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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which is why you have to do what every local call-centre employee hates to hear: Outsource! Outsource! Outsource!

They used to use external play testers. Then they got all butt clamped about leaks.

Meanwhile every other industry on the planet creates leaks for free advertisement. Nope can't have that now

 Juicifer wrote:
How can GW break something that was never truly functional? Do people even remember 2nd edition? This game has always been poorly written and even more poorly balanced. If anything, I'd say it's the player base that's finally breaking, specifically their ability to deny that there was ever a problem. Playing 6th edition without house rules is insane.

There's always been problems, but IMO it's just become a mess. Allies isn't the ONLY thing wrong with 40k, it's one of many things wrong. 2nd edition was a time when I thought "hmm, solid game, needs a few tweaks". 3rd edition I thought "well, they kind of threw out the baby with the bath water, but I can see what they were trying to do, however there's a few fundamental flaws in the game design and it needs some tweaking... maybe they'll fix that in the future". Now it's like "What... happened...? The rules are unbalanced to their core. There's excessive amounts of overly complicated special rules and rules exceptions. They're trying to squeeze large scale models in to a mid scale game. The rules are fundamentally unbalanced AND looking at the Tyranid codex they can't even internally balance an army let alone balance it against other armies".

theloststory45 wrote:
As a newer player It's a bit overwhelming, we went into the store today to get my first stuff and a lady helped me with what all I'd need. I was under the assumption of just getting a few boxes of crons, some paints and brushes, and the glue. Yet low and behold she started packing on books so quick I felt like it was the first day of college all over again.

I can identify with this. I am a newer player too and all of it just seems like a ton. Not a game you can simply pick up and play. Too many rules. Rules in books you don't have and depend on your opponent to tell you ( I have been cheated on with rules not in my codex. ) if you don't know their units you can't make the "correct" tactical play. You need to field all the cheezy combo to stand a decent chance of winning against some opponents. There are just a lot of barriers to entry to playing the game. I am glad I like the model building and painting aspect of the game, or I don't think I would stick around.

There really needs to be less supplements, less rules. Cleaner game experience. You honestly spend more time leafing through rule books and describing how this power or that power works to your opponent than you do playing the game. That is just not a sign of a good game.

I think that's another way 6th is looking a lot like 2nd!

It's pretty obvious that GW can't, won't, is incapable, has no incentive, and in all probability, has no idea HOW to make a good, solid table top miniatures game out of 40K.

The game has been around for over 25 years and is in it's 6th edition. If it ain't good/playable by now...

The future is pretty murky where GW is concerned. Disappointing financials, still no leadership at the top except to make a buck, closing and closed a bunch of stores, letting people go, White Dwarf replaced with two magazines that will cost more, etc. etc.

Watch as the death spiral of GW tightens up and accelerates over the next year or two until BOOM. No more GW. It's gonna happen fast, and it's going to come from left field.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Spoiler:

Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.

This man has the way of it. I'm a casual gamer. Some people don't like that term, but they can go to hell. I want to play a buddy or maybe a new guy once in a while. I want to throw down 1500 points, chit chat about their week and life in general. Play about 2-3 hours. Relax and unwind from the work week.

I don't want to flip through 8 fething books to play a game. I don't want to watch you flip through 8 fething books to find some dumbass rule.

The ONLY time that 8 books should hit the table is 2-3 times a year Apocalypse game, when everyone has set asside a 12 hour playing block (or more).

I am not happy about how the 40K game is going. I think they are rushing to pump out books to satisfy the shareholders. I think that Stronghold Assault and Escalation should have been combined into one book, and was only made into 2 books for financial reasons. I have no interest in playing games of regular 40k against super heavy tanks. I have no interest in hauling 8 books across town to play a pick up game. I have enjoyed the game since 2008, and initially liked 6th edition better than 5th edition. The past month has really soured me about 40k and GW in general, to say the least.

 kronk wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Spoiler:

Here's a good example:
I'm going to Play Tau.
-Starting off with BRB and Codex: Tau Empire.
But not just any Tau. I'm playing Farsight Enclave.
-So now BRB, Tau codex, and Farsight Enclave.
But now I want to try out these allies. I'll try Eldar.
-BRB, Tau codex, Farsight Enclave, and Eldar.
Oh, but you guessed it. I'm going to play the Eldar supplement too.
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement.
Now throw in some superfortifications and lord of war
-BRB, Tau Codex, Farsight Enclave, Eldar, Eldar supplement, Escalation, and Stronghold Assault.

