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.

Breng77 wrote:


Which is where I disagree...it is not harmful at all for pick-up play...because unless we know each other, what reason do we have to find common ground. You and your buds were never stopped from doing anything in your own group....but instead stopped from taking that stuff outside your group to play people that don't agree. What the new scenario creates is every pick-up game being toxic because people often don't agree...so games don't get played and the scene dies (I've seen this happen). So while you and your buds still have games in your own garage or whatever doing what you like...me who thrives on pick-up games....gets none because the scene has died.


Essentially you could always have don't SW + Striking scorpions in your own group....as long as everyone agreed. Which is no different than now...except the expectation now is that if I show up to play you...and don't want to play against said army...we don't play because you came expecting anything was OK. Which in a for fun game...no one ever cared....but if one guy brings a broken competitive army...he either eats derision because of how badly broken his army is...does not get a game...or needs to change his army lest he be forced out.

Which never happens in casual groups.

There is absolutely no problems to pick-up games with the current rules, as long as everyone sticks to the fairly basic idea to spend a minute or so before each game to make sure both parties are having fun.

The only thing "toxic" is the rude attitude of "jumping" something on your opponent, which is an unfortunately widespread misconduct borne from the fallacy that "balanced" rules mean that everything within those rules is appropriate at all times, and that a given selection of X units means that all options are appropriate at all times. It has been incredibly detrimental to the game for years (net-lists, etc..) precisely because "narrative" and "mutual enjoyment" were put on such a low burner.

Frankly, the "pick-up-game-scene" feels a lot better these days than it did just 2 or 3 years ago, when the prevalent mindset was far more often :

- *wastes a perfectly good Saturday afternoon coming down to the store*
- Well, clearly your "own fault" for not bringing a "competitive" list!!!
- But it's just a store, not a tournament?
- Sucks to be you!!!

That (!) is (was?) the reason GW has been bleeding customers for years.

Where as I see the opposite because unless I bring every item I own...I show up and get...sorry I don't want to play against X because it is broken (I've seen this with Tau and Eldar even when lists were not broken).

Furthermore, if things were more balanced something like a "competitve" list would not even really exist.

Now GW is encouraging you to buy things...the people may not want to play against on a regular basis and telling your...they are part of the regular game. Which is much more likely to hurt people in the end.

Again...sounds like you want to punish everyone with bad rules because you play in an area with WAAC players...that would not even really exist if things were not broken in the first place.

TO me it is up to the company to provide good rules...and the community to encourage mutual enjoyment.

The only difference now is that Net lists are so broken the game is no longer enjoyable in anyway when they are involved.

Now you can say to people...well you shouldn't take x in a pick-up game...but that is the whole point...if I am a new player and I buy and want to use x...I then cannot play at all.

When I play malifaux I play extremely casually while some people at my flgs play rather conpetitively and we have no problem doing the same thing, I take my death marshal crew and have just as good a time with the competitive player with my fluffy list that is also competitive since the game is built around the fluffy lists being very synergetic and usually very competitive, all the different crews feel unique, and on top of that they are all balanced.

If I could take the fluffy list for my necrons and enter a tournament and be casual I cant expect the same results, I would be better off going to play a narrative campaign instead if I want to have fun. Or if I want to play competitively I would be better off avoiding the narrative campaign and going to a tournament.

And like others have said, I still dont see how having rules that work and are balanced make the game worse.

I cant see how 40k is really a beer and prezels game. Surely a game by that definition should be easy to just pick up and play. WIth the amount of special rules, FOC and other complexities I don't see how it fits into that category.

Exalted carlos.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Some vague talk about individual opinions on competitive vs. casual, which doesn't even come close to the competitive vs. casual hostility in 40k and even includes praise for most options in X-Wing being at least semi-competitive.

Well, obviously the hostility is missing, as X-Wing fans don't have to deal with a bunch of Trolls that continually try to convince them that the game they enjoy is gak and that it would be "better for everyone" if the game they enjoy would be more like some other game they have no interest in.

The topics are similar, however.

I'm not posting this stuff to troll. Nor do I think anyone else is. Why not put a check on your name calling, yes?

