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.

 Fafnir wrote:
If the entire method of having fun requires disregarding the written rules to write your own, then why the hell do you buy and play their games in the first place?

It's not required. Fun is subjective.

I am using this as an example in response to the previous poster's 'issue'.

I am not disagreeing that GW's rules could use some work, or that this poses a problem for some aspects of the game. I just don't think it's nearly as big of an issue as some people make it out to be. Unless the entire demographic/way you play this game is against random pickups, who all play competetive/net lists- it's really a non-issue. Will there be balance issues? Most definitely. What game doesn't encounter this?

The point is only under very specific circumstances is this game literally not functional at a basic level. If you don't enjoy this, the game isn't for you. For the rest of us that are trying to forge the game into something more enjoyable, there are options available.

 Orock wrote:

My question is this. How does ostracizing the tournament/competitive fans benefit GW in the long run?

False Premise. These new releases (escalation and stronghold assault) will have almost zero impact on the tournament scene in the long run. Other than some smaller store tournaments, very few tournaments will use these rules in the short, mid, and long run.

Wikipedia definition: A beer and pretzels game is a game which is humorous and light on rules and strategy, usually containing many random elements.

Humorous: Orks everything else, not so much. There are many elements that are plain goofy

Light on rules: Not so sure on this one, still many rules seem to have little impact on the outcome soooo... maybe.

Light on strategy: Seems more focus on army lists than what is done in the ebb and flow of the game so it may have a point.

Usually containing many random elements: Right on the money.

Enough rules that maybe go heavy on the pretzels and less on the beer...

 kronk wrote:

 Orock wrote:

My question is this. How does ostracizing the tournament/competitive fans benefit GW in the long run?

False Premise. These new releases (escalation and stronghold assault) will have almost zero impact on the tournament scene in the long run. Other than some smaller store tournaments, very few tournaments will use these rules in the short, mid, and long run.

So people with the 6.5/7ed what ever they want to all it, can not use half the book. How is not having rules issues, a bad thing for anybody.

 Talizvar wrote:
Wikipedia definition: A beer and pretzels game is a game which is humorous and light on rules and strategy, usually containing many random elements.

Humorous: Orks everything else, not so much. There are many elements that are plain goofy

Light on rules: Not so sure on this one, still many rules seem to have little impact on the outcome soooo... maybe.

Light on strategy: Seems more focus on army lists than what is done in the ebb and flow of the game so it may have a point.

Usually containing many random elements: Right on the money.

Enough rules that maybe go heavy on the pretzels and less on the beer...

Although certainly not light on rules, the game has shifted to be more 'simplistic' than previously (because modifiers and math are hard!) to the bloated 'this unit has 15 usrs- cross reference multiple books to find out what it does' methodology. It's no wonder people complain about confusing rules interactions- they built them into the game by design.

 Fafnir wrote:
If the entire method of having fun requires disregarding the written rules to write your own, then why the hell do you buy and play their games in the first place?

Because it provides you a basic framework and concept of the game, which you can then rewrite to your heart's content to fit what you would rather do.

You should see what I've done to the horrible, horrible, broken-ass, unplaytested powers that FFG released in 5 books for the Dark Heresy RPG.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
If the entire method of having fun requires disregarding the written rules to write your own, then why the hell do you buy and play their games in the first place?

Because it provides you a basic framework and concept of the game, which you can then rewrite to your heart's content to fit what you would rather do.

You should see what I've done to the horrible, horrible, broken-ass, unplaytested powers that FFG released in 5 books for the Dark Heresy RPG.

Which again, GW encourages in the tome that so many refuse to deviate from. Each edition has also progressively become 'less competitive' through the introduction of more random elements. I am not sure how much clearer GW or any advocates of house rules (aka the game is pretty damn fun if you tweak the broken stuff) needs to be about this point.

If you absolutely have no environment or people that share this vision or purpose for the game as it stands, that is unfortunate, but it has always been this way (as intended), and denying this fact won't make you enjoy this game any further.

You can do the same thing with every other rule set. It doesn't excuse the book and the game from incredibly basic standards, proofreading, and playtesting.

Warhammer 40,000 is not a beer and pretzels game. It never has been, never will be. BloodBowl is by far a better example of that!

With the whole hobby side of the game, added to the copious rules editions. All the Codexes, Supplements, Expansions, point to the contrary of Warhammer 40,000 being anything but a simple game, what so ever.

 Blacksails wrote:
You can do the same thing with every other rule set. It doesn't excuse the book and the game from incredibly basic standards, proofreading, and playtesting.

And here's the thing that clinches it. If you're going to pay (one second, looking up the current price) $90 (holy hell) for a rulebook and then $60 (Jesus Christ) just for the basic supplement needed to play my army, you'd sure as hell expect those rules to be so meticulously well written, formatted, and edited that the game should have no problem functioning on its own, and should have the capacity to be interesting and engaging, before any house rules.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
You can do the same thing with every other rule set. It doesn't excuse the book and the game from incredibly basic standards, proofreading, and playtesting.