This man has the way of it. I'm a casual gamer. Some people don't like that term, but they can go to hell. I want to play a buddy or maybe a new guy once in a while. I want to throw down 1500 points, chit chat about their week and life in general. Play about 2-3 hours. Relax and unwind from the work week.

I don't want to flip through 8 fething books to play a game. I don't want to watch you flip through 8 fething books to find some dumbass rule.

The ONLY time that 8 books should hit the table is 2-3 times a year Apocalypse game, when everyone has set asside a 12 hour playing block (or more).

I am not happy about how the 40K game is going. I think they are rushing to pump out books to satisfy the shareholders. I think that Stronghold Assault and Escalation should have been combined into one book, and was only made into 2 books for financial reasons. I have no interest in playing games of regular 40k against super heavy tanks. I have no interest in hauling 8 books across town to play a pick up game. I have enjoyed the game since 2008, and initially liked 6th edition better than 5th edition. The past month has really soured me about 40k and GW in general, to say the least.

This pretty much sums up my feelings as well. Every since Escalation and SA came out, I've been really irked about GWs policy. Accelerated release schedule which leads to sub standard products (which also get more expensive *cough nid warriors), shady, underhanded ploys to rape your wallet like splitting one book into two, or releasing a gakky book, with a far superior "supplement" or dataslate. Maybe it's always been this way, but at least its been partially out of sight, out of mind. These past few months GW basically quit the subtle tactics and is blatantly saying "we don't care, do whatever you want, just give us more money. To hell with quality. " . Feth that. Feth that till it bleeds. When I walk into my LGS and browse their products, I want to be thinking Gary Gygax, not Gordon Gecko.

BaalSNAFU wrote:
When I walk into my LGS and browse their products, I want to be thinking Gary Gygax, not Gordon Gecko.

What an excellent quote and summary!

 Alpharius wrote:
I think that's another way 6th is looking a lot like 2nd!

I may be wrong, but I actually think 2nd edition felt lighter on the rules than 6th. 6th I almost feel like they "tried" to consolidate some rules and just either failed or gave up, so in the end it's even worse. The game is just getting way too convoluted.

What surprises me is they've stuck with the god awful codex layout they've had since I started collecting in 2nd edition where they have a fluff section, a rules + fluff section, a picture section, then a rules+points/options section, then a summary. Realistically I think most codices COULD be consolidated in to a single section where they give the unit rules, points, options in the space of maybe 1/3 of a page per unit, then just having a summary of special rules and items instead of spreading the rules through 40 some pages in the codex. If a special rule takes more than 3 short sentences to explain, it's too frakking complicated and should be revised (unless it's some special character type, of which there shouldn't be more than 1 or 2 per army and you could relegate to "with opponents permission" like it was in the old days).

 WarOne wrote:
I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.

Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.

GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.

This Exactly...

The problem is that I've never seen a fanbase so opposed to changing offical rules as the 40K community.

In other game systems, and not just tabletop wargaming, the players will take the rules and balance out the game or change it as they see fit to make the game more fun... D&D 3rd ed to 3.5/what Pathfinder is now for example.

40K players for some dumb reason just refuse to do anything like a community effort that would alter the rules even slightly.. say balancing D-weapons in non-apoc games /shrug.

So I guess the real question I have is "Why are 40K players so stubborn?"

Rawrgyle wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.

Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.

GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.

This Exactly...

The problem is that I've never seen a fanbase so opposed to changing offical rules as the 40K community.

In other game systems, and not just tabletop wargaming, the players will take the rules and balance out the game or change it as they see fit to make the game more fun... D&D 3rd ed to 3.5/what Pathfinder is now for example.

40K players for some dumb reason just refuse to do anything like a community effort that would alter the rules even slightly.. say balancing D-weapons in non-apoc games /shrug.

So I guess the real question I have is "Why are 40K players so stubborn?"

Because if you go around asking every opponent in every pick-up game you play to house rule things, you won't have anyone to play with? If the game is intended to be played against random people, the rules MUST be balanced, and it's bollocks to put the onus on the players for deciding what is/isn't legal when chances are they'll basically be strangers playing an impromptu game at their FLGS on "miniatures night" at the shop.