Calling people trolls is a very subjective label and something I never use.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 A GumyBear wrote:


I'm sorry have I offended you somehow? I apologize if I did, my original reference to the seats was being that it was uncomfortable and needed to be changed to feel better, as in the rules are clunky and can need to be changed in some areas to be more comfortable (like the tons of pregame rolling you need to do for things or the mysterious terrain that needs you to pause the game to get the chart and get agree on a suitable way to mark it without forgetting). If you like the brand ferrari thats great so do I, I just dont to pay a premium for something tgat barely runs and is a pain to drive

You can pay premium for different things.

Some cars are made for "casual driving"...

Spoiler:

Other cars are made for "competitive driving".

Spoiler:

And sure, you could go on and on about how the latter, "competitive" car is "technically" superiour in every way, better engine, suspension, acceleration. But that is missing the point of what the former "casual" car is trying to do in the first place.

The very categories by which you compare them are already skewed in favour of the competitive car, because they are categories important for competitive racing, not categories important for casual cruising into the sunset.

And at this point, you broke the analogy by misrepresenting the comparative points. No-one wants to take fun away from gamers who are casual, no-one wants to take away from anyone's ability to do narrative gaming. The point of the original analogy was that there was one car and improving the seats inside, doesn't alter the brand name (IP) or the externals (fluff).

You keep coming back to this insistence that improving the rules or better balancing the armies will restrict casual players and limit people's ability to tell a story more than what is the case now. And in stark contrast to numerous people showing how the opposite is in fact the case, you've yet to convincingly show at all how your assumption stands up.

When people no-longer having to choose between fluff and effectiveness, when people are free to use their Scorpion Super-Heavy Tank or Warhound Titan without the other person viewing them as "unfun" or solely focussed on winning, when there is less pausing to try and puzzle out who is right and who is wrong over a rules interpretation, then this all facilitates narrative gaming and picking armies based on fluff or theme. Not takes away from it.

So go on - I talked earlier about lowering points costs for Banshees, and similar things. Instead of quickly deflecting everyone you argue with into a discussion over why a competitive gamers fun should be more important than a narrative gamer's fun (which you then immediately follow by saying WH40K isn't meant for competitive play so the narrative gamer's fun is by default the first consideration), try actually convincing anyone that well-written rules and better army balance necessarily harms narrative play. Because we don't believe it does. All I've seen you fall back on when pressed is vague comments about how people should be able to pick anything they want at which point why bother with anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Calling people trolls is a very subjective label and something I never use.

I was talking to Zweischneid where he calls those of us discussing or wanting rules improvements and better balance to be "a bunch of trolls".

I just ignore the foolishness. He can call us trolls, but that doesn't make the rules any less crappy or the game balance any less a joke. Every person who has made that argument and army swapped with my BA has cried blood when I was done with them.

Martel732 wrote:
I just ignore the foolishness. He can call us trolls, but that doesn't make the rules any less crappy or the game balance any less a joke. Every person who has made that argument and army swapped with my BA has cried blood when I was done with them.

We should army swap sometime! I think it would be fun.

So my understanding of Zweischneid's stance is this.

IF the rules are better balanced...people can compete more easily so everything becomes competition...if the rules are broken we need to discuss which rules we are going to use. After all Banshees are powerful when used in Zone Mortalis, when faced with Tactical marines...so their points are ok...they just are not meant to be used in a standard mission.

So using creativity Players can "balance" the game on their own instead of the game doing it for us.

I have beaten my own BA with IG, CSM, Eldar, Tau, and Sisters. Not that the Tau and Eldar took much effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
So my understanding of Zweischneid's stance is this.

IF the rules are better balanced...people can compete more easily so everything becomes competition...if the rules are broken we need to discuss which rules we are going to use. After all Banshees are powerful when used in Zone Mortalis, when faced with Tactical marines...so their points are ok...they just are not meant to be used in a standard mission.

So using creativity Players can "balance" the game on their own instead of the game doing it for us.

And this will land everyone in the hospital from fist fights.

