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.

Just something I was thinking about.

There are people who played earlier editions, who complain about how 40K these days is so terrible, etc.

However-

The phrase "forge the narrative" is often mocked. Similarly, there were complaints about both the 6th edition rulebook having a mention of improvised rules, and that for example the debut battle report of the Tau was a custom scenario with third party Sternguard, etc. But, both 2nd and 3rd editions* were all about putting the story before trying to win.

* Most people apparently either thought second ed is/was the best thing ever, or was terrible. I'm mentioning both second and third to include both sides of the divide.

Second edition era, not only did White Dwarfs frequently use/encourage house rules, but, for example, when the Firebase, the White Dwarf included ideas for scenarios. Things like "one side has to hold the landing pad until a squadron of Land Speeders can be refulled and launched".There weren't any mechanics for refuelling Land Speeders, in either the White Dwarf or the rulebook, or anything close to mechanics. The players were encouraged to design their own scenario and rules.

The third edition rulebook was very clear in encouraging improvised rules (maybe the second edition book too but my younger brother had that one...). It had four terrain generators for different planets, and suggested those as a guideline to design other planets' terrain generators).

Another thing: the complaints about certain overpowered units essentially ruining the game. Even second edition had the sixteen Pulsa Rokkit list, among other things. he only difference was that Games Workshop were more vocal that the game wasn't intended to be played that way, and you shouldn't do it**. I can't imagine that now, if White Dwarf articles said the same thing about [unit] spam lists, it wouldn't be ridiculed- by the same people who were fine with that attitude in earlier editions.

** Probably because, while tournaments existed and were kinda semi-competitive, it wasn't intended for truly competitive WAAC types in 2nd, wasn't in 3rd, and isn't now.

While my memories of forums at the time have faded, I don't remember anyone during third edition being so competitive they would avoid ice world generation, as hills were dangerous terrain, or death worlds because of terrain attacking models and whatnot.

These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

*** - a certain terrain feature would kill one member of a non-vehicle unit that got too close on a 4+. Now, consider lists that spam Riptides/Wraithknights...

I miss Death World generation. I miss forests in general really. Everything is all about ruins and factories now... Once my little group of friends gets more used to the rules themselves, I'm going to introduce them to the alternative styles. Planetstrike missions, Death World terrain, Altar of War missions, it can end up being a very good time again besides 'Oh it's mission 3 today... Hope I get "Capture Objective 3" because then I win by deployment.'

I have a lot of fun in 7th, and I do really like to win and would be happy winning every game, but I picked up all sorts of alternative game modes the other day and was seven kinds of happy at the possibilities I could make again.

Tyranno wrote:


These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

Are you saying its a good thing the rules are vague, nebulous, ambiguous, and open to interpretation? There are numerous instances in the rules that common sense or interpretation don't cover, at least not universally.

People wanting rules to be 'set in stone', or rather lets use a better term, properly written, are people who want to sit down with someone and not have to 4+ a rules disagreement or thumb back and forth through the book to find a particular rule. Dozens of games get this right. Why is it unreasonable to want/expect it from 40k?

Further, I don't see any of this winning is everything attitude. I know people want a game where the victor is decided by skill and not random tables and list strength, which is not only reasonable, but expected from a quality wargame charging $100 for the rules.

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

I suspect you suspect a lot of things that have no backing beyond your own experiences. I suspect many players would be happy if the rules, I don't know, improved. Currently, 40k is neither good for competitive play, or narrative play.

Your basic premise that everyone that plays to win isn't out for fun and is just a WAAC player.
You won't gain any understanding of others' arguments until you get rid of your own confusion.

Tyranno wrote:
Just
While my memories of forums at the time have faded, I don't remember anyone during third edition being so competitive they would avoid ice world generation, as hills were dangerous terrain, or death worlds because of terrain attacking models and whatnot.

These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

Nope, the attitude of 'winning is everything' predates video games. You might not remember those competitive people running competitive builds back in the day, but I certainly do.

Tyranno wrote:
The phrase "forge the narrative" is often mocked.

Yes, it is. Because it's used as an excuse for the rules not being competently (or completely) written, in a game that due to it's nature is not actually particularly suited to narrative play.