Changing rules works fine if you're part of an established gaming club and play the same people every week, not so much if you try and tell Bob before your impromptu game at the shop that his Tau can't ally with Eldar because the Allies rules are garbage, when by the rules of the game Bob is allowed to do so.

The onus is on GW to make balanced rules, not to throw out garbage and expect the players to fix their mistakes. House rules IMO have zero place in pick-up games because of the nature of a pick-up game. For a tournament/campaign/league/club then sure, add your own modifications, but when most of your games occur due to being at the store on minis night and seeing who else shows up, you're going to end up being the jerk if you try to dictate house-rules before every game. People aren't going to take lightly to some random stranger telling them they can't take/use something that the book lets them use.

Rawrgyle wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.

Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.

GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.

This Exactly...

The problem is that I've never seen a fanbase so opposed to changing offical rules as the 40K community.

In other game systems, and not just tabletop wargaming, the players will take the rules and balance out the game or change it as they see fit to make the game more fun... D&D 3rd ed to 3.5/what Pathfinder is now for example.

40K players for some dumb reason just refuse to do anything like a community effort that would alter the rules even slightly.. say balancing D-weapons in non-apoc games /shrug.

So I guess the real question I have is "Why are 40K players so stubborn?"

The answer is pretty simple:

1) The 40k community, for its part, is pretty diverse. People have highly divided opinions on how certain units should work, and will vehemently disagree with any change not in line with their own ideas. Compounding matters, many people on both sides of every argument cannot seem to carry on a mature discussion about the rules, which inevitably leads everyone to simply screaming that the other side "just wants to create an unfair advantage for *insert gamer subgroup* because they suck/are lazy/whatever". Just look at YMDC. The amount of arguing that happens even after official FAQs are released is quite staggering.

2) We shouldn't have to. Why should we be required to completely alter the game, very likely splintering the community in the process, just because GW can't put together a cohesive ruleset for an incredibly popular franchise with enormous gaming potential? As a company, it is their responsibility to provide a product to their customers, not the other way around. No one is beholden to GW to ensure they stay in business... if they can't make rules good enough to draw in new customers, that's their problem.

To your other point: D&D, as I understand it, is something of a unique case. What you had there was a massive change in the core ruleset that was so universally disliked (for very specific reasons) that the community simply reverted to the previous edition, but brought in some of the new edition's mechanics to patch up a few areas that were generally agreed upon. This is a process that is seen today in the 40k community, but as I said before, everyone has a different opinion here. So you'll have people still playing 4th edition with 5th/6th edition goodies, or some other combination therein. So my point is that it's not that the 40k community doesn't do this, we just do it so differently across subcommunities that there is no general consensus on how the game should be played. (Also a lot of cross-edition mechanics don't work well together)

If things continue in the direction they're going though, I wouldn't be surprised if things went the D&D 3.0 vs. 3.5/Pathfinder direction as more and more players are put off by the difficulty of play.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

WayneTheGame hit the nail on the head about changing rules for clubs vs. pickup games. D&D can endure having buckets of house-rules, because you typically play with a set group of people. (At least, I don't hear about people going into the store and playing D&D all day with random strangers). With 40k, the culture of the "pick-up" game is quite prolific - people want the "random" challenge that it brings. If you don't have a consistent set of rules that everyone agrees on, this system doesn't work. And that's what makes extensive house-ruling so difficult in a TT wargame (as opposed to an RPG).

Zothos wrote:

BaalSNAFU wrote:

Zothos wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Allies is a good idea though. It allows the slow build up of a secondary army and adds a bit of flavor.

However the key thing lacking in the current allies set up is moderation. To me allies should have been limited to something like the Tau Firebase dataslate (though a lot less... everything wrong with that). Basically if they had a specific detachment available and a list of what armies could purchase it.

It's not perfect, but it's a big step away from being able to cherry pick the best units and avoiding any of the downfall.

No, that's not good, people should be able to use models they like, not just one specific combination on a dataslate.

This was already discussed in other thread, but most problems with allies would vanish, if allies of convenience would be the bets ally level available. Allies themselves is not the problem, it is the battle-brothers creating ungodly buff combinations that is the problem.

No. Allies ARE the problem.

They are fine in a special scenario or something of the like. But in general use they are silly beyond reason.

