure, both players are casual and brought themed list of their favorite army. But in that matchup, who realistically have the most chance of winning, even barring poor player skill?
Good balance is good for every level of play, not just hypercompetitive!
Yeah, and that is my point. They weren't thinking at all about how these new models could fit into any SM armies to make them good. They just decided "dudes with ponchos and tacticool mall ninja gear look sweet!" and left it there. No creativity in the actual profiles or rules. No thought about how these units would actually play in a game of 40k.
Have they not learned yet that good rules sell models? I don't understand this company.
Absolutely OP models sell more, too. Would you prefer they do that or take a reasoned approach?
Your 10-man squads of Chaos Space Marines are great for holding objectives and offering fire support while the rest of your fast-moving, melee-focussed army speeds towards the foe to engage them in combat. Alternatively, you can use them to follow up your first wave of daemonically possessed gribblies and put the new beta Bolter Discipline rules to good use at close range.
This is stated in the same article, with the rule name directly linked to the bolter discipline rule, i mean....
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
I'm not talking about winning tournaments. I'm talking about buying my new $60 box of models, spending all week assembling and painting them, and then walking into my FLGS on a Saturday looking for a game. I put my shiny new models on the table and discover that they are absolute trash because GW can't write rules.
But I forgot, on Dakka you're either a super fluff bunny or a WAACTFG tournament hardcore dickstomper.
Well moderate discussion tends to disappear down the post list when they come up. So often what gets seen is the extremes.
I was just commenting that list would work fine for games that were built around the them of it. My understanding was the Shadowspear was supposedly a space marine infiltration force on some sort of Chaos fallen world. So I would expect an stealthy infiltration army to perform stealth infiltration missions. So I don't think it is that much of a stretch for Games Workshop to feature the new largely stealthy, infiltration units into a stealthy, infiltration army. I wouldn't ever expect a stealthy, infiltration army to perform all that well in an open, pitched battle mission like most tournament games tend to feature. Maybe elements sure, but not the whole thing. It is just too specialized. I am willing to try and balance army lists at the terrain and mission level to try and get a better game. Just trying to find a silver lining here.
I would agree that the list isn't competitive. But that doesn't mean it isn't without merit nor that Games Workshop doesn't play their own game. It probably does mean that they don't play their own game like you play the game. I would go as far as saying the Games Workshop designers might not even take the game as serious as you do when it comes to balance. Maybe they should, but I am sure that GW sell enough kits without doing so. So we can gripe, but I don't know if it is going to do much good.
Is this list going to win tournaments, or even games in tournaments? Probably not. Could the rules be better? Always. Are the rules good enough? For where I am in my gaming life, pretty much. I generally don't play in FLGS beyond Kill Team anymore. When comes to Kill Team faction starters, I would have preferred that GW use the better model load out compared to the ones they sometimes do. I have seen a lot of new players that built their kill team based on what GW did with the kit and often they aren't happy after awhile as they liked some of the kit's other options. I don't think this will ever change. I certainly don't think I can affect that change, so I try not to get stressed out about it and try to make them work in other ways like terrain setup and mission to get the closest game possible.
A terrible analogy, which ignores the fact that knives and spoons have conflicting design requirements while competitive play and casual/narrative play do not
Nonsense. It's perfectly possible to design a spoon with a straight edge on one side, so that it would function better as a knife while still functioning as a spoon.
And since it's possible, the fact that spoons aren't designed like this is clearly, by your argument, down to incompetence, rather than, you know, the spoon just being intended to be a spoon.
. There is nothing stopping GW from making a better competitive game without sacrificing anything about narrative play, the issue is purely GW's incompetence at doing the job.
Sure there is. First off, there's whether or not they want to make a competitive game. If I have a profitable business making something I like making, the fact that I technically could make something different, that I have absolutely no interest in making, is irrelevant.
And for two, designing a more balanced ruleset requires more work, which means more time invested, which means more expense. GW, as a business, would weigh up whether the additional expense would result in a large enough uptick in sales to be justified.
If they're meeting sales targets by releasing models with rules that were scrawled on a napkin during someone's lunch break, there is absolutely no reason to invest that extra expense to write better rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 21:39:46
Then there's even less of an excuse for GW's incompetence. The article was explicitly about matched play and the entire content is about how the list is good at winning games. Either GW is incompetent and doesn't have any idea that they're publishing a bad list and claiming it's good, or they're dishonestly trying to sell the new box set to competitive players by pretending that the list is good. Neither is acceptable.
Nonsense. It's perfectly possible to design a spoon with a straight edge on one side, so that it would function better as a knife while still functioning as a spoon.
And since it's possible, the fact that spoons aren't designed like this is clearly, by your argument, down to incompetence, rather than, you know, the spoon just being intended to be a spoon.
No, you're analogy still fails. A spoon with a straight edge is not a good spoon because of simple geometry. A straight-edged surface is worse at holding liquid than a round-edged cup. And if you try to make the edge sharp enough to function as a good knife you risk having the user cut themselves by putting it in their mouth. We don't make knife-spoons because they're bad spoons and bad knives, not because spoon manufacturers don't think that knives are "fun" enough.
Sure there is. First off, there's whether or not they want to make a competitive game. If I have a profitable business making something I like making, the fact that I technically could make something different, that I have absolutely no interest in making, is irrelevant.
100% wrong. GW is a publicly traded company owned by its shareholders. GW's employees have a legal obligation to maximize profit. The fact that they don't find something fun is irrelevant, if making a better competitive game would mean more sales and therefore more value to the shareholders then they are legally obligated to do it. And GW management is legally obligated to fire any designer who decides to sacrifice profit for personal enjoyment.
And for two, designing a more balanced ruleset requires more work, which means more time invested, which means more expense. GW, as a business, would weigh up whether the additional expense would result in a large enough uptick in sales to be justified.
It requires more work, but I am extremely skeptical that the additional work is significant relevant to GW's sales volume and total expenses on employee salaries. I am especially skeptical because of how commonly you (and people like you) claim that the issue is that GW's rule authors don't enjoy competitive play and don't want to do it, which is not something that matters from a budget point of view.
If they're meeting sales targets by releasing models with rules that were scrawled on a napkin during someone's lunch break, there is absolutely no reason to invest that extra expense to write better rules.
There absolutely is if GW is only meeting sales targets because the sales targets are too low and neglect to pursue the additional revenue source of competitive play. If investing the small extra expense would lead to more profit then GW is legally obligated to pursue it, settling for adequate sales is not sufficient.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 21:45:22
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Then there's even less of an excuse for GW's incompetence. The article was explicitly about matched play and the entire content is about how the list is good at winning games. Either GW is incompetent and doesn't have any idea that they're publishing a bad list and claiming it's good, or they're dishonestly trying to sell the new box set to competitive players by pretending that the list is good. Neither is acceptable.
Nope. Just re-read the article. Nothing of the sort is in it- It gives tactics for the lists, you know; like would be in any article on playing an army in a wargame.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Galef wrote: Yeah, "viability" is completely subjective. There "competitive viability", which is probably the most commonly assumed on Dakka, even though that's still debatable. And then you have "can my models function/roll dice with the system viability and be fun" which has always seemed to be GW concern (even if they haven't succeeded in some cases)
Also remember that while online forums and tourneys are a large part of the demographic, there is a possibility that most sales GW sees have nothing to do with rule and more to do with collectors/painters. If the models look good, they will sell. Rules don't make a dent in the bottomline in most cases (with some very select exceptions)
-
The list is GK tier. I class it below the function and be fun level. I mean the army is what 3 boxs of scouts and 3 boxs of reavers, 3 landspeeders and the new starter set. That is a ton of money. Even a Star collecting army is a lot, but this is enough money to buy a real money. I can imagine how someone would feel, if they bought the list and then tried to play it. They would not be very happy.
Who cares what Tier it is? It's obviously a fluff-bunny list with all the Vanguard/forward intel units.
Sometimes lists are not built to max out on in-game advantage, but rather to show what a particular division would be comprised of.
If I want to do a Saim-Hann army with mostly Windriders and Vypers, no Ynnari or Reapers, that's perfectly valid and fluffy, even though it is "not top tier"
People really need to move away from thinking lists HAVE to preform competitively to be valid. Sometimes there is a theme in mind and you want that on the table top.
GW clearly plays Narrative games, not Matched play. Because Narrative matches fluff better and showcases the models better
-
But, but competitive is the way I play, and since I play that way, everyone else must!
I have never purchased a model due to its rules. If it looks good and can serve a SPECIFIC function in my army, I'll buy it.
I can understand the view that new models should be better than previous ones (ruleswise) but the whole "if it isnt the best, then it might as well not exist" is moronic. The game doesn't exist in a vacuum, every community has their own experiences and they may all be alike or different or 50/50.
Grimtuff wrote: Nope. Just re-read the article. Nothing of the sort is in it- It gives tactics for the lists, you know; like would be in any article on playing an army in a wargame.
When you say "the list is good at X" it implies that the list is in fact good at X, and that you aren't lying about it to sell models. And nothing in the article talks about the stories you can create with the models, it's purely advice for how to build an army and win games with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: But, but competitive is the way I play, and since I play that way, everyone else must!
Again, this is an article about competitive play, not narrative/casual/whatever. Please do not build straw man arguments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 21:52:28
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Grimtuff wrote: Nope. Just re-read the article. Nothing of the sort is in it- It gives tactics for the lists, you know; like would be in any article on playing an army in a wargame.
When you say "the list is good at X" it implies that the list is in fact good at X, and that you aren't lying about it to sell models. And nothing in the article talks about the stories you can create with the models, it's purely advice for how to build an army and win games with it.
No gak Sherlock... You play games to try and win? That is literally the object of the game. What do you want GW to say. Run these guys forward and go "pew pew"?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/08 21:57:23
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Grimtuff wrote: No gak Sherlock... You play games to try and win? That is literally the object of the game. What do you want GW to say. Run these guys forward and go "pew pew"?
If you're playing a narrative game then yeah, you're making choices based on the story and not just what is best at winning games. GW explicitly describes this as a matched play list, not narrative, and only talks about how the list can win games while saying nothing about any story elements behind it. Pretending that this is somehow an article about narrative gaming is incredibly dishonest.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Your 10-man squads of Chaos Space Marines are great for holding objectives and offering fire support while the rest of your fast-moving, melee-focussed army speeds towards the foe to engage them in combat. Alternatively, you can use them to follow up your first wave of daemonically possessed gribblies and put the new beta Bolter Discipline rules to good use at close range.
This is stated in the same article, with the rule name directly linked to the bolter discipline rule, i mean....
Honestly this quote alone is scary, anyone who thinks 10 man chaos marine squads are “great for holding objectives,” or even half decent at, “offering fire support.” Shouldn’t be writing these type of articles. The reason I say it’s scary is becuase if this is what they believe then god help the playtesters.
100% wrong. GW is a publicly traded company owned by its shareholders. GW's employees have a legal obligation to maximize profit.
This is a myth.
And also still presupposes that making a more balanced ruleset would actually increase profits.
Clearly you think it would. Equally clearly, the company that has remained successful for 30 years in an extremely fickle industry disagrees that it is necessary to their continued success.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 22:04:48
Grimtuff wrote: No gak Sherlock... You play games to try and win? That is literally the object of the game. What do you want GW to say. Run these guys forward and go "pew pew"?
If you're playing a narrative game then yeah, you're making choices based on the story and not just what is best at winning games. GW explicitly describes this as a matched play list, not narrative, and only talks about how the list can win games while saying nothing about any story elements behind it. Pretending that this is somehow an article about narrative gaming is incredibly dishonest.
Red herring is my favourite food too.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Your 10-man squads of Chaos Space Marines are great for holding objectives and offering fire support while the rest of your fast-moving, melee-focussed army speeds towards the foe to engage them in combat. Alternatively, you can use them to follow up your first wave of daemonically possessed gribblies and put the new beta Bolter Discipline rules to good use at close range.
This is stated in the same article, with the rule name directly linked to the bolter discipline rule, i mean....
Honestly this quote alone is scary, anyone who thinks 10 man chaos marine squads are “great for holding objectives,” or even half decent at, “offering fire support.” Shouldn’t be writing these type of articles. The reason I say it’s scary is becuase if this is what they believe then god help the playtesters.
In a fluffy match they do ok, what scares me more they literally LINKED THE BOLTER BETA RULE and MESSED IT UP IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MARINES.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
A terrible analogy, which ignores the fact that knives and spoons have conflicting design requirements while competitive play and casual/narrative play do not
Nonsense. It's perfectly possible to design a spoon with a straight edge on one side, so that it would function better as a knife while still functioning as a spoon.
And since it's possible, the fact that spoons aren't designed like this is clearly, by your argument, down to incompetence, rather than, you know, the spoon just being intended to be a spoon.
. There is nothing stopping GW from making a better competitive game without sacrificing anything about narrative play, the issue is purely GW's incompetence at doing the job.
Sure there is. First off, there's whether or not they want to make a competitive game. If I have a profitable business making something I like making, the fact that I technically could make something different, that I have absolutely no interest in making, is irrelevant.
And for two, designing a more balanced ruleset requires more work, which means more time invested, which means more expense. GW, as a business, would weigh up whether the additional expense would result in a large enough uptick in sales to be justified.
