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.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
Doesn't take a genius to look around and go, 'huh, there's way more people playing from before'. Not to mention the hard data regarding their finances.
iGuy91 wrote: You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote: You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote: Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
Doesn't take a genius to look around and go, 'huh, there's way more people playing from before'. Not to mention the hard data regarding their finances.
Yes, we know GW's profit- but we don't know how many individuals contributed to that number, or why. Is it because they love 8th? Merely because it isn't 7th? Because of GW's "community engagement?" Because it's the game everyone else plays? We don't know, and can't know for sure without proper research.
"I see more people playing" is anecdotal and not useful. Your experience does not necessarily represent the mean.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
Doesn't take a genius to look around and go, 'huh, there's way more people playing from before'. Not to mention the hard data regarding their finances.
but you can get completely wrong results with that approach, if you walked around any of our game stores except the GW you would think GW either went out of business or no longer makes games, it has pretty much no presence at all, but 1 state south on any given saturday my buddy has been able to pick and choose which local 40k tourney he wants to go to, its a big thing there.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
"providing hard data here is completely realistic", he says before launching into all the reasons why it is actually impossible.
Why do my opinions require "hard data" and his do not?
Could it be because one side supports your narrative and the other does not.... Hmmmmmm .
I don't honestly care about needing sources for opinions on how well this game is doing, but if you are going to demand it from others while at the same time making such baseless claims as "the people who like this edition are the REAL vocal minority", then lol you can go ahead and meet your own criteria for validation first, or just revel in your own oblivious hypocrisy. Either one works but you definitely don't get away with refering to yourself as someone who thinks critically anymore lol we know that ain't true. These are his standards not mine.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
meleti wrote: "Actually, 8th edition is deeply unpopular" is my favorite DakkaTake.
Popular does not mean good. Justin Beiber is Popular. Facebook is Popular.
8th has benefited from being streamlined enough to attract the kiddywinks, and a massive marketing/social media blitz that, well it's marketing, what do you expect. It's manipulative by design.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
"providing hard data here is completely realistic", he says before launching into all the reasons why it is actually impossible.
Why do my opinions require "hard data" and his do not?
Could it be because one side supports your narrative and the other does not.... Hmmmmmm .
I don't honestly care about needing sources for opinions on how well this game is doing, but if you are going to demand it from others while at the same time making such baseless claims as "the people who like this edition are the REAL vocal minority", then lol you can go ahead and meet your own criteria for validation first, or just revel in your own oblivious hypocrisy. Either one works but you definitely don't get away with refering to yourself as someone who thinks critically anymore lol we know that ain't true. These are his standards not mine.
You've both made claims we can't be sure of. We don't know what effect GW's community engagement/marketing has had, if any, on the success of 8th.
Having an opinion is fine. Making claims such as "8th edition is like the most popular ever" as though it is established fact, when we don't know for sure what players think of the edition, is not. Nor are any of my example questions- How many people play? Why do they play? What are their thoughts on 8th? How much have they spent since the launch of 8th?- "impossible." It would just take GW hiring a marketing firm to conduct some surveys. If you would like to continue this discussion, great. But it looks like you would prefer to argue in bad faith and be angry.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
You made the assertion first, therefore it’s down to you to prove it and me to then disprove it, that’s how it works. And please don’t hold your breath, wouldn’t want you passing out
And don’t claim “rational thought” when you just tried to break one of the central tenants of debating.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
"providing hard data here is completely realistic", he says before launching into all the reasons why it is actually impossible.
Why do my opinions require "hard data" and his do not?
Could it be because one side supports your narrative and the other does not.... Hmmmmmm .
I don't honestly care about needing sources for opinions on how well this game is doing, but if you are going to demand it from others while at the same time making such baseless claims as "the people who like this edition are the REAL vocal minority", then lol you can go ahead and meet your own criteria for validation first, or just revel in your own oblivious hypocrisy. Either one works but you definitely don't get away with refering to yourself as someone who thinks critically anymore lol we know that ain't true. These are his standards not mine.
You've both made claims we can't be sure of. We don't know what effect GW's community engagement/marketing has had, if any, on the success of 8th.
