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.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Didn't you just say that you were staying out of this because there's no point?

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Didn't you just say that you were staying out of this because there's no point?

Yes. I will now. But that had to be said.

Martel732 wrote:


Yes. I will now. But that had to be said.

I don't care what you do, I just thought it was funny.

Not like I'm the forum police or anything.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

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?

I call BS on pretty much everything you said here. First of all, there are rules that are 300 pages apart in the BRB (not the little one, not sure how far away they are there) the rules for generating psykic powers. They are no where near the psyker rules.

I have already stated several rules issues that pop up quite frequently. But lets look at one that has been in the game since 4th edition without change. Drop pod doors. The rules as written say nothing about doors going down, but people always insist they do, and when the doors can't go down, they always say to treat them like they are down and the drop pod is all of a sudden an invisible drop pod. Or what happens if you Terrify a Flying MC? What if it's a Synapse creature? If you haven't found issues in the rulebook, it's because you are reading what you think it says.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

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.

But, well written and balanced rules means while you both are looking for different things in a game, you can both still play the same game and get what you want out of it.

@Deadnight, I missed this post earlier.

"they show there is no one defined system for what defines what 40k "is"" Except there is. You know, the 40k rulebook. Playing Homebrew 40k is not playing 40k. At best, it's lip service to the name. You can't take that Homebrew 40k and play it with other people and expect them to just follow along.

And again, since you didn't address it (you just said nuh uh). Constructive criticism is still constructive criticism regardless of if anyone is listening. That's why it's called criticism.

*Edit* Forgot the main point I wanted to address in your comment. It is not a strawman to say people are refusing games against Triptide lists. It is ACTIVELY happening. It is not a strawman to say "casuals" are refusing games against tournament lists.

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.
.

agreed. but coming to a consensus in your own group as to how you want things to work is as valid for those folks that do it. community consensus can work wonders.

In my heart, im a warmachine player. i close clear, consise, airtight, and utterly unambiguous rules. doesnt stop me enjoying a casual game of dux bellorum, our infinity homebrew, or our flames of war homebrew on a friday evening. and yet, despite homebrews, and house rules, we're all on the same page with how things worth. Even though Dunklezahn likes what i regard as a rubbish rules set, im pretty confident he'll be in the same boat as myself when i say this.

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.
.

stop being so bloody melodramatic. christ, the drama is leaking out of my computer and hurting my eyes.

He's not "fractured" anything. No more than saying "we play game x" to a guy who plays game y. he's never said anything of it being an exclusive club,or certain people are not welcome. No, just that they play their games a certain way, and by the way, you're welcome to join them. its a long way from your ridiculous assertion of "where only people that agree with you can play with you", especially since, well, you know, everyone can bring their own input to the tabletop. not that you'll listen.

Ironic too that you dismiss creating a "little subset" of gamers, when some of the best adivce given to 40k players etc is "find people who want the same thing out of the game as you do".

the community is a big community. Only as a whole though. but dont forget, we like lots of different things. Just like i'm Irish. Like a whole nunch of other people from the same island. doesnt mean we all think the same, sound the same or want the same things. Not everything needs to be based off of "the one" set of rules. christ, open up a bit.

JPong wrote:

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

and yet you keep putting words in peoples mouths of building strawmen arguments. rather than listening to them.

"they show there is no one defined system for what defines what 40k "is"" Except there is. You know, the 40k rulebook. Playing Homebrew 40k is not playing 40k. At best, it's lip service to the name. You can't take that Homebrew 40k and play it with other people and expect them to just follow along.

true. there are official rulebooks. and there are plenty other generic rules sets out there that others have used. Sure, you wont get into a tournament with it, but you can still have a lot of fun with friends. homebrew 40k is as much 40k as anything else, so long as whats on the tabletop represents the tragedy and horror of that universe. a space marine is still a space marine, regardless of whether he's t4 3+sv (as 40k's system goes), or has +8ARM, regeneration and six hits (as Infinity would do it) . different rules, representing exactly the same 28mm model on the table top, kicking ass as purging the enemies of the emperor. *shrug* i dont know what else to say. maybe im just not closeminded enough, or shortisghted enough to see your point of view and accept it as valid.

as to not being able to take homebrew 40k and play it with other people, i can do exactly that. funnily enough. i know enough gamers that are fun enough, and open enough, and interested enough in trying new things to give a 40k homebrew a go and "follow along". especially if i say i'd like to do this, would they be interested, and if they were, would they bring some ideas to the table. there, its not "my" thing anymore, its "ours". not everyone is as close minded or afraid of evolution, and trying new things as you are.