Armies should have strengths and weaknesses. Not strengths and strengths.

I disagree that people should be able to bring what they want. Unlimited choice is not a good thing. It is the limitations which force hard choices and hence, better gaming.

I think what you are overlooking is that the absolutly craptastic external balance between codexes is what necessitates allies, I'd say... about 80% of the time. The other 20% are WAAC type players wanting to double-down on strengths, and people like that will be around with or without allies.

I am not overlooking that. Nothing makes allies "necessary" except that GW wants more money. My point is that allies do nothing to alleviate the problem and in fact makes that 20%, as you say, even more douchey.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Allies can be used to have amazing characterful, fluffy battles. Allies can be used for other things besides creating OP lists.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I couldn't disagree with you more. Allies can be used to have amazing characterful, fluffy battles. Allies can be used for other things besides creating OP lists.

And that's what allies should have been, versus how they are used.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
40K is a game. Everything should be looked at first from the angle of whether it works well to make a good game.

Space Marines and IG fighting side by side isn't stupid in terms of fluff but if it is stupid in terms of game balance it should not be allowed.

Fluff appropriateness is part of a good game.

Tau + Eldar isn't stupid in terms of fluff, but from what I have read it wrecks game balance.

Only because they're battle brothers. Making them allies of convenience would solve most of the WAAC problems, but would still allow people who like to ally for the sake of the fluff to do so.

Well the point is that when playing a game, game balance is important. It isn't history.

Rawrgyle wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
I think we've already seen that GW will not balance their game for the players sake.

Rather, it does have to be balanced by the community in order to address any issues we see.

GW makes the models and lays out the rules. It's us the players who have to find a way to make it fit into our wants and dreams for what we would like to do with the two things GW provides us.

This Exactly...

The problem is that I've never seen a fanbase so opposed to changing offical rules as the 40K community.

In other game systems, and not just tabletop wargaming, the players will take the rules and balance out the game or change it as they see fit to make the game more fun... D&D 3rd ed to 3.5/what Pathfinder is now for example.

40K players for some dumb reason just refuse to do anything like a community effort that would alter the rules even slightly.. say balancing D-weapons in non-apoc games /shrug.

So I guess the real question I have is "Why are 40K players so stubborn?"

I don't think it's so much that 40k players are so stubborn as 40k players are more likely to be playing random opponents and also 40k rules are so convoluted that it's hard to actually decide on what rules need changing to what. I had a couple of regular opponents (who have oddly enough all now quit 40k) and we used to try and streamline rules and balance things ourselves. Often we'd ignore points values completely and just try and play with what we felt would make a balanced game. We'd often play a game, swap armies and play again to see who could do better with a force, etc etc etc.

But for the most part, I'm playing against people I don't know that well. So in addition to bringing the stack of official GW rules, I have to write a document of "My Personal House Rules" that would take an hour to go through with each opponent as well? Frak that GW should make rules that work to begin with, it's not a game that's well suited to the players changing the rules on the fly anyway as small changes often result in large implications.

Iron_Captain wrote:I couldn't disagree with you more. Allies can be used to have amazing characterful, fluffy battles. Allies can be used for other things besides creating OP lists.

This is the one time where I think house rules should come in to play. Allies should be a house rule, they should be a "with opponent's consent" thing. If you're after fluffy battles, THAT'S when you should be creating house rules because no one (including the game designers) know what YOU want in your fluffy game.

WayneTheGame wrote:


Because if you go around asking every opponent in every pick-up game you play to house rule things, you won't have anyone to play with? If the game is intended to be played against random people, the rules MUST be balanced, and it's bollocks to put the onus on the players for deciding what is/isn't legal when chances are they'll basically be strangers playing an impromptu game at their FLGS on "miniatures night" at the shop.

Changing rules works fine if you're part of an established gaming club and play the same people every week, not so much if you try and tell Bob before your impromptu game at the shop that his Tau can't ally with Eldar because the Allies rules are garbage, when by the rules of the game Bob is allowed to do so.

The onus is on GW to make balanced rules, not to throw out garbage and expect the players to fix their mistakes. House rules IMO have zero place in pick-up games because of the nature of a pick-up game. For a tournament/campaign/league/club then sure, add your own modifications, but when most of your games occur due to being at the store on minis night and seeing who else shows up, you're going to end up being the jerk if you try to dictate house-rules before every game. People aren't going to take lightly to some random stranger telling them they can't take/use something that the book lets them use.

