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.

 LeadLegion wrote:
JPong you just said:

"Because it's all wishlisting. I want to be playing the same rules as everyone else, because that means I can go anywhere and play a game, not be confined to a specific group of people (who are probably friends but sometimes change is fun too) because I feel something is OP and should be banned. "

Which, to me sounds as though you're saying non_GW codixes shouldn't be allowed because you want to play the same game as anyone else. But then you say:

"Plenty of people have been saying "Play it this way or you are wrong." Plenty of people have been telling other people what to think. Plenty of people here, have been accusing people who have been helping people play this game for decades of being unhelpful."

Haven't you yourself just told us that you think allowing non-GW codices is wrong? Because you want to play the same rules as everyone else. Doesn't that mean that you yourself are also telling people what to think, and that the way they want to play the game is wrong?

I'm not trolling you here. I genuinely want to understand your viewpoint, but that last post of yours has very confused. If I've misinterpreted you, please let me know.

P.S If the guy has a D Weapon model and wants to play it, the solution in our group is simple: another players brings out his own D-Weapon list and both players get a game.

No I did not. I said I wouldn't play against one because of those reasons. People are free to play however they want.

I would like a ruleset where rule changes weren't required just to have a reasonable game. I want to be able to go into any store and play a game where we are all on the same terms without having an hour and a half long discussion on every rule bug there is. Hell, right now, there are people who could be playing using the entire rulebook as written and they are playing a different game than me, because of the FAQs that totally changed how certain things worked, because as written they were broken (LOS! being a prime example).

JPong wrote:
[So no argument against it making smaller groups? And you can't see how making an already niche hobby more niche is bad? And the group will continue to shrink down in size because people will leave and new people won't join. Joining this group has a new barrier to entry, you have to learn how they play the game (and it probably isn't written down) so you will randomly get rules thrown at you like "Oh yeah, we treat all the bottom floor windows as boarded up blocking LOS" (An actual houserule I have seen).

People will join though, but the group says "that's how we play". A new person may come in and bring a new discussion to the group over something they already discussed, maybe the group changes it's mind, maybe it doesn't. A person is just as likely to say "I like that idea" as they are to say "I hate that idea enough not to play". Part of the hobby is discussion and that group has laid down it's changes, they aren't set in stone but they are the current iteration and after a game or two most folks can easily remember a few tweaks here and here to a ruleset. If the new person finds the rules incompatible with their desired way to play they walk on by, no harm, no foul.

JPong wrote:
Seriously, if you are just going to continue to claim this, and not bother with context, then what's the point in arguing this.

Because even if that kind of naming and shaming isn't against site rules I'm pretty sure the mods don't want to see it because it could easily be interpreted as a personal attack and I respect that line, it doesn't mean it's not going on. Call it selection bias if you want, I say if you genuinely haven't noticed it you are lucky indeed.

JPong wrote:
I would like a ruleset where rule changes weren't required just to have a reasonable game.

And folks are arguing that game is 40k for them, or that they like 40k how it is as a framework and don't really want too much change, if it's not for you play a different game. Why cling so stoicly to a game who's system you dislike? They changed 40k to make it for them, you want 40k change for you.

 LeadLegion wrote:

"Plenty of people have been saying "Play it this way or you are wrong." Plenty of people have been telling other people what to think. Plenty of people here, have been accusing people who have been helping people play this game for decades of being unhelpful."

Haven't you yourself just told us that you think allowing non-GW codices is wrong? Because you want to play the same rules as everyone else. Doesn't that mean that you yourself are also telling people what to think, and that the way they want to play the game is wrong?

I don't think that he meant this rules-wise but more like attitude-wise. So what he is saying is something like this: "Play the game with all the official rules and leave your homebrew rules and restrictions in the trash bin." And then he is pointing out is that there are still people with this annoying (for him, at least) "B-but muh homebrew rules/restrictions!" approach and preach their ways as they were The Truth even though they aren't because they are messing up the system with non-official stuff.

 LeadLegion wrote:


That being said, I'll introduce myself a bit so that you have a better idea of where I'm coming from.

I'm 34
I started gaming when I was eight with WFB 3rd ed, red box D&D and 40K Rogue Trader.
My favorite edition remains Rogue Trader (which was also a very flawed system in terms of the holy grail of balance, but downright fun to play for all that).
Of editions 2-6, 6 has been my favorite. That being said, I only played about 4 games of 4th in total before rage quitting (not at the rules, but at the costs) and coming back for the tail end of 5th.
I have played (or currently play): Infinity, Malifaux, Blasters and Bulkheads, Warmachine, Hordes, Starship Troopers, In the Emperor's Name, WAB, Wastelands, Noble Armada, Judge Dredd, Void, Heavy Gear, Firestorm Armada, Mutant Chronicles, AT. And that's just the non-GW, non Fantasy Genre Games.
I'm a former TO.
I'm a former pod-caster.
I'm reliant on the wargames hobby for my livelihood and as such, keep up to date with as many new releases and rules-sets as possible.
I get my biggest kick out of gaming when it's viewed as a "co-operative" experience where neither player cares who wins, rather than a competitive one where the goal is winning.
But I am also a tournament player, because I enjoy that style of play as well.