And again, since you didn't address it (you just said nuh uh). Constructive criticism is still constructive criticism regardless of if anyone is listening. That's why it's called criticism.

think whatever you want bud.

indeed, it is criticism, but what does it accomplish, is what im asking. if "nothing" is the answer, other than riling you up for the next round of internet nerdrage, its kinda pointless. fight battles that are worth fighting, the rest is a waste of energy. practicality beats idealism every time.

whatever. i'm bowing out. this thread has become toxic.

As someone who used to play pick up games at both FLGS and official GW stores, this is typically how I saw things go down.

1) As players enter the store, they put their name on a list of who wants to play a game.
2) As table become available, the next two names are called off the list and sent to a table. If someone drops, they move the last on the list.
3) Once the game is complete, the players can sign up on the list again.

The vast majority of players only brought one list and the associated models. Players may bring multiple point lists, but they typically built on a smaller list meaning some of the key hated units would still show up at any point level.

If a player was picky about what he/she played, they may never get a game because they would always be at the end of the list because they kept declining games. Most people just sucked it up and played whomever was paired with them and moved on, even though it may harm their view of the game.

Barfolomew wrote:
As someone who used to play pick up games at both FLGS and official GW stores, this is typically how I saw things go down.

1) As players enter the store, they put their name on a list of who wants to play a game.
2) As table become available, the next two names are called off the list and sent to a table. If someone drops, they move the last on the list.
3) Once the game is complete, the players can sign up on the list again.

The vast majority of players only brought one list and the associated models. Players may bring multiple point lists, but they typically built on a smaller list meaning some of the key hated units would still show up at any point level.

If a player was picky about what he/she played, they may never get a game because they would always be at the end of the list because they kept declining games. Most people just sucked it up and played whomever was paired with them and moved on, even though it may harm their view of the game.

That's not how it worked where I played, but yeah, you took whatever game you could get or you'd never get a game. Turn people down and you could spend all night there and never get a game. I am struggling to think of anything worse to do in an evening than sit in a store not playing games all night, lol.

I fully acknowledge that 40K is far from perfect, in fact the current state of the rules and the company are why I only ever play games of either 2nd edition, or 4th edition. I haven't bought a single product by GW other than miniatures for two full editions and counting. There are far better games out there for sure, but there are also many things I still like about 40K. It was the game that started me in the hobby nearly 20 years ago, and I can still have fun playing games of it because of how i see fit to pick and choose what goes into my games.

But that being said, all I gotta say is....Damn, some of you guys are bitter- so bitter that you have to put down people who like the game, because evidently you can't stand to see someone having fun with a game that you people admittedly refuse to play any more because you say it's so bad. So why are you so set on insulting everyone who still plays....and why are you even on the 40K sections of Dakka, for that matter??

I understand it's one of the main points of the internet, but sheesh.

We're not cavemen. 40k to be played with fun needs some basic communication.

"I'm bringing my necron tourny list."
"I just got a fluffy BA list."

Getting curb stomped is no fun but if you can take a moment to work something out that close to equal wouldn't the game be better for it?

I agree that it would be best if you didn't have to, but that's not the current reality. Either do something about it or keep complaining uselessly. We've offered suggestions on how to solve the situation but I haven't seen anything the complainers. (Different from people offering justified criticism.)

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


Yes. I will now. But that had to be said.

I don't care what you do, I just thought it was funny.

Not like I'm the forum police or anything.

"FORUM POLICE! NOT PUTS YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR AND STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD! Wait, are you a choas spa...NOOOOOOGLARBLBLBLBL!!!"

 MWHistorian wrote:
We're not cavemen. 40k to be played with fun needs some basic communication.

"I'm bringing my necron tourny list."
"I just got a fluffy BA list."

Getting curb stomped is no fun but if you can take a moment to work something out that close to equal wouldn't the game be better for it?

