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.

You can turn down a game of checkers because it wouldnt be fun. It must have bad rules too. Someone could offer me a game of chess or tic tac toe and i can also turn them down because it wouldnt be fun.
If someone plays the game, they are fully aware of any rules issues. You dont need to point them out because they already know about them. You can accept or tun down any game you like for any reason you like. If game has rules you dont like and you arent willing to accept them, the answer is simple. Dont play it and go play a different game that has rules you like. Dont look back.
if you dont like the rules but still like the game, the answer is, again, simple. Sit with your local players (the actual physical people you play with and work as a team to tweak them or m ake house rules till it suits you and just play in that setting.

zilka86 wrote:
So unbound lets players be jerks and donkey caves because there playing with in the rules. wow just wow that's so wrong

The rules dont force them to act that way. they will act that way playing chess or call of duty or any other game regardless of any rules. of course, there will be those who use the rules as an excuse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Blacksails wrote:

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

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

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

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

Talys wrote:

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

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

Eactly, this is exactly the game 40k was originally designed for. More so than most others. It wasnt till it was taken out of that "type" and shoehorned in with the competative games that we started to see problems.
Why was this done? I think because of the great storyline and mythos. I think it might be an idea to follow in the footsteps of games like DUST and have different rule systems designed for the 2 different types of games. Would get rid of a lot of the issues we have.

Not veryone plays in the basement. But again, you are confusing he current edition and the ultra competetive atmosphere with rogue trader and the atmosphere that surrounded it. I suspect that this is not an accident.

The game as it is now is different from the game as it was then. Try to get your hands on a copy of Rogue Trader and a copy of the current edition and compare the two.

To give you a helpful hint, look at the role of the TO at a tourney. What is the usual min ou can have and it be a decent tourney? 8 players maybe?
Now look at the role of the GM. and compare the two.
TO- set up tables to be perfectly fair for both players according to the pre=set scenerio as it is written in the book. Arbitrate rules so players dont kill each other, tally points, prizes ect and so forth. Compare it to the GM, coming up with a scenerio that may or may not be fair, set up the board custom, operate "NPC" units, councel players and watch the individual every step of the game making decisions of things that may or may not be in the rulebook, possibly even making changes. ect ect. You will see that with that alone, RT is far more designed for that atmosphere than many other games. Look at chess for example, it is designed to be played competetively. true it CAN be played in that atmosphere, but it is not designed with that in mind.

There is a difference between a game specifically designed with that in mind and one without that in mind. You are fully aware of this. One can be played anywhere so CAN be played in that environment. The other is usually not effectively played outside of itspecial considerations.

Pretending to not understand does not change it. That is the answer. if you decide that it is not obvious enough, that is your problem to deal with because I can copy and paste it till the cows come home and it will still be be true every time.

See, peregrine, thats where he gets you. I did not say it was better in that environment. I said it was designed specifically for that environment. He uses the wording change the meaning of what i said to support a circular logic.

Any game can be played in that environment. Even baseball (although putting out a window from the inside might make the missus a lil upset)

Many games are designed to be pick up and carry about, played anywhere. Take chess or tic tac toe for example. they can be played hardcore tourney are they can be played in the basement. The point I made was that Rogure trader was simply not designed to be played in tourneys but specifially for the "basement". he is changing the words about intentionally to try to make it appear as though i am trying to say that it was better than others games to distract you from the actual point.
Of course, to avoid any reporting, I could be wrong, he might actually believe that is what i am saying in which case he is simply mistaken.

Scroll up and you will be able to re-read the answer you are looking for specifically laid out as you asked.

Double post

Once more. Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind. That does not make it better in that environment, only that is is not played as well outside of it. You are changing my words to say that it is better inside that environment which is quite possibly untrue. Better than some worse than others depending on the individual game.

The point you are trying to hide and circle about is that when you try to play a game in a way it was not specifically designed for, it will not play near as well as when played as it was intended. This is what was done when it was taken from RT to modern ultra competative international tournament scene.
Without basic fundamental changes, it just does not play near as well as games that were intended for this scene from their very beginning.

Once more. Some games are designed with playing in that specific environment in mind. That does not make it better in that environment, only that is is not played as well outside of it. You are changing my words to say that it is better inside that environment which is quite possibly untrue. Better than some worse than others depending on the individual game.
let me give you an example. polo is a game designed to played riding horses, swinging the long hammer like clubs and such out in an open field. That is the environment is is designed to be played in. NOW, try to play the same game, same number of horses and so forth without any changes in a 2.5' by 4' bathtub. You will find that the game does not play nearly as well.
The point you are trying to hide and circle about is that when you try to play a game in a way it was not specifically designed for, it will not play near as well as when played as it was intended. This is what was done when it was taken from RT to modern ultra competative international tournament scene.
Without basic fundamental changes, it just does not play near as well as games that were intended for this scene from their very beginning.

Peregrine, you'll have to get your hands on a copy of Rogue Trader. You will see for yourself. I sold my copy a few years back.

So your saying you have personal knowledge of my finances over the last 10 years as to exactly which of my gaming supplies I have sold and not sold and why? Exactly how have you gained this knowledge because it can not have been through any legal means.

For the at least 3rd time now.

I did NOT say RT or even current 40k was better played in a basement than any other game in existance past present or future.

I DID say that it was originally(RT) designed to not be played in an ultra competetive tournament environment. I would probobly go on to say not in any kind of tournament environment but PURELY for light entertainment (such as would normally be played in the "basement".
This is not to say it is better in the basement than any other game just that it was not really designed to be played outside of it.

Other games can be played in the basement just as easily and effectively and you can have just as much fun doing it.
(please note this is not about which is a better game overall) HOWEVER, many of the other games were designed to also be played competetively (or outside of the basement). For example chess. This means that those other games are more well rounded and likely more balanced because of that.

That IS the point. 40k has been turned into an international ultra competative tournament game when it was not originally designed to be that. When the game designers sat about and created the game. I am sure the conversations went more along the lines of

"ELVES IN SPACE!! Lets give them ninja star guns and jetbikes!"
"Only if I get to have my space dwarves wearing sunglasses and cigars"
"*general laughter* SURE, you can have your space dwarves."
"whispers amongst the others* "givem a few years and then the dwarves are GONE. GONE I say."

Rather than anything along the lines of what was going to be allowed in tournaments or rulings on FAQs.

How that ties in with the thread is that the unbound is a step back towards the time of RT.
My feelings on thats in the frame of mind and intentions of how you build your unboundlist. You can be making an ultra killy tourney list or you could be making a pure fluff weaker list for fun.

My feeling are that 2 seperate sets of rules could work. One set up for the just for fun fluffy games in a relaxed environment (what I mistakenly called a beer and pretzels game". this set could include stuff like unbound because you wouldnt really have anything to gain by "abusing" it.
Another set of rules for tournament environments with much more balance which would likely require a total rewrite.
This way, you could make both "sides" happy or at least less unhappy.

 Blacksails wrote:
Well feth me and call me Suzy.

A fairly clear point from EVIL!

I mean, it doesn't answer any of my questions, and its side stepped a lot of the earlier issues, but its at least on topic and understandable.

Yes, two sets of rules is one way of doing that. Downside is that it would end up dividing the playerbase into two large camps with floaters in betwee. Upside is that distinction would be clear and clean.

I'd just prefer one good ruleset. A good, concise, well written and well balanced rule set caters equally to the fluffiest of casual fluff bunnies as it does to the hardest of winningest tournament goers, and everyone in between.

To that end, I feel Unbound is completely, 100% useless. Its lazy, it causes more problems than it solves, and its fairly comical, as far as rules go.

I didnt change anything. I just finally said what you wanted to hear instead of something you disagreed with. That meant that you didnt ignore it.

Call me wishy washy or an idealist. i want everyone to be happy which is just not gonna happen with a single set of rules.
Good points about it diving the player base. Bt dont you think it is already divided? 2 sets of rules was just an off the wall idea and not something I'm putting stock in. like i said, I just started checking into DUST and found that they have 2 set of rules and that the players on their forums actually seem to get along because they all get what they want and have nothing to complain about. Of course, I havnt checked into a LOT of their forums either so cant put a lot of stock in it.

My point about RT not being designed for tournaments is that it is a square peg being pounded into that round hole with only "minor" tweaks in each edition (figure of speach) rather than the total rewrite that is needed to make it effective in that environment.

Azreal13, that is not what I said at all.

I honestly dont think you make much effort to understand me. It is much more "fun to poke fun at the outsider who has disabilities than try to understand them. Of course, that may just be my view.
I always have a point and it is usually a good one. Not always entirely relevent but always well thought out. I would ask that you have a little patience with me and make an effort to understand rather than just shouting me down and making fun. Unfortunately, that makes it even harder to find the right words.

I'm not saying a single good rule set wouldnt work. I rather think it could. The 2 different sets was just a random idea I thought I'd voice.
MTG has different rule sets or like you said formats. I have a deck or two remnents somewhere but dont really play anymore. I do remember being told I couldnt use them in the big tournament setting because it wasnt legal but that there was another "type 2" or something that was set up "just for fun" where I could use them. Of course, not being a big MTG player, they might have dumbed down the terms for me which I appreciated at the time.

Suuuurrreee...

On topic. Unbound can be a great asset to fluff gamers in the correct setting when used as it was intended. However, as it is too easily abused (or used as it was not intended), it can be bad.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'll ask it again; what about 40k in particular makes it a better game for casual, laid back, narrative oriented gaming?

How about it is a broken game with no balance therefore it is best when between a few a few friends who understand what the issue are and can overlook them.

Something you wont find at your LFGS unless you are real lucky, I know I am not one of those and they is why I play in my Dinning Room with like minded people while munching on Cheetos and drinking Red's Apple Ale. [Something else you cant do at the LFGS]

That doesn't make 40K better at being a casual game, it makes it unfit for anything else.

But does not it being unfit for everything else, but in the casual home environment make it Better in the casual home environment or do I not understand what better is?

40K can really only stand as a casual game, because its rules and mechanics are broken for actual competitive games.

I'd be careful saying that too loudly or they will come after you like they did me when i said the exact same thing. lol
Glad to see I'm not the only one with that opinion at least. Cheers

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, most of us are of the opinion Psienesis is expressing.

It is, in fact, almost the exact opposite of what you were saying EVIL, which is that 40K is best as a casual game because that's what it was designed for - something you've spectacularly failed to corroborate on any of the multiple occasions you've been asked to.

The fact is, a good game loses nothing when played in a casual manner or competitively.

40K is not that.

Actually, he is expressing exactly what I have been saying all along (different words, same exact point) while you tried your best to disagree.
If you agree with what he and I are saying, than maybe trying to pick an argument when the person disagrees with you would be a better bet than just doing it for the sake of doing it.

Indeed, sometimes, it is hard to get a point across and say in 1500 words what some one else says clearer in 15. It is still the same point.

Edit: Of course, 12 hour shifts, 3.5 hours driving time and a 3 ring circus in the house preventing sleep can also make a difference. lol

I feel that in a different "gaming era" it served it's purpose as a casual game. Currently.. not as much so but many of us make do because of a love of the "mythos" and imagery (and for many of us, nostalgia). Top that off with it being one of the largest games with finding opponents easiest and , well, there ya have it. For many, better to make do than go without.
That is why a couple buddies and I are looking into DUST (FF super sale REALLY helped a lot. $9.00 for a $45 model kinda helped out lol) We now all 3 have fully playable armies that we can add to as we move forward.

What gets me is not that people dont like the rules. Heck, we had questions in RT. What gets me is the attitude of the "complainers". I made a point earlier about how different playstyles attracts different sorts of players. My example was that the sit and shoot armies usually sttract one type of player who is more laid back while the in your face assaulty playstyle usually sttracts that sort of player. So that when the shooty armies are weak, those players make do and muddle through while when the assaulty armies are weakened, those players take different and more vocal action.
I dont think that the fact that the current "complainers" are more vocal makes them more numerous, I think it makes them "louder".
Of course, thats my view and others disagree. Just thought I would explain why I think that.

What gets me though (back on track) is not that theycomplain but that they take every opportunity possible to shoehorn in the complaints even in threads where it is not related...

*Thread title* "What shade of green should I do my orks?
*post #1-215* "40k sucks!!! the rules blow chunks all over you when you play!. Dont even bother with orks!......."

Extreme and exagerated but figured it would bring a smile and a nod because I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from on that.
Another is the argumentativeness just for the sake of it. Say for example someone says that they dont like the rules but dont think they are QUITE as bad as described for X reason and since the person likes the fluff anyway, they will keep playing. The complainers do everything possible to discredit and flame/troll at that person simply because they arent on the bandwagon. This makes the vast majority of people afraid to voice any opinion at all for fear of repercussions.
Id say, if someone doesnt agree 100%, the complainers should accept that and not spend 12 pages trying to argue and ridicule every little point.
there are shades of grey and much of it is opinion based. Even the results of things that arent opinion based are usually based on preferences and opinions.
For example, I feel that chess is much more balanced than 40k. I can play chess and am decent at it (well, I used to be) but I dont play it because I find it bland and boring. My opinions and preferences cause me to go against what someone else would say would be facts that they feel would make it a "better game".
The I must be 100% right 100% of the time attitude is, to me, much like the "WAAC" attitude that is discussed so often in gaming and I see it here (in discussions, not this locale) MUCH more often than I see on the tabletop.
It isnt that bad to be wrong once in a while just as it is ok to not be 100% right 100% of the time. Trust me. I'm wrong often enough and I found out years ago it's easier to just admit it or acknowledge that both sides can be "right" based on preferred perspective.
We have enough of the world looking down on us that we need to stick together despite our differences instead of fighting one another.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I*Thread title* "What shade of green should I do my orks?
*post #1-215* "40k sucks!!! the rules blow chunks all over you when you play!. Dont even bother with orks!......."

