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.

efarrer wrote:In any case where you know a co-worker was beat up for a document he wrote, leaving family out of it is the best choice that can ever be made. The fans of these toy soldier games we play can be mean spirited and stupid. That is a known quantity after Gav got beat up. Even mentioning you have a kid who plays is a bad idea when you are the head designer starting to make major changes. I feel bad for his kid, but I think Jervis is an idiot who should have known better.

Really? I never heard that, got a link?

Should retiring sports stars be banned from saying 'I'm retiring because I want to spend more time with my family' for fear of people hunting their family down? Jervis said, 'my son didn't know which gun was which, so we thought it would be a good idea to put pictures in the book'. People on the internet have run with that to blame some kid they've never met for codex changes that had nothing to do with Jervis' kid, or in many cases, nothing to do with Jervis at all.

efarrer wrote:And you miss mine as well. Mine is I wish GW would write a workable set of rules for the long term for 40K. Fasa did with Battletech. You may need houserules, but the game is solid in general. Gw even managed it with LotR. But they either cannot or will not with 40K and fantasy.

Then we’re talking past each other. I just accept its an evolving game, and use that to dream about the rules changes I think would fix everything. With B’tech I just accept that the games that’s there right now is the game that’ll always be there.

But people right now talk about the current problems with tanks compared to MCs and skimmers as though they’ll be that way forever. Simply put, they won’t be.

The rapid fire rules did not change the game in a substanital way. It's still better most of the time to assault. The (non-speeder) vehicles still are not worth taking in most lists. Removing the las plas doesn't really help the game as much as you think. And I'm wondering what you feel harlies die to, because my experiance is they kill almost everything when they dismount.

No single change altered everything by itself. It is the combination of the changes I listed, in addition to plenty of others.

If you're still playing old style third ed games of two armies slugging it out from the deployment zones, or maybe one of the two armies running up the field as fast as they could, then it sucks to be you. But I've played plenty of third ed and had no interest in more games by the end of that edition, but have enjoyed almost every game of 4th ed I've played. I've won or lost based on decisions made on the field.

Harlies are bread and butter for any mobile unit that can get within VoT range. Or can move away from the assault range of deployment from the stationary skimmer. Mobile units.

Which again shows regional differences. Yes the successful lists were IW in gerenal, but darnit the other lists were fun, and I used them and people I know used them.

I never found the old lists fun to play against. One-trick ponies, where the actions of me and my opponent were set from deployment. Boring, boring stuff. Give me the versatility of the new codex any day.

How long have you played against it. Give it time. The good lists will come to the fore in the new year, and the lists which don't cut the mustard will be gone. There will not be as many possible good lists as the old book.

No, I don't play in tournament competitive environment. I play with mates, with moderately competitive lists. What I like about the new chaos codex is the move towards adaptability and versatility over 'themed' one-dimensional lists. The old lists looked cooler on the page, but were really boring to actually play against.

That's bull. Heavy Support choices should not be the only ones that can have heavies. A false arguement. I used Havocs always have. The use of chaos marines for a mixture of tactical roles is the point to giving a heavy weapon.

And for at least one of my armies I can no longer use the heavies as heavies, Seeing as I can no longer take a 4 heavy Noise Marines squad.

Says you. I like the idea that troops taken as tactical troops play differently to heavy support units.

I don't like the changes to noise marines, though. I agree with you there. Making them a mobile shooting unit was a cool idea, but the execution was terrible.

Which I call bS on. A large nmber of people enjoyed playing those odd quirky lists, and don't feel the new list represents them. It is not losing an unfair advantage, It's losing what you worked on. THe company appraoches each book as a tabula rosa looking at how best to sell it's models. Not only the knife's edge of cheese got thrown out. So did the poor edge of odd lists. The probelm is those od lists cost money. Tabula rosa works for something without established roots. GW has had 15 years to establish things. There should not need to be massive upheavels at this point.

The lists got thrown out for reasons beyond cheese. Even the less powerful lists were pretty boring to play against, being so one-dimensional.

If you don't like the idea of the game continuing to change, don't play. I'm sorry, but that's the nature of 40k.

How did I miss this thread?? Damn holiday season keeping me busy!

Seriously, if you post here a lot you'll know that I, like Toreador, am a fan of the DA codex and the direction 40k is heading. I actually feel I have MORE options playing DA now than I did before. Now I actually have to THINK about what to take in my force rather than taking as many 6-man las/plas and 8-man Devs with 4 ML as possible with some donkey-cannons and Librarians for flavor.

Again, some people just like to complain. And if GW release a perfect rules system with balance and choice and it gave you a happy ending while it was at it, people (Abby....) would still complain.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

General Hobbs wrote:Sales are plummetting? I heard they were up 11% this year.

You heard from who?

The stock market would like to know where your pretend numbers come from.

GW has been posting losses in their core game for 5 years.

By the way, here are GW's own numbers.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2007/full_year/fiveyear.aspx

Misinformation elsewhere, please.

Such utter....sigh. Allright, here goes.

sebster wrote:

Stelek wrote:The difference is in the game itself. Artillery, aircraft, dedicated anti-tank units, smoke, tanks...all are viable.

Not so in 40K.

sebster wrote:
One game is platoon level, the other is company level. Aircraft and artillery really shouldn’t play that big a part in the small scale engagements of 40k. I think its ridiculous that people can put basilisks on the field.

Incorrect. 40K IS a company level game now. It has been for quite a while. You think 200 guardsmen, 90 marines, 80 necrons, 80 chaos...that isn't company level? Please buddy, it's company level.

sebster wrote:
Besides, you’re listing specific units as a counter to a comment about strategy, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. When talking about strategy, we’re talking about the maneuvers and thought processes that help you win a game. Battletech was mentioned earlier in this thread, learning to play Battletech well involves knowing your weapons and your enemy’s to identify the specific range you should be from the enemy mechs, then using the split movement and your mobility to get as many units as possible at their optimum range. Warmachine revolves around key unit combos and stopping the other guy using his. 10 years of experience in either of those games won’t help you for one second in becoming a good 40k or FoW player.

What FOW units did I list to counter about strategy? What the H are you talking about?

I guess I assumed someone who played FOW and 40K would understand what I meant, since you don't I'll explain.

If I want to play a TANK army in FOW, I run tanks. To do that in 40K with your REQUIRED troops as tanks--you cannot do it.

Now replace jump pack, bikers, and all the other troop types that exist in 40K with the words above, and there ya go.

I don't really care about battletech or warmachine, both are seriously flawed games I don't have much interest in. Flawed more than 40K is.

sebster wrote:
40k and FoW revolve around similar concepts of matching your weapons with their optimum targets, and making successful assaults under supporting fire. FoW has a superior mechanic for suppression (in that it actually has one), but other than that the two games play pretty much the same. A good 40k player will, after a couple of games, be a good FoW player.

What's the point here?

Also, the basic army lists if you apply them to 40k would be like this:

Jump troop army.
Rhino army.
Predator army.
Infantry army.

Etc etc...which means you really do have lots of different army variants, given the weapon and corp support choices available to most armies.

sebster wrote:
You’ve missed the point. If you take a mechanized company in FoW you are limited to specific support options, you can’t take footslogging infantry, artillery or fixed guns without their own trucks to support them. You can’t take three separate units of heavy tanks to support a conscript army. When I first sat down and started building my Russians, I was surprised how constrictive army selection was.

Sorry, I haven't actually missed the point. You actually can take FAR more options in a FOW list than you can in a 40k list.

What you see as limited I see as unlimited.

Say I want to play a Russian tank army, mech infantry army, infantry army, recon army, or any of the other types available?

AND have supporting troops from the other army types available--i.e. I can run infantry with tank support, and vice versa.

I CAN.

Now lets say I want to play a Marine tank army, mech marine army, recon army, infantry army, etc...

CAN I?

Answer: NOT AND BE VIABLE, and if you have your army this year you won't next.

Creating an 'army' system where you can pick and choose from say ANYTHING the Imperium has to offer might make for some funky lists, but if you put in COMMON SENSE restrictions like exist in FOW (sorry, you really can't run 80 tanks it's excessive nor can you run all anti-tank gun units, it's also unrealistic) and apply them to 40K I don't think you'd have 'hell to pay'. You'd gain far more, a robust army list system that gives you your BEST units as your required choices, and anything else you want to bring is really up to you. Unlike in 40K, where your WORST units are your required choices, and EVERYTHING else you bring is there to make up for having to pay 10-20% of your points towards utter crap units.

So, to recap:

FOW combat platoons (required) vs 40K troops choices (required). First are game-winners. Second are force reduction.

40K needs the former, not the latter.

sebster wrote:
But when I started playing I loved that every army taking the field was fairly plausible (if you ignore the slightly excessive levels of support weapons). It stood in stark contrast to the 40k armies you can see, with two squads on minimum troops surrounded by full squads of elite troops and heavy support.

Please see directly above, and try to 'get' what I'm saying. The basic choices forced upon you in FOW are GOOD choices. The basic choices forced upon you in 40K are SH** choices.

By the way, play anything BUT Russians and you'll see pretty much every other army out there with 2 companies, whatever weapons they want, and max support choices (x2 for non-Russians, btw).

sebster wrote:
People on 40k forums show a lot of love for FoW. But if you ever tried to introduce it’s system of army creation into 40k there would be hell to pay. It’s an interesting little irony.

That's because FOW lets us use tanks. 40K doesn't.

Hell to pay from whom? 40K players love FOW. I haven't met one who actually bought into it and played a few games didn't find it an excellent game.

Now put together a similar army creation system for 40K and you'd have a much better system than we have now.

For example:

Take 1 HQ.
Take tactical squads (1-2).

Get 2 of anything else per tactical squad (be it fast, heavy, elite in the current system).
Assign a couple units as 'weapons' choices so they are considered the 'norm' intrinsic support.

Now, instead of the current DA crap where tactical squads are junk...give them a price break, and give them the elite veteran DA squad options instead of what they have now (which is a pathetic joke).

Now you have shooty death or close combat death tactical squads--something that can go into the 'elite' of 40K and kick ass. Instead of 10 wound lascannon squads of do nothing against non-mechanized lists.

That's what I want to see, basic building blocks which aren't minimized because they SUCK complete donkey nut. lol I want units that are basic troops that can serve me a purpose other than 'I filled my basic requirements, and WHEW it only cost me 100 points!'.

Going MORE in that direction is utterly self-defeating for this game. If you can't see it, see you at the Hasbro/Walmart convention in 2010!

efarrer wrote:

sebster wrote:I also play Battletech and it’s a cool game, albeit needing a fair few house rules to make it work to my liking.

Your point is misplaced though, I never said anything about 40k needing to evolve or being better for it. Different people will come in to run the game, with different ideas about what makes a game ‘best’. I simply said that it is an evolving game, and will continue to evolve. If you don’t like the current changes you can just wait them out, the winds will soon change and maybe the next design philosophy would be more to your liking. On the other hand, if you can’t handle a game where the rules and design focus change over time, choose a different game.
.

And you miss mine as well. Mine is I wish GW would write a workable set of rules for the long term for 40K. Fasa did with Battletech. You may need houserules, but the game is solid in general.

FASA also rather spectacularly went out of business. I have never played Battletech, but several of my friends did back in the day, and by all accounts you need a lot of houserules. Considering Battletech was far and away their biggest game - the only other thing they had that was even remotely close was Shadowrun, which always seemed to be perpetually circling the drain (and I frakking love Shadowrun, believe me) - I'd say that their approach was perhaps not the best.

sebster wrote:

efarrer wrote:In any case where you know a co-worker was beat up for a document he wrote, leaving family out of it is the best choice that can ever be made. The fans of these toy soldier games we play can be mean spirited and stupid. That is a known quantity after Gav got beat up. Even mentioning you have a kid who plays is a bad idea when you are the head designer starting to make major changes. I feel bad for his kid, but I think Jervis is an idiot who should have known better.

Really? I never heard that, got a link?

Should retiring sports stars be banned from saying 'I'm retiring because I want to spend more time with my family' for fear of people hunting their family down? Jervis said, 'my son didn't know which gun was which, so we thought it would be a good idea to put pictures in the book'. People on the internet have run with that to blame some kid they've never met for codex changes that had nothing to do with Jervis' kid, or in many cases, nothing to do with Jervis at all.

Being more in the know than apparently most of you are...

The whole Jervis Jr. thing is indeed pretty overblown.

Jervis Sr. made decisions based on a 1 man, 1 kid market survey.

This is what you should NOT ever do. I've told him as much.

Last time ANYONE at GW HQ UK listened to my dumb ass?

Yeah, let's say...not this century?

I'm no genius, I'm not a pro game designer, but I am one damn smart cookie and I know in my heart the way 40K is going (stupid world) isn't good for the hobby.

You want to get your own answers?

Here's a few *I* personally have data on. YOU can find it.

Here we go:

Are overall sales $$ of miniature related items growing or shrinking? What are key economic health indicators of related suppliers and manufacturers?

1. Bankrupcy rate of current leaders (up/down/static)
2. Number of new suppliers and manufacturers each
3. Mergers and buyouts of existing suppliers and manufacturers

Internet presence

1. Forums that are growing with new members and postings
2. Forums that are stagnant, dying or died in the past year
3. New forums this year
4. Same data on 40K blogs

Local, National and regional club health

40K shows per year, attendance and demographics.

If you really think making the game easier to understand will KEEP those young kids, well, I can tell you from first hand experience that the 'kids' that I've watched grow up in my local shop weren't drawn in by the 'easy' rules--they were drawn in by gamers playing with neat toys. They've been driven away by these new rules.

The new rules aren't 'easy', they might seem 'easy' but actually are stupid as any ever written by GW. Don't believe me? Here's some precious quotes from today's youth:

Wait, I need 10 guys to carry a lascannon not 5? why? because old rules were broken? how would I know that? what a f***ing stupid game!

This box gives me 200 points of guys? I need 2000 points though? Are they all this expensive? Holy sh** this is a CHEAP box? Well screw this, my PS3 games I can get for that much...no WAY am I spending 10 PS3 games on this junk.

Wow cool. What do you mean, I can't use the flying bugs with my tanks? It's not allowed? WAAAHHHH. Oh I can? In Apocalypse? You don't want to play 5000 points of my 10 "armies"? Why? I too am good!

Yeah guys, priceless. Keep on telling me how great 40K is going to be once all Codexes are 100% stupid central.

I hope Hasbro sells GW for cheap to PP. Or Wizards, dunno...M:TG inspired psychic cards? Oh my....

Man calling the Battletech rules solid...that's great big brass there.

The Battletech sourcebooks were endless amounts of great bathroom readers, but that was about it.

Play a 'capture the drop pod' mission from orbital down, to capture, then liftoff. Tell me how much fun THAT is.

By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

Then went to work for FASA at Wizkids. So if they are really out of work/action...who knows.

Now if you think the Hasbro/Walmart thing is impossible, tell me who has a foothold in our game stores that is the epiphany of 'evil' in gaming? Hint: Begins with an M.

Stelek wrote:By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

That was FASA Interactive, the branch of the company that made console and PC games, and which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft. FASA Publishing has been dead for quite some time now.

M?

Does anyone see the paradoxon of pricing and rules simplification? Trying to get the youth into a game by simple rules (wich drive away older ones) wich they can't afford? Great concept.

You know, I've always found the basic battletech rules to be pretty solid. Add in weird missions and it might get dicey, but the basic system is pretty solid.

Yes and no.
Battletech was the first tabletop game I ever played and it lacks...or maybe lacked, don't know the game nowadays...variety. So it's also easier to write 'solid' rules. You just don't have to add as many balancing factors in.

Jervis put his kid out there as the reason behind the rules changes, they are all attributed to his kid because of association.

It wasn't like he let it slip, he told the story three or four times in the same time frame as to the rules changes. He didn't comment to the contrary, so everyone who is disgruntled associates the changes to his teaching the game to his son, the son not getting the game, so he goes back and changes the rules to accomidate him.

The first time we heard this, it was cute, the second and third time, it wasn't cute when we had to go back and buy the codex's, yet again. It isn't the first time that He put his son out there in regards to the slaphappy buisness decisions, nor will it probibly be the last.

I'm happy and laughing that Gav the Noob got his clock cleaned. I only wish that I was the one to do it, because he is even more of the reason then Jervis Johnson for the dumbing down and eviceration of the 40k universe.
This is the guy that the well placed blame for weak sauce codex's, plummitting sales, and the general "I can change it because I can" attitude. That he can run willy-nilly around the game after Andy Chamber shadow as the wide eyed new guy for so long makes me almost puke in its insincerity.

I find it funny that you place BATTLETECH in the conversation, yet we see Wizkids bringing out the "Classic" yet again.

The rules are pretty much as we know them, and the fluff isn't going all over the map in the course of four or five years. Of course there were a hell of alot of books for BT, but as for fluff, content, evolution, etc. This has ironicly become the standard for an evolving game.

I first started playing the game with the cardboard mechs, watched as the game evolved, and still know people that play, collect, and are not even the slightest bit phased that the game went full circle. I didn't stick with it, because it wasn't really my thing.
I still laugh that they tried and failed to make the game a CLIX based crapfest, and even after watching people time and again laugh at the idea see them doing the right thing by the players, the sales, and the game by bringing it back in its tabletop form.

That is the basic argument, though. Do you think with the crap that 40k has become that we will ever see a 40K classic? Hell no! They can't even get it right the first time, yet they have ben trying for over 20 years.

If you want to see how GW has evolved, go back and get WD from around Issue 100 or so, or one of the old hard covered books ( Doesn't even matter which one) then go look at how current developments have " Improved". The two are like night and day.

I can agree that Jervis's kid isn't the problem, but it isn't going to help that his old man puts him out there like the preverbial lamb to the slaughter.

Question: How did Gav get his clock cleaned?

But Grot is right. Jervis did bring up the subject of his son and it was kinda expected that people will use Jervis Jr as a scape goat.

Unrelated, but I did hear a few years ago that a MO Troll punched out Gav for hitting on his girlfriend or something.

Chad Warden wrote:Unrelated, but I did hear a few years ago that a MO Troll punched out Gav for hitting on his girlfriend or something.

That's a little different then. Gav was probably just jealous of Andy, who has a very attractive gamer wife.

Salvation122 wrote:

Stelek wrote:By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

That was FASA Interactive, the branch of the company that made console and PC games, and which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft. FASA Publishing has been dead for quite some time now.

The rights to Battletech went with Fasa interactive, not Fasa publishing...and it was not wholly-owned by anyone but Fasa interactive. Not to my knowledge anyway. Got a link?

Grot 6:

Are you saying that the current version of the rules (4th) isn't a re-tread of 2nd?

I mean, really they are.

Stelek wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

Stelek wrote:By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

That was FASA Interactive, the branch of the company that made console and PC games, and which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft. FASA Publishing has been dead for quite some time now.

The rights to Battletech went with Fasa interactive, not Fasa publishing...and it was not wholly-owned by anyone but Fasa interactive. Not to my knowledge anyway. Got a link?

The video game rights to Battle tech were associated with Fasa Interactive. The universe rights were and remain the property of (Wizkids/Topps). and are currently liscensed to Catalyst games.

Wasn't there a 3rd company the universe rights passed through on their way from Wizkids to Catalyst?

vogelfrei wrote:Yes and no.
Battletech was the first tabletop game I ever played and it lacks...or maybe lacked, don't know the game nowadays...variety. So it's also easier to write 'solid' rules. You just don't have to add as many balancing factors in.

I agree, any mech fielded followed the same rules in the basic ruleset, and I never had an argument over the rules while playing battletech for 6 years (we chose to ignore the clans because of what we saw as 'uberification' and imbalance they brought to the game). That is what made the rules solid, 40k's special rules for each army is what causes problems. Variety does cause complication over time, although even with the basic ruleset for battletech there was a lot of variety in building your own mechs and how terrain and buildings from the city expansion affected the game without causing rules problems.

If 40k would just use the USRs from the main rulebook for unit variety instead of making it up each codex then there would be a lot less problems with the rules since they would be supposedly balanced at the time of the main book being published and only require a single FAQ to fix.

Stelek wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

Stelek wrote:By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

That was FASA Interactive, the branch of the company that made console and PC games, and which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft. FASA Publishing has been dead for quite some time now.

The rights to Battletech went with Fasa interactive, not Fasa publishing...and it was not wholly-owned by anyone but Fasa interactive. Not to my knowledge anyway. Got a link?

FASA Interactive was purchased by Microsoft in 99. Microsoft shut it down in September. FASA Publishing ceased production in 2001. Battletech and Shadowrun were sold to WizKids, which then licensed Shadowrun and "Classic" Battletech to Fanpro before going to Catalyst. Wizkids, to the best of my knowledge, still produces a clicky version of BT.

(FASA Publishing is properly known as FASA Corp; I'm using FASA Publishing to distinguish between tabletop and videogame divisions.)

Hmmm thank you. Poor bastards. lol

So who has the rights to the battletech sourcebooks? I see them everywhere, are they just old unsold copies?

An awful lot of them are old and unsold (or used), but as of this moment the rights are owned by WizKids and licensed through Catalyst Games.

Now Catalyst Games, what are they doing with the IP?

I don't know. I don't really follow Battletech; I know FASA because of Shadowrun. It would appear that they released a Battle for Macragge-esque box not too long ago. Their website is here but there's not too much information on it.

As much as I despise the blandness and dumbing down of the Jervis Plan, I am disgusted by people insulting another man's child they have never met from the cowardly safety of internet anonymity. It's just the worst kind of nerdish pettiness, just as bad as offering to physically assault a man over a game of toy soldiers (again, done in this thread) from the same cowardly anonymity of the internet.


I do believe aiming a game stated as "For 12 years+" at 10 year olds is incredibly slowed, but this is not the fault of the 10yr olds.

However I've learnt to stop caring, it is just toy soldiers. All the bitterness does is increase your blood pressure, do the smart thing and stop feeding GW your money.
I've stopped going to tournaments as I've learnt 40k is about as much a sport as Cluedo, and just as slowed for trying to be. Even for a wargame it isn't anywhere near as well-designed and playtesting to be a sport. It really is Listhammer first, Skill a distant second.
I stopped buying WD a long time ago for similar reasons of dumbing down and becoming a glorified catalogue that you pay for.
My model purchases have fallen to a trickle.
I stopped buying Codex's after getting the hilarious DA book.

Your wallet is far louder than your internet whining, and insulting another man's kids puts your opinion below worthless.

P.S. The 'I know something you don't know, I'm on the inside' anonymous posts are pretty funny too, someone claiming to be 'in the know' without verification has their opinion drop in worth too.