I agree that it would be best if you didn't have to, but that's not the current reality. Either do something about it or keep complaining uselessly. We've offered suggestions on how to solve the situation but I haven't seen anything the complainers. (Different from people offering justified criticism.)

This isn't how it works in my experience. Usually the only thing agreed upon is the points value, and if you're lucky then you'll get asked if you have a competitive list or not. Usually though it's see who shows up to the game store, see who's free for a game with their army, and play them.

 MWHistorian wrote:
We're not cavemen. 40k to be played with fun needs some basic communication.

"I'm bringing my necron tourny list."
"I just got a fluffy BA list."

Getting curb stomped is no fun but if you can take a moment to work something out that close to equal wouldn't the game be better for it?

I agree that it would be best if you didn't have to, but that's not the current reality. Either do something about it or keep complaining uselessly. We've offered suggestions on how to solve the situation but I haven't seen anything the complainers. (Different from people offering justified criticism.)

Problem is that at the moment it's more like this from my experience-

"I'm playing Necrons, what are you playing?"
"DA. Do you mind if I use proxies?"
"Nah, go ahead."
*We each write up a list, I opt to be even more generous than I'm already by default from the mere fact I hold myself back from buying too many "good" models and write up a fairly random list that literally has no duplicate units, not even Barges, and includes a gauss sentry pylon despite knowing full well that there's going to be no enemy fliers on the board and a Tomb Stalker despite the fact I rarely expect it to so much as make it to the enemy, let alone repay its 205pt price tag*
[we play]
...
[I table him in 3-4 turns, the Tomb Stalker didn't even assault anything]
...
*awkward silence while I try to think of something to say that will not reek of pity... Can't even blame the dice since the rolls weren't anything special*

 AegisGrimm wrote:
But that being said, all I gotta say is....Damn, some of you guys are bitter- so bitter that you have to put down people who like the game, because evidently you can't stand to see someone having fun with a game that you people admittedly refuse to play any more because you say it's so bad. So why are you so set on insulting everyone who still plays....and why are you even on the 40K sections of Dakka, for that matter??

It's not because people enjoy the game, it's because they make stupid comments like "I don't want the competitive players to get the version of 40k they want because I like casual 40k" when in reality the things the competitive players hate make the game worse for casual play as well. It's about masochistic nonsense like being glad that there are broken rules that nobody understands because it forces people to talk about what they expect before playing the game, or celebrating things that make the game worse for casual play because it keeps the hated competitive players off in their separate tournament-only version of the game.

Totaly agree . Let us take something simple like battle brother ally interaction , if those were fixed it help would to balanced tournament play and at the same time helps a casual player without forcing him to buy a titan.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
But that being said, all I gotta say is....Damn, some of you guys are bitter- so bitter that you have to put down people who like the game, because evidently you can't stand to see someone having fun with a game that you people admittedly refuse to play any more because you say it's so bad. So why are you so set on insulting everyone who still plays....and why are you even on the 40K sections of Dakka, for that matter??

It's not because people enjoy the game, it's because they make stupid comments like "I don't want the competitive players to get the version of 40k they want because I like casual 40k" when in reality the things the competitive players hate make the game worse for casual play as well. It's about masochistic nonsense like being glad that there are broken rules that nobody understands because it forces people to talk about what they expect before playing the game, or celebrating things that make the game worse for casual play because it keeps the hated competitive players off in their separate tournament-only version of the game.

It does, i dont wanna buy another rule book just so a bunch of minority opinionated people can try table people. We loose out because in order for things to go your way a whole new update needs to be done, where all our codices and rule books and so forth need to be changed. Why should we go through that to play the game we already enjoy the way you people want to play.

I say screw you guys, get another game and let us enjoy it as we do already without a total overhaul.

The way the current rules are done is fine, because for a start we enjoy it, for a second people like us dont enjoy playing you guys anyway (generally) so who cares? Its attitude not rules that counts, then on top of that we dont have to buy all out books again, we dont have to learn an entirely new game system for no real reason and the list goes on.

It doesnt benefit us because if its your way then its not 40k, its another game with 40k rules that we had to pay for when we where already happy. And to be honest, im fine with the overly competitive minded people getting angry and buggering themselves off, means we get to enjoy things our way without fuss.