Having an opinion is fine. Making claims such as "8th edition is like the most popular ever" as though it is established fact, when we don't know for sure what players think of the edition, is not. Nor are any of my example questions- How many people play? Why do they play? What are their thoughts on 8th? How much have they spent since the launch of 8th?- "impossible." It would just take GW hiring a marketing firm to conduct some surveys. If you would like to continue this discussion, great. But it looks like you would prefer to argue in bad faith and be angry.
Anecdotally in the prior 25years(played RT) I spent a grand total of $0 on GW, since 8th dropped I've prob spent close to $1500(and climbing) on gak from them. it's 100% due to 8th being the game it is.
slick marketing and advertising didn't bring me back, fun gameplay and badass models did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/03 06:19:38
meleti wrote: "Actually, 8th edition is deeply unpopular" is my favorite DakkaTake.
Popular does not mean good. Justin Beiber is Popular. Facebook is Popular.
8th has benefited from being streamlined enough to attract the kiddywinks, and a massive marketing/social media blitz that, well it's marketing, what do you expect. It's manipulative by design.
“Gosh Steven, that ruleset looks so streamlined I’m going to turn off my XBox and buy Warhammers!”
“Great idea Kevin! I’ve been put off for the last 25 years even though I’m only 12! Thank the four gods that rules bloat is gone and we can focus on being streamlined!”
Said no ‘kiddywinks’ ever.
Streamlined rules have made the game easier to pick up and play, but it’s still the models and universe that are the main attraction. I’m having more fun with 8th than anything since 2nd, but let’s not pretend ‘streamlined rules attract kiddywinks’ is remotely accurate.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
As someone used to standard FoC (1 HQ, 2 Troop) i found the new ones odd at first, but welcome.
As for ‘scoff scoff it’s not very complicated, fur the kidz’? It’s a game. Something I do to relax. It shouldn’t be equivalent to doing a tax return. Let my opponent be my challenge, not rules minutiae.
And on an entirely personal note, I do wish the phrase ‘granular’ would do one. Hates it I does. Completely tangential to the thread, but I felt I needed to say it!
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
Requiring hard data for assertions such as "there are more people playing now, and it is because of 8th edition" is hardly unrealistic. We can make guesses, but until GW hires a marketing firm to conduct research to find out how many people play, why they play, what their thoughts on 8th are, and how much they spend/have spent on 8th and prior editions, to name a few, we can't know for sure.
"providing hard data here is completely realistic", he says before launching into all the reasons why it is actually impossible.
Why do my opinions require "hard data" and his do not?
Could it be because one side supports your narrative and the other does not.... Hmmmmmm .
I don't honestly care about needing sources for opinions on how well this game is doing, but if you are going to demand it from others while at the same time making such baseless claims as "the people who like this edition are the REAL vocal minority", then lol you can go ahead and meet your own criteria for validation first, or just revel in your own oblivious hypocrisy. Either one works but you definitely don't get away with refering to yourself as someone who thinks critically anymore lol we know that ain't true. These are his standards not mine.
You've both made claims we can't be sure of. We don't know what effect GW's community engagement/marketing has had, if any, on the success of 8th.
Having an opinion is fine. Making claims such as "8th edition is like the most popular ever" as though it is established fact, when we don't know for sure what players think of the edition, is not. Nor are any of my example questions- How many people play? Why do they play? What are their thoughts on 8th? How much have they spent since the launch of 8th?- "impossible." It would just take GW hiring a marketing firm to conduct some surveys. If you would like to continue this discussion, great. But it looks like you would prefer to argue in bad faith and be angry.
I didn’t make that assertion though, he quoted me purposefully out of context to suit his narrative.
“Long story short we don’t actually know what is causing the upsurge in popularity for 8th”
“truth is we don’t know, so it’s disengenuous to claim we have more players than ever, when we don’t even know how many we have had each ED”
My answer basically boils down to “we don’t know enough to say 8th is the most popular and successful ed ever”
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
You made the assertion firs ago rst, therefore it’s down to you to prove it and me to then disprove it, that’s how it works. And please don’t hold your breath, wouldn’t want you passing out
And don’t claim “rational thought” when you just tried to break one of the central tenants of debating.
Got it, so you can claim whatever outlandish nonsense you like because it can't be verified, but I make a rational statement that this wildly successful version of a game from a company that was on its deathbed a few years ago is it's most successful edition yet, and even while you guys are telling me that this also can't be verified, and the only people even looking for proof here is yourself, the burden of proof is entirely on me and not even remotely on you to do the same?