And yet, despite all these varied experiences, I keep coming back to 40K. Because it's the game I most enjoy.
None of the dozens of games I have ever played have ever had "perfect balance" where there weren't at least some broken units or combinations.

Warmachine, the holy grail many 40K players look up to as the "Holy Grail" of game balance has just as many over-powered lists and units and just as many units that no-body uses. There's a reason that Cryx and Legion currently dominate the tournament seasons all over the world, cloself followed by Cygnar and Circle.

It's because: WARMACHINE ISN'T BALANCED EITHER.

Because it's impossible to create a perfectly balanced game. Ever hear of the theory of perfect imbalance? That's the design philosophy that Warmachine uses, and it's only possible because they release updates for every army at the same time, rather than a separate codex for each. (In other words, you still need to buy every damn book in order to play). Incidently, 40K also employs the "perfect imbalance" design theory. Albiet not as well, due to a longer period between faction updates (five years for a new codex as oppossed to every faction getting new stuff in every update for Warmachine and Hordes).

Moreover, Warmachine is about as dull a game as you'll ever come across (in my opinion at least) it's so damn bland and I keep seeing the same lists again and again (just like 40K but more so) every time I sit down to play.

Oh look, another Hayley and Collossal themed army. What a surprise. Hey there Mr Cryx player, is that Gaspy and Deneghra I see you playing in your lists. Wow. That was unexpected.

Of all the other games I've listed, there's not one that doesn't have issues with balance. The only difference I can see is that 40K has a larger player pool, and therefore a much larger vocal minority to whinge and moan about the things they don't like. I'm not talking about GW business practices here. I'm just referring to the players that constantly harp on about game balance and how much they hate the game but keep playing anyway.

Playing a game you hate? That's masochism. Playing a game you love even when other gamers hate it? That is not masochism. That's a hobby.

Exalted because it is similar to my own story. I'm 35 and have been playing since RT first came out.
I played the old Red box D&D, cyberpunk, Mekton Zeta, and many others.
I was huge into Battletech and other games but my heart was always into 40k.
6th edition is by far my favorite edition and I have a metric crap ton of fun every time I play. (except when I got curb stomped by this Necron tournie list)
I'm an author.
I'm a blogger.
I'm a combat veteran
Lived in several countries.

I say this to show that I'm not a teenage noob that doesn't know better.
There are many valid criticisms of GW and WH40k, but this community has become toxic and that's hurting the community as much as GW's business practices. We can't change GW very much, but we can change the community and maybe direct the energy to a more productive effort.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

JPong wrote:
[So no argument against it making smaller groups? And you can't see how making an already niche hobby more niche is bad? And the group will continue to shrink down in size because people will leave and new people won't join. Joining this group has a new barrier to entry, you have to learn how they play the game (and it probably isn't written down) so you will randomly get rules thrown at you like "Oh yeah, we treat all the bottom floor windows as boarded up blocking LOS" (An actual houserule I have seen).

People will join though, but the group says "that's how we play". A new person may come in and bring a new discussion to the group over something they already discussed, maybe the group changes it's mind, maybe it doesn't. A person is just as likely to say "I like that idea" as they are to say "I hate that idea enough not to play". Part of the hobby is discussion and that group has laid down it's changes, they aren't set in stone but they are the current iteration and after a game or two most folks can easily remember a few tweaks here and here to a ruleset. If the new person finds the rules incompatible with their desired way to play they walk on by, no harm, no foul.

And the harm is done. You have said "No" to this person. You have excluded someone from playing. And it's not like it's a 50/50 yes/no response. Yes there are only two answers, but it's more complex than that and you know it.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

JPong wrote:
I would like a ruleset where rule changes weren't required just to have a reasonable game.

And folks are arguing that game is 40k for them, or that they like 40k how it is as a framework and don't really want too much change, if it's not for you play a different game. Why cling so stoicly to a game who's system you dislike?

Because as we have established. People like 40k and want what is best for the game to foster growth. Fracturing your already niche community into even more niches doesn't help it grow.

I think communication between players is vital and not too much to ask for.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think communication between players is vital and not too much to ask for.

Why should it be vital to play the base game? Beyond the most basic discussions like defining what terrain is what, I would much rather shoot the gak with my opponent than talk about how rules should work. Game of Thrones discussions are way better than "What exactly does shooting through the gaps in a unit mean and how does it apply to 25% obscured?"

I started collecting 40K because I liked the setting and chose Necrons for my army because I liked their concept (it was during the final days of the fifth edition).

I am not a very competative player but I quickly found that to have fun games merely being non-competative wasn't enough, I had to actively limit my purchases and playstyles to keep my army from automatically steamrolling most of my opponents!

I really liked the Wraiths, but I kept myself from buying more than a single unit because they're too good. I like scythes but even with merely two I had some people giving me funny looks and mentioning bakeries and circuses and more than once I found myself assuring people I have no intention of buying more. When I looked into FW models I didn't consider just aesthetics and effectiveness, I also made sure to compare them to similar models to make sure they weren't too powerful. I thought the Transcendent C'tan looked awesome so I ordered it along with the brand new Apoc rulebook thinking it'll look awesome on the shelf and maybe get to be played in an apoc game once in a blue moon, and then I found myself appalled to discover that Escalation suddenly made that monstrosity legal for regular games (never played at one except for one instance where my opponent specifically asked me to).

I took active steps to limit my own army and I still crush many codices without even trying really hard. A few months ago I wrote up a fairly random sub optimal list for a friendly game and ended up accidentally tabling a Dark Angels player in about 3 turns in a completely one sided massacre... I actually felt bad about it afterwards!

This is not how a fun casual game should be like. The core rules have issues, but that problem pales bleached white in the face of the horrendous codex balance.

JPong wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think communication between players is vital and not too much to ask for.

Why should it be vital to play the base game? Beyond the most basic discussions like defining what terrain is what, I would much rather shoot the gak with my opponent than talk about how rules should work. Game of Thrones discussions are way better than "What exactly does shooting through the gaps in a unit mean and how does it apply to 25% obscured?"

Because its not a video game and requires human interaction. If some simple communication makes the game more fun, maybe you should communicate? I've never played a table top game or RPG where communication wasn't vital. If you want that go play Dawn of War on the PC.

 MWHistorian wrote:

JPong wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think communication between players is vital and not too much to ask for.

Why should it be vital to play the base game? Beyond the most basic discussions like defining what terrain is what, I would much rather shoot the gak with my opponent than talk about how rules should work. Game of Thrones discussions are way better than "What exactly does shooting through the gaps in a unit mean and how does it apply to 25% obscured?"

Because its not a video game and requires human interaction. If some simple communication makes the game more fun, maybe you should communicate? I've never played a table top game or RPG where communication wasn't vital. If you want that go play Dawn of War on the PC.

Did you actually read my post? Human interaction does make the game more fun. But I prefer to interact in things not totally revolving around the rules or what is and is not acceptable to bring to a game. Nothing you said here addressed that.

@ JPong: Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.

@MWHistorian: Thanks very much. Hadn't realised you were an actual historian. I'll need to check out your blog.

The vital communication in terms of "game-speak" is discussing terrain and saves, and what sort of game is going to be played (Escalation, Stronghold Assault etc). Generally speaking that sort of thing is over before the first dice roll. Much of it (unless you're playing a pick-up game) is even sorted out a couple of weeks in advance, when you first arrange to meet up for a game. After all of that is sorted, the mid-game conversation naturally turns to things like game of thrones and interesting in-game events.

Pick-up games are a little bit different, because the shared assumptions/consensus you have with a regular opponent isn't present. So you need to chat about mechanics a bit more, especially in terms of things like mysterious terrain and objectives. It's hard to cover everything in advance of the first dice roll in a pick-up game, so naturally a little bit of mechanics talk creeps in during the actual game.

At least outside of a tournament setting where all these issues are normally settled well in advance.

40K is no different from any other game system in this regard, If you're playing a regular opponent, the game mechanics talk is normally dealt with before the first dice roll. If it's not a regular opponent, it creeps into the the actual mid-game conversation as various issues come up

That's true whether you're playing 40K, Warmachine, Battletech, Infinity, Malifaux or any other game. Personally, I find the pre-game chat about terrain is actually something of an ice-breaker, when you're staring across a tournament table at some guy you've never met before. It's the first thing I bring up after hello's, hand-shakes and "how's the weather?"

The really vital thing is to make sure both players have the same expectations before the game starts. In other words to make sureone of you doesn't turn up expecting to play Stronghold Assault when the other hasn't. Or that one of you doesn't turn up expecting a casual game while the other has brought a tourny list.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Galorian: I completely understand where you're coming from. Necrons are a very powerful codex and all the cool looking choices from a modelling point of view also happen to be really powerful in game.

As you say, sometimes it's not always possible to tailor your existing collection to match the kind of game your opponent wants (especially when one or both of you are new players). Dark Angels have a notoriously hard time dealing with flier heavy armies because they have so little in the way of anti-air. Even one or two fliers can present a huge problem for them.

As your group allows forgeworld, you might want to suggest to him that he picks up a Mortis Dreadnaught or a Mortis Contemptor Dreadnaught. It's a Dreadnaught that gains the skyfire and intercept rules if it stands still. The double twin-linked auocannons and the double twin-linked lascannon version are probably the best choices, allowing the Dread to do good work on ground and air targets. I play Dark Angels as one of my armies, and the addition of a couple of Mortis Dreads to my list made a huge difference in terms of enjoying the game, both for myself and for my opponnents.

 LeadLegion wrote:
40K is no different from any other game system in this regard, If you're playing a regular opponent, the game mechanics talk is normally dealt with before the first dice roll. If it's not a regular opponent, it creeps into the the actual mid-game conversation as various issues come up.

There are many games where this isn't true. Game mechanics are generally just understood by the people playing.

Take Magic the Gathering for example. When I played, here is how a typical game would go.

Random Person : "Yo, JPong, I challenge you to a duel" (from across the store)
Me : "I accept, ya villainous scum, what be the terms"
RP : "Type 2"

*After finding a table*

*Dice roll, cut, flip a coin, Rock Paper Scissors, or any other method to see who goes first*

Me : "Did you see that ludicrous display last night? Attack"
RP : "Block. Totally, the problem with Arsenal is they always try and walk it in." *Marks life down*

Etc.

Hell, I stopped playing that game like 10 years ago and to this day I could still play a game with anyone. I have only passingly read the Warmachine rulebook, but I am pretty sure with minimal rules discussion, I could play that game today. I would, if people played it in my area.

The problem with 40k is that it requires more than terrain discussion. Because some rules just don't work. And then you have people who say "No, you can't play with more than one riptide because they are OP." Or as in the case of the guy with necrons just a few posts up saying he gets funny looks for fielding what he wants, and he isn't even doing that, because he is afraid to field what he wants. How is that, in any way, good for the hobby?

I'll grant you that magic hasn't changed much. But then, Magic is a card game with a rulebook that's only has a few dozen pages.

I know plenty of wargames with just a few dozen pages of rules. And every one of them has failed to capture my attention because, unlike Magic, there are too few variables involved in a 36page set of wargames rules to keep the game interesting for long.

But everytime I've sat down to play magic, there's always a discussion about the rule on this card interacts with the rule on this card. It's only the really experienced players who play against one another regularly (or who play on the tournament circuit) that don't have this kind of conversation because they've already settled these issues on previous occassions..

I'm reluctant to accept any comparison between card game and wargame mechanics because of the fundamental differences in the way they play. But if you can suggest a popular wargame that doesn't involve at least a little game-mechanic discussion between strangers at the start of the game, then I'll run out and buy it.

Warmachine is not that game by the way. I've played in Warmhordes tournaments and in casual games, and even in Warmachine we need to discuss terrain before we start. In fact, sometimes we need to actually measure the height of the terrain. Why? Because LOS in Warmachine isn't determined by whether or not the actual model is visible over the actual terrain piece. It's determined by the size of the models base compared to the height of the terrain piece!

With regards to Galorian and the problems he has encountered, I can also say hand on heart that I've encountered the same scenario in every game I have played. It's not a problem unique to 40k. Hayley with Temporal Barrier in Warmachine will nuke any list that isn't specifically designed around ranged weapons. In fact, in Warmachine, you bring at least two lists to a tournament, and pick one before each game. Why? Because the problem Galorian describes is even worse in Warmachine than it is in 40K.

 LeadLegion wrote:

@MWHistorian: Thanks very much. Hadn't realised you were an actual historian. I'll need to check out your blog.

I think "Actual historian" might be a little too generous.

 LeadLegion wrote:
I'll grant you that magic hasn't changed much. But then, Magic is a card game with a rulebook that's only has a few dozen pages.

I know plenty of wargames with just a few dozen pages of rules. And every one of them has failed to capture my attention because, unlike Magic, there are too few variables involved in a 36page set of wargames rules to keep the game interesting for long.

But everytime I've sat down to play magic, there's always a discussion about the rule on this card interacts with the rule on this card. It's only the really experienced players who play against one another regularly (or who play on the tournament circuit) that don't have this kind of conversation because they've already settled these issues on previous occassions..

I'm reluctant to accept any comparison between card game and wargame mechanics because of the fundamental differences in the way they play. But if you can suggest a popular wargame that doesn't involve at least a little game-mechanic discussion between strangers at the start of the game, then I'll run out and buy it.

Warmachine is not that game by the way. I've played in Warmhordes tournaments and in casual games, and even in Warmachine we need to discuss terrain before we start. In fact, sometimes we need to actually measure the height of the terrain. Why? Because LOS in Warmachine isn't determined by whether or not the actual model is visible over the actual terrain piece. It's determined by the size of the models base compared to the height of the terrain piece!