Either learn to make friends on the playground by following their rules and games, or go sit in a corner and whine to your parents that the other kids wont play the way you want. Or better yet get some initiative and try a new game with the kids down the road, heck it might even shut you up.

 Swastakowey wrote:
It does, i dont wanna buy another rule book just so a bunch of minority opinionated people can try table people.

WTF? Did you miss the whole explanation of how competitive players hate the fact that tabling is so common? Competitive players want less of a difference between "fluff" or "casual" lists and optimized tournament lists, so that a game between the two will be fun and interesting instead of just a massacre.

Why should we go through that to play the game we already enjoy the way you people want to play.

Because the game I want is better for you as well. Yes, it means buying new books, but that's a small price to pay to get rid of things like the IGOUGO turn structure and the bloated incoherent mess of rules on top of rules on top of rules going all the way back to 1980. Besides, you're going to have to buy new books anyway when the next edition comes out, so it might as well be a better game instead of just some change for the sake of forcing you to give GW another $150+ to keep playing.

The way the current rules are done is fine, because for a start we enjoy it

And I guess you don't care about being able to enjoy it more? This is like settling for some rotting meat for dinner instead of a proper meal because at least you're not starving to death so why ask for more?

And to be honest, im fine with the overly competitive minded people getting angry and buggering themselves off, means we get to enjoy things our way without fuss.

And this is exactly my point about masochism: you're willing to accept a game that is worse for the things you want to do with it simply because it keeps away the people you don't like. This isn't playing a game for fun, it's taking some bizarre moral high ground about how you're such an awesome "casual" player and everyone else is just WAAC TFGs.

I love the game.. stop saying I dont like it... If I wanted someone to pretend to know what others think id go see the pretend gypsie at the carnival.

The game wont be better for me, it will be a different game. If I want a different game ill go buy another game and use 40k bits for it.

If you hate tabling people tune down your list or play another game with 40k bits (which is pretty much what you want)

At least the next edition is pretty much the same as the last. Not an entirely new game.

I enjoy it as it is. When I want a different game I go buy one, I dont whine until they change the ones I have.

People like you are a minority. I dont want 40k to be dropped so some other game can come out. What a waste of time. And im fine with you playing competitively, im not fine with trying to govern what i want in a game. Im not taking a high ground. im just trying to keep things how they are because thats what I paid for, thats what I put hours of enjoyment into. Dont turn bitter because you dont know how to invest your money and time. Thats your problem nobody elses. So do what you really want and buy a new game system and use 40k models. Because that is exactly what you want. You dont want to play 40k, you want to play a new game with 40k models.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I love the game.. stop saying I dont like it... If I wanted someone to pretend to know what others think id go see the pretend gypsie at the carnival.

You might love it now, but you'd love it more if it wasn't such a broken mess.

The game wont be better for me, it will be a different game. If I want a different game ill go buy another game and use 40k bits for it.

Yeah, it would be so different if GW did things like make Vendettas sanely priced instead of 130 points, or clarify the screamerstar buff to only work on the model's base demon save instead of saves from other sources, and then put more effort into future rules so that problems like those were never printed in the first place. Which is why every time GW publishes a new codex or core edition with changes of that magnitude it's a completely different game and you ragequit.

If you hate tabling people tune down your list or play another game with 40k bits (which is pretty much what you want)

Sigh. Why is it so hard to understand why this is a terrible answer? If you're obligated to study game balance so you can make a "fair", avoid buying the "wrong" models, and then suffer through pre-game negotiation about what you're each allowed to take, that means that something is wrong. The fact that you can fix GW's incompetent work and still kind of have a successful game despite the printed rules doesn't mean that we should consider that an acceptable situation.

Im not taking a high ground.

That's exactly what you're doing. Read your own words:

And to be honest, im fine with the overly competitive minded people getting angry and buggering themselves off, means we get to enjoy things our way without fuss.

im just trying to keep things how they are because thats what I paid for, thats what I put hours of enjoyment into.

Ok, so you just fear change and would rather cling to the bad game you have right now than have a better game that might be *shock* *horror* different.

You dont want to play 40k, you want to play a new game with 40k models.

