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.

 Smacks wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Nice idea, but points systems are meant so that people who don't know every codex by heart can expect a fair game.

The points system is designed to make games fair 'within reason'. However people treating it like gospel, probably results in making games less fair in the end, because it is not a perfect system. The first problem is that relative points values are never as well balanced as they could be, codex creep, weak play testing, design bias etc. Some armies just end up being better. That's why we have tier lists. But even if we ignore that problem, we still face the issue of having a static price for things that have a dynamic value.

There are lots of external factors that can affect fairness. Two armies might be perfectly balanced in open terrain, but then one might hopelessly outclass the other on a more crowded battlefield. Same armies, same points, but the balance shifts. The designers of the 40k 1st edition understood this, which is why points were more like guidelines, and other systems such as bidding were common. That game was all about scenarios and setups... "You have a bigger army, but you get ambushed in the open". Those games could often be more fair than games today because the players and he GM knew how good things were and could adjust. Having a rigid points system allows players to match armies that they know aren't fair (tailored lists for example). My point being: don't be too quick to knock cinematics

Dude... I... I just had a vision.

A vision of taking a fluffy list, that didn't have to be bulked up or slimmed down to meet a certain points value. (fun story, while building a list recently, I actually had 5 extra points, and I ended up having to take a second meltagun over a flamer in a squad that already had a meltagun, because for some reason I couldn't bring myself to let those extra 5 points get wasted.)

And it... it felt so good. Although that could have been the sugar from the root beer.

It reminded me of the joy of roleplaying, except combined with the joy of letting the dice decide whether that slash of a sword actually connects or not.

 Brother SRM wrote:
So what the OP is saying is that he's never, ever just gotten a bunch of toys out with a friend, rolled some dice and had some fun for the sake of it? It's not a tournament dude, and it's only a game. Lighten up.

Another fun story. Back in grade 7 - which was oddly the same year that I first saw WH40k models (though I didn't know what they were, I recognized the Land Speeder from the battle two kids were playing in the cafeteria a year or two later when I started playing 40k) - I would bring some green plastic army men to school and we'd have mock little battles with them sometimes. Eventually we assigned ranges to their weapons, and I painted the tips of their weapons different colors, then painted the end of each section of a collapsible stereo antenna to correspond with those colors to show short, medium, and long ranges for each type of weapon. (I had some Testors paints from painting airplane models in the past)

The urgings to lighten up and have fun are something that I honestly never expected to see here on Dakka. It is quite heartwarming and I'm so glad to see that it hasn't been entirely quashed out.

 curran12 wrote:
The urgings to lighten up and have fun are something that I honestly never expected to see here on Dakka. It is quite heartwarming and I'm so glad to see that it hasn't been entirely quashed out.

Hell, i've had weekends with mates where we just bring every model we have, get assigned to the 'Good Guys' or 'Bad Guys' and just play. Drink some beer's, eat Pizza and (in my case) smoke some Ciggies......It's a great way of wasting two days and nights, and who really gives a feth about points values and FoC in games like this?

Mind you, i'm still playing 2nd Ed.......

Not really sure. But when the Necrons came out recently, they were fighting vs. Eldar and Ultramarines in a 4000 pts battle.

Games Workshop is in a dilemma:
1.) They have an expensive magazine whose only purpose is to present the new models (plus some old ones).
2.) They are afraid to leak any information about the new models.
So they try to make a lot of shiney pictures, almost no text, and the text just standard advertising talk without any content (plus the "essential" monthly feature of listing every store in the world carrying GW products on 10 pages)..
Only possible leak for rules is the battle report featuring the new models and their rules. So they now try to make a battle report with just shiney pics and no content, hoping that noone will notice. Well, we noticed.

 Kaldor wrote:
Personally, I think most players could learn a lot from reading WD battle reports. They could learn how to lighten the feth up about their game of toy soldiers, they could learn how to consider the enjoyment of their opponent when building a list, and they could learn not to rigidly adhere to a single TAC list all the time.

List building has nothing to do with an opponents enjoyment of the game (if you can't think of ways to beat a 'power list' then you aren't a good player). A goid game is about the interaction between players, i.e being nice. Seeing as every hobbyist who plays the game element wants to win this should be pretty obvious.

I would rather get my ass kicked by a nice guy than defeat an introvert. All these battle reports do is show off new minitures. They do nothing to help new players learn the game.

List building has nothing to do with an opponents enjoyment of the game (if you can't think of ways to beat a 'power list' then you aren't a good player).