With regards to Galorian and the problems he has encountered, I can also say hand on heart that I've encountered the same scenario in every game I have played. It's not a problem unique to 40k. Hayley with Temporal Barrier in Warmachine will nuke any list that isn't specifically designed around ranged weapons. In fact, in Warmachine, you bring at least two lists to a tournament, and pick one before each game. Why? Because the problem Galorian describes is even worse in Warmachine than it is in 40K.

I have already said a little terrain discussion is needed. Why do you keep bringing that up?

Of course terrain discussion is needed, because no one makes levels in ruins that are 3" tall because it is awkward to get models underneath them, but everyone still admits that it would be broken if you didn't count them as 3" for the purposes of moving between them. Although this edition actually has pretty clear rules for terrain, the only real issue they need to fix about it, is to discuss sizes of terrain. Warmachine actually covers that pretty well. Talking about destroying sections of terrain and height of the sections and such.

If you need to measure terrain as part of the game, I don't see how you can complain about that. Even 40k only uses true los most of the time. But for example, if you can see a wing of a creature, it doesn't count. This gets hairy when talking about Tyranids though. Because arms do count, and for tyranids wings are arms.

Card games are totally valid comparisons however. Magic actually doesn't have many issues, since if you read the card it tells you exactly how it works. Interactions are handled on the stack, each card one at a time. As long as both players understand the rules, it's fairly clear. Even though tournament circuit judges actually have a giant rulebook with like 1000 pages that they need to memorize on pretty much every specific card interaction. I actually watched a high level tournament game in Magic (only once, it's otherwise quite boring) the judge was called over like 16 times in one game, and all of it was because of basic rules. You didn't untap that in your untap phase, it's still tapped, etc. The basic rulebook for magic is probably a dozen pages, but if you include all the special rules written on cards, it would be way higher.

40k is not that complicated at it's root. It's only complicated because it's poorly written. One of the simplest things GW could do to help clarify the rules is actually define all the phases of the game. Have your Blessing/Malediction phase, your reserves phase, your regrouping phase, your movement phase, your shooting phase, your running phase, your charging phase, your melee phase, your consolidation phase, any phases that I may have missed and not necessarily in that order. That's why there are problems. They introduced all those special rules (of which I don't think there are too many like some) in the rulebook, and then they don't use them. They invent even newer rules in the codexes, rather than rely on ones that already exist. The differences in armies should be how they get these rules not new rules.

I have to run just now, so I won't be able to reply properly until later. Just a few quick comments.

The terrain thing was just mean't as an example of the sort of game mechanic chat that's required before any wargame. I apologise if I've been belaboring the point a bit.

You mentioned that there were no Warmachine players in your area. There is a thriving Warmachine scene playing on a virtual online tabletop using Vassal. There's even a small tournament scene on Vassal as well. I have a quick "how-to" guide bookmarked somewhere. I'll dig it out for you and post it up in case you'd like to try the game out for yourself. It's a decent game, and I'm not trying to trash-talk it here (despite the fact I keep using it as a sacrifical kitten). I just don't enjoy it as much as I enjoy 40k. It holds my interest for a couple of dozen games at most, then I get bored and disappear from the scene for a couple of years.

I am not a huge Vassal fan, not that there is anything wrong with Vassal. I play wargames to get away from the computer, since I work on them all day. Plus, it's fun to hang out with real living people.

JPong wrote:
And the harm is done. You have said "No" to this person. You have excluded someone from playing. And it's not like it's a 50/50 yes/no response. Yes there are only two answers, but it's more complex than that and you know it.

a/ the harm isn't done, what have they said no to, you aren't stopping them from playing you are just saying "this is how we decided to play". Now if that person plays and then has input they want want to add they are welcome to add it and maybe those rules change maybe they don't. If the player instantly goes "Well that's not how I want to play" and walks off that's no loss. If you aren't willing to give and take and discuss it then you want something different to our group and we should play separately.
There are only two options, you become part of the social structure of the group or you don't. And yes there are criteria like treating the other members of the group with the respect you would expect, would you consider it bad to exclude a tantrum model thrower?

JPong wrote:
Because as we have established. People like 40k and want what is best for the game to foster growth. Fracturing your already niche community into even more niches doesn't help it grow.

No, if people want GW to change to their will they don't want what's best for the 40k, they want it to become what they think 40k should be. That's the difference. A group that is open to discussion and rules tweaks is helping the game grow, a group that complains about lazy rules writing an waiting for GW to follow their model is just poisoning the well for new players.

Everyone has the right to complain or compliment but there are repercussions in the greater community.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

JPong wrote:
And the harm is done. You have said "No" to this person. You have excluded someone from playing. And it's not like it's a 50/50 yes/no response. Yes there are only two answers, but it's more complex than that and you know it.

a/ the harm isn't done, what have they said no to, you aren't stopping them from playing you are just saying "this is how we decided to play". Now if that person plays and then has input they want want to add they are welcome to add it and maybe those rules change maybe they don't. If the player instantly goes "Well that's not how I want to play" and walks off that's no loss. If you aren't willing to give and take and discuss it then you want something different to our group and we should play separately.
There are only two options, you become part of the social structure of the group or you don't. And yes there are criteria like treating the other members of the group with the respect you would expect, would you consider it bad to exclude a tantrum model thrower?