You're right. I want to scrap pretty much all of the current rules because they suck. I want a new game to make better use of the 40k IP, and that game would be much better for casual AND competitive players. The only people who lose are the masochists and the people like you who oppose necessary changes just because change is scary.

But its entirely your opinion, you are exactly like the guys who made the decision to invade vietnam. "Because they will enjoy it more your way and cant make their own decisions."

I wont bother arguing you because you seem to be too hooked up on the idea nobody likes the game and you know better than them.

The game is amazing, has cool ideas, is easy and as long as people dont play people like you everybody gets along fine. The rules are great for the majority who just want to play with their models every so often. Its does what its designed for.

If you cant accept that people enjoy something you dont then I think its just you with the mental problem.

Enjoy your hobby of anger and whining, im sure you have plenty reason to collect your expensive dust gatherers.

 Swastakowey wrote:
But its entirely your opinion, you are exactly like the guys who made the decision to invade vietnam. "Because they will enjoy it more your way and cant make their own decisions."

Ok, let's give you a chance to make a decision. In fact, I'll even let you make two decisions:

* Tell me how the IGOUGO system is better than the alternatives, such as alternating unit activations.

* Tell me how the WS mechanic, where WS is pretty much an irrelevant stat, is a good thing and shouldn't be replaced.

And please tell me why they're good mechanics, not just that they're adequate for the things you want to do and you don't care enough to improve them.

The game is amazing, has cool ideas, is easy and as long as people dont play people like you everybody gets along fine.

Yeah, as long as you shun everyone that doesn't play the game exactly the way you want to play it the game works fine. It's just absurd to expect GW to publish a game that functions well enough for everyone to play it together.

The rules are great for the majority who just want to play with their models every so often. Its does what its designed for.

Seriously? That's your standard for what a good game is? "I can play an occasional game" is good enough? What happened to expecting quality products when you're paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for them? Shouldn't we expect a little more than "barely adequate" for that price?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
But its entirely your opinion, you are exactly like the guys who made the decision to invade vietnam. "Because they will enjoy it more your way and cant make their own decisions."

Ok, let's give you a chance to make a decision. In fact, I'll even let you make two decisions:

* Tell me how the IGOUGO system is better than the alternatives, such as alternating unit activations.

* Tell me how the WS mechanic, where WS is pretty much an irrelevant stat, is a good thing and shouldn't be replaced.

And please tell me why they're good mechanics, not just that they're adequate for the things you want to do and you don't care enough to improve them.

The game is amazing, has cool ideas, is easy and as long as people dont play people like you everybody gets along fine.

Yeah, as long as you shun everyone that doesn't play the game exactly the way you want to play it the game works fine. It's just absurd to expect GW to publish a game that functions well enough for everyone to play it together.

The rules are great for the majority who just want to play with their models every so often. Its does what its designed for.

Seriously? That's your standard for what a good game is? "I can play an occasional game" is good enough? What happened to expecting quality products when you're paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for them? Shouldn't we expect a little more than "barely adequate" for that price?

No because im not dumb enough to buy something i dont like and keep buying it.

My standard for a good game is how much I and the people I play with enjoy it. Which is immensely.

The I go, you go system is great. Because its like most board games, its easy to remember and when the game is set up in a fare manner it works well. Also I go, you go is just a different system of tactics over your alternative. Its simply a preference.

the close combat issue with WS can be odd at times, but Melee troops still beat non combat troops easily, it works well. Just set up a proper map and combat troops do well. I dont care to improve them because they work and everybody enjoys them provided the map is well set up. The map is also not a problem, you cant expect a game to be fair without an appropriate board.

And when you bring up quality and what not, its not always important. Earth Defense Force 2017 is by far the best video game my friends and I have ever played. And its basic low budget and so on. Amazing game.

And the game is fun when everybody states what they want out of a game and goes from there. Its just unfortunate that most competitive players dont communicate before a game (in our experience) and ruin it for all us who want to forge a narrative with a winner and looser. It just shows how much people like that are in it for themselves. Just like when I play any board game with a kid or any video game, I always find out before I start what kind of game they want or how good they are and play it based on that. Its easy and important for any game. Its something that I like about it. I would hate it if my rough riders where effective on the battle field. They are horses... they will die on any modern battlefield.