I suspect you might be someone I wouldn't want to play. I'm not sure how much you appreciate the "for fun" aspect of this game. One of the best ways (in a friendly non-tourney game) to make sure your opponent will have fun is to have their enjoyment of the game in mind while building your list. List building has a great deal to do with an opponents enjoyment. Also no, not everyone who plays the game is playing (or even wants) to win. Sometimes it is nice to just concoct a scenario set up a bunch of toys and roll some dice just to see what happens. Personally, I couldn't care less about winning as long as I'm having fun. That often starts with the list I build.

Anyway, back on topic - I am also glad to see the calls to lighten up and I'm glad to see that some posters enjoyed the report. While it wasn't as informative about the new stuff as I might have wanted, it was very fun to read through and like I said before, it gave me a sense of nostalgia for the "good old days" of WD and 2nd ed 40k. lol Lots of fun to be had in that report if you leave the serious pants at home.

 BluntmanDC wrote:

I would rather get my ass kicked by a nice guy than defeat an introvert.

I don't think you're using that word right.

Because an introvert is someone who loses energy from interacting with other people. Extroverts gain energy from social interaction.

An introvert's idea of fun social interaction is with one or a few people, for a limited amount of time. An extrovert's idea of fun social interaction is a massive, booming party.

An introvert goes to a big party, comes home, and is completely exhausted. An extrovert goes to a big party, comes home, and is itching for more.

It has absolutely nothing to do with manners or politeness.

one of my favourite batreps is from WD157, the battle of osterwald (empire vs Orcs and Goblins) since the studio greenskin army wasn't anywhere near complete, Jervis just took everything that they did have painted to make up the points, whereas robin dews commanding the empire forces got to properly choose his army, the result was a very entertaining batrep, and the conclusions where Jervis saying what he would add to his army for the next time.

I've fought similar battles in the past, taking everything i have, whether it was legal or not, to make up a set points value for my army and then gone on after that battle to expand my forces based on the army's performance. Quite recently i dug out my guard and played an 800 point game, but had left my CCS on the painting desk, but we continued regardless. Sometimes its fun to play a scenario like a desperate last stand, or something similar and points values can be damned if its a fun game.

All that said, a TAC list is the usual format for games i play, since its a very quick and easy way to organise a pick up game

one of my favourite batreps is from WD157, the battle of osterwald (empire vs Orcs and Goblins) since the studio greenskin army wasn't anywhere near complete, Jervis just took everything that they did have painted to make up the points, whereas robin dews commanding the empire forces got to properly choose his army, the result was a very entertaining batrep, and the conclusions where Jervis saying what he would add to his army for the next time.

HA! I had completely forgotten about that until you brought it up. That was a great read imo. Thanks for reminding me! I wonder if I still have that one somewhere ...

Also, to the fellow who mentioned that he misses the Fat Bloke articles - I concur wholeheartedly. Paul S. was the man. My favorite was the report where they decided to try out the studios new trench warfare table by running Fat Bloke's White Scars against an army of dug-in Chaos marines. My first thought was "bikes in a trench? How the hell is that going to work?" but somehow it did. The report was from at least 12 years ago but I still have it!

I don't remember the worst ones, but there are a few that I did like. There was a good one when the Last Chancers were first released, the dirty dozen up against lots of chaos marines.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I've always heard that the GW and more generally UK players prefer cinematics and narrative to actual gameplay and fairness.

I've always just imagined the gameshops to consist of a single table. The rest of the room is filled with chairs as the other patrons take their seats the two players come in, dressed in their finest garb. They both start reciting Shakespearean dialog as they forge the story, occasionally shaking a model and going "pew pew" for added effect. The dice have no numbers and are just thrown for effect.

These battle reports make me think these things.

I do occasionally say pew-pew or kaboom when playing, but old jeans and a Black Sabbath t-shirt is definitely not my finest garb haha.

Despite having a tournament army as my only 40k force (mech vets), I do really enjoy fun games, or ones that are themed. My gf bought a banshee because she thought it looked cool, so I sat and made rules for it and let her use it in a special mission.

The old style of WD battle reports is the best, IMO, and adding all sorts of rules and conditions into your games makes for a lot of fun

 BluntmanDC wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Personally, I think most players could learn a lot from reading WD battle reports. They could learn how to lighten the feth up about their game of toy soldiers, they could learn how to consider the enjoyment of their opponent when building a list, and they could learn not to rigidly adhere to a single TAC list all the time.

List building has nothing to do with an opponents enjoyment of the game (if you can't think of ways to beat a 'power list' then you aren't a good player)

That's one of the silliest things I've read all day. Congratulations.