You fractured the community, and someone didn't get to join a new community. That's harm. That's harming the game. This isn't someone who makes the game unfun. This isn't someone who makes the game physically dangerous. This is someone who just wants to game.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

JPong wrote:
Because as we have established. People like 40k and want what is best for the game to foster growth. Fracturing your already niche community into even more niches doesn't help it grow.

No, if people want GW to change to their will they don't want what's best for the 40k, they want it to become what they think 40k should be. That's the difference. A group that is open to discussion and rules tweaks is helping the game grow, a group that complains about lazy rules writing an waiting for GW to follow their model is just poisoning the well for new players.

Everyone has the right to complain or compliment but there are repercussions in the greater community.

Uhhh huh. This doesn't counter what you quoted at all. It doesn't address the fracturing of the community. It doesn't address how making better rules would help the community. It doesn't address anything.

I get it, you are happy with the rules the way they are and don't want anything to change and you just want everyone that doesn't agree with you to feth off and die. But that's not going to happen. And it's hypocritical of you to complain about people complaining and wishing they would leave. Again, YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE HYPOCRISY.

JPong wrote:
hhh huh. This doesn't counter what you quoted at all. It doesn't address the fracturing of the community. It doesn't address how making better rules would help the community. It doesn't address anything.

It really does, best for who? Also better rules is subjective, better for who you? What if others don't like them? Are they still better rules if you are the only one who likes them?

JPong wrote:
I get it, you are happy with the rules the way they are and don't want anything to change and you just want everyone that doesn't agree with you to feth off and die. But that's not going to happen. And it's hypocritical of you to complain about people complaining and wishing they would leave. Again, YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE HYPOCRISY.

At least argue against my point rather than your preconceived version.

There is no hypocrisy, no-one is being stopped from playing anything, you have fractured nothing. You are saying this is how we play, by all means join us, talk about it, put your point on the rules forward and lets play a game we all enjoy. You are the one who refused to talk to your opponent before the game about the rules. Nobody is being told to go anywhere to die, profanity or no.
If you aren't enjoying where the group chooses to tweak the rules to well you've been as fair as you can putting it up for discussion and if you don't wan't to play that's a shame but it's the game the majority want to play. At the end of the day the game is meant to be fun and if two peoples ideas of fun are incompatible then them playing a game together isn't going to be fun for both parties and a waste of time. Fracture would imply that those two groups are whole previously, they aren't, people want different things.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

JPong wrote:
hhh huh. This doesn't counter what you quoted at all. It doesn't address the fracturing of the community. It doesn't address how making better rules would help the community. It doesn't address anything.

It really does, best for who? Also better rules is subjective, better for who you? What if others don't like them? Are they still better rules if you are the only one who likes them?

This is a problem with the so-called "communication" games too. Who should yield? Who is right? Who is wrong? Whose opinion should be the basis for an argument? It is hard to have a normal discussion over a matter that is pretty much a messed up slope of slippery slipperyness (the WH40k ruleset in its full glory). And if we can't come to a conclusion, then we have just wasted precious time. Time we could have spent with, y'know, having fun with something worthwhile instead of arguing over a sh*tty game system.

I'm actually loving the way 40k is right now...

 AtoMaki wrote:

This is a problem with the so-called "communication" games too. Who should yield? Who is right? Who is wrong? Whose opinion should be the basis for an argument? It is hard to have a normal discussion over a matter that is pretty much a messed up slope of slippery slipperyness (the WH40k ruleset in its full glory). And if we can't come to a conclusion, then we have just wasted precious time. Time we could have spent with, y'know, having fun with something worthwhile instead of arguing over a sh*tty game system.

Why does one person have to yield, if you can come to a compromise that you can both enjoy then problem solved. If no-ones willing to budge don't play each other and play a game against someone else. Seriously why does everyone need to win something? There doesn't need to be a winner and a loser in every element of life.

If you have that much of an issue with the game system why are you bothering to have the discussion in the first place when you could be off doing whatever from the get go? All the old versions of 40k and other game systems didn't disappear into the ether, find some folks who like *insert your favourite edition/system*

 LeadLegion wrote:
I'll grant you that magic hasn't changed much. But then, Magic is a card game with a rulebook that's only has a few dozen pages.

It's actually 221 pages. http://rules.wizards.com/rulebook.aspx?game=Magic

That is a lot of swinging parts that have to be kept up with. I also think WotC has a dedicated person to manage the rules who interacts with the developers to understand how new cards impact the rules.