I also did not say barely accurate so dont twist words. I said they are great, they are GREAT. A HUGE difference between great and barely adequate eh.

As been said, GW cant make it great for everyone. Nothing is perfect for everyone, except oxygen, water maybe?... and even then.

I hate to say this but make your own game, if GW is too incompetent to do something you bark about the easily able to fix why dont you do it, show people how much "better" your way of doing it is and maybe people will agree with you and there, you have done something useful other than belittle those who love playing the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
But its entirely your opinion, you are exactly like the guys who made the decision to invade vietnam. "Because they will enjoy it more your way and cant make their own decisions."

Ok, let's give you a chance to make a decision. In fact, I'll even let you make two decisions:

* Tell me how the IGOUGO system is better than the alternatives, such as alternating unit activations.

Trick question, it's not! This alone would stop tabling and lead to much more interesting and complex gameplay.

Peregrine wrote:
* Tell me how the WS mechanic, where WS is pretty much an irrelevant stat, is a good thing and shouldn't be replaced.

I really think just altering the chart would make a big difference. As it stands the number of attacks and strength are much more significant. Just make it match the strength/toughness chart. 3 hits 4 on a 5+, 5 and higher on a 6+. 4 hits 3 on a 3+, 3 or lower on a 2+.

 Swastakowey wrote:
No because im not dumb enough to buy something i dont like and keep buying it.

Neither am I. I buy the models because I enjoy building and painting them, and I don't buy GW rules.

The I go, you go system is great. Because its like most board games, its easy to remember and when the game is set up in a fare manner it works well. Also I go, you go is just a different system of tactics over your alternative. Its simply a preference.

Lol, no. "Easy to remember" is a joke when the entire 40k rulebook is a complicated mess, and "we alternate moving/shooting/assaulting with our units" is just as easy to remember. And it isn't even close to fair, especially when the rest of the rules favor alpha strike shooting armies that can cripple your entire army before you get to act. Finally, it isn't fun for "casual" games because it's completely non-interactive. If you change saves to a mathematically-equivalent roll to defeat saves then you can go take a lunch break while your opponent plays the game and not lose anything. That's just incredibly poor design.

And in the end, you had to resort to "I like it because I like it, it's just a preference" without really addressing any of the problems with IGOUGO. Your whole "argument" pretty much comes down to "this is how it currently is, and change is scary".

the close combat issue with WS can be odd at times, but Melee troops still beat non combat troops easily, it works well. Just set up a proper map and combat troops do well. I dont care to improve them because they work and everybody enjoys them provided the map is well set up. The map is also not a problem, you cant expect a game to be fair without an appropriate board.

You're missing the point here. The problem with the WS mechanic isn't melee vs. shooting or anything that the table setup has anything to do with, it's about the minimal value of high WS. Consider a WS 4 marine fighting a squad of WS 3 guardsmen: the marine hits the guardsmen on a 3+, and is hit by the guardsmen on a 4+. Now replace the marine with a WS 5 character marine. You would expect this to make a difference, just like a BS 5 character is better at shooting his bolter at guardsmen than a BS 4 tactical marine. But because of the idiotic weapon skill table the character still hits on the same 3+, and is hit on the same 4+. This is clearly stupid, and the only reason not to fix it to something more sensible (like using the same chart as to-wound rolls) is that this is how it's been done since WHFB in the 1980s and change is scary.

And then there's the fact that WS is often a redundant stat because of how closely it is tied with the other melee stats. If, instead of comparing WS for to-hit rolls, you compared initiative values you'd almost always get the same results. So why have WS as a separate stat at all?

And when you bring up quality and what not, its not always important. Earth Defense Force 2017 is by far the best video game my friends and I have ever played. And its basic low budget and so on. Amazing game.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm not saying that low-budget games can't be fun, I'm saying that when you charge $50 for a codex it's not exactly unreasonable to expect a good rulebook for that $50 instead of a poorly designed mess.

And the game is fun when everybody states what they want out of a game and goes from there.

Exactly what I said: it's only "fun" if you only play with people who want to play the game the same way. This is a sign of a bad game. Good games don't have this requirement, you just get out the game and play without any of the up-front negotiation about game styles.

Its just unfortunate that most competitive players dont communicate before a game (in our experience) and ruin it for all us who want to forge a narrative with a winner and looser.