 Brother SRM wrote:
So what the OP is saying is that he's never, ever just gotten a bunch of toys out with a friend, rolled some dice and had some fun for the sake of it? It's not a tournament dude, and it's only a game. Lighten up.

Haha, no not at all - when I got back into 40k again I bought the AoBR boxset with my brother and then just added whatever stuff we bought each month. He kept the marines, we got rid of the orks and I started collecting Chaos, buying what looked pretty.. Was fun for a while, I think I lost every game because I had nothing that could hurt his dreadnought. Thing is, I don't work for GWs flagship magazine showcasing how the game works.

It's not like I take my gaming massively seriously - when my mates come over we drink beer and trash talk each other. We try out narrative scenarios [if anyone can be bothered to write up the fluff]. Forgeworld isn't a problem, mostly because we love the models and want to find an excuse to use them [although they ask to be warned in advance]. None of my mates run min/maxed lists - I've got a Emperor's Children army that always runs units of 6 and only includes Slaaneshy units. Another of my mates ALWAYS includes Marbo because no matter what Marbo either completely smashes a unit or epically fails [killed two gretchin last time then died to overwatch while charging them]. However we do like to have competitive games as this adds to the excitement and the fun.

A big part of this fun for us is the list building, and we always try to spring a few surprises on each other for every new game [so we keep our purchases very quiet]. Last game my friend had, unbeknownst to me, bought a landraider. I had very little that could take out AV14 and it won him the game. Fair play to him, he'd spent time thinking about it and had to make sacrifices to include the raider.

I think I have been portrayed as some sort of rules Nazi which isn't the case. However, for a competitive, enjoyable, fun game that requires us to use our brains, having equal points and following the same restrictions is fundamental. Plus I have never come across someone, either at a club or a GW shop, that would be willing to just 'play with whatever we've got painted'.

Lastly I think I owe it to my opponent to at least try to win. Enough people moan about others giving up after turn two when things aren't going their way. I would find it just as annoying for my opponent to not to try and win the game. All the chaos player had to do was keep the fallen marine from dying and it was 3 VPs for him. Instead he charges it?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
All the chaos player had to do was keep the fallen marine from dying and it was 3 VPs for him. Instead he charges it?

I think the key here is that we're not playing for sheep stations, as we say here in Australia. Or in other words, there's no material gain by winning. It's enough, at that point, to know you had the game in the bag. You've got the moral high ground, you know you could have just retreated and won the game, you've proven your superiority and established who the better player is. So why not have a laugh and use your army 'in-character' for a moment? What do you have to lose?

We could get into a debate about what exactly constitutes 'in-character' for any given model, but to me the point is just that the player thought this is what that guy would do in that situation, so he did it. And why not?

"In Character" for a Fallen would be to retreat while mocking his opponent mercilessly.

 Brother SRM wrote:
So what the OP is saying is that he's never, ever just gotten a bunch of toys out with a friend, rolled some dice and had some fun for the sake of it? It's not a tournament dude, and it's only a game. Lighten up.

Says the dude with a signature chock-full of Wins, Losses, and Draws? Sounds good mate.

 Brother SRM wrote:
So what the OP is saying is that he's never, ever just gotten a bunch of toys out with a friend, rolled some dice and had some fun for the sake of it? It's not a tournament dude, and it's only a game. Lighten up.

Yeah, we do this all the time, but my friends and I follow the rules.

Eldercaveman wrote:
I actually quite enjoyed it, and after have a sensory overload of Tourney min/max, cheese, spamming lists, it was a refreshing change. And sad to say, I have found myself being dragged into this style of list build, more as a defensive method, but this Bat Rep helped remind me of why I got into this hobby. FUN. I got into because me and a mate wanted something that was fun to do on cold, wet and miserable UK evenings, and we decided to play with Toy soldiers.

I am in 100% agreement with this (except the bad weather thing - I live in California.).

I was actually really surprised with this battle report and quite enjoyed it as well. The two opponents had fun, and I think that came through very clearly. It is MUCH more exciting for me to watch two people having fun with a game than watch two people completely intense over a game. And I have a little experience in this having filmed and broadcast live, multiple finals games at Adepticon and seen the difference first hand in "high stakes" games.

Again this is just my preference.

The digital White Dwarf has the usual follow up video to the Battle Report and you can tell the guys had a really fun time with it and talked about units that should have been used differently. (In particular the new speeder.) I really do enjoy watching the video post-battle report read through. It's really enjoyable.