Shadow Scorpion wrote:As much as I despise the blandness and dumbing down of the Jervis Plan, I am disgusted by people insulting another man's child they have never met from the cowardly safety of internet anonymity. It's just the worst kind of nerdish pettiness, just as bad as offering to physically assault a man over a game of toy soldiers (again, done in this thread) from the same cowardly anonymity of the internet..

Agreed.

Shadow Scorpion wrote:
I do believe aiming a game stated as "For 12 years+" at 10 year olds is incredibly slowed, but this is not the fault of the 10yr olds. .

Agreed

Shadow Scorpion wrote:
However I've learnt to stop caring, it is just toy soldiers. All the bitterness does is increase your blood pressure, do the smart thing and stop feeding GW your money.
I've stopped going to tournaments as I've learnt 40k is about as much a sport as Cluedo, and just as slowed for trying to be. Even for a wargame it isn't anywhere near as well-designed and playtesting to be a sport. It really is Listhammer first, Skill a distant second.
I stopped buying WD a long time ago for similar reasons of dumbing down and becoming a glorified catalogue that you pay for.
My model purchases have fallen to a trickle.
I stopped buying Codex's after getting the hilarious DA book..

Agreed, although for me it was the BA white dwarf.

Shadow Scorpion wrote:
Your wallet is far louder than your internet whining, and insulting another man's kids puts your opinion below worthless..

Agreed.
P.S. The 'I know something you don't know, I'm on the inside' anonymous posts are pretty funny too, someone claiming to be 'in the know' without verification has their opinion drop in worth too.

BOOO!!!!!!


HISSSSSSS!!!!!!


To dash my hopes against the rocks!!!!!!

It isn't about insulting his kid. Its about a guy that would use his kid as a sales ploy, then when the deal goes sour the kid is left with the WTF look and everyone with nothing but the kid to point at and blame. People arn't cowardly bringing his kid out like " Your Mother " jokes. The guy brought the kid out as the posterboy for new 40K players and changed more then a few things about the game system that just don't work.

Petty, sure. Nerdish... Maybe. But thats what you get when you use your sons and daughters to market to a rabid fanbase that cares about the product, and not so much for the guy that has taken it upon himself to alter the game in such a way that most of the fan base is leaving or at least shelving thier game.

Someone mentioned it earlier, In buisness, the worst thing you can do is to make it personal and parade your family around as a public target.

As for Gav the noob not getting beat up, oh well... I guess there is always next time.

Stelek wrote:Such utter....sigh. Allright, here goes.

Oh please.

Incorrect. 40K IS a company level game now. It has been for quite a while. You think 200 guardsmen, 90 marines, 80 necrons, 80 chaos...that isn't company level? Please buddy, it's company level.

A bare minimum strength company is putting just shy of 100 men on the field.

40k is built for games around the 1850 odd points level. Most MEQ armies are putting 50 odd bodies on the field. Non-meq and particularly troop heavy MEQ are getting up to minimum sized company level. Effectively you're arguing that a game can be defined as company level if one of the two armies will often be around a minimum size company.

On the other hand, FoW games are generally around the 1500 points range. You can put a strelkovy company on the field, 135 men, without spend 1/5 of your points. Suggesting the two games are anywhere near the same scale is plainly stupid.

But more importantly, just stop and think about what you're doing here. I make a point. You immediately type 'nuh uh... the opposite it true'. It doesn't matter if it relates to the topic at hand or nott. I'm happy to talk about this, but you're going to have to do better than just reflexively countering each sentence I post. Form an argument, identify key points and build your argument around those key points, identify the key concepts in the other guy's argument and rebut them... you know - debate.

What FOW units did I list to counter about strategy? What the H are you talking about?

How did you not understand that?

I same basic strategies worked in both games. You argued against that, by pointing out some extra units you can use in FoW. I pointed out that didn't follow, as listing units makes no comment on overall strategy. You could add planes to 40k and it wouldn’t change the basic strategies needed to win.