Why is it the competitive player's duty to communicate before the game? Why isn't it your duty to communicate and inform everyone that you want to play a narrative-heavy game with a weak list, study their list and decide if it's a good matchup for your weak list, and decline to play if they aren't willing to accept your request?

Just like when I play any board game with a kid

So now we're putting 40k in the same category as board games for small children? You really do have low standards...

I would hate it if my rough riders where effective on the battle field. They are horses... they will die on any modern battlefield.

Yeah, wouldn't it suck if the guy who thinks horses are cool (kind of like the people who think that all of the other equally-stupid and suicidal melee units are cool) had a fair chance of winning with their rough rider themed army? That would just be the end of the world. It's much better that they wasted a bunch of money on an army that can't give them a fun game unless they beg their opponent to cripple their own list and make things even. I don't know how any reasonable person could possibly want GW to do a better job of balancing the game so that this problem doesn't happen.

I also did not say barely accurate so dont twist words. I said they are great, they are GREAT. A HUGE difference between great and barely adequate eh.

You use the word "great", but all you talk about is how the rules are good enough.

As been said, GW cant make it great for everyone.

You're right, they can't. But, once again, the problems that make the game bad for competitive players also make the game bad for casual players. If making a better casual game AND a better competitive game means sacrificing people like you, who are just afraid of change, then I guess that's the price that has to be paid.

I hate to say this but make your own game, if GW is too incompetent to do something you bark about the easily able to fix why dont you do it, show people how much "better" your way of doing it is and maybe people will agree with you and there, you have done something useful other than belittle those who love playing the game.

Because making a good game is a full-time job, and I would be an absolute idiot if I invested that kind of work in a game that GW will never allow me to sell instead of making my own game.

 Galorian wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
We're not cavemen. 40k to be played with fun needs some basic communication.

"I'm bringing my necron tourny list."
"I just got a fluffy BA list."

Getting curb stomped is no fun but if you can take a moment to work something out that close to equal wouldn't the game be better for it?

I agree that it would be best if you didn't have to, but that's not the current reality. Either do something about it or keep complaining uselessly. We've offered suggestions on how to solve the situation but I haven't seen anything the complainers. (Different from people offering justified criticism.)

Problem is that at the moment it's more like this from my experience-

"I'm playing Necrons, what are you playing?"
"DA. Do you mind if I use proxies?"
"Nah, go ahead."
*We each write up a list, I opt to be even more generous than I'm already by default from the mere fact I hold myself back from buying too many "good" models and write up a fairly random list that literally has no duplicate units, not even Barges, and includes a gauss sentry pylon despite knowing full well that there's going to be no enemy fliers on the board and a Tomb Stalker despite the fact I rarely expect it to so much as make it to the enemy, let alone repay its 205pt price tag*
[we play]
...
[I table him in 3-4 turns, the Tomb Stalker didn't even assault anything]
...
*awkward silence while I try to think of something to say that will not reek of pity... Can't even blame the dice since the rolls weren't anything special*

Well....if its the person I think it is, TBH he is a rather horrible player.

Even with the old tau codex, it wast the uphill battle it was supposed to be (we both know how much the old was sucked. they did a good fix on most things, just went a bit crazy with riptide and a few "relics")
And with the new...I'm not even trying against a few, and still crush them.

And before you blame it on the DA codex being poor and tau being OP. I'd like to note that some random necron kid suffer the same fate, so does a tau kid, and chaos kid ("kid" is everyone a few years younger then myself in my book) and it all happened with my OLD codex, where railgun broadsides were OP, and the entire rest of the codex didnt do anything (and I had 2 broadsides only)

Under the new codex...unless I play against opponent that I KNOW have a minimum skill level, I liturally shoot myself in the leg during list building by intentionally avoiding the strongest picks.
Riptide? didn't even bother finishing to built it yet.
Support commander? nope, mine has fusions or missile pods, and is in process of becomeing Shas'omgwtfbbq R'alai, one of the most fun, yet impractical choices out there.


All the complains that the game is becoming an arms race gets a bit silly when people can run "bad" units and still beat "good" lists. people underestimate the value of skills.

