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.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
At which point, why even play GW's games in the first place?

Because, paraphrasing Churchill's Democracy-quote, 40K is the worst miniature game, except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.

Except we find that to be increasingly not the case, as gamers are leaving 40k for other systems and not coming back.

These days, the only thing 40k has going for it is its ubiquitous nature, and the only reason I've ever seen players go back to it was because it was the game that already had a population.

Except we find that gamers who have left 40K, are increasingly coming back when they find out that Malifaux/Warmachine/Infinity/etc.. aren't any better either.

These days, the only thing propping up the non-40K games is the persistent hype of the 40K haters. But virtually every time people genuinely try these alternatives, they are revealed to be largely hot air with no legs to run. Better to pay more for 40K, than waste money on some Warmachine or Infinity models that just collect dust.

Ah, unsubstantiated opinion and narrow experience once again trotted out as some sort of argument, get some new material Zwei.

At my club we have people who have left 40K behind entirely, and are never likely to return until either the game or the company undergo significant changes, people (like myself) who have added other games to their roster, because 40K remains fun and distracting, but is too weak a product to play exclusively, and those that play nothing but.

Not one person who has left 40K behind has returned to it.

However, I'm not stupid enough to think that my personal experience means nobody has ever tried something else and gone back to 40K, neither am I stupid enough to think that you have any semblance of authority to state that this is what happens all the time. The truth likely hides somewhere in the middle, so let's put this little bit of nonsense you seem to have stuck in repeat to bed now, hmm?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Except we find that gamers who have left 40K, are increasingly coming back when they find out that Malifaux/Warmachine/Infinity/etc.. aren't any better either.

These days, the only thing propping up the non-40K games is the persistent hype of the 40K haters. But virtually every time people genuinely try these alternatives, they are revealed to be largely hot air with no legs to run. Better to pay more for 40K, than waste money on some Warmachine or Infinity models that just collect dust.

I never knew that. I'm really interested to find out more about this. Can you post the actual numbers and sources you got this information from, please. I'd never known anyone had actually done formal research into this.

 Swastakowey wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ill have you know you are missing out man!

Imagine having the freedom to do campaigns, events and games all pre planned and sorted weeks in advance. Imagine becoming friends with all the players around you and developing your own "meta" as everyone gets used to each others play styles. Just like in any group players become like minded in what they want during a game and just generally playing 40k (and a lot of other games!) how it was meant to be played. Eventually you will be in contact qwith all your member friends and well its just great at any age. Im a bit too busy at work to go indepth about how to set them up and run them and so on but trends have to start somewhere. Maybe the USA needs a new gaming trend haha.

It takes effort. But this is wargaming, everything takes effort.

To be honest I don't know what it is. I just know that in all the years I've off and on played or thought about playing any kind of game, Warhammer or otherwise, there has never been a "gaming club" at least not any that advertised itself, it's always been the FLGS has a "miniatures night" for Warhammer/Warmahordes/X-wing/whatever, go down there with your army and see who else decides to show up and basically go "Hey Bob! Up for a game?" and hash it out right there.

I'm actually intrigued by the concept of a gaming club, and I honestly don't know why we don't have one in my local area since we have a good number of people, just it's never come up, I guess maybe because schedules differ so it'd be hard for people to make it every week, I'm not exactly sure.

Im throwing crap out there but most americans I know seem to be very against "communal" resources and effort. It always seems to have to be owned buy someone or someone needs responsibility for it. In our club everyone owns the terrain and the money is everyones. We need a committee to decide with the people what is needed and what needs to change. We all want the same thing, so we all get what we want.

pretty much all our weekly small fee (4 NZD) pays the rent at the community centre which has space and tables. Anything extra is banked. The yearly fees (30 NZD) pays for more terrain and board games. They also fun whole day events like the giant battle of kursk day where we had the half the hall a giant ww2 tank battle with hundreds of tanks etc, or the swap meet where people from all over came to sell and trade models and so forth. We elect a committee every year and everyone pitches in the cleaning and setting up.

Everyone finds a place and does their thing. Then every so often all the mini groups sort of get together and try their styles of play or different games. For example my mini group does flames of war and 40k, but I also started fantasy after playing with another mini group.

We are all friends and people keep coming and its great. So much diversity and always new things to try for the key reason that its planned and regular. If someone new is coming we can help them out buy planning ahead and lettign everyone know. Like the warmachine guys. We never had warmachine but when they came it was made into a big deal and heaps of people now play it. I personally havent but chances are I will one day because I know they will always be there to try.

I cant actually think of any downside to it.

Now in England, things will have to change. We don't have big houses, no clubs near me. With games workshop changing to one man stores I'm stuffed.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
At which point, why even play GW's games in the first place?

Because, paraphrasing Churchill's Democracy-quote, 40K is the worst miniature game, except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.

Except we find that to be increasingly not the case, as gamers are leaving 40k for other systems and not coming back.

These days, the only thing 40k has going for it is its ubiquitous nature, and the only reason I've ever seen players go back to it was because it was the game that already had a population.

Except we find that gamers who have left 40K, are increasingly coming back when they find out that Malifaux/Warmachine/Infinity/etc.. aren't any better either.

These days, the only thing propping up the non-40K games is the persistent hype of the 40K haters. But virtually every time people genuinely try these alternatives, they are revealed to be largely hot air with no legs to run. Better to pay more for 40K, than waste money on some Warmachine or Infinity models that just collect dust.

Which is why GW has been on a decline over these past few years, while Corvus Belli and Privateer Press have only been consistently growing.

 knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Except we find that gamers who have left 40K, are increasingly coming back when they find out that Malifaux/Warmachine/Infinity/etc.. aren't any better either.

