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.

Lanrak wrote:




Does NOT mean every other gamer out there is happy to do this.When other rule sets tend to deliver much better rules in terms of clarity brevity and elegance.

I am not claiming every other gamer out there is happy. I am claiming some gamers out there are happy, and NOT every gamer would be happy if Warhammer 40K were to change "back" (or more to be other rule sets) because they enjoy the current direction. They play Warhammer 40K because of the very things that set it apart from the other rule sets you ask it emulate.

And, while I hope you see the positives of Warhammer 40K and I certainly don't want to drive anyone away, I don't get the logic why anyone would want to change 40K to be like "other rule sets" when other rule sets with the qualities you seek already exist. It would simply diminish the gaming scene, as now we have A (Warhammer 40K as it currently is) and B ("other rule sets that appeal to you"), whereas afterwards we'd only have B ("other rule sets that appeal to you, including the revised Warhammer 40K"), leaving all the people that enjoy A out in the cold.

 Zweischneid wrote:

I am not claiming every other gamer out there is happy. I am claiming some gamers out there are happy, and NOT every gamer would be happy if Warhammer 40K were to change "back" (or more to be other rule sets) because they enjoy the current direction. They play Warhammer 40K because of the very things that set it apart from the other rule sets you ask it emulate.

And, while I hope you see the positives of Warhammer 40K and I certainly don't want to drive anyone away, I don't get the logic why anyone would want to change 40K to be like "other rule sets" when other rule sets with the qualities you seek already exist. It would simply diminish the gaming scene, as now we have A (Warhammer 40K as it currently is) and B ("other rule sets that appeal to you"), whereas afterwards we'd only have B ("other rule sets that appeal to you, including the revised Warhammer 40K"), leaving all the people that enjoy A out in the cold.

So you want 40k to be a game that contains: excessive rules(how many movement types do we have, and how many of these have their own unique exceptions? As compared to a' movement stat?), excessive dice rolling (roll to hit, wound, armour save, fnp/etc)- 4 rolls to resolve an issue ( and three of those answer the sane bloody question - does what hit you kill you?) when other games (warmachine, infinity, heck even dnd!)use 2 rolls to accomplish this, excessive bloated, abstract and counter intuitive mechanics (how you use ap to determine if you get through infantry armour, but strength to get through vehicle armour, and how an s10 ap6 lance weapon will melt a land raider, but will in all likelihood bounce off a fire warrior or guardsman) while other games use a universal damage system that is both intuitive, and yet works for all unit types. Then you've got the multiple saves thing. Marine in cover uses either his cover or his armour. He uses armour, and his cover disappears. He uses cover,and armour no longer exists. What? One would assume that cover and armour would stack and would be greater than the sum of their parts. Other games integrate cover in a far better and more intuitive manner? Infinity does it. Warmachine does it. Flames of war does it. 40k used to, and they got rid of it fir the current clunky and counter intuitive monstrosity. Yeah, cheers. Compared to the streamlined beauty that is infinity, the gw systems are dinosaurs.

Deadnight wrote:


So you want 40k to be a game that contains: excessive rules(how many movement types do we have, and how many of these have their own unique exceptions? As compared to a' movement stat?), excessive dice rolling (roll to hit, wound, armour save, fnp/etc)- 4 rolls to resolve an issue ( and three of those answer the sane bloody question - does what hit you kill you?) when other games (warmachine, infinity, heck even dnd!)use 2 rolls to accomplish this, excessive bloated, abstract and counter intuitive mechanics (how you use ap to determine if you get through infantry armour, but strength to get through vehicle armour, and how an s10 ap6 lance weapon will melt a land raider, but will in all likelihood bounce off a fire warrior or guardsman) while other games use a universal damage system that is both intuitive, and yet works for all unit types. Then you've got the multiple saves thing. Marine in cover uses either his cover or his armour. He uses armour, and his cover disappears. He uses cover,and armour no longer exists. What? One would assume that cover and armour would stack and would be greater than the sum of their parts. Other games integrate cover in a far better and more intuitive manner? Infinity does it. Warmachine does it. Flames of war does it. 40k used to, and they got rid of it fir the current clunky and counter intuitive monstrosity. Yeah, cheers. Compared to the streamlined beauty that is infinity, the gw systems are dinosaurs.