Sure, when we play in a turny we let go of the brakes and let loose with as much cheese as we can muster, but even us competitive guys just want to have fun in the end, and a part of the fun is trying out new things, and have a game.
And a wipeout isn't a game, its target practice.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
But..but...you can't bring in your best possible stuff!

Seriously, 500/1000 point games change the tactics of the game quite a bit. Especially 500pts.

Agreed; however, my gaming group fits 'bring all the net cheese you can' stereotype. My group seems to look down upon 500-1000 points because that limits the cheddar they're able to field against me. I LOVE KT, but that isn't even an option in the group.

Perhaps I should find a new group?

Because the game I want is better for you as well. Yes, it means buying new books, but that's a small price to pay to get rid of things like the IGOUGO turn structure and the bloated incoherent mess of rules on top of rules on top of rules going all the way back to 1980. Besides, you're going to have to buy new books anyway when the next edition comes out, so it might as well be a better game instead of just some change for the sake of forcing you to give GW another $150+ to keep playing.

This, right here, is an example of what I have been trying to demonstrate. Thanks for providing an example.

Someone who evidently only buys GW models whining about a game system they are aware has been 'broken' for 34 years. Someone who does not actually play the game, complaining in thread after thread, despite the fact he does not actually play the game.

Why? do you also randomly visit other product forums and assert your opinion on things you don't willingly participate in?

'This restaurants food is bad. I don't eat there, or have not in 20 years, but in my opinion it is bad so I come here every day to talk about it''. Seriously now- how bored does somebody have to be to do this on a regular basis?

Nothing more needs to be said, really.

You know, I'm of the "I love 6th edition" camp, but Swastiguy is making me side with Perigine just from the worst arguments ever. "I like it because I like it and my standards are super low." Perigine makes very good points that if the game was better balanced, there'd be far less cheese and less tabling and that's good for everyone. I'm going to start playtesting a new turn system, maybe based off of Initiative. This whole, "My whole army shoots yours first" business has got to go.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Seriously now- how bored does somebody have to be to do this on a regular basis?

Nothing more needs to be said, really.

How bored do you have to be to keep posting about this?

The man obviously enjoys parts of the hobby and dislikes other parts. Or maybe he is a masochist, in which case he is enjoying himself being in suffering. Either way, get over it already.

Xenos, why are you so opposed to having a discussion with someone about how to improve the game?

Its not whining, its not hating, its not even complaining. Its discussing the flaws in the game and how it could be improved to everyone's benefit.

Enlighten me on how 40k is perfect the way it is, and how wanting better balance and smoother rules would be detrimental.

 Blacksails wrote:
Xenos, why are you so opposed to having a discussion with someone about how to improve the game?

Its not whining, its not hating, its not even complaining. Its discussing the flaws in the game and how it could be improved to everyone's benefit.

Enlighten me on how 40k is perfect the way it is, and how wanting better balance and smoother rules would be detrimental.

I am not opposed to civil discussion. This entire thread spun out of control because I called out people, frequent offenders, for blatantly whining/complaining after they started poisoning actual discussion. I do not feel any sense of remorse for doing this- people should, hell, NEED to be called out when they exhibit repeated behavior that is harmful to a community or is just generally not pleasant. A healthy discussion is never benefited from someone jumping in and simply repeating how they dislike the game or the rules are bad. Ever.

People that like the game will get butt-hurt, and people that dislike it will be fed. It stokes the flames of the 'us vs them' mentality that seems to divide the 40k community as a whole. I am neutral, and tend to read the topics to see if anything useful can be gleaned, and it rarely does- and against my better judgement I decided to comment.

I largely dislike 6th edition. It's functional at best, but it's not as enjoyable to me as previous iterations. It's far from perfect, and can definitely be improved to better all types of gamers- to this point I agree 100% with Peregrine and many of the others who are adamantly against GW and Crusade against them daily. It's the approach that these veteran posters take that I dislike. If anyone comments about anything remotely positive about the hobby or aspect of the game they dislike, they are quick to jump in and make it known, once again, how they feel, regardless of the circumstances. Very rarely are these responses useful for actual discussion.

I openly foster rules rewrites and house rules in order to make this game more enjoyable than it is- I just get tired of the same people sabotaging potentially interesting conversations about this game. And it always happens.