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.

A-P wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

"Beer and pretzels" my bottom. When most gaming groups consist of adults with work and/or families, you are talking about a considerable investment of time and effort. For an average 1.5-2K game with two participants your talking about 2-4 hours of time and the use of a whole room. "B&P" is when you grab a game that lasts a maximum of 30 minutes.

GW really needs to rework their official propaganda line.

not exactly. My old group up in Gettysburg played "B&P" style historicals that took several hours.

"Beer and Pretzels" is (IMHO) more about simplistic rulesets than fast play.

40K (IMHO) now qualifies as a -fairly- simple ruleset, especially compared to older versions.

frgsinwntr wrote:You going to be in the NJ area anytime? I'll take you up on the competitive 40k game again.

You coming out for DaBoyz GT in Rochester this weekend? That'll be my first 40k in about 11 months, planning to go in with a borrowed army and won't know the list itself until the first game. Should be good times.

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For publicity and to keep a segment/minority of their customers happy (the tourney gamer); these events also strengthen the overall value and brand.

sourclams wrote:

The game system is the only thing that sells their miniatures; people want to perform their own space opera by being A Space Marine, An IG Commander, Abaddon, Etc. Without the game system there's absolutely nothing that separates GW miniatures from all the others that retail for 1/3 of the price.

100% of the new people starting WH40k that I've met at the local gaming shop are buying the miniatures to play the game not the other way around, and believe me they do get upset when they find out that their Fluff list is worthless on the tabletop. Nobody gives a gak about miniatures except the diehard collectors who, ironically, represent the minority of their revenue stream.

Disagreed to an extent. The gamer segment is definitely one type of customer GW has but not THE customer. There are many segments in GW's market that never set foot in a store or play a single game with their armies; these players are in it for the fluff and cool miniatures ie the hobby aspect. Unlike other wargaming companies, GW's has been around for a long time with a very strong IP that you won't find in other franchises which further separates 'em from their "competition". And of course the people you'd find in a LGS are in it for the gaming - why else would they be there! Unless there's a painting studio too.

Howlingmoon wrote:

A-P wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

"Beer and pretzels" my bottom. When most gaming groups consist of adults with work and/or families, you are talking about a considerable investment of time and effort. For an average 1.5-2K game with two participants your talking about 2-4 hours of time and the use of a whole room. "B&P" is when you grab a game that lasts a maximum of 30 minutes.

GW really needs to rework their official propaganda line.

not exactly. My old group up in Gettysburg played "B&P" style historicals that took several hours.

"Beer and Pretzels" is (IMHO) more about simplistic rulesets than fast play.

40K (IMHO) now qualifies as a -fairly- simple ruleset, especially compared to older versions.

Agreed. 40k is an easy and streamlined game and with the right players a relatively quick one too. Meant for fun and entertainment than scrutinizing the rules with a fine tooth comb however the rules are still to a high enough degree that they are friendly to tournaments and imo the best GW has been yet. They've been constantly improving but still far from perfect --- however even the megasuccessfu World of Warcraft has this same problem despite being in a more readily updated format since its a video game. WoW has competitive play as seen in arena's however like 40k some combinations and decisions simply would not be competitive in such a context.

A-P wrote: "Beer and pretzels" my bottom. When most gaming groups consist of adults with work and/or families, you are talking about a considerable investment of time and effort. For an average 1.5-2K game with two participants your talking about 2-4 hours of time and the use of a whole room. "B&P" is when you grab a game that lasts a maximum of 30 minutes.

No, GW just makes the most expensive B&P games out there.

The fact that some people believe it's competitive, well, that's on them. Somewhere, I imagine there's a competitive Checkers league with the same arguments being hashed through again and again...

Neconilis wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:GW, please contract Paizo about writing the next edition of 40k? They actually seem to have some grasp of what they're doing?

Rehash old rules, fail to address the actual problems and continue to promote a game full of inherent unbalances? Thanks, but no thanks. In fact I think we have that already.

As opposed to writing a new set of something resembling rules full of WoW AND unbalance, in addition to canceling White Dwarf and making it a pay to play web blog?

God help us if Hasbro ever buys GW.

BaronIveagh wrote:As opposed to writing a new set of something resembling rules full of WoW AND unbalance, in addition to canceling White Dwarf and making it a pay to play web blog?

As someone who actually plays WoW and dislikes D&D 4E, this wee lil' argument is so blatantly false as to be an insult to mere dishonesty.

Horst wrote:1) Please cite an example of a case where they arbitrarily change rules for no good reason. I fail to see any in the document.

Changing specific army rules from a codex due to changes in the brb that were not in dispute. THAT'S BAD.

Horst wrote:2) The single most important rule suggests a dice off to resolve rule disputes as well. would you really hold this as a legitimate practice? that line is reflective of a GW attitude that states they should make up their own rules. This is true, and there needs to be a standardized document that defines those rules. The GW documentation leaves much to be desired, and someone needs to step in to fill the gap.

Dicing off is just as much of a legitimate practice as some of the 'player' made faqs out there. These faq's rule the way they want to play the game. THAT'S BAD.