Well, "complexity" is often what makes a game and what people enjoy about a game.

People brought up X-Wing several times. X-Wing clearly has "needlessly" convoluted rules with all those silly movement templates and ship-facings, etc.. Could movement in X-Wing by redesigned "in terms of clarity brevity and elegance" by simply placing ships "Warhammer-40K-style" within 6" and don't bother about facing?

Probably.

But it would surely gut the game of what makes the game the game it is. It would take away the very thing that people who enjoy X-Wing enjoy about the game, even though they might appear "excessive bloated, abstract and counter-intuitive" to a gamer who just wants to place their models where they like without using 20 silly templates.

But that doesn't give anyone the right to go into the X-Wing forums to preach on and on about how X-Wing should change their "bloated" movement rules to the "streamlined beauty" of Warhammer 40K "just put your mini anywhere in 6 inch", because that would be "better for everyone".

While simpler alternatives to movement than the rules currently used in X-Wing are readily available, it's the more complex movement rules that X-Wing uses, that make it the game it is and the reason many people enjoy it.

Same with Warhammer 40K.

So you enjoy excessive, cluttered and counter intuitive rules. And this is a good thing? Objectively, now?

Complexity =\= Complicated.

Complex rules allow for many interactions, options and outcomes, complicated rules are ponderous, counter intuitive, and needlessly dense.

40K in its current incarnation is probably the most complicated mainstream ruleset around, which pretty much decimates any complexity it might offer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that X Wing "example" is so painfully thin in merit, it isn't even worth discussing, as anyone who thinks you have a point is probably unable to figure out how to turn a computer on to get involved in the discussion.

Deadnight wrote:
So you enjoy excessive, cluttered and counter intuitive rules. And this is a good thing? Objectively, now?

I enjoy Warhammer 40K 6th Edition. I am not the only one that does, or GW would be bankrupt. Are the rules perfect? No, but they are better than most other games. Certainly better than Infinity, for example.

Even if you disagree, I see no reason why we cannot have both Warhammer 40K and Infinity to cater to both type of players, rather than turning Warhammer 40K into Infinity (or Infinity into Warhammer 40K) and make the wargaming hobby a smaller, lesser place for everyone.

@ Zweischneid.
You do realize everyone wants to keep the cool 40k artwork and narrative.
And everyone wants the game play to be in synergy with the inspiring background.

We just want to change the instructions to play the game to make the experience of playing the game MORE enjoyable for everyone.

IF newbs have more enjoyable pick up games that means MORE people stick around to become vets.This means more diversity in opponents and armies in the pool of the 40k games actually played. And with more players, there would be an increase in sales volumes, and a slowing down in price increases.

How can this be a bad thing for anyone?


Simple examples of 40k rules improvements.

Writing clearly defined rules.
Current 40k.
'Well if you do this action, this ALWAYS happens sometimes.But sometimes this other thing will ALWAYS happen instead.'

Revised 40k
When you perform action X,event Y will happen.However,if in specific situation W, an exception is made and event Z happens instead.


Writing inclusive rules.
Current 40k
Core Rules for standard infantry, with 148 exceptions for the other 14 unit types.(Special rules for every unit, does not make every unit special, just the rules overly complicated. )

Revised 40k.
Core rules that cover ALL basic unit interaction.(Movement , shooting assault.etc.)
Special abilities expressed as LIMITED special exceptions to the core rules.

Just for clarity can we use the following definitions.
Complexity, the amount of functions within a system.(How much you can choose to do in a game.)

Complication, the amount of instructions/operations required to achieve a specific function.

Current 40k has lots of complication.(lots of pages of rules to cover single game functions.)
And not a lot of game play complexity.

It is very possible to reduce the level of complication in 40k 6th ed rules,without loosing ANY game play complexity.
(In fact if you reduce the level of complication in the rule set, you could INCREASE the level of game play complexity.)

 Zweischneid wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
So you enjoy excessive, cluttered and counter intuitive rules. And this is a good thing? Objectively, now?

I enjoy Warhammer 40K 6th Edition. I am not the only one that does, or GW would be bankrupt. Are the rules perfect? No, but they are better than most other games. Certainly better than Infinity, for example.

I'd really like to see your criteria for the definition of "better."

Or do you actually mean "I prefer them" which is so far away from what you appear to be trying to say to be ludicrous?