If they're meeting sales targets by releasing models with rules that were scrawled on a napkin during someone's lunch break, there is absolutely no reason to invest that extra expense to write better rules.
Bootstrapping into relevant subthread.
Here Perry, I present you a spork: https://www.scoutshop.org/original-spork-612317.html it's been available for ages now and many variants of universal cutlery exist. But as you can see it is not all that great spoon nor all that great fork and definitely not all that great knife. And exactly the same goes with games that people expect to support narrative and competetive with same success. We've been discussing this many times already - balancing game for competetive play does not warrant improvement for narrative or even broadly defined casual gaming and more often than not it comes at an expense of flavour and variety which is crucial in narrative. As Saturmorn Carvilli aptly pointed out earlier, this list can fulfill a perfectly valid role in scenarios/games that are cooperatively concieved with "matched game experience" in mind and balanced using terrain and scenario minutiae. And you should now by now, from countless prior discussions, that there are many people playing like that even here on Dakka. You cannot simply shut your eyes and mantra your denial long enough so those people will dissapear. And really, 30 year of continuous existence of 40K that did not revolve around any-tier tournaments at any moment is all evidence that is required to conclude, that most people do not use this game as interwebz thinks they do.
As to calling this list a Matched Play list. Matched play does only mean a mode of play, not meta that comes with it. You can play perfectly matched play game using this vs Guardian based Eldar list or GK, or fluffy Tac marines, or myriad other builds. It will be deemed as lowest tier matched by meta focussed players, but nevertheless matched.
I've been saying this for years. They constantly make hilariously obvious mistakes and decisions that anyone who's played any amount of 40k can immediately see is silly.
From reading about their structure and looking at the rules it's become pretty clear that writers get a picture of a mini, and just write random rules based on what it looks like in a complete vacuum. "he has a big gun so it's probably AP -2" they don't look at other units in the codex, similar units in other dexes, the core rule book and how those rules interact, points values, nothing. They just kinda throw something out oblivious to the overall rule structure and how the game is played.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 22:07:07
Danny slag wrote: I've been saying this for years. They constantly make hilariously obvious mistakes and decisions that anyone who's played any amount of 40k can immediately see is silly.
From reading about their structure and looking at the rules it's become pretty clear that writers get a picture of a mini, and just write random rules based on what it looks like in a complete vacuum. "he has a big gun so it's probably AP -2" they don't look at other units in the codex, similar units in other dexes, the core rule book and how those rules interact, points values, nothing. They just kinda throw something out oblivious to the overall rule structure and how the game is played.
They have explicitly and repeatedly admitted, that designing nice looking minis comes first, rules second and design considerations of "what army X needs to become valid tournament choice" literally never happen.
Danny slag wrote: I've been saying this for years. They constantly make hilariously obvious mistakes and decisions that anyone who's played any amount of 40k can immediately see is silly.
From reading about their structure and looking at the rules it's become pretty clear that writers get a picture of a mini, and just write random rules based on what it looks like in a complete vacuum. "he has a big gun so it's probably AP -2" they don't look at other units in the codex, similar units in other dexes, the core rule book and how those rules interact, points values, nothing. They just kinda throw something out oblivious to the overall rule structure and how the game is played.
They have explicitly and repeatedly admitted, that designing nice looking minis comes first, rules second and design considerations of "what army X needs to become valid tournament choice" literally never happen.
and yet no one is saying anything about "valid tournament choice" which translates to overpowered and poorly balanced. What we're saying is just design rules that aren't hilariously bad. They'd sell more minis if they did.
The idea that balance is only important in "competitive" (which is a misnomer anyway because the tourney scene isn't about competition it's about boring netlists with no tactics) and that 'casual' means just not caring about rules, is a silly idea. I play exclusively casual games, and I like a tight well written rule system just like every casual player. Casual just means we get enjoyment out of the game regardless of if we win or lose, as long as it's a good game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 22:15:24
Your 10-man squads of Chaos Space Marines are great for holding objectives and offering fire support while the rest of your fast-moving, melee-focussed army speeds towards the foe to engage them in combat. Alternatively, you can use them to follow up your first wave of daemonically possessed gribblies and put the new beta Bolter Discipline rules to good use at close range.
This is stated in the same article, with the rule name directly linked to the bolter discipline rule, i mean....
Honestly this quote alone is scary, anyone who thinks 10 man chaos marine squads are “great for holding objectives,” or even half decent at, “offering fire support.” Shouldn’t be writing these type of articles. The reason I say it’s scary is becuase if this is what they believe then god help the playtesters.