6th/7th edition has some great ideas for narrative building, but implements them in a way that makes no sense. Want to build a back-story for your army that you carry with them from battle to battle? You can't, unless your story includes an explanation as to why your army commander and any psykers tagging along all have multiple personality disorder, thanks to the random generation of warlord traits and psychic powers (and yes, people hated the random generation of psychic powers in 2nd edition as well).

40K has always been intended as a way to tell a story, yes. But the last couple of editions have focussed far more on that side of it, while at the same time completely failing to actually incorporate that narrative building into the game.

While my memories of forums at the time have faded, I don't remember anyone during third edition being so competitive they would avoid ice world generation, as hills were dangerous terrain, or death worlds because of terrain attacking models and whatnot.

I don't remember anyone in 3rd edition ever actually using the terrain generator at all.

These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

This is a common misconception. For starters, there have always been players who were in it to win it. What has changed is that somewhere along the line people decided that playing a game that pits two players against each other for the purpose of one of them beating the other and caring about the outcome is in some way a bad thing...

Meanwhile, the competitive players aren't the only ones who want clear, concise rules. Having unclear, badly written rules is actually more of a problem for the casual player. Because in a tournament setting, when a rule is unclear you have a judge to make a ruling. In a casual game, particularly if you're playing someone you don't know well, you're left to reach an agreement amongst yourselves, and that's not always a smooth ride. Every unclear rule is one more hurdle in just getting on with playing the game, especially when you find yourself across the table from someone with a slightly different outlook on the game to your own.

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

*** - a certain terrain feature would kill one member of a non-vehicle unit that got too close on a 4+. Now, consider lists that spam Riptides/Wraithknights...

You don't need to suspect. People complained about Mysterious Terrain for the brief lifespan of 6th edition... because it was extra randomness that didn't actually add a great deal to the game other than randomness for randomness' sake, and unfairly penalised some armies over others.

Properly written basic and advanced play rules would allow me to create a better narrative experience.

The further GW goes with adding to already shaky RT/2nd ed mechanics the further away narrative gaming gets.

YMMV.

As above

Its hard to forge the narrative when you are spending half the game argueing or getting blownover because some one always brings 20 Daemon princes of nurgle that fly.

Tyranno wrote:


These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

*** - a certain terrain feature would kill one member of a non-vehicle unit that got too close on a 4+. Now, consider lists that spam Riptides/Wraithknights...

In the past White Dwarf and 40k were popular in the AD&D and other roleplaying communities and that influence is still strong at GW. I think current player base, particularly outside of GW's home market, has a far greater share of gamers among them, people with a background in videogames and cardgames and they place a stronger emphasis on a solid set of rules to play a game rather than a set of guidelines to tell a story. In part this development has been driven by the company as the trend from 2nd to 5th was one of streamlining the game which attracted a different type of player. However in 6th there is this strong U-turn towards narrative gaming. It's not weird that this leads to a disconnect with the player base.

many people just dont like change. You get used to something and when it is changed, you have to change in some way yourself.
This change is often unwanted in terms of gaming because often times, players will find loopholes that they can exploit or the game just fits their individual style.
Of course, no matter what you do, you will never make EVERYONE happy. Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill. If you changed it to suit them, they would be singing GW's praises and you would have a different set whining and crying.
You learn to live with it.

GW's repeated efforts to update their rules has lead them to become like a copy of a copy.

Data is constantly degraded.

At its heart the rules that were somewhat okay for narrative based skirmish gaming (overseen by a GM no less) are the same that are being pushed for battalion+ sized gaming with vehicles and other shenanigans.

If anything I long for the narrative based days of massive battles (Epic) with some individual platoon unit actions taking place with 40k and maybe some space based combat too (spacefleet/BFG).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
many people just dont like change. You get used to something and when it is changed, you have to change in some way yourself.
This change is often unwanted in terms of gaming because often times, players will find loopholes that they can exploit or the game just fits their individual style.
Of course, no matter what you do, you will never make EVERYONE happy. Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill. If you changed it to suit them, they would be singing GW's praises and you would have a different set whining and crying.
You learn to live with it.

I have played every incarnation of 40k. Maybe I see it through rose tinted specs. I have to say what I see though.

40k has never really been up to scratch rules wise - I have always said it about 40k from RT upwards. And I would hate to play a game of RT now.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill.