And here's the thing that clinches it. If you're going to pay (one second, looking up the current price) $90 (holy hell) for a rulebook and then $60 (Jesus Christ) just for the basic supplement needed to play my army, you'd sure as hell expect those rules to be so meticulously well written, formatted, and edited that the game should have no problem functioning on its own, and should have the capacity to be interesting and engaging, before any house rules.

Yup.

Difference between competitive and non competitive people aside, I sincerely hope everyone believes 40k has serious room for improvement for any and every type of player.

XenosTerminus wrote:

Will there be balance issues? Most definitely. What game doesn't encounter this?

You're absolutely right.
every other game on the market encounters this.

Every other game on the market also tries to fix it and keep the gap between casual and competitive lists small enough that there is no real distinction.
GW however just continue to use the words 'narrative gaming' to try and deflect the issue.

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW however just continue to use the words 'narrative gaming' to try and deflect the issue.

"Forge the narrative!" those simple words put the onus on the players rather than GW to "make the game work".
Too bad this does not translate well between two strangers trying to play within the rule set.
With your friends it may be possible but still find areas of contention with the more "aggressive" players.

XenosTerminus wrote:
The game really does favor structured/more narrative play, but then again that is the way GW has always intended the game be played.

No it is not the way GW has always intended, they just backed off from trying because they realised it takes work. And 6th edition was born where a few stupid forge a narrative boxes managed to convince many people that the game where 2 people play their armies to win is not competitive one.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Right- and if your buddy is a level headed person with the same basic goal in mind (to have fun)- this would be easy to fix via some simple house ruling. Nobody would have to buy anything else, and both players could enjoy their lovingly crafted armies.

So 100$ brb, 50 codex, hundreds on models and hours on painting, and then I am to write house rules for their game? Then maybe, erm, playtest them, doing exactly what their job is when they charge you for rules?

Because GW says so.

XenosTerminus wrote:
This is an example of a situation that is not problematic

..assuming you have friends you play with, you have too much time, you don't really care for strategic and tactical aspects of the game, you don't care for a just outcome based on outsmarting your opponent, you don't respect your own money etc

So 100$ brb, 50 codex, hundreds on models and hours on painting, and then I am to write house rules for their game? Then maybe, erm, playtest them, doing exactly what their job is when they charge you for rules?

GW's job is done at that point. As they tell you, they're a model company. They could care less what you do with your models once you buy them, though obviously playing a game of 40K would be the most-preferable.

But if you want to, you can use them in other games, put them on the shelf, do stop-motion animation with them (sorta), set up dioramas of battles going on with them. Eat them. Set them on fire. Smash them with hammers.

GW doesn't really care, they're a model company.

They are a model company. That writes rules. For 25 years. Badly.

As they tell you, they're a model company. They could care less what you do with your models once you buy them, though obviously playing a game of 40K would be the most-preferable

That explains why their rules are for free. No .. wait , they aren't .

That charges a metric feth ton for rules.

That is why spending a feth-ton on their rules is what they would prefer you to do... but nothing says you have to do that.

Buy the models and use them in dice-and-paper RPGs, like I do. Buy the models and use them in other games. Buy the models and do whatever you want, as I previously said, because no one is putting a gun to your head and making you play Warhammer 40,000 with them.

Could the rules be better? Of course! But GW is not going to do that while they claim to be a model company, not a wargame company.

So pickup games are still the issue, unless the other person is willing to relent a bit and adjust things (I know that this may require the awkward situation of conversing with a human being through a medium other than the internet, but sometimes social interaction is necessary).

Yeah and those talks look like this . I don't like X , he says no . Now I can leave the table to him so that he can get a game and I wait till another table and opponent that wants to play my way is free . And that is with simple things , because if the problem is a collective one , like no FW . I may stand for months or years and never get a game in . But I like those fairy tales how people can make other people do something with talking and not enforcing rules. That magical world seems to be different from what I see everyday.

Buy the models and use them in dice-and-paper RPGs, like I do

But only few systems require the use of models for RPG and even in those that do it is always optional .

. Buy the models and use them in other games

I would like to see you try to play a pick up game or a tournament of inifinity using marine models .

. Buy the models and do whatever you want, as I previously said, because no one is putting a gun to your head and making you play Warhammer 40,000 with them.

Other then communities being generaly antagonistic of each other , not accepting proxies or counts as outside of their own system or self sculpts . Yeah besides that you can use them for any game you want . The chance of it happening is actual world is the same as trying to use a cardboard cut out model .

 Psienesis wrote:
That is why spending a feth-ton on their rules is what they would prefer you to do... but nothing says you have to do that.