Hit a nerve didn't I? Can almost tell it in your tone, and this is exactly what I am talking about.

A way of fixing this without even thinking really hard about it is: formats.

Say a bit like M:tG.

Open/Limited/then house ruled. Different standardized formats would make it easy to understand the ruleset you wish to use and communicate with the other player as to what type of game you want, WITHOUT having to house rule every single thing before a game at your LGS.

Easily done with "hey man I have a titan this week, would you like an open game?" "Nah, only brought out my standard list, and I think they are playing limited over there.."

Simple sentances that easily communicate a lot, IF 40k players could bother to put aside GWs wishes and move on.

Putting rules back on GW is futility. They obviously don't care/want the game to do that. If I like the fluff and game setting but the rules have turned to complete crap... to the point that the game cannot even be played at the LGS, WHY SHOULD I CONTINUE TO CARE WHAT GW THINKS?.

IMO a lot of problems in 40k (certainly not all) could be fixed with the reintroduction of "requires opponents consent". Then we could have a nice simple ruleset and simple well defined armies, and if people want to have their fluffy games with a hero who wipes out entire armies with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse, they can do that too... with their opponent's consent

 WarOne wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
8 rule books does not make for a very casual game. There shouldn't be any game like that. Especially from a company that claims it's a model company first. When looking into the actual power imbalances in the game it's disgusting. To write it off as just rules for "casual" games is just saying you have no idea on how to make rules but still willing to charge a premium price for it.

DnD gets like that sometimes with the number of different books needed in order to play a game and have options available, but that is roleplaying which is a savage beast all unto itself.

At Least DnD actually works and doesnt hva ean all powerful unbeatable strategy to rule all others. If 40K actually worked 8 rulebooks wouldnt be so bad. But as it stands the only reason one buys all those rulebooks is to play broken armies that can't be beat by anyone who plays models they like to play rather than the "Flavor of the month".

Rawrgyle wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


Because if you go around asking every opponent in every pick-up game you play to house rule things, you won't have anyone to play with? If the game is intended to be played against random people, the rules MUST be balanced, and it's bollocks to put the onus on the players for deciding what is/isn't legal when chances are they'll basically be strangers playing an impromptu game at their FLGS on "miniatures night" at the shop.

Changing rules works fine if you're part of an established gaming club and play the same people every week, not so much if you try and tell Bob before your impromptu game at the shop that his Tau can't ally with Eldar because the Allies rules are garbage, when by the rules of the game Bob is allowed to do so.

The onus is on GW to make balanced rules, not to throw out garbage and expect the players to fix their mistakes. House rules IMO have zero place in pick-up games because of the nature of a pick-up game. For a tournament/campaign/league/club then sure, add your own modifications, but when most of your games occur due to being at the store on minis night and seeing who else shows up, you're going to end up being the jerk if you try to dictate house-rules before every game. People aren't going to take lightly to some random stranger telling them they can't take/use something that the book lets them use.

Hit a nerve didn't I? Can almost tell it in your tone, and this is exactly what I am talking about.

A way of fixing this without even thinking really hard about it is: formats.

Say a bit like M:tG.

Open/Limited/then house ruled. Different standardized formats would make it easy to understand the ruleset you wish to use and communicate with the other player as to what type of game you want, WITHOUT having to house rule every single thing before a game at your LGS.

Easily done with "hey man I have a titan this week, would you like an open game?" "Nah, only brought out my standard list, and I think they are playing limited over there.."

Simple sentances that easily communicate a lot, IF 40k players could bother to put aside GWs wishes and move on.

Putting rules back on GW is futility. They obviously don't care/want the game to do that. If I like the fluff and game setting but the rules have turned to complete crap... to the point that the game cannot even be played at the LGS, WHY SHOULD I CONTINUE TO CARE WHAT GW THINKS?.

And then you have to describe and establish the various formats you arbitrarily created with every new random pickup game adversary.

Formats work in Magic, because they are established as part of the rules by WotC. The various community formats (such as Pauper Magic), all require explaining to your opponents if they are unfamiliar with them, in which case, they are likely unprepared anyways.

Rawrgyle wrote:


Hit a nerve didn't I? Can almost tell it in your tone, and this is exactly what I am talking about.