As for there being nothing to learn from this battle report, I think that is a bit short sighted. The article shows how you can set up a unique mission and (as others have said) just relax and enjoy the game and a good time with the other player. In particular you can tell these guys had fun with this game when you read quotes like:

Adam: "At the end of what must be the most satisfying game of Warhammer 40,000 I have ever played, who won and lost seemed insignificant alongside the fun we both had."

and

Adam: "It's moments such as these that make games of Warhammer 40,000 so enjoyable. With a blistering conflict raging all around them, tanks exploding and Daemon Princes soaring across the battlefield, all eyes were on the duel going on in the middle of the table."

The mission was cinematic and clever and I would have loved to play in it. Later in the issue Jeremy Vetock, the author of the Dark Angels Codex talks about playing games at home and away. He goes into great detail about how he likes to develop new missions and play them out with his friends. I thought this article went hand in hand pretty well with the battle report as that is exactly what they did.

I'm not trying to convince the OP that this was a good battle report. He obviously didn't get what he was looking for out of it. I however did. And I think this battle report resonated with me more than any battle report in White Dwarf recent memory.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:
So what the OP is saying is that he's never, ever just gotten a bunch of toys out with a friend, rolled some dice and had some fun for the sake of it? It's not a tournament dude, and it's only a game. Lighten up.

Says the dude with a signature chock-full of Wins, Losses, and Draws? Sounds good mate.

Judge me by my stupid numbers, not by what I say! I just have them because I like statistics, not because I think of myself as especially good.

Where is Comic Book Guy to save this topic?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Where is Comic Book Guy to save this topic?

The last thing I heard him say, he was hardening in Lucite, and then posed, and said, "Best... Death... EVER!" and presumably then died.

Regardless of what people thought of the battle report, I would love to try out the army assault course. But make it a race. Everytime your unit dies you go back to the start, but enemies don't get replaced.

I find it interesting; don't most of you play where bringing undercost lists buy you advantages? In our games, you automatically get first turn, and depending on point disparity, you might get other fun things like rerolls on mysterious objectives or a deployment zone modification (reducing your opponent or increasing your zone by 3", etc). Since its blind lists until the start of the game, we've had 1850 point games where both players arrived with 1500 points trying to outdo the other.

 Kaldor wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
So we should all 'lighten up'

Generally speaking, yes. People tend to take their wardollies too seriously.

I just finished painting a large building that my daughter insists on calling "Daddy's dollhouse".

Darrett wrote:
I find it interesting; don't most of you play where bringing undercost lists buy you advantages? In our games, you automatically get first turn, and depending on point disparity, you might get other fun things like rerolls on mysterious objectives or a deployment zone modification (reducing your opponent or increasing your zone by 3", etc). Since its blind lists until the start of the game, we've had 1850 point games where both players arrived with 1500 points trying to outdo the other.

I've never heard anyone do this, but it is a cool idea, did it stem from Apocalypse games by any idea?

Nobody wants to read Draigo vs Necron flier list month after month

Chill the feth out

MarsNZ wrote:
Nobody wants to read Draigo vs Necron flier list month after month

Chill the feth out

Nice straw man there. Nobody is asking for the same report every single month, what we DO expect from a magazine you have to pay money for is a battle report where the mission and forces aren't rigged, the armies resemble real 40k armies, everyone follows the standard rules (unless there's a specific house rule/scenario rule made for a very good reason), and both players do their best to play and win the game. And the description should be more than just pretty pictures of the new models you can buy, there should be explanations of each player's strategy at key moments, thorough descriptions of what's going on, post-game analysis of how things worked (besides "this was really cool I love the GW (tm) Hobby!!!!!! I can't wait to buy more GW (tm) Products!!!!!"). You know, the kind of things you can find (for free!) on dozens of blogs covering every kind of game, from hardcore tournament matches to fluffy story-based scenario games.

We? Seems like a few people agree with me in here. Differences of opinion never did seem like your strong point though. Far better to flog a dead horse.

MarsNZ wrote:
We? Seems like a few people agree with me in here. Differences of opinion never did seem like your strong point though. Far better to flog a dead horse.

We, as in the people who don't like WD or its battle reports. The objection is that it's low-quality work, not that it isn't an endless repetition of the same top-tier tournament list vs. top-tier tournament list played for high stakes by WAAC professionals.

And I'd hate to think that anyone agrees with you and your ridiculous straw man, since that would be a disappointing lack of taste or critical thinking.

 Brother SRM wrote:

Judge me by my stupid numbers.

Don't worry, that's exactly what we're doing.