Martel732 wrote:
I have beaten my own BA with IG, CSM, Eldar, Tau, and Sisters. Not that the Tau and Eldar took much effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
So my understanding of Zweischneid's stance is this.

IF the rules are better balanced...people can compete more easily so everything becomes competition...if the rules are broken we need to discuss which rules we are going to use. After all Banshees are powerful when used in Zone Mortalis, when faced with Tactical marines...so their points are ok...they just are not meant to be used in a standard mission.

So using creativity Players can "balance" the game on their own instead of the game doing it for us.

And this will land everyone in the hospital from fist fights.

I'm not that worried about being beaten with your army, Martel, I just think it would be an interesting exercise in using an army which I did not build.

And if people are ending up hospitalized because they had to have a discussion about how to play a game, perhaps they are taking it far too seriously?

No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)

It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.

To me, it always has been a beer and pretzels game. However, it has incorporated players from other competitive games (like magic) into it. This I believed changed it in reality… Me? I say go go fun, fluff, thematic battles. Not always competitive.

Martel732 wrote:
No, no. I have pretty much all BA models. I let them build their own list from the BA book. It hasn't helped them yet. Most people fall into the trap units. (Which is 65% of the codex at least)

It's easy for people to take things seriously that they have sunk a lot of money into.

Well, I play Iron Hands and Armored Company, so expect lots of Techmarines and Fast Predators. I may even deep strike a Land Raider for the lulz.

And perhaps people shouldn't worry so much about material goods. Money shouldn't define life.

All this talk about competitive and what not, I am not really competitive. But I would like a balanced rule set.

I don't mind loosing, I loose all the time, BUT when I play Dark Angles from 4th edition, against 5th edition codecs, my 1500 point army against a 5th edition codex is really like playing against 2000 points.

So is this fair? Or is the 500 point advantage for 5th edition codexes just for story telling? Why play a game when you are already at a disadvantage?

I guess, just want equal footing when starting, and then let may the dice roll where they do.

"I guess, just want equal footing when starting, and then let may the dice roll where they do."

That's true beer and pretzels. Not "how do I overcome all the Taudar advantages?".

How much is power creep with each codex? Orks versus Eldar, no brainer, buut what about Eldar VS Tau? What about orks VS Tyranids?

What about just bad rules? How much is a broken BRB? When the faq gets longer & longer, heck when the faq comes out just 6 months after 2 pages long isn't that a problem?

The one thing I'm actually curious about is if they could (not that they WOULD, mind you) just have a single "Army Lists" book with all of the assorted armies, no need for a new Codex every few months with new OP goodies or, worse, new SM codexes while other factions haven't even had an update.

Of course that goes back to focusing on solid, tested rules and not trying to just upsell every few months with new overpriced models for the latest FOTM army. I recall when 3rd edition first came out there was a small period where there were no valid codexes, just the army list in the rulebook, and while they weren't really amazing rules it did have everybody on roughly the same page as there was no "arms race" at that time. I really wonder if that's a model to revisit. Publish thin (and cheaper) codexes with army background and general hobby tips (e.g. how to create your own army, staff members' own custom armies with tips, battle reports illustrating tactics, etc) and just have a single army list for everything at once and focus on updating existing models/rules to be better instead of just pushing new toys all the time.

Wishful thinking, though.

 Red Marine wrote:
How much is power creep with each codex? Orks versus Eldar, no brainer, buut what about Eldar VS Tau? What about orks VS Tyranids?

What about just bad rules? How much is a broken BRB? When the faq gets longer & long, heck when it comes out just 6 months later 2 pages long isn't that a problem?

Where's the codex creep for C:SM? I want my creep!

Martel732 wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:
How much is power creep with each codex? Orks versus Eldar, no brainer, buut what about Eldar VS Tau? What about orks VS Tyranids?

What about just bad rules? How much is a broken BRB? When the faq gets longer & long, heck when it comes out just 6 months later 2 pages long isn't that a problem?

Where's the codex creep for C:SM? I want my creep!

Fine. Your a creep.