These days, the only thing propping up the non-40K games is the persistent hype of the 40K haters. But virtually every time people genuinely try these alternatives, they are revealed to be largely hot air with no legs to run. Better to pay more for 40K, than waste money on some Warmachine or Infinity models that just collect dust.

I never knew that. I'm really interested to find out more about this. Can you post the actual numbers and sources you got this information from, please. I'd never known anyone had actually done formal research into this.

Anecdotal I know, but I know at least a couple of people who have gotten into Warmachine and then come back to 40k because they found it too much like playing a game of chess and preferred the more relaxed mechanics of 40k [and much prefer the models]. However any statements about the popularity of a particular game are always going to be anecdotal and subject to local variances.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ill have you know you are missing out man!

Imagine having the freedom to do campaigns, events and games all pre planned and sorted weeks in advance. Imagine becoming friends with all the players around you and developing your own "meta" as everyone gets used to each others play styles. Just like in any group players become like minded in what they want during a game and just generally playing 40k (and a lot of other games!) how it was meant to be played. Eventually you will be in contact qwith all your member friends and well its just great at any age. Im a bit too busy at work to go indepth about how to set them up and run them and so on but trends have to start somewhere. Maybe the USA needs a new gaming trend haha.

It takes effort. But this is wargaming, everything takes effort.

To be honest I don't know what it is. I just know that in all the years I've off and on played or thought about playing any kind of game, Warhammer or otherwise, there has never been a "gaming club" at least not any that advertised itself, it's always been the FLGS has a "miniatures night" for Warhammer/Warmahordes/X-wing/whatever, go down there with your army and see who else decides to show up and basically go "Hey Bob! Up for a game?" and hash it out right there.

I'm actually intrigued by the concept of a gaming club, and I honestly don't know why we don't have one in my local area since we have a good number of people, just it's never come up, I guess maybe because schedules differ so it'd be hard for people to make it every week, I'm not exactly sure.

Im throwing crap out there but most americans I know seem to be very against "communal" resources and effort. It always seems to have to be owned buy someone or someone needs responsibility for it. In our club everyone owns the terrain and the money is everyones. We need a committee to decide with the people what is needed and what needs to change. We all want the same thing, so we all get what we want.

pretty much all our weekly small fee (4 NZD) pays the rent at the community centre which has space and tables. Anything extra is banked. The yearly fees (30 NZD) pays for more terrain and board games. They also fun whole day events like the giant battle of kursk day where we had the half the hall a giant ww2 tank battle with hundreds of tanks etc, or the swap meet where people from all over came to sell and trade models and so forth. We elect a committee every year and everyone pitches in the cleaning and setting up.

Everyone finds a place and does their thing. Then every so often all the mini groups sort of get together and try their styles of play or different games. For example my mini group does flames of war and 40k, but I also started fantasy after playing with another mini group.

We are all friends and people keep coming and its great. So much diversity and always new things to try for the key reason that its planned and regular. If someone new is coming we can help them out buy planning ahead and lettign everyone know. Like the warmachine guys. We never had warmachine but when they came it was made into a big deal and heaps of people now play it. I personally havent but chances are I will one day because I know they will always be there to try.

I cant actually think of any downside to it.

Now in England, things will have to change. We don't have big houses, no clubs near me. With games workshop changing to one man stores I'm stuffed.

Surely you have lounge space etc? Dont know much about english houses besides what I see in those old shows like "on the buses" and "only mothers love em" etc. Now they look tiny but I would have thought most houses would be a bit bigger. Even then surely you can use kitchen tables or a wooden board over a bed etc. We even do that here for extra weekly games. It all works.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
At which point, why even play GW's games in the first place?

Because, paraphrasing Churchill's Democracy-quote, 40K is the worst miniature game, except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.

Except we find that to be increasingly not the case, as gamers are leaving 40k for other systems and not coming back.

These days, the only thing 40k has going for it is its ubiquitous nature, and the only reason I've ever seen players go back to it was because it was the game that already had a population.

Except we find that gamers who have left 40K, are increasingly coming back when they find out that Malifaux/Warmachine/Infinity/etc.. aren't any better either.

These days, the only thing propping up the non-40K games is the persistent hype of the 40K haters. But virtually every time people genuinely try these alternatives, they are revealed to be largely hot air with no legs to run. Better to pay more for 40K, than waste money on some Warmachine or Infinity models that just collect dust.

*Watch out, we've got an internet contrarian here!*

Change the record please. It's getting tiresome.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
At which point, why even play GW's games in the first place?

Because, paraphrasing Churchill's Democracy-quote, 40K is the worst miniature game, except for all those others that have been tried from time to time.

Except we find that to be increasingly not the case, as gamers are leaving 40k for other systems and not coming back.

These days, the only thing 40k has going for it is its ubiquitous nature, and the only reason I've ever seen players go back to it was because it was the game that already had a population.

Except we find that gamers who have left 40K, are increasingly coming back when they find out that Malifaux/Warmachine/Infinity/etc.. aren't any better either.

These days, the only thing propping up the non-40K games is the persistent hype of the 40K haters. But virtually every time people genuinely try these alternatives, they are revealed to be largely hot air with no legs to run. Better to pay more for 40K, than waste money on some Warmachine or Infinity models that just collect dust.

*Watch out, we've got an internet contrarian here!*

Change the record please. It's getting tiresome.

If I had 1 USD for every time some infinity player slandered 40k id be a tiny bit happier. He has a point, I see people go try infinity etc and they just come back to 40k (except flames of war). Its like there is some huge movement from 40k that nobody except a select few internet people seem to witness and be a part of. The game to me looks like a waste of money. Ugly models, unit cards, bland machