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.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ignore what you don't like and play the rest.

Two problems

1. It takes two to tango. If there's no set standard and everyone just takes whatever they feel like, ignoring what you don't like may simply result in no games.

2. I can only re-enact so many scenes from the crying game (ace ventura style) before giving up on 40k entirely.


me after 6th ed pickup game:
(from ace ventura)

Spoiler:

If tomorrow GW announced they were doing away with points costs because they were too restrictive, would that be just as liberating?

I was saying if you don't like something don't use it and let your opponent know that you're looking for a game "without allies" or whatever instead. Sure it takes two to tango, but it also takes two to communicate and if you aren't trying to communicate what you really want then you're already starting off on a bad footing in a game that requires both players to communicate what they want before hand.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ignore what you don't like and play the rest.

Two problems

1. It takes two to tango. If there's no set standard and everyone just takes whatever they feel like, ignoring what you don't like may simply result in no games.

2. I can only re-enact so many scenes from the crying game (ace ventura style) before giving up on 40k entirely.


me after 6th ed pickup game:
(from ace ventura)

Spoiler:

If tomorrow GW announced they were doing away with points costs because they were too restrictive, would that be just as liberating?

I was saying if you don't like something don't use it and let your opponent know that you're looking for a game "without allies" or whatever instead. Sure it takes two to tango, but it also takes two to communicate and if you aren't trying to communicate what you really want then you're already starting off on a bad footing in a game that requires both players to communicate what they want before hand.

It doesn't work like that. Defaults and expectations matter. And GW sets those defaults and expecations. If the expectation is fluff has no significant bearing on the game anymore, our gaming experience goes from living in a world where things are generally how we like, to living in a world where things are generally not and we have to make special arrangements with people to do something different to what most people consider normal.

That matters. And consequently, many of us find it a less appealing world to live in and begin to question why we'd stay.

Of course the defaults and expectations set by GW matter. Silly to ignore that they have a massive influence on how most people play. And that of course affects others.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
ignore what you don't like and play the rest.

Two problems

1. It takes two to tango. If there's no set standard and everyone just takes whatever they feel like, ignoring what you don't like may simply result in no games.

2. I can only re-enact so many scenes from the crying game (ace ventura style) before giving up on 40k entirely.


me after 6th ed pickup game:
(from ace ventura)

Spoiler:

If tomorrow GW announced they were doing away with points costs because they were too restrictive, would that be just as liberating?

I was saying if you don't like something don't use it and let your opponent know that you're looking for a game "without allies" or whatever instead. Sure it takes two to tango, but it also takes two to communicate and if you aren't trying to communicate what you really want then you're already starting off on a bad footing in a game that requires both players to communicate what they want before hand.

I already have to do that too often. See me, I like the 5th ed approach, I could say "hey. do you wanna try planetstrike?" as opposed to hay, do you mind if we dont play with this, and that, and that, and that, and that, oh and that too.

It's like ordering a burger at mcdonalds, I have to tell them all the stuff not to put on the burger more often than what to add to it. I would prefer if 40k worked like subway, here's 40k (bread) pretty basic, then here are all the expansions (toppings).

Right now, anyone with any honest apprehension is being labelled a "whiner" even if their issue is more logistical than balance related. Even the guys who take issue with formations, super heavies and forgeworld and all the new supplements who feel overloaded are treated like they have some malevolent waac agenda to ruin other players enjoyment of the game.

Any issues with the direction the game is going = whiner
Being mature enough to know what kind of game you enjoy and turning down a pickup game because it's not really your ting = childish

That pretty much sums up what I've seen so far.

knas ser wrote:
It doesn't work like that. Defaults and expectations matter. And GW sets those defaults and expecations.

They only matter if you like to make assumptions and have some kind of weird reason you refuse to give your opponent the respect of communicating what you actually want.

GW doesn't set expectations, players do. And they do horrible things with it.

knas ser wrote:
If the expectation is fluff has no significant bearing on the game anymore, our gaming experience goes from living in a world where things are generally how we like, to living in a world where things are generally not and we have to make special arrangements with people to do something different to what most people consider normal.

40k is a massive setting that can manage just about anything you can think of. The claims that they're "watering it down" are patently ridiculious and require people to be intentionally ignorant of how big the setting is.

As for "special arrangements" how is that different from arranging a game in advance anyways? "Hey Steve, you want a game next week?" "As long as we're not running allies, sure." DONE. You're making a bigger drama out of this than actually exists. Even pick up games can be arranged really easily. Everything in these rumors has a FOC slot so if you don't play with the formations it just changes their list a little (same points totals, different FOC organization) and drops some special rules. It's not as serious as you're making it.

Seriously, 6th edition tossed out what people claimed was "normal" in 5th with all it's rules and the fact that page 108 mentions other options for legal army lists than just the codex. The community just needs to get over itself and get that the game hasn't been what they knew in 5th for over a year now. This is just sprinkles on a cake that has already had it's icing added. It's not a dramatic shift from 6th, but it is from this idea of "normal" that needs to go crawl off in a ditch and die already because it's holding the game back.

That matters. And consequently, many of us find it a less appealing world to live in and begin to question why we'd stay.

Of course the defaults and expectations set by GW matter. Silly to ignore that they have a massive influence on how most people play. And that of course affects others.

Where I think a lot of the different opinions come from is the idea that creativity either does or does not always equal fun.

I can give anyone a blank piece of paper and a box of 108 crayons and tell them to draw what ever they like. Some will create something akin to a Rembrandt. Others will color the whole thing green with a brown box in the middle.

I will argue that both are equally creative. However only one will be interesting to look at for longer than ten seconds.

Not everything created by pure creativity is good. There are thousands of aspiring novelists who have put pen to paper. And their works will never be seen by more than a handful of people. Some due to poor luck, some due to saturation of genera, most because the work is really not that interesting in the first place.

When we examine any creative endeavor, we all come in with preconceived expectations. If someone says they have sculpted a dog and it looks like a duck, you could argue that they didn't do a good job. If someone designs a bookshelf that doesn't have anyplace to put books, it probably fails. When you look at a 40K army, one would probably expect it to fit somehow into the established background of the game. However If you put together your 40K army and the team up goes against the vast majority of the fluff, there are those who will say its crap. Yes you might find some obscure previous published team up. But maybe that was just a bad book and when looked at the entirety of the work, it was a bad idea then too.

Its all about opinions. You have yours, I have mine, they have theirs. And I can't personally find fault with anyone for not wanting to spend two hours across a table with something that they personally feel is breaking the spirit of the game.

 Jayden63 wrote:
Its all about opinions. You have yours, I have mine, they have theirs. And I can't personally find fault with anyone for not wanting to spend two hours across a table with something that they personally feel is breaking the spirit of the game.

I agree with you completely actually. The thing is that the concept that you shouldn't have to talk to your opponent about the kind of game you want is absurd. You can avoid playing things you don't want to play just by asking or just not playing that person. It's not a difficult thing to do, and we should be doing it already as it'd solve a lot of "problems" we hear reported already (competitive players complaining about casual players and vice versa for instance). The idea that someone "shouldn't have to" talk to their opponent in a game that requires you to talk to your opponent to play it (unless you want to make it longer by passing notes I guess) is silly. Just talk to your fellow players and the problems of playing things you don't want to disappear very close to completely.

Of course I do understand if people want to instead complain about it on the internet instead of talking to their fellow players and generally trying to be a good sport who engages with the other people they play with because that takes effort. And if the internet has taught me anything, things that takes effort are apparently not worth it and should be ignored in favor of the easy solution: crying on the internet about how everything is ruined forever. Again. This week.