I see far more people dismiss complaints as 'whining' than I see actual whining.

How about we try to avoid using loaded language to stir up trouble, hmm?

 EVIL INC wrote:
many people just dont like change. You get used to something and when it is changed, you have to change in some way yourself.
This change is often unwanted in terms of gaming because often times, players will find loopholes that they can exploit or the game just fits their individual style.
Of course, no matter what you do, you will never make EVERYONE happy. Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill. If you changed it to suit them, they would be singing GW's praises and you would have a different set whining and crying.
You learn to live with it.

I've also played through every edition from RT to 6th. Adapting to change isn't it at all. (And if you'd ever listen, you'd know that.) What we don't like are changes that make the game less fun. (subjective) So, some people find the new changes decrease their enjoyment of the game.
Also, I love change when it's for the better. I changed from 40k to other games and I'm adapting nicely.

Tyranno wrote:
Just something I was thinking about.

I feel your thinking is misdirected.

There are people who played earlier editions, who complain about how 40K these days is so terrible, etc.

However-

The phrase "forge the narrative" is often mocked. Similarly, there were complaints about both the 6th edition rulebook having a mention of improvised rules, and that for example the debut battle report of the Tau was a custom scenario with third party Sternguard, etc. But, both 2nd and 3rd editions* were all about putting the story before trying to win.

* Most people apparently either thought second ed is/was the best thing ever, or was terrible. I'm mentioning both second and third to include both sides of the divide.

Second edition era, not only did White Dwarfs frequently use/encourage house rules, but, for example, when the Firebase, the White Dwarf included ideas for scenarios. Things like "one side has to hold the landing pad until a squadron of Land Speeders can be refulled and launched".There weren't any mechanics for refuelling Land Speeders, in either the White Dwarf or the rulebook, or anything close to mechanics. The players were encouraged to design their own scenario and rules.

The third edition rulebook was very clear in encouraging improvised rules (maybe the second edition book too but my younger brother had that one...). It had four terrain generators for different planets, and suggested those as a guideline to design other planets' terrain generators).

People don't dislike improvised and house rules. The reason "forge the narrative" has become a joke is because the core rules are poorly written so people take "forge the narrative" to mean "don't worry about the fethed up rules, you just aren't forging the narrative hard enough!!".

Also, no one (or very few) thinks "2nd edition was the best ever". I prefer 2nd edition, not because I think it was perfect, but because I think the core design (other than CC) was better designed. There were a bunch of additions to the core rules that fethed things up and made it time consuming and unbalanced, but the core systems of armour save modifers, to hit modifiers, the idea of run, move/shoot or assault vs the current system where you have 3 separate phases within a turn where you can choose to move.

When I feel nostalgic about 2nd, it's not "oh 2nd edition was awesome and everything since is crap". No, it's "why the feth didn't GW just fix 2nd edition instead of bringing out 3rd edition and then having 16 years of new editions and still have crap rules".

It's not a case of "X edition was awesome and now this edition sucks". It's more "Why the feth have I been playing for 25 years and GW still can't figure out how to write rules that make since and are somewhat balanced".

Another thing: the complaints about certain overpowered units essentially ruining the game. Even second edition had the sixteen Pulsa Rokkit list, among other things. he only difference was that Games Workshop were more vocal that the game wasn't intended to be played that way, and you shouldn't do it**. I can't imagine that now, if White Dwarf articles said the same thing about [unit] spam lists, it wouldn't be ridiculed- by the same people who were fine with that attitude in earlier editions.

** Probably because, while tournaments existed and were kinda semi-competitive, it wasn't intended for truly competitive WAAC types in 2nd, wasn't in 3rd, and isn't now.

While my memories of forums at the time have faded, I don't remember anyone during third edition being so competitive they would avoid ice world generation, as hills were dangerous terrain, or death worlds because of terrain attacking models and whatnot.

These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

I suspect many competitive players, even ones that complain about how older editions were better, would pitch a fit if you asked them to emulate rules from death worlds***, or half the third edition missions, or the scenarios suggested throughout second edition white dwarfs.

*** - a certain terrain feature would kill one member of a non-vehicle unit that got too close on a 4+. Now, consider lists that spam Riptides/Wraithknights...