A way of fixing this without even thinking really hard about it is: formats.

Say a bit like M:tG.

Open/Limited/then house ruled. Different standardized formats would make it easy to understand the ruleset you wish to use and communicate with the other player as to what type of game you want, WITHOUT having to house rule every single thing before a game at your LGS.

Easily done with "hey man I have a titan this week, would you like an open game?" "Nah, only brought out my standard list, and I think they are playing limited over there.."

Simple sentances that easily communicate a lot, IF 40k players could bother to put aside GWs wishes and move on.

Putting rules back on GW is futility. They obviously don't care/want the game to do that. If I like the fluff and game setting but the rules have turned to complete crap... to the point that the game cannot even be played at the LGS, WHY SHOULD I CONTINUE TO CARE WHAT GW THINKS?.

While this is a good idea in theory, consider that the MtG crowd is many times larger than the 40k community, and that their most popular formats are wholly endorsed by the company producing the game. Since we can assume that GW would never do such a thing, what I suspect would end up happening in practice is that every store would end up with it's own "format" and you'd be right back where we are now. It would be really difficult to get pickup games at stores outside your "regular" location, and the community would become even more fractured as people began to entrench themselves in their own way of playing - but the kicker is that then nobody would accept house-rules except as part of a "format". I think it's really going to take some critical mass and customer support to really bring out the full potential of formats for 40k games, and that's something that the community just doesn't seem to have.

EDIT: Ninja'd again.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
IMO a lot of problems in 40k (certainly not all) could be fixed with the reintroduction of "requires opponents consent". Then we could have a nice simple ruleset and simple well defined armies, and if people want to have their fluffy games with a hero who wipes out entire armies with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse, they can do that too... with their opponent's consent

Yeah it does require opponents consent(outside of tourneys)already.I don't recall HAVING to play against tripdrake,If I want I can go play someone else.

JPong wrote:

Formats work in Magic, because they are established as part of the rules by WotC. The various community formats (such as Pauper Magic), all require explaining to your opponents if they are unfamiliar with them, in which case, they are likely unprepared anyways.

Partially agree. And I'm not saying that this is even something that would begin at the local level.

Since we can assume that GW would never do such a thing, what I suspect would end up happening in practice is that every store would end up with it's own "format" and you'd be right back where we are now. It would be really difficult to get pickup games at stores outside your "regular" location, and the community would become even more fractured as people began to entrench themselves in their own way of playing - but the kicker is that then nobody would accept house-rules except as part of a "format". I think it's really going to take some critical mass and customer support to really bring out the full potential of formats for 40k games, and that's something that the community just doesn't seem to have.

I think that we are already actually going forward into formats. The major tournies throwing out escalation and stronghold, and even some limiting 2++ rerolls.

And I think this is where this particular aspect is going to start changing. Going to a Con where the big stuff like that is thrown out, already has the start of creating a standard 40K format.

I'd also like to mention its becoming hard to get pickup games at times. LGS and choices are Eldar titan or 5 Riptides, nah I'll take the fluffy list guy with my taudar... really does not make for a good gaming atmosphere does it? Random games with bad rules is not an arguement against formats that I will take. As then most poeple just won't play, or do play get frustrated and stop showing up.

Bigger point: Waiting on 40K to change from GW does nothing.

All of your problems stem from the bad rules to begin with. Who is in the wrong here, the guy saying "No you can't play with the models you bought, because I don't like them" or the guy who brought Taudar to a gunfight?

Simply put, we have to wait for change from GW, because that is the only universal constant we have. It's what makes MtG a great game. You can go to anywhere in the world with any legal deck, not even speak the same language as the other player, and still play a game. 40k requires 2 hours of pre-game negotiation before hopefully a game can be agreed upon, because the rules are so badly written. Never mind balance.

People will stop playing when you tell them they can't play with what they have as well. Games should not be exclusionary.

JPong wrote:
Simply put, we have to wait for change from GW, because that is the only universal constant we have. It's what makes MtG a great game. You can go to anywhere in the world with any legal deck, not even speak the same language as the other player, and still play a game. 40k requires 2 hours of pre-game negotiation before hopefully a game can be agreed upon, because the rules are so badly written. Never mind balance.