Horst wrote:3) Enough people use it that it is more common than house rules followed at a single game store. The examples I mentioned (actual examples... I didn't make them up) are situations where the local store ignore rules and make up their own. This should not be an acceptable practice when playing against people from a different region. There should be a standardized set of rules for the game. The INAT faq is the closest thing we as a gaming community have.

Personally, I believe more people use the gw faq's than the inat faq.

Horst wrote:4) Rules disputes should not be an issue, the rules should be clear, and free from interpretation of the reader. The INAT faq brings the game significantly closer to this state. Warhammer needs a unified set of rules, regardless of local situation. House rules are perfectly acceptable, but it should be agreed upon before the game is played. Not assumed to be in effect.

The inat faq changes rules that were not in dispute. The rules were clear. The inat faq muddies the waters by changing things that don't need to be changed.

Horst wrote:5) INAT can change on issues, true, but I fail to see how that is a negative. As long as the document is accepted universally, the contents of it do not matter. There are rulings in there that I disagree with as well, but I am willing to accept that fact as long as everyone I play against also accepts that fact, and the game will be better off.

The contents don't matter? Change on issues not a negative?

Politics should not enter on what changes the inat faq does or make. It should be about rules and certainly not about hypothetical changes that gw may or may not make.

Does everyone realize that according to RaW, an Independent Character cannot end its movement within 2" of a vehicle model? That by the rules as they are written, that means that a techmarine cannot get into position to repair an immobilized vehicle?

And yet, amazingly, despite the rules being clear (An IC cannot join a vehicle unit, and an IC cannot end its movement within 2" of a unit it cannot join), I have never seen anyone play by that rule or even mention playing by that conclusion. If a statement codifying that existing practice made it into the INAT FAQ, would that still fall under "You're changing the rules, that's bad"?

imweasel wrote:Personally, I believe more people use the gw faq's than the inat faq.

I'd even go so far as to say that most people don't even know the FAQ's exist - be their GW's or Inat.

Snit's Revenge is a beer and pretzels game. Pass The Pigs is beer a pretzels game.

A game that costs £35 for just the incomplete basic rules is not a beer and pretzels game.

you guys keep saying INAT changes army specific rules that were clear for no good reason... please be specific, and give me a reference. I don't see any in there, but then again, I haven't strictly compared it to EVERY codex, because I don't own every codex.

and dicing off is NEVER a legitimate practice. people saying GKGM force weapons don't work do not deserve a 50% chance of being right, when they are obviously wrong.

Horst wrote:you guys keep saying INAT changes army specific rules that were clear for no good reason... please be specific, and give me a reference. I don't see any in there, but then again, I haven't strictly compared it to EVERY codex, because I don't own every codex.

Just do a search in the inat faq for 'rules change' and look some stuff up. It's quite interesting.

It's also interesting to note the changes made from different versions of an faq and the reasons why those changes were made.

Other than that, believe folks or not. It's obvious you have made up your mind on the matter.

imweasel wrote:Just do a search in the inat faq for 'rules change' and look some stuff up. It's quite interesting.

It's also interesting to note the changes made from different versions of an faq and the reasons why those changes were made.

Other than that, believe folks or not. It's obvious you have made up your mind on the matter.

It's funny how he directly asks you again and again for a quote of a bad rules change and you continue to ignore that.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:As opposed to writing a new set of something resembling rules full of WoW AND unbalance, in addition to canceling White Dwarf and making it a pay to play web blog?

As someone who actually plays WoW and dislikes D&D 4E, this wee lil' argument is so blatantly false as to be an insult to mere dishonesty.

I say WoW because if I wrote MMORPG I'd get five people asking what that was.

ph34r wrote:

imweasel wrote:Just do a search in the inat faq for 'rules change' and look some stuff up. It's quite interesting.

It's also interesting to note the changes made from different versions of an faq and the reasons why those changes were made.

Other than that, believe folks or not. It's obvious you have made up your mind on the matter.

It's funny how he directly asks you again and again for a quote of a bad rules change and you continue to ignore that.

I did just answer him. I am not going to post 50+ 'rules change' items from the inat faq.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

imweasel wrote:

ph34r wrote:

imweasel wrote:Just do a search in the inat faq for 'rules change' and look some stuff up. It's quite interesting.

It's also interesting to note the changes made from different versions of an faq and the reasons why those changes were made.

Other than that, believe folks or not. It's obvious you have made up your mind on the matter.

It's funny how he directly asks you again and again for a quote of a bad rules change and you continue to ignore that.

I did just answer him. I am not going to post 50+ 'rules change' items from the inat faq.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

No one's asking you to, all that was asked was for you to list one or two that you believed were unjustified and why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:As opposed to writing a new set of something resembling rules full of WoW AND unbalance, in addition to canceling White Dwarf and making it a pay to play web blog?

As someone who actually plays WoW and dislikes D&D 4E, this wee lil' argument is so blatantly false as to be an insult to mere dishonesty.

I say WoW because if I wrote MMORPG I'd get five people asking what that was.

Get thee behind me!