Even if you disagree, I see no reason why we cannot have both Warhammer 40K and Infinity to cater to both type of players, rather than turning Warhammer 40K into Infinity (or Infinity into Warhammer 40K) and make the wargaming hobby a smaller, lesser place for everyone.

Sigh.

Nobody, NOBODY, is trying to turn 40K into anything but 40K. People are saying, including you, that improvements could be made to make it better for everyone, whether they wish to play casually or competitively. How on earth are you failing to grasp this?

 azreal13 wrote:


Nobody, NOBODY, is trying to turn 40K into anything but 40K. People are saying, including you, that improvements could be made to make it better for everyone, whether they wish to play casually or competitively. How on earth are you failing to grasp this?

And I am telling you that a rule-set design to better cater to "competitive play" has, both in other games and in Warhammer 40K, created a very unhealthy and enjoyable mindset among gamers that put slavish adherence to the rules over and above all considerations, including narrative, mutual enjoyment and, in some rare cases, basic manners and social awareness. Strict "competitive-RAW" game-play should be one variant among many, but not the default (because there should never be one default) way to play the game.

The recent changes to Warhammer 40K have greatly improved the game (with the game being far more than "just the rules"). Similar changes would, in my humble opinion, also greatly improve Infinity, Malifaux, etc.., (though I am gonna leave Infinity, Malifaux, etc.. fans to make up their minds about that one).

That's the simple observation.

Warhammer 40K in 2002 to 2012 = dying, dry, boring, overrun by players who lack tact and imagination, approaching games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe.
Warhammer 40K in 2013/2014 = awesome. Not perfect (what ever is "perfect"?), but still pure awesome.

If you think the current Warhammer 40K isn't awesome and your "vision" of what Warhammer 40K "should be" is coloured by 4th or 5th edition or other dry games like Infinity, than I want no part of that.

And again, I am not trying to "convince you". You're free to disagree with me. Just don't be so arrogant to assume that your preferences are the "universal good" and your dislikes are the "universal bad". They are not.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Warhammer 40K in 2002 to 2012 = dying, dry, boring, overrun by players who lack tact and imagination, approaching games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe.
Warhammer 40K in 2013/2014 = awesome. Not perfect (what ever is "perfect"?), but still pure awesome.

Are you contending that changes in the game from the first case to the latter case have driven off players? Because that's exactly how your post reads.

Really, this and the other thread you betray a very snobbish attitude with comments along the lines of those who want the game should just leave, other players are lacking in imagination, tact and uninspired. Your exclusive and superior attitude is really doing nobody any favours, least of all the hobby itself.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Just don't be so arrogant to assume that your preferences are the "universal good" and your dislikes are the "universal bad". They are not.

And yet again, no-one you're attacking is basing their desire for better rules and better balance on setting their desires above other types of players. They're basing it on the reasonable idea that better rules and better balance don't negatively affect anyone.

All you keep doing is asserting that they do, but failing to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

Dude, if you need the most complicated, bloated, poorly written, wooly ruleset that has ever existed for 40K in order to railroad players into playing the game "your way" and have up until this point, been unable to find anyone with just the smidge of intelligence and creativity needed in order to mix things up, try different things and make the game more "cinematic" in previous editions, I feel sorry for you, but that speaks more to the players in your vicinity.

Your complete failure to grasp that literally everything you cite as good about 6th would still be possible with a more clearly written, balanced set of rules and codexes? That suggests you personally lack the creativity and need Workshop to do your thinking for you.

I love how you cite Infinity as a "dry" ruleset, yet it allows for situations and actions of greater depth and storytelling than 40K comes close to, despite all its protestations of being the cinematic edition.

Just for full disclosure, how much Infinity, Warmachine, Malifaux or X Wing have you played? Or are you "doing an xruslanx" and merely claiming 40K's superiority with little or no knowledge of those other games and how they play? Please note I mean actual, real world, first hand experience, not information you've gleaned from the Net and incorporated into your views.

knas ser wrote:


And yet again, no-one you're attacking is basing their desire for better rules and better balance on setting their desires above other types of players. They're basing it on the reasonable idea that better rules and better balance don't negatively affect anyone.

All you keep doing is asserting that they do, but failing to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

I am basing my argument on the reasonable idea that a bit of civil pre-game communication doesn't negatively affect anyone, while simultaneously broadening the spectrum of play-styles the game can cater too immensely,

Yet you keep saying that this is somehow hurting you or people who would want to use the game to go at it in a tooth-and-nails competitive tournament, but fail to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

I have no objection to you doing whatever you like with the rules. In a broad, open-minded and diverse 40K-community, facilitated by a bit of pre-game chat to clarify mutual expectations, you can do with the rules whatever you please.

Your idea of a bit of civil pre-game communication is a fallacy.

Firstly, it shouldn't be needed at all.

Secondly, what's your plan B when we both have valid but contradictory interpretations of the same rule?

Oh. Right. 4+ it.

Zweischneid wrote:

I enjoy Warhammer 40K 6th Edition. I am not the only one that does, or GW would be bankrupt. Are the rules perfect? No, but they are better than most other games. Certainly better than Infinity, for example.

they're "better"? may i respectfully disagree, and point out you are stating an opinion as a fact. For what its worth, infinity is a technically brilliant game, with hug depth, tactics and options. its well FAQed, and its rules set are both well written, and clear/precise. All of which GW fails at with regard to their games. its "got" that cinematic flair in spades without needing to try. the rules, aside from the clunky translation (its originally a spanish game) are brilliant, intuitive, and the interactive nature of the game (AROs, and the fact that "its always your turn") mean you are always a part of the game. i can walk away from a game of 40k for the best part of an hour while my opponent plays his stuff and i do nothing but look at it. No thanks. Infinity engages on all levels.

Zweischneid wrote:

Even if you disagree, I see no reason why we cannot have both Warhammer 40K and Infinity to cater to both type of players, rather than turning Warhammer 40K into Infinity (or Infinity into Warhammer 40K) and make the wargaming hobby a smaller, lesser place for everyone.

We are not turning 40k into infinity. or vice versa. But if Corvus Belli can produce a brilliant, thoughful, interactive, tactically deep and cinematic game with great balance ((and note, its a game that functions as both a competitive game, and as a narrative experience), i fail to see why its "wrong" to ask for GW to approach their own rules writing in the same manner. Clear rules will help. Less clunky mechanics will help. Less of the counter-intuitive logic-fails in game design will help. having the game engine not based on a napoleonic port from the 1980s will help. Better proofreading, and playstesting will help. None of that will prevent 40k from being 40k. None of that stops your Space Marines from engaging in a heroic last stand. None of that stops you from trying to tell a story. How does having a better, more proffessional, and more "serious" attitude to game desgn make the wargaming a smaller, lesser place for everyone. bad games frustrate people, drive people away, and fail to attract more.

I repeat: taking the game design seriously, and sorting out a proper engine to work it with will not subtract from 40k in any way. and everyone benefits.

Saying anything else is both snobbish, short sighted and extremly narrow minded.

Zweischneid wrote:
And I am telling you that a rule-set design to better cater to "competitive play" has, both in other games and in Warhammer 40K, created a very unhealthy and enjoyable mindset among gamers that put slavish adherence to the rules over and above all considerations, including narrative, mutual enjoyment and, in some rare cases, basic manners and social awareness. Strict "competitive-RAW" game-play should be one variant among many, but not the default (because there should never be one default) way to play the game.

how about a more professional rules set? You know, one without the shoddy game mechanics that litter 40k?

as to an "unhealthy" attitude, thats entirely down to perspective, not fact, and its uite a skewed one, if you ask me.

I'll agree. competitive games should be one type of game among many. I play them as one type of game, among many. But saying that focusing on professional "serious" quality rules, with a proper Quality approach, and solid mechanics that dont cause confusion and issues hurts narrative, mutual enjoyment, basic manners etc is false. If you ask me, its the shocking lack of direction within the game, backed up with an equally poor foundation of rules mechanics that has contributed hugely to the fault lines within the community. when i got into 40k, there was a line between "fluff", and "power". Its only since i played other games that i realsed that both these separate things were only artificially separated by the shocking design that created them. fluffy, narrative games that tell cool stores, and competitive games dont have to come at each others expense. a solid, serious and proper professional Quality approach to rules design helps both. and thats what we're asking for.