In theory 40k is supposed to allow this as well, but it doesn't. And that's the issue. The game claims in the same breath to be something you can feel free to change any and all rules to "forge the narrative" and something you can go anywhere in the world with a legal army and play a game. Those things are basically mutually exclusive because while there's nothing wrong with limiting things in a campaign battle (or even playing with unequal points values e.g. a "Last Stand" type mission with 1k points of the defender and 2k points of the attacker), that's not going to fly if you start adding/removing base rules before you play against a random stranger, and that's not even talking about things like Escalation but basic units allowed by the rules such as taking 3x Riptides and Eldar allies.

JPong wrote:
People will stop playing when you tell them they can't play with what they have as well. Games should not be exclusionary.

The idea with "requires opponents consent" for things like allies is that if you happen to be a beer and pretzels player playing against other beer and pretzels players, you can use things like allies and balance-breaking stuff. But if you just want to go play a pick-up game with a TAC army against someone else with a TAC army, it works too. Back when special characters were "requires consent" in Fantasy, it didn't stop me from buying them if the models were good, it just stopped me from using them as special characters when writing my TAC lists, and I'd only use them as special characters when playing against mates in casual beer and pretzels games.

The alternative is to just impose enough negatives on using allies that they become unappealing if you're a WAC player.

We can't wait for GW to change the rules, they won't.

Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.

Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.

Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?

Because they said they don't want a competitive game.

The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.

DarthDiggler wrote:
We can't wait for GW to change the rules, they won't.

Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.

Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.

Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?

Because they said they don't want a competitive game.

The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.

I had a huge response o this typed up before hitting some fething button on my tablet that erased it.

Needless to say, its because people who spent tons of time and money on this want more from it. Its because a tight and balanced ruleset has no negative effect on this"round peg". In fact, it has the opposite. A beer and pretzels game is a game that is quick and easy to play, 40k is not.

GW hasn't been performing well lately either. So any BS excuses they give for not holding up to consumer standards doesn't really hold water.

Note: I am not asking for perfect balance, just some semblance of it.

DarthDiggler wrote:
We can't wait for GW to change the rules, they won't.

Over and over again GW has stated this is not a rule set for competitive play. They don't want competitive play and they actively work to oppose competitive play.

Here we have a community who wants to turn this game into a competitive event when the game designers are vehemently opposed to competitive play.

Now we can change the core rules to make it more balanced and allow for more competitive play, but the community says 'no you can't'. We have to wait for GW to change the rules to make it more competitive. Why won't GW listen to me and make it more competitive?

Because they said they don't want a competitive game.

The community is trying to push a round peg into a square hole. Instead of changing the hole, they want the company who sold them the round peg to instead start selling square pegs. The company has said over and over again they will only sell round pegs.

Except that is just an empty excuse. What GW produces is not "casual vs. competitive", it's "unclear vs. clear". They produce sloppily written rules and then get people to justify it by arguing "well they're supposed to be casual!!1!!"

It's like someone claiming to have made the best movie ever, then when it's terrible they say "Well it's supposed to be terrible - I meant to make it that way as a commentary on... blah blah blah"

Clear rules that don't require 2 hours of negotiations when strangers first meet to play benefits everyone, because then even casual players can go into a game store and play with confidence that they won't get their ass handed to them because someone thought Rule A worked like X instead of Y. This makes the game more accessible to casual players, not less.

The entire concept of "casual rules" vs. "competitive rules" is made up. The difference is between clear and unclear rules. Just because rules are clear, concise, and not open to seven interpretations, does NOT mean that casual players who want house rules cannot go ahead and make them. I don't understand this aggressive push to keep the rules unclear - it's like a group of people were forced to make house rules a long time ago and then got it in their heads that the best type of rules were ones that made them play that way. It's strange.

It's not that GW doesn't want competitive play. That's just a cover. It's that they don't care about the quality of their rules. As far as they're concerned, they are being forced to produce them because we ungrateful sheep aren't just lining up to buy their product to wave in the air yelling "PEW PEW" like children. They see 40k as a game of 10-year-olds playing pretend with their action figures, when it has the potential to be so much more than that. The original design team (and some of the current ones, to be fair) seem to understand this potential, but GW upper management definitely does not.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Again again.

EDIT EDIT: Not that I haven't waved my models around yelling PEW PEW , but for an expensive hobby I would also like to enjoy a slightly more engaging experience, game-wise.