JPong wrote:


Tell me more what other people do and do not like.
.

already covered that. but people here do seek to like complaining about stuff (a lot, granted is understandable), whilst simultaneously not wanting to do anything about it. inertia. ten years ago, i saw exactly the same arguments. and its gone nowhere. its a vicious circle of spite, negatvity and bile.

JPong wrote:

Of course changing the rules makes it exclusionary. "I am sorry little timmy, you can't play with your 3 riptides, even though you only bought them because you love the model." BAM you just excluded someone from your group.

.

cute. but bad strawman is bad. Firstly, you do not know how we organise things, or how we get out games going. the guys like historicals. so we'll do ww2 stuff. recently we've done some very fun viking v saxon games. i like sci fi. so we'll do infinity. if we fancy a spaceship game, we'll do that (x-wing, or firestorm armada has garnered some interest). "little timmy" can come along, and assuming he loves his riptides, im sure we could write up an awesome scenario where he gets to use them, and try and storm the enemy fortification. we dont "ban" peoples cool units. we build them into story, and narrative based scenarios. We'll bring the new guy into our group, and he'll get to bring his stuff to the table, and he'll get to enjoy a variety from what the others do too. i hardly see that as him being "excluded". that's just a cheap shot on your part. putting words in peoples mouths (never mind hopelessly incorrect ones) does nothing but undermine your own crediblity in this discussion, and show you up as being extremely unreasonable, and short sighted.

JPong wrote:

Having a set of house rules makes for a bad game.
.

not in my experience. amongst a group of friends, who are all on the same page, its a great way of doing something new, or trying something different. how about a scenario with a theme of "recon forces only"? how about using alternative rules mechanicsms to add something? Like i mentioned, we added the random activation order mechanic from bolt action to our games (basically, you pull a "token" out of a bag, at random, and the player whose token gets picked gets to activate one unit). and it added a new level to our games that were a lot of fun. it added a lot of new tactical considerations (because you never knew if the other guy would be able to activate next and ruin your plans) and made the game far more interesting.

arbitrarily saying "house rules makes for a bad game" just shows you up as being short sighted. dont dismiss them. try them out.

JPong wrote:

No ones stopping you from using your own home made rules. But saying "I play 40k" because you use the models doesn't make it true. I can't really claim I am playing Warmachine, because I am using the models for it in 40k rules.
.

"We do a 40k homebrew" works just fine, IMO. Or else "we play 40k, but took the system used in infinity, and tweaked it to work at a squad level. its different, but great fun" also works. So long as its space marines versus orks (or whatever), you are inhabiliting the 40kiverse. and there is no "correct" way to do this.

JPong wrote:

All of those 6 official versions of 40k ARE 40k. Because those are the rules for the game as published by the company. I don't see how that supports your argument of "Blacksail's 40k" is 40k.
.

they show there is no one defined system for what defines what 40k "is". Each of those versions is different. marines used to be t3. you cannot define 40k by a set of rules. rules change from edition to edition. codices, units and fluff change from edition to edition. Ergo, i dont define 40k as being "confined" by a specific set of rules published by GW. i define 40k as a blood soaked universe, soaked by the blood spilled by billions of heroes and villains each day, desperately holding out against an unending tide of horror, all against the backdrop of a crumbling empire desperately seeking to survive, only to face another blood soaked dawn. rules are merely how you live in it.

Blacksails 40k is as much a way of inhabiting that universe as something "official". all they are, are the rules published by GW. no different, better or worse than other options. And GW wont sent inquisitors after me, should i wish to use other rules (they even encourage house rules!) , nor heaven forbid, should i prefer an alternative rules set!

JPong wrote:

And that doesn't mean people can't voice their opinion. And just because the company doesn't listen, doesn't mean it isn't constructive criticism.
.

Which means less than nothing at the end of the day, regardless of how "constructive" it was.

"words are wind". heh, always wanted to say that quote from David Gemmell!

constructive criticism is all well and good, when it accomplishes something. but screaming against a brick wall isnt smart. its not clever. its far from practical. it wont solve things. nor will it do you any good at the end of the day. all it does is reinforce your own opinions by repeating them. and given the choice between the "idealism" of giving valid constructive criticism (and it going nowhere!), and the "practicality" of doing my own thing with my friends, or walking away from gaming systems that simply dont give me what i want, i'll go with the latter option every time. let every one else scream. If i come back here in ten years time, they'll be doing exactly the same thing. in the meantime, i'll have had ten great years of gaming, and no headaches.

I have actually stayed out of this. There's no point.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

JPong wrote:
hhh huh. This doesn't counter what you quoted at all. It doesn't address the fracturing of the community. It doesn't address how making better rules would help the community. It doesn't address anything.

It really does, best for who? Also better rules is subjective, better for who you? What if others don't like them? Are they still better rules if you are the only one who likes them?