Just seems like you want to live in fairytale land and will grasp at whatever straws and technicalities you can to stay living there TBH.
Keep the angry posturing up all you like while the rest of us happily enjoy 40ks best and most diverse edition yet game is better off without such people in the community anyway so thats just another success of 8th by my measure.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
You made the assertion firs ago rst, therefore it’s down to you to prove it and me to then disprove it, that’s how it works. And please don’t hold your breath, wouldn’t want you passing out
And don’t claim “rational thought” when you just tried to break one of the central tenants of debating.
Got it, so you can claim whatever outlandish nonsense you like because it can't be verified, but I make a rational statement that this wildly successful version of a game from a company that was on its deathbed a few years ago is it's most successful edition yet, and even while you guys are telling me that this also can't be verified, and the only people even looking for proof here is yourself, the burden of proof is entirely on me and not even remotely on you to do the same?
Just seems like you want to live in fairytale land and will grasp at whatever straws and technicalities you can to stay living there TBH.
Keep the angry posturing up all you like while the rest of us happily enjoy 40ks best and most diverse edition yet game is better off without such people in the community anyway so thats just another success of 8th by my measure.
Where did that rational thought go?
Also still waiting for you to back your original statement up, and again just to remind you, the one who Makes the original assertion has to provide the evidence, that’s you, then the person they are debating must try to debunk it, that’s me, just reminding you as you clearly don’t know how debating works, also as a reminder you also attacked first with the “they play to whine” comment, so don’t try to claim any moral superiority, so go ahead prove what you are saying or admit what I have been admiring all along, we... don’t... know, based on the info we have available.
Or you know... you can continue to white knight for GW and not be taken seriously.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: Yeah you can have lots of different rules when there are a handful of models on the table, try having unique rules for every single unit in the system in a 2000 point game. You couldn't do that, you wouldn't even be able to memorise all that, you'd need the codex/rules every time you use a unit you obviously never played 2nd edition. You like x-wing great but to think you can apply that to 40k is absurd. You can't apply x-wing to 40k, they are far too different.
Wait, weren't you the one saying that 40k can't be simplified? Now you're complaining about making 40k more complex. And you're making a pretty ridiculous argument here, claiming that it would be impossible to have unique rules for every single unit in the system in a game that gives every unit special snowflake rules and obsesses over the difference between a sword and an axe. It's so inconsistent I'm honestly not sure what your point is anymore, besides "40k is great and any other game is wrong".
And of course I can apply X-Wing to 40k. The claim was that a simple and streamlined game can not also be deep and interesting. X-Wing is both. Now that we've established that it's possible to do simple and deep the only question remaining is how to apply the concept to 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, I mean it's not like the flyer:
1) can only pivot 90 degrees before moving.
2) Must move, and therefore suffers -1 to hit, while a predator can stay still (hardly "never really matters" when you're 25% less effective out the gate)
3) Can fall back from an assault and still shoot
4) Can't be assaulted except by other models with Fly
5) Can't charge
6) Can't hold/score an objective, ever.
Oh, and the Predator doesn't get -1 to hit because Space Marine chapter tactics don't apply to their tanks.
But yeah, those are all minor differences, amirite? I mean, it's not like my Slaanesh army can silence a predator just by putting a Fiend in base contact with it all game, while a Thunderbolt would be a huge, near insurmountable threat vulnerable only to smite and a single winged daemon prince. There's absolutely no difference at all.
Most of those aren't conceptual differences. Who cares if you can only make a 90* pivot when every weapon has a 360* arc and 48" range? It barely matters where you move, and the limits on flyers rarely have any meaningful effect on the game. Same thing with the -1 BS penalty. Yeah, it technically exists, but it's effectively the same as printing the Thunderbolt at BS 4+ (remember, it starts at BS 3+) and removing the penalty. You can't do anything to change the -1 penalty, so it's just part of the math on how much damage the unit puts out. It doesn't change how you play the unit. And falling back shouldn't be a difference. A single infantry model shouldn't do anything to prevent a tank from shooting, the tank should be able to drive over them and resume combat without bothering to wash the blood off the treads. It's only because of GW's stupidity with 8th that this even happens.