Space Marines suffer from the fact that they're still paying the points for toughness 4 and a 3+ armour save, despite the fact those features are pretty worthless on the 6th edition battlefield.

They can't really drop the points any further than they have, and they can't change the marine profile (which is, to be frank, the profile against which everything is compared in 40k) and they're not willing to drop the "tactical squads are 10 men with special and heavy weapon" motif that has been around since Rogue Trader.

Consequently Marines are frozen in time as the 40k universe changes around them.

Of course it doesn't help that the bolter is a pretty poor weapon, and that Marines don't have the "rapid fire" rule from second that actually allowed them to gun down armies who outnumbered them two to one.

Basically to make Marines competitive they'd have to completely rethink how Marines are supposed to work.

"Of course it doesn't help that the bolter is a pretty poor weapon, and that Marines don't have the "rapid fire" rule from second that actually allowed them to gun down armies who outnumbered them two to one. "

The bolter was so bad in 2nd that this didn't help at all. But I get your drift.

It's true to say that I had one game of second edition and I never did get to fire a bolter as my Grey Hunters were incinerated by a Hellhound.

Man of the match was my Wolf Lord with terminator armour with thunder hammer and storm shield, warp jump and combat drugs.

He ran up to that Hellhound and with his six automatically armour penetrating attacks caused it to explode scattering right off the table.

Then third edition came along. *sigh*

Martel732 wrote:
"Of course it doesn't help that the bolter is a pretty poor weapon, and that Marines don't have the "rapid fire" rule from second that actually allowed them to gun down armies who outnumbered them two to one. "

The bolter was so bad in 2nd that this didn't help at all. But I get your drift.

From what I recall of 2nd edition the main thing then was that armor saves had penalties applied based on the weapon's strength (like in WHFB, no AP then) so you still had a good chance of killing people if you dropped their 4+ save to a 5+. That and if I'm not mistaken, Marines could move AND Rapid Fire so you could move and still shoot 24", or rapid fire if within 12". I don't 100% remember though it's been a long time, but I recall that whole move or shoot stuff only being in play from 3rd onward.

The problem was that thing like hormagaunts gave you a -2 to even hit because they moved "fast". I did not win with BA once out like 18ish games in 2nd edition because of Eldar/Tyranids/CSM/Orks w/pulsa rokkits.

Yeah 2nd ed armor saves were worse for marines than now. EVERYTHING reduced your saves. All you had to do was shoot a little & wildly overpriced marines droped like flys. Seriously. A squad of IG could in one round of shooting drop their own price in SMs. Just with lasguns!

Yeah, 2nd edition was by far the most insane over all version of this game. It was frankly quite stupid. 6th edition could have been magnificent, but GW decided to make crazy army books.

I don't understand how people can argue that making the game more balanced is some how going to kill casual play.

To a beginner in 40k the fact they have to search out what units are good or not before buying an army to make sure they don't lose every single game discourages casual just for fun play. The imbalance forces people to use net lists and heavily search the current meta if they want to be even a little competitive.

Saying you should just house rule it is like saying in online games people should either use mods or start running servers that block large portions of the game.

For those who play poker I think much of the reason people who complain about 40k instead of just leaving is because they are pot committed. For those who dont play poker pot committed is when you have already invested so much in this current hand of poker it is worth paying a little more to see the hand through even if you have little chance of winning just because you have already put so much in. In much the same way lots of people here have put lots of time and money into 40k, they keep buying the next unit and going along hoping things get better, each time they do they have invested that little bit more in the game and become even more pot committed.

Not to mention that many people love the 40k models, the licence and the game world in general while hating the how the game currently plays and how GW operates in general.

People who don't want to have to spend 20 minutes discussing how to play before playing a game are not socially awkward they just shouldn't feel the need to negotiate to play a game. You simply shouldn't have to do that with a well built game. Games like Poker, Chess, Checkers, Football and Rugby don't need a large discussion before playing. You just play within a few seconds of sorting out the tiniest details. 40k shouldn't need any more than discussing the points you wan't to play at. I am often surprised at the amount people feel the need to defend GW's lazyness when they try to make their customers do their job for them.