Again, you seem to think that since the game has always been crap the changing opinions have come from gamers changing. Not all people who dislike 40k are WAAC or hypercompetitive. And guess what, some of the most WAAC and hypercompetitive people I've ever played against were people I played against in the mid 90's.

People used to complain about the rules back then as well. We weren't a hyper competitive group, one of my mate's pretty much always lost though, just his army selection was pathetic vs the other armies we had going and he didn't have the time and money to change it up to create a winning force. He used to always complain about poor balance.

The problem is, 40k has had these issues for at least 20 years... why aren't they fixed?? Why are we still dealing with poorly written rules that have multiple interpretations, why are we having to deal with increasingly convoluted rules, why are we still having to deal with poor balance.

It's not that 40k used to be awesome and now it sucks, it's that after so many years of dealing with the same issues many people get sick of it, and we see new games popping up that are doing a much better job of growing and improving their games while GW sits stagnant, putting out 7th edition that has rules that were ambiguous in 6th and weren't even reworded for 7th.

Within that, you have people who prefer specific editions for various reasons. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think 1 edition was perfect, it's just as GW shuffle rules from one edition to the next instead of actually improving things, inevitably you end up with people who have preference for specific editions.

I think 2nd was the best because I like the core rules the most, but it still needs house rules to fix it. I don't like the way allies are done, I think it's a lazy and poorly done implementation. I don't like the way LoW are done, I think it's a lazy and poorly done implementation. I don't like the way fliers are done I think it's a poor attempt to fit vehicles which are out of scale in to the game. I don't like the way multiple FOC's is done, for years 40k has had poor army selection rules, allowing multiple FOC's and Unbound to me just seems like admitting "well we don't know how to make good army selection rules... so feth army selection rules, take what you want!". So naturally 7th is the edition I like the least.

I'm a fluffy player that thinks its ridiculous that 40k punishes the fluffy player by being curb stomped by every other army. I want a game that rewards fluffy players or at least doesn't beat them up and steal their lunch money.

Agreed. Nobody thinks 2nd Edition was the best thing ever.

The problem is that 3rd was just a different kind of worse.

What 2nd Edition 40K needed was a tweaking and streamlining. 3rd Edition was an entirely new game. And it was crappy.

So if people are nostalgic about 2nd, it is because a lot of people would have liked to see 2nd Edition get massaged into a more sophisticated, balanced, and easy to play ruleset. Which wouldn't have been impossible, or really, even that difficult. Most of the complaints people have about 2nd Edition revolved around overpowered heroes, wonky list balancing, and psychic phases stretching games out too long. Those aren't exactly insurmountable issues. The core ruleset was actually pretty good.

Instead, GW tossed the baby out with the bathwater and rebuilt the game basically from scratch, eliminating all of the wargaming aspects so you could play with more models ($$!) and in less time. 3rd Edition turned 40K into a dice rolling exercise, where you spent a couple hours setting up your models, rolling dice, and removing your models. Every edition through 5th was just a modification of that same silly set of mechanics. More recently, tweaked to drive sales of whatever GW felt you needed more of (vehicles, then flyers, then fortifications, etc)

6th seemed promising, but then GW just threw in the towel and said "Eh, whatever. Superheavies? Sure. Giant robots? Sure. Titans? Sure."

My $0.02 on the whole thing about.
I like the direction the game is going. Since the 6th Edition Codex: Space Marines all of the Codex have gotten much better at being balanced.
They even noticed that the Nid Dex had some issues and are making an attempt to fix it with a new release. [I still don't know about the Dark Eldar, but I think it is still to soon to tell].
It may not be the same game I started with in 1989, but I am still having fun with it.

"Fluffy players" should play with other "Fluffy players," that way they can have some parity with their opponent in regards to their expectation and approach to the game. It's the same with competitive players; they need to play against other people looking to get the same thing out of the game as they are. Fluff players in a competitive environment get beaten; competitive players in a fluff environment attract derision because they're playing to win.

Don't worry about forging the narrative, worry about forging a better social contract with your gaming.

 SkaerKrow wrote:
"Fluffy players" should play with other "Fluffy players," that way they can have some parity with their opponent in regards to their expectation and approach to the game. It's the same with competitive players; they need to play against other people looking to get the same thing out of the game as they are. Fluff players in a competitive environment get beaten; competitive players in a fluff environment attract derision because they're playing to win.