Zweischneid wrote:

Warhammer 40K in 2002 to 2012 = dying, dry, boring, overrun by players who lack tact and imagination, approaching games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe.
Warhammer 40K in 2013/2014 = awesome. Not perfect (what ever is "perfect"?), but still pure awesome.

so i, as a player who started in 2003 "lacked tact and imagination", and "approached games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe"? that takes the snob right up to 11 bud. Seriously not cool. this comes across as an extremely narrow minded, dismissive and an utterly contemptible opinion of thousands of players who you dont even know. Yeah, after this im not bothering with you any more. Frankly, your attitude stinks.

Zweischneid wrote:
If you think the current Warhammer 40K isn't awesome and your "vision" of what Warhammer 40K "should be" is coloured by 4th or 5th edition or other dry games like Infinity, than I want no part of that.

40k could be awesome. its just let down by horrible game mechanics and lack of balance. If anything, games like warmachine and infinity have shown me how far short of the mark GW falls, and everything it could be. i still dream about Andy Chambers flawed but brilliant Starship Troopers game that was what he wanted 40k to be for 4th ed. We got what we got. In comparison, its a let down. just with these basic mechanics, you'd have a far more interesting game.

Zweischneid wrote:
And again, I am not trying to "convince you". You're free to disagree with me. Just don't be so arrogant to assume that your preferences are the "universal good" and your dislikes are the "universal bad". They are not.

And yet, heres you constantly stating opinion as fact as well. So touche.

EDIT: Firstly, you skipped my question to you. Please answer it:

 Zweischneid wrote:

Warhammer 40K in 2002 to 2012 = dying, dry, boring, overrun by players who lack tact and imagination, approaching games with an uninspired disregard for the richness of the universe.
Warhammer 40K in 2013/2014 = awesome. Not perfect (what ever is "perfect"?), but still pure awesome.

Are you contending that changes in the game from the first case to the latter case have driven off players? Because that's exactly how your post reads.

In light of your barbed comment about "who is driving players away?", I think the above is very interesting.

EDIT EDIT: Also, whilst on the subject of skipping over the questions people are asking you, I'd be really interested in you answering this one from Azrael13 that you also skipped over:

Just for full disclosure, how much Infinity, Warmachine, Malifaux or X Wing have you played? Or are you "doing an xruslanx" and merely claiming 40K's superiority with little or no knowledge of those other games and how they play? Please note I mean actual, real world, first hand experience, not information you've gleaned from the Net and incorporated into your views.

Please give us an honest answer to the above. You've made many, many dismissive comments to other games and actually based arguments on their perceived lack of quality (by you). So you should answer the above.

 Zweischneid wrote:

knas ser wrote:


And yet again, no-one you're attacking is basing their desire for better rules and better balance on setting their desires above other types of players. They're basing it on the reasonable idea that better rules and better balance don't negatively affect anyone.

All you keep doing is asserting that they do, but failing to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

I am basing my argument on the reasonable idea that a bit of civil pre-game communication doesn't negatively affect anyone, while simultaneously broadening the spectrum of play-styles the game can cater too immensely,

No, you're repeatedly implying that problems with the rules or balance are not significant because they can be mitigated by players fixing issues themselves by negotiating what to play with and how before each game. Furthermore, you keep saying that improvements to the rules and balance will negatively affect things without showing any remotely convincing case as to why this should be. What you just wrote above, is very far from an accurate summation of what you've actually been arguing throughout this thread and others.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Yet you keep saying that this is somehow hurting you or people who would want to use the game to go at it in a tooth-and-nails competitive tournament, but fail to build any convincing case as to why that should be. Repeatedly.

You parody my words, but without the sense behind them. I can back up what I wrote about your position and have done throughout this thread. Now lets see you back up how you just described my position. Show me anywhere in this thread or the others where I have said:

Pre-game discussion is hurting me or other people.

All I've ever argued is that it is not a substitute for poor rules and strongly objected to your dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with you that it is as "lacking social skills".

Said that I'm talking only about "tooth-and-nails competitive tournament".

I've been explicitly inclusive throughout, saying that I want to improve things for both competitive and casual players.

Where I haven't backed up my position with a reasoned case why it is so.

There's nothing I've said anywhere that I haven't given explanation for unless it is a trivial fact that anyone here would know or quickly grasp.

Come on. You copy my words and try to turn it around on me. But that doesn't work because I'm not guilty of these things. Back it up. You've made an accusation above. Try and prove it. Try. I invite it! Show me where I have done what you say I've done.