I guess I assumed someone who played FOW and 40K would understand what I meant, since you don't I'll explain.

Please.

If I want to play a TANK army in FOW, I run tanks. To do that in 40K with your REQUIRED troops as tanks--you cannot do it.

Now replace jump pack, bikers, and all the other troop types that exist in 40K with the words above, and there ya go.

Way to miss the point mate. I said that an area of significant difference in the two games is in army list creation, FoW has a much tighter system, resulting in armies taking to the field that look much closer to real life military forces than 40k. They achieve this by having much tighter control on the core units and support available to each company.

But you've decided to make some random point about being able to take tank companies or infantry companies, and how that's much better than 40k’s open shop approach. Then you've decided I disagree with you or something. Why you've done any of that is beyond me.

For the record, I think the FoW system is terrific. It puts diverse, interesting and plausible forces onto the gaming board (for the most part, you still get some exploitative, goofy stuff). I'd go so far as to say that it's the biggest strength of FoW. The point I clearly made earlier in the thread is that introducing such a system into 40k would most likely be met with tremendous whinging on the internet, from the same people that complain about 40k right now while celebrating systems like FoW.

I don't really care about battletech or warmachine, both are seriously flawed games I don't have much interest in. Flawed more than 40K is.

Congrats for you, whether or not you like a game is beyond irrelevant. Those games are out there, and they have significantly different strategic games to the similar games of 40k and FoW. Your own tastes mean nothing in regards to that basic point.

What's the point here?

Buh? I posted that 40k and FoW are pretty similar, that the same basic strategies will work in both games. You posted to disagree. I spelled out my reasoning and then you wonder what my point was.

Are you following this at all?

FOW combat platoons (required) vs 40K troops choices (required). First are game-winners. Second are force reduction.

For the most part you're right, though the changes in the recent codices to make infantry into useful, versatile units has been welcome. Funnily enough the main reason standard infantry is so useful in FoW is because its so hard to kill... I once suggested on a forum (probably warseer) that infantry could be made most useful, and made to function like real infantry by making them more survivable. The response was not enthusiastic.

Please see directly above, and try to 'get' what I'm saying. The basic choices forced upon you in FOW are GOOD choices. The basic choices forced upon you in 40K are SH** choices.

That has nothing to do with design philosophy.

Why would I be trying to get what you're saying? I made the point about the two system's design differences... which you then tried to rebut with something largely unrelated to my point. Since then I've been trying to pull you back into talking about my point, the one you were apparently trying to rebut.

Hell to pay from whom?

The hell to pay would be from the same internet crowd that pisses and moans about any effort to bring structure or focus to codex lists.

40K players love FOW. I haven't met one who actually bought into it and played a few games didn't find it an excellent game.

Yeah, because they're very similar games. If someone liked the basic ideas behind 40k but found the execution lacking, they'd be pretty likely to find FoW pretty good fun. The two games being quite similar... is exactly what I said in the first place.

Now put together a similar army creation system for 40K and you'd have a much better system than we have now.

(snipped list)

That's still basically working along the lines of the current 40k dynamic, with a small change so the system scales a little better. If an army selection system were to be built along the design philosophy of FoW it'd be very different. You would pick a core company type, such as an infantry company, or a mechanised company or recon company or similar... for vanilla marines you'd have first company, scout company and tenth company. Taking each of these would give a specific type of troops, but then specify the support options you could take. A scout company would have scout units as troops, but wouldn't have access in its support units to heavy siege units like vindicators.

That's what I want to see, basic building blocks which aren't minimized because they SUCK complete donkey nut. lol I want units that are basic troops that can serve me a purpose other than 'I filled my basic requirements, and WHEW it only cost me 100 points!'.

So I'm talking about the actual systems in place, and you're talking about point balance. Sorry to be critical, but your analysis of the two systems is pretty simplistic.