In a fluffy match they do ok, what scares me more they literally LINKED THE BOLTER BETA RULE and MESSED IT UP IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MARINES.
...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 22:14:09
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
nou wrote: They have explicitly and repeatedly admitted, that designing nice looking minis comes first, rules second and design considerations of "what army X needs to become valid tournament choice" literally never happen.
Then they should be fired for incompetence.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
nou wrote: They have explicitly and repeatedly admitted, that designing nice looking minis comes first, rules second and design considerations of "what army X needs to become valid tournament choice" literally never happen.
Then they should be fired for incompetence.
Seriously, dude, get some perspective.
Calling for people to be fired because they're not making the product you personally want is ridiculous.
nou wrote: They have explicitly and repeatedly admitted, that designing nice looking minis comes first, rules second and design considerations of "what army X needs to become valid tournament choice" literally never happen.
Then they should be fired for incompetence.
Perri, a man who has never heard of UK employment law...
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
You contradict yourself here. GW is a business, and doing your job as an employee of a game business means selling the product successfully regardless of how you personally enjoy playing the game. Tournament players are customers and a source of revenue, so tournament play matters. Any GW rule author who fails to support tournament play because they don't find it "fun" should be fired for incompetence.
Not at all, they base their business around collecting and playing they have never based it in regards to tournament play all though they pay lip service to it.
You contradict yourself here. GW is a business, and doing your job as an employee of a game business means selling the product successfully regardless of how you personally enjoy playing the game. Tournament players are customers and a source of revenue, so tournament play matters. Any GW rule author who fails to support tournament play because they don't find it "fun" should be fired for incompetence.
Not at all, they base their business around collecting and playing they have never based it in regards to tournament play all though they pay lip service to it.
Bingo.
First and foremost they sell to the collectors which pay more.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Makes me sad that these kind of topics always seem to devolve into two groups of players who both seem to suspect that the other group is hell bent on burning down their treehouse.
Things which seem obviously true to me:
1) The game would be better if themed lists like this were genuinely good.
2) These lists are genuinely bad.
3) If you want a list that looks like either of these you are not automatically bad, terrible at the game nor are you stupid.
4) If you never want a list that looks like either of these you are not bad, disrespecting the lore nor are you stupid.
Less obviously true, but my opinion;
1) Fluff is best when it is represented and elaborated in the operation of interesting and engaging game mechanics.
2) Competitive play of a tabletop game is most interesting when simply giving an account of the events of a game creates a "fluffy" story. 40k does not provide this.
3) 40k is fun, but you can't tell an engaging story on the tabletop by following its rules.
While you can play pretend around the rules (which is awesome, because role-playing is awesome) the actual game quite often renders one side in a campaign or scenario the jobbing NPCs by default (due to inconsistent power levels within and between factions). This does not make for interesting narrative experiences without significant creative work.
4) GW do play their own game but they really don't care about being good at it. They sometimes seem slightly embarrassed that anyone does care.
This makes me very sad.
(edit: my formatting is bad, and yes I feel bad)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/08 22:31:46
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Not at all, they base their business around collecting and playing they have never based it in regards to tournament play all though they pay lip service to it.
Again, the two are not in conflict. There is no excuse for ignoring tournament play when supporting it generates more sales with no cost to the collecting aspect of the hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: Perri, a man who has never heard of UK employment law...
If UK employment law doesn't allow you to fire an employee who is incapable of doing their job then UK employment law is broken. But that's a subject for another thread, even if UK employment law is broken those employees should be fired.
Calling for people to be fired because they're not making the product you personally want is ridiculous.
They should be fired because of poor job performance, just like employees in a similar situation in other fields would be fired. If you're an engineer and you can't do math you don't keep your job. If you're a customer service person and are rude to customers you don't keep your job. So why should GW be any different? Why should people who are obviously incapable of meeting reasonable job performance expectations, in large part because they refuse to do work that isn't "fun", continue to be employed?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/08 22:37:24
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Not at all, they base their business around collecting and playing they have never based it in regards to tournament play all though they pay lip service to it.
Again, the two are not in conflict. There is no excuse for ignoring tournament play when supporting it generates more sales with no cost to the collecting aspect of the hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: Perri, a man who has never heard of UK employment law...
If UK employment law doesn't allow you to fire an employee who is incapable of doing their job then UK employment law is broken. But that's a subject for another thread, even if UK employment law is broken those employees should be fired.
Models are on the other hand 1 and done. afterwards you have negligible spending in producing them.
Also the uk employment law is ok, if you want to see an actual broken one go look at france or italies.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