 Zweischneid wrote:

I have no objection to you doing whatever you like with the rules.

White man speak with forked tongue! What you mean is you have no objection to small groups of individuals doing things there own way so long as nothing changes in the actual published rules. But you've been objecting hugely and dogmatically to any suggestion of changes to the published rules.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Even if you disagree, I see no reason why we cannot have both Warhammer 40K and Infinity to cater to both type of players, rather than turning Warhammer 40K into Infinity (or Infinity into Warhammer 40K) and make the wargaming hobby a smaller, lesser place for everyone.

The point you keep missing (or deliberately ignoring) is that many of the things that make 40k a bad game for competitive players don't make it better for other types of players. Having ambiguous rules that lead to constant arguing (or 4+ rolls to decide who gets to be right) don't make the game better for anyone. Casual and narrative players would benefit just as much from clear rules like other games have. Likewise for game balance. A version of 40k that had better balance like other games would be better for competitive play and better for casual/narrative/whatever play.

Your argument here is essentially "I don't see why we can't have a restaurant that serves rotting food with shards of broken glass in it, why does everyone have to be the same and serve edible food". And the sad thing is I'm not sure if you actually believe it, or if you just enjoy annoying everyone with it.

 Zweischneid wrote:
And I am telling you that a rule-set design to better cater to "competitive play" has, both in other games and in Warhammer 40K, created a very unhealthy and enjoyable mindset among gamers that put slavish adherence to the rules over and above all considerations, including narrative, mutual enjoyment and, in some rare cases, basic manners and social awareness. Strict "competitive-RAW" game-play should be one variant among many, but not the default (because there should never be one default) way to play the game.

So your argument here is that the game should be as broken as possible so that the players have to work together to fix it instead of just saying "hey, let's play a game of 40k" without the ritual pre-game masochism of trying to agree on which version of the game they want to play? How exactly is this better than a game where two players with different mindsets can just sit down and play a game together and each get what they want out of it?

 Zweischneid wrote:
People brought up X-Wing several times. X-Wing clearly has "needlessly" convoluted rules with all those silly movement templates and ship-facings, etc.. Could movement in X-Wing by redesigned "in terms of clarity brevity and elegance" by simply placing ships "Warhammer-40K-style" within 6" and don't bother about facing?

This is a joke, right? Even for you this is just bad. The maneuver templates and ship facings are a fundamental part of X-Wing's gameplay. Taking them out would be like taking the entire shooting and assault phases out of 40k and just having the game consist of moving models around the table. Contrast this with 40k, where GW's guiding principle seems to be "never use one rule if you can make five rules to do the same thing".

Same with Warhammer 40K.

No, it's not at all the same with 40k. What exactly is the point of having a USR that literally does nothing besides grant two other USRs? What is the point of having the Fear rule and then giving the only armies that don't already get slaughtered in combat anyway ATSKNF, which ignores Fear entirely. What is the point of having a wound allocation system that seems to exist for the sole purpose of enabling barrage sniping (and don't say realism, because it isn't realistic)? Why do we need both MCs and walkers when whether a given model gets rules as a MC or a walker seems to be decided by a coin flip? Etc. These things aren't important parts of 40k's gameplay, they're just extra clutter that gets in the way of the fun parts.

 Peregrine wrote:
And the sad thing is I'm not sure if you actually believe it, or if you just enjoy annoying everyone with it.

I've been giving this some serious consideration too. The only other poster I've seen make this argument to a similar extent is on record as saying they deliberately take contrary positions in discussions to get a rise out of people.

I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt in this case (Zwei doesn't disappear periodically only to reappear with a new identity for instance) but at this point I can only attribute his opinion to a lack of information on his part (because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate)

I wonder if 40k generates a sort of 'Stockholm Syndrome '.(Defending the people that 'wronged 'you.)

I spent a small fortune on these bits of plastic,glue, paint, brushes and books, being told it would result in letting me play an awesome game.
However, it turns out either we have been conned by smarmy salesman, OR I just did not try hard enough to have fun...

If I spend more time and money I am SURE I will get the fun I was promised.

Now I try REALLY hard , like hours and hours of extra work fixing the game so its fun for me.
See everyone , they did not sell me a 'dud' after all !

Whew - this sure got off topic!