Buy the models and use them in dice-and-paper RPGs, like I do. Buy the models and use them in other games. Buy the models and do whatever you want, as I previously said, because no one is putting a gun to your head and making you play Warhammer 40,000 with them.

Could the rules be better? Of course! But GW is not going to do that while they claim to be a model company, not a wargame company.

They can claim they are just a model company but that doesn't make it so. Even if models are their bread and butter that doesnt mean they can just brush off making expensive but poor rules by saying "we are not a rules company"

I dont play 40k with the models. I dont even buy the models anymore. They priced me and I am getting rid of most of my 40k stuff. Just keeping some character models to paint.

I don't think there's any way to convince me that mutilators, 1Ksons, hellbrutes, howling banshees and any other unit so awful that you'd have to be daft to bring, is beneficial to the game. People won't buy those models because they suck and if the codex has too many sucky units, the codex becomes un-fun. So you won't sell codex's and might lose players.

There's a difference between a "little imbalance" and overpowered vs completely useless.

Also, even for a non-competative person, going into a fight knowing your going to lose or losing every game is simply not fun. Of course its alright to lose a few games or even most games, but not every game. That's not fun and that's the whole point of this is to have fun. So you have to find players with play styles somewhat compatible with yours.

On new year's eve, I went to a party that had some small 40k games going on. On one of the later games, one of the players was wasted, and some of his tactical advise was hilarious.

There was also pretzels, but I ate them all earlier.

 carlos13th wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
That is why spending a feth-ton on their rules is what they would prefer you to do... but nothing says you have to do that.

Buy the models and use them in dice-and-paper RPGs, like I do. Buy the models and use them in other games. Buy the models and do whatever you want, as I previously said, because no one is putting a gun to your head and making you play Warhammer 40,000 with them.

Could the rules be better? Of course! But GW is not going to do that while they claim to be a model company, not a wargame company.

They can claim they are just a model company but that doesn't make it so. Even if models are their bread and butter that doesnt mean they can just brush off making expensive but poor rules by saying "we are not a rules company"

I dont play 40k with the models. I dont even buy the models anymore. They priced me and I am getting rid of most of my 40k stuff. Just keeping some character models to paint.

Actually, they can. They did. That is GW's current stance. They are a model company, not a wargame rules company. Agree with it or don't, that's their stance. Whether that is going to change in the future or not is not for me to say. I'm simply pointing out that saying that they "can't" do this or "must" do that is... a fallacy, really. They can and have called themselves a model company as a way of handwaving away the problems of the 40K ruleset. Their continued withdrawal from any kind of tournament scene is further evidence that they don't design the game for such things. Their own battlereports and videos indicate that even the studio does not play "competitive" lists, but instead makes fluffy-fun lists to throw dice with.

I, personally, don't think they intended the game to be played between strangers at the FLGS. I think their intent was that you and your friends, people you know and hang out with on a regular basis, are going to be in the FLGS as a frequent hang-out (and this betrays the company's 1980s origins) and will have your own houserules, "gentlemen's agreements" and local scene that precludes people from doing the WAAC stuff, or allows for it and lets people go equally nuts with all kinds of crazy units... but is never going to have the hard-core tourny-winning lists going up against some new kid's first-time-player list.

I think their name contradicts themselves, they are called the GAMES workshop not the MODEL workshop, its a bit deceptive really since they are making less and less games nowdays and claim they are not a game makijg company but a model making company

It also doesn't help that, outside of their plastic production, the quality of their models has gone to fit more in line with Fisher Price than anything else.

GW can't please everyone. No company can.

Consumers will always find things to complain about.

Nobody here is saying they agree with corporate decisions GW makes, but many of you simply do not understand that this is GW's game, not yours. It ultimately their prerogative to do what they want with their IP.

Instead of sitting around in forums complaining whenever GW does literally ANYTHING, vote with your dollar. If this company/game is no longer something you want to support or play, regardless of what GW states their intentions are, find something 'better' to spend your time and money on. I understand a lot of people are upset because of how much they have put into the game, but complaining about it will not solve anything.

Make an effort to start up small groups of players to play games with. Try it changes to rules. Play narrative scenarios.

There are a lot of viable options and ways you can still enjoy this game if you are no longer finding what GW produces to be adequate (even though, again, it has been this way for over a decade).

An ice cream place that sells soda on the side would still be put into question if said soda has hair or fingernails on it. Even if they're just an "ice cream place" which happens to sell soda.

It's not an excuse to produce a gakky product and ask people's money for it and be immune to criticism because that's not "your forte".

Instead of sitting around in forums complaining whenever GW does literally ANYTHING, vote with your dollar.

You're assuming that people can't do both.

Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.

I really hate when people use that argument, thank you for finally putting into words why it's flawed. I want to love the game but I feel like GW don't want me to.
I might actually sig that if you don't mind.