A game with meaningful conceptual differences between aircraft and tanks would actually represent them as different strategic elements. For example, aircraft might have more peak firepower but poor sustained firepower (you quickly run out of bombs if you drop thousands of pounds of explosives on a target) and only arrive later in the game with poor reliability (you have to call for air support and hope it arrives on target in time). Tanks would have better sustained firepower and be able to control territory (suppressing fire, spotting, etc, in addition to scoring objectives). This would give them very different strategic roles in your army: tanks would offer a powerful on-table support element for your infantry over the full length of a game, while aircraft would be a precision assassination strike to annihilate a key target anywhere on the table. This would be a huge difference from 40k, where the choice between tanks and aircraft usually comes down to calculating which one is more overpowered and spamming it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/03 08:14:42
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I don't think it is too complicated. The rules are about as simple as they can get outside of generic one page rule systems. I am enjoying the way they have done away with templates; the shooting and cc dice mechanic are similar. It all makes for an easier game to learn.
I think the problem is. GW have slipped back into the old habit of players needing to reference multiple sources to make sure they have up-to-date rules.
Chapter Approved, Indexes should be free with a small charge to buy a sheet of easy peal stickers with all the Errata for your given Codex that are pre cut to fit nicely over the offending Codex entry.
vim_the_good wrote: I don't think it is too complicated. The rules are about as simple as they can get outside of generic one page rule systems. I am enjoying the way they have done away with templates; the shooting and cc dice mechanic are similar. It all makes for an easier game to learn.
I think the problem is. GW have slipped back into the old habit of players needing to reference multiple sources to make sure they have up-to-date rules.
Chapter Approved, Indexes should be free with a small charge to buy a sheet of easy peal stickers with all the Errata for your given Codex that are pre cut to fit nicely over the offending Codex entry.
Vim
GW has found a new potential income source with CA, and indexes, do you honestly think they will stop?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
There is a vocal minority, but it’s the white knights, not the detractors, sure a couple of the detractors have said they don’t like the game, but they are in no way as unbearable as the white knights who refuse to see any fault and lack the ability to think critically.
Alright well if you want to play this game, you prove your statements first before asking for proof from mine, then we can proceed.
You'll struggle, but that's understandable. You don't have realistic standards for anything, so let's see if you can meet your own first then you can have a seat at the table of rational thought. I won't hold my breath.
You made the assertion firs ago rst, therefore it’s down to you to prove it and me to then disprove it, that’s how it works. And please don’t hold your breath, wouldn’t want you passing out
And don’t claim “rational thought” when you just tried to break one of the central tenants of debating.
Got it, so you can claim whatever outlandish nonsense you like because it can't be verified, but I make a rational statement that this wildly successful version of a game from a company that was on its deathbed a few years ago is it's most successful edition yet, and even while you guys are telling me that this also can't be verified, and the only people even looking for proof here is yourself, the burden of proof is entirely on me and not even remotely on you to do the same?
Just seems like you want to live in fairytale land and will grasp at whatever straws and technicalities you can to stay living there TBH.
Keep the angry posturing up all you like while the rest of us happily enjoy 40ks best and most diverse edition yet game is better off without such people in the community anyway so thats just another success of 8th by my measure.
Where did that rational thought go?
Also still waiting for you to back your original statement up, and again just to remind you, the one who Makes the original assertion has to provide the evidence, that’s you, then the person they are debating must try to debunk it, that’s me, just reminding you as you clearly don’t know how debating works, also as a reminder you also attacked first with the “they play to whine” comment, so don’t try to claim any moral superiority, so go ahead prove what you are saying or admit what I have been admiring all along, we... don’t... know, based on the info we have available.
Or you know... you can continue to white knight for GW and not be taken seriously.
You cannot demand proof from others for statements you call out as unverifiable, without backing down from your own completely unverifiable statements that you also refuse to provide proof for, in the exact same breath. Go ahead and make the call right now on whether or not you are going to be a forum cop forum people posting educated assumptions based on the information at hand without having all the hard data, because if you are to keep thrusting forth that we cannot, then you're equally as guilty of the same thing.
Meet your own standards first before demanding them of others. You talk about being taken seriously while completely contradicting your own statements, all for the sake of pride and being incapable of backing down from the indefensible position you backed yourself into when you stated exactly what YOU claim is an invalid opinion.
Also I love how sharing the extremely popular sentiment of enjoying a game, is somehow white knighting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/03 09:08:13
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Not Online!!! wrote: You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules
Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.
total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......
BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.
So many of these complaints are solved with Battlescribe.
Sim-Life wrote: So many of these complaints are solved with Battlescribe.
Battlescribe is not official, not always correct, and not a substitute for official copies of the rules.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Complicated? Play Star Fleet Battles.
Mind you that's complicated but we'll laid out.
My issue is 40k is now so simple it's too open to abuse and confusingly simple.
The rules are everywhere and jumbled up.
And they are still essentially the same boring mechanics we've had since 3rd.
Not Online!!! wrote: You know what would make 40k more approachable?
F U R
Free
Updated
Rules
Atm if i want to play my army i need:
Rulebook, Codex CSM, CA, FW index AM, Codex AM, FW index for CSM vehicles and 4 diffrent FAQ's, which update irregularly at best and are often still not properly done.
total count books: 6
total count FAQ's: 4
and i am not even sure if i got all my rules.......
BTW not keeping up with the errata/FAQ/ Ca is quite the hinderance for certain armies, even in a casual way.
So many of these complaints are solved with Battlescribe.
Excuse me when i
A) want a properly edited and readable PDF.
B) Not use a App that is inofficial and often more wrong then right.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
So many of these complaints are solved with Battlescribe.
You mean the software with errors that while useful is not replacement for codex? That if somebody tries to use their only source of rules proper response is refuse game.
Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Seriously 99% of people use Battlescribe as the tool it is, a supplement to their codex to make life orders of magnitude easier when playing 40K, not as an outright replacement for a codex.
And to be very blunt about it with all of the FAQ's out currently Battlescribe is more accurate that basically all of the ink and paper codexes right now. That is a *fact* and you can be upset about it but it does not change that. It's honestly the reason why GW should release some kind of digital equivalent to Battlescribe.
8th Ed is on the edge of being overly complicated for me, not quite there but close. I think they could sort out a lot of that if they go to a set of USR's in future editions. The side benefit of doing that would be that they could then include slightly beefier rules in other places while still keeping the game relatively straight forward, which would make some of the people who wish the rules were a bit deep happier also. Win, win all around as far as I am concerned.
As to the *success* of 8th edition, it is just straight up more successful than any edition previously. I have been playing since just shortly after 2nd Edition and I have *never* seen the level of activity involving 40K that is taking place now. I live in the Maryland/DC/Virginia area, so it's not like I'm out in the middle of no where, I live in one of the major metropolitan areas of the US. Yes my experience on this is anecdotal but in a major population center. (There's also the fact that GW is selling more product that ever before but apparently that is not sufficient evidence for some people.)
vonjankmon wrote: Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Problem is carrying those.
And the jerks who actually consider BS replacement for rules and don't get the codex and rely just on BS. You can recognize them by them showing up to game and not actually have any sort of codex with them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/03 12:16:28
vonjankmon wrote: Wow, I didn't realize that if you downloaded and used Battlescribe it secretly pulled out a lighter and set fire to your codex.
Problem is carrying those.
And the jerks who actually consider BS replacement for rules and don't get the codex and rely just on BS. You can recognize them by them showing up to game and not actually have any sort of codex with them.
Are your arms made of literal noodles that carrying a few books is too heavy?
The 40K rules have certainly expanded since 8th Edition released through the Codex releases, but I don't feel that the game is getting too complicated or "bloated." I understand that some prefer the concept of USRs in the main rule book, but I am rather enjoying the new format. Rules are tailor made for each unit with the ability to tinker with them without affecting other units with similar characteristics. It does mean that playing against a new army without having read their Codex can mean some surprises, particularly with Stratagems. I don't mind that either.
In several local tournaments I have had only one rules "impasse" that required us to ask a judge. The game is quite clean, even with all the Stratagems. Its also attracting new players and has brought many former players back to the gaming table. I don't have hard data for that latter assertion - only what I see at my FLGS and amongst my gaming friends. I don't think that its due to marketing. Around here it is due to the many people playing 40K at the FLGS - that draws back old players more than any slick marketing. Community engagement has increased, as we see with the many FAQs etc.
Having said that, the non-Codex FAQs could use some consolidation. Perhaps Chapter Approved 2018 will do something like that?
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
game is better off without such people in the community anyway so thats just another success of 8th by my measure.
2811
650
750 