Extreme and exagerated but figured it would bring a smile and a nod because I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from on that.

If your point was that the level of complaining tends to get blown all out of proportion by those complaining about the complainers... then yes, I can see where you're coming from.

We have enough of the world looking down on us that we need to stick together despite our differences instead of fighting one another.

Who are you referring to as the 'we' here?

If you're talking about gamers, from my experience most of the 'looking down upon' comes from gamers themselves. The vast majority of the rest of the world couldn't care less what you do with your spare time, and being nerdy is far less of a social stigma than it used to be.

On the first, your spot on to what I was getting at in terms f people complaining. Those complaining about the complainers are almost as bad but not quite. The example was exagerated, but not by a whole lot I was trying to make a funny example to lighten the atmosphere a lil bit. like I said, I dont mind the complaining overmuch except when it gets out of hand and the attitude of the complainers. I complained when the balance went the other way, but I did it in moderation and with respect for others which we simply rarely see now..
With "we", I did mean gamers in general. I admit, my stance on that may be slanted more than a little bit. i grew up in a small town where everyone gossips and loves to have a scapegoat. during the 80s when if you listened to heavy metal and played D&D or any of theat genre of games you were branded as a satanist. I listened to Twisted Sister and Iron Maiden and was an avid gamer so.... It was bad enough i literally had to watch for gangs of "rednecks" trying to jump me in parking lots, forget about trying to find a job in town ect. So it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Your right the "stigma" isnt near what it used to be and we are now usually only considered geeks. I also agree with you that "we" catch MUCH more flack from each other than from non-gamers. often times, we are even held in esteem as 'knowing things" or being good at math or history or whatever but it usually seems, to me at least, as though we arent treated as full equals even then. Regardless, I may not be fully right on that but either way, it still stands to reason we shouldnt be putting one another down and should still try to get along with one another and accept our differences of opinions and perspectives.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You use the "branded as a satanist" line a lot EVIL.

Are you sure it was the music and RPGs, or maybe it was the goat sacrifice and cavorting naked around bonfires at midnight?

Im unsure of your age and dont want to know it. The culture in the U.S. during that period of time might have been a little different from what you had in the U.K.
We had druggies playing D&D and killing themselves. Rather than admit their kids had drug problems or social issues, the parents blamed the games and the music. We had tv stars like geraldo rivera (or however it's spelled) doing big specials talling the U.S. how the games were satanic and destroying our youth". Small towns had churches with great power and charismatic preachers preaching this in church. We had schoolteachers actually teaching in classes. Drunken rednecks used it as an excuse to jump those weaker than themselves.
Not once did I ever dance around a fire naked or any of those things. I refuse to kill (beyond what annoyed me like flies and skeeters), heck, i didnt even fish because I didnt wanna kill/clean them.
This might not haave been as big an issuee in many areas but ii can tell you that in my area, thhis attitude was strong.
we could discuss it in detail and I could give more details wof what I went through during this time just as i'm sure others could too. That may be an idea for a different thread in a different section of the forum. making light of it I feel is insulting and in pooor taste, most definately not polite IMO.

 Blacksails wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

Not once did I ever dance around a fire naked or any of those things. I refuse to kill (beyond what annoyed me like flies and skeeters), heck, i didnt even fish because I didnt wanna kill/clean them.

Woosh.

Also, Azrael's age is proudly displayed in his profile info.

Old fart that he is.

LOL, A woosh because I'm too lazy to go to everyone's profile to scrutinize their age and information. Thats actually funny.Might as well woosh again because I didnt look yours up either.
Age is just a number Regardless of his age, i glanced and saw UK next to his name so assumed he wasnt in my hometown at that period of time regardless of his age.

 Blacksails wrote:
No, the woosh was for your very serious reply about not actually dancing around fires or making sacrifices to Azrael's joke post.

That is not somethig you joke about. It is in poor taste to do so.