Except that's exactly the problem. What if a competitive player also wants to be a fluffy player?

The fact that the game creates that distinction is absurd.

You shouldn't need to hold interviews in order to find an opponent that you might have a chance of having an enjoyable game with.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

What 2nd Edition 40K needed was a tweaking and streamlining. 3rd Edition was an entirely new game. And it was crappy.

Id like to see it

Iv never played 2nd ed. exactly how different was it?

 SkaerKrow wrote:
"Fluffy players" should play with other "Fluffy players," that way they can have some parity with their opponent in regards to their expectation and approach to the game. It's the same with competitive players; they need to play against other people looking to get the same thing out of the game as they are. Fluff players in a competitive environment get beaten; competitive players in a fluff environment attract derision because they're playing to win.

Don't worry about forging the narrative, worry about forging a better social contract with your gaming.

WS Spam is fluffy....

 Desubot wrote:
Iv never played 2nd ed. exactly how different was it?

The very basic structure was more or less the same as it is now. Charging and running were part of the movement phase. Models had a 90 degree arc of fire to their front, and had to fire at the closest target (but different models in the unit could fire at different things if they were facing different directions). Overwatch was a condition you entered instead of shooting in the shooting phase, and allowed you to take a shot during the enemy movement phase instead. Rolling to Hit and Wound involved a bunch of modifiers (short or long range, strength of the weapon, various assorted other things). Weapons that fired multiple shots had a specal die, and could jam. Enemy models could be set on fire and would then run randomly around the board. Close Combat was worked out one model vs one model at a time, which got painful in larger battles. Vehicles had datacards, with hits being assigned to different locations (hull, tracks, turret, etc) could could each have their own armour value and different damage results. Vehicles also had turning arcs which limited how many times they could change direction on the move. Psychic powers were resolved with a deck of cards. Orks were fun. Chaos was interesting. And Space Wolves and Eldar ruled the galaxy.

I enjoyed this post, and agree

Tyranno wrote:
Just something I was thinking about.
There are people who played earlier editions, who complain about how 40K these days is so terrible, etc.

As you allude to, this is in large part due to the emphasis on winning and the willingness to jump through hoops of fire to do so, something that was not as prevalent in 2nd and 3rd edition eras. In addition, back then there wasn't really high speed Internet, meaning a an exploitative idea didn't get refined and shared with the entire universe overnight.

Tyranno wrote:
These days theres an attitude - I suspect it might come from the video game community - about how winning is everything, and it seems like those people try to apply it to 40K where it doesn't fit. Presumably that's where the attitude of the people wanting the rules to be set in stone comes from, though I've even seen complaints about rules that require interpretation or even common sense, which frankly is... I don't even know...

This is absolutely true. In a competitive/ranked multiplayer (or duel) video game, the system does the matchmaking, and your only objective is winning. There is really no point to playing other than to improve your skills and try to win, because losing to a stranger is not rewarding.

On the other hand, this attitude is terrible for wargaming, in my opinion. It just sucks all the fun out of it. To me, Wargaming is supposed to be about junk food, pop, and epic battles between friends

 Desubot wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

What 2nd Edition 40K needed was a tweaking and streamlining. 3rd Edition was an entirely new game. And it was crappy.

Id like to see it

Iv never played 2nd ed. exactly how different was it?

I've got some of the 2E books right here, and it was *very* different. Everything had a move stat like Fantasy (and assaults were initiated in the movement phase likewise), weapons had armor save modifiers instead of an AP, many weapons did multiple wounds (a Lascannon would inflict 2d6 wounds if it wounded, a heavy bolter d4), multi-meltas were blast weapons, close combat was far more complicated and involved, vehicles had individual hit locations, most models could only shoot in a forward 90* arc, lots of weapons could jam or explode spectacularly (e.g. Assault Cannons), Deep Strike capability was *very* expensive, model count was half or a third of what it is now (basic marine is like 33pts), models hit by a flamer would catch fire and keep burning, exploding tanks could have a turret fly off and land on (and blow up) another tank, etc.

Much smaller scale, much more detailed rules, lots of randomness, etc.

 insaniak wrote:
Except that's exactly the problem. What if a competitive player also wants to be a fluffy player?

The fact that the game creates that distinction is absurd.

You shouldn't need to hold interviews in order to find an opponent that you might have a chance of having an enjoyable game with.

I mostly find distinctions like WAAC, competitive and fluffy to be pointless because it seems odd to me that someone would actually fall entirely in to 1 category.

On this forum I'd probably be considered competitive, bordering on WAAC because I like to win and I think the rules should be played as written unless agreed to beforehand and I have no problem calling people out on moving their models 6.2" instead of 6". It's a game and I think it should be played as I'd play any other game, I play to the rules and I expect my opponent to do so as well.

But then personally, I identify more as a fluffy player. I collect armies because I like the fluff and the aesthetic. There's not an army I didn't start because of fluff/aesthetics, I didn't start any of my armies because I thought they were the best competitively.

...but then once I am collecting an army I look for the best builds and I tend not to take things that suck. This might get me labelled as competitive but IMO it's actually because I'm fluffy, it breaks my immersion when my army is repeatedly tabled by turn 3 so even if I like certain troops from a fluff and aesthetics point of view I won't take them if they're a crutch.

But anyway, yeah, the fact we make these distinctions is because we are trying to fit within the crappy rules not because they are genuinely useful distinctions.

Talys wrote:
As you allude to, this is in large part due to the emphasis on winning and the willingness to jump through hoops of fire to do so, something that was not as prevalent in 2nd and 3rd edition eras.

It really isn't.

People were playing to win back in 2nd edition as well. As others have pointed out, the reason people are complaining about the game now is that GW have had 20+ years and 7 editions to get the rules into some semblance of order, and have completely and utterly failed to do so.

Each edition, instead of refining the rules and clearing out issues, just changes stuff around and introduces as many or more new issues as it removes.

Case in point: Captain Shrike was introduced in 4th edition with a rule that allowed a unit joined to him to infiltrate... but had no legal way for this to actually happen. It wasn't until towards the end of 5th edition that GW got around to fixing this, by issuing an errata to the rules for ICs joining units that actually allowed them to join a unit before deployment. And then 3 minutes later, 6th edition came along with no sign of that change, and we went back to Shrike having an almost completely useless special rule.


A big part of the problem is simply that, thanks to their refusal to actively engage with the community, GW are totally out of touch with how people actually play their games. Prime example: When 7th edition was released, the designers' notes talked about how they felt that Psykers needed beefing up because all of the Marine players in the studio tended to take Chaplains and Captains instead of Librarians. Which is completely at odds with how everyone outside the studio was building Marine armies.

No, the problem isn't people wanting to win. It's people wanting the self-proclaimed market leader to produce a product after 6 previous attempts that in some way resembles a market-leading product.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Except that's exactly the problem. What if a competitive player also wants to be a fluffy player?

The fact that the game creates that distinction is absurd.

You shouldn't need to hold interviews in order to find an opponent that you might have a chance of having an enjoyable game with.

I mostly find distinctions like WAAC, competitive and fluffy to be pointless because it seems odd to me that someone would actually fall entirely in to 1 category.

On this forum I'd probably be considered competitive, bordering on WAAC because I like to win and I think the rules should be played as written unless agreed to beforehand and I have no problem calling people out on moving their models 6.2" instead of 6". It's a game and I think it should be played as I'd play any other game, I play to the rules and I expect my opponent to do so as well.

But then personally, I identify more as a fluffy player. I collect armies because I like the fluff and the aesthetic. There's not an army I didn't start because of fluff/aesthetics, I didn't start any of my armies because I thought they were the best competitively.

...but then once I am collecting an army I look for the best builds and I tend not to take things that suck. This might get me labelled as competitive but IMO it's actually because I'm fluffy, it breaks my immersion when my army is repeatedly tabled by turn 3 so even if I like certain troops from a fluff and aesthetics point of view I won't take them if they're a crutch.

But anyway, yeah, the fact we make these distinctions is because we are trying to fit within the crappy rules not because they are genuinely useful distinctions.

I don't think any of the things you describe are WAAC. Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.

Desiring to win and calling out cheating, and knowing the rules and enforcing them is just bring competent. I think a casual player (like me) will do the same thin as golf and offer a handicap if I know it's a skewed fight. When it comes to golf, I will happily take a handicap too

Frankly, I don't know why WAAC is a bad thing, anyhow. These players are identified very quickly and stick to themselves.