JPong wrote:
I get it, you are happy with the rules the way they are and don't want anything to change and you just want everyone that doesn't agree with you to feth off and die. But that's not going to happen. And it's hypocritical of you to complain about people complaining and wishing they would leave. Again, YOU STILL HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE HYPOCRISY.

At least argue against my point rather than your preconceived version.

There is no hypocrisy, no-one is being stopped from playing anything, you have fractured nothing. You are saying this is how we play, by all means join us, talk about it, put your point on the rules forward and lets play a game we all enjoy. You are the one who refused to talk to your opponent before the game about the rules. Nobody is being told to go anywhere to die, profanity or no.
If you aren't enjoying where the group chooses to tweak the rules to well you've been as fair as you can putting it up for discussion and if you don't wan't to play that's a shame but it's the game the majority want to play. At the end of the day the game is meant to be fun and if two peoples ideas of fun are incompatible then them playing a game together isn't going to be fun for both parties and a waste of time. Fracture would imply that those two groups are whole previously, they aren't, people want different things.

Well written rules benefit everyone. If you can't see how, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. If you can't see how well written rules make a game where you can leave your rulebook at home, and not have to look up minor rule interactions and consult an oracle to make sure you haven't missed something 100 pages away in a completely different section leads to smoother games, than there just is nothing I can say to you.

I have shown how you have fractured the community. You have created your own little subset where only people that agree with you can play with you. The community, is one big community. You have taken the larger community and said "F that I will have my own rules, with hookers, and blackjack." Hence, you have fractured the community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I have actually stayed out of this. There's no point.

I am about out of it. People keep saying "Nuh uh" without addressing my arguments. They use a lot of words to say nothing.

JPong wrote:

Well written rules benefit everyone. If you can't see how, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. If you can't see how well written rules make a game where you can leave your rulebook at home, and not have to look up minor rule interactions and consult an oracle to make sure you haven't missed something 100 pages away in a completely different section leads to smoother games, than there just is nothing I can say to you.

They do, but what one person calls well written another calls nonsense. Rules that make sense to one are silly to another. Also the 6th ed rules are only 130 pages long the odds of two rules you mix up being that far apart are slim but I get what you meant at least, the flow of the rulebook could be better. That is however book layout not the rules. I seriously can't remember the last time is wasn't edition echo syndrome we had trouble working out how rules interacted that wasn't resolved in a very short span indeed, do you have any examples?

JPong wrote:

I have shown how you have fractured the community. You have created your own little subset where only people that agree with you can play with you. The community, is one big community. You have taken the larger community and said "F that I will have my own rules, with hookers, and blackjack." Hence, you have fractured the community.

It's not though, example, I want to play a scenario, you want to play a book mission or plain annihilation, we don't play each other because we both want something different. The community is already split and that had nothing to do with rules. Two things that wouldn't interact anyway aren't fractured. By being willing to discuss you engage a far larger proportion of the community than any group that doesn't could ever possibly hope to. Ultimately not everyone wants to play like that but there is animosity or bad blood, the two groups go their separate ways, if they can find common ground they blend over mutual respect for the enjoyment of the other.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Why does one person have to yield, if you can come to a compromise that you can both enjoy then problem solved..

How else can you make a compromise? Someone has to yield. For example if I want to bring my Triptide list but you want to bring your Tyranid Midzilla list then one us has to make a sacrifice: either I won't bring the Triptide or you won't bring the Midzilla. But what exceptional right you have to rebuff the Triptide list? Similarly, I can't tell you to abandon your Midzilla army because it is a pile of trash. Should one of us yield, thus wasting his fun so his opponent can have a good time? Or should we play the Most Unfun Battle of the Decade, no matter what?

And it isn't like you can just abandon the battle entirely because the gaming club is not centered around your Midzilla list and after turning down the Eldar guy with the Revenant titan and the IG guy with his SimCity list, you will end up with lots of wasted time.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

If you have that much of an issue with the game system why are you bothering to have the discussion in the first place when you could be off doing whatever from the get go? All the old versions of 40k and other game systems didn't disappear into the ether, find some folks who like *insert your favourite edition/system*

I just pointed out that this "Player communication solves every problem!" is such an unreliable thing that I can't see how it could work on a constant basis and without major conflicts. People tend to disagree or pull out the stubborn card from their sleeves, and if communication fails then you can wave your fun goodbye.

And this is slowly becoming my Pet Peeve. A gaming club is not a hive mind society. Different people will have different opinions and you can't reject them just because of this. And IMHO, it s a very ignorant solution that you will only play with those who have a similar view on the game than you. Like, what's next? The formation of 40k political parties? The clash of the United Competitive Front and the Casual Liberation Unity?

I play Starcraft against people that don't even speak English and have zero problems. Funny that. I shouldn't have to negotiate every table because GW can't do math.