Oh, regarding 2nd ed -- I actually miss the small scale nature of it . A very different game.

I entered the game with 5th edition and I sorely miss the wound allocation rules. I know multi wound models like nobz and paladins abused them but that should have been a quick and easy fix. Instead we got removal from the front in 6th quick just sucks.

This has nothing to do with competitiveness or whatever, I just hate that positioning each individual guy in a mass battle game is important. It slows everything down and completely breaks the narrative when an Ork or marine squad leader is leading his men from the back.

Talys wrote:
Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.

What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Today, we see players cry and whine because of how they feel the game has changed and gone downhill.

I see far more people dismiss complaints as 'whining' than I see actual whining.

How about we try to avoid using loaded language to stir up trouble, hmm?

My bad. It was not intended to start anything. I myself "whined" when they changed chaos from the classic Realm of Chaos books. My apologies to anyone who mighta been insulted because it was not meant to be one. It is just a general figure of speach that has been in the gaming community since before I started gaming. Maybe it is my age and using old figures of speach that younger players arent used to that causes them to take me the wrong way. Whatever the case, It was not meant to incite. It was also not meant to dismiss.

Maybe "complain" would be better to say? I've done it myself on occasion and I complain now to this day about the game and aspects of it.
I've learned though that there will always be aspects that you like or dislike about any new edition as they are released.
I think the level of complaining you do will often be influanced by how important the change is to the part of the game that you "like" the most or which is more important to you.

For example...
I ike the hobby aspect of the game. The painting and converting to make your stuff look cooler or more uniquely "you". You will find me complain about the whole MFA thing and argue both sides of the fence about MFA. This is more of a community issue than anything because iearly on, it just was not done as often because of a lack of officil tourneys and so forth. As these came to the fore and you started seeing it more and more GW started to move away from making the game conversion friendly to the point where we are now where players are afrain of doing ANY changes to their models to make them look cool for fear of being acused of MFA. So yes, you find me complain on this. Because in the old days we just used comman sense and just didnt try it.
Another thing is the "power" of different kinds of fighting. As a science fiction game, I always felt that guns and ranged weaponry should be more to the fore with close combatplaying second fiddle excaept for such armies that used it as a main combat form and even then, those should also rely on guns of some kind. I was not happy in earlier editions because the game was reversed with assault to the fore.
I had not really complained though. A lot of this is because thats how it was to begin with. It was not "changed" to that as thats how it was.
Another thing that you will find me complain about is the fluff. i love the fluff and it is still a huge draw for me. I complained when orks went from brutes who had young and drank fungus beer to becoming walking mushrooms themselves, when the slann were removed, when the squats were killed, a host of other changes as well.

With the rules, I epect that different mechanics will be better or wors so I just accept them and focus on the bigger 3 pictures I mentioned above knowing that there will be aspects I dont like. Glass half full rather than half empty, I reckon. Personally, I feel that if you focus on those aspects you dont like to the exclusion of all the good that is left or good that COULD be or the good you have already had, you are hurting yourselfand when you fight too hard to force it onto others, your hurting others by tainting their view when it might not otherwise have been tainted thus harming the hobby as a whole. Of course, thats just my opinion.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Maybe it is my age and using old figures of speach that younger players arent used to that causes them to take me the wrong way.

'Younger player' is not a term I would apply to myself. It's nothing to do with age. Labelling someone's opinion as 'whining' suggests that there is no legitimacy to that opinion... it's just that person having a whinge. So yes, using the word 'complaint' in relation to a complain is going to be less likely to rile people up.

.... As these came to the fore and you started seeing it more and more GW started to move away from making the game conversion friendly...

The what to the who, now?

The game is no less 'conversion friendly' now than it ever was. GW's lack of emphasis on conversions in the last edition or so is nothing to do with what competitive players are doing, but simply the result of less time and money being spent on studio models.

If players are 'afraid' of converting their models, it's the result of their community going a little overboard on enforcing MFA-infractions, not anything that GW have done.

I haven't seen much evidence of that, though. From my experience, there are far more converted armies out there these days than there were back in 2nd ed.

As a science fiction game,...

40K is more Science Fantasy than Science Fiction. The setting was never intended to be hardcore SciFi. It's elves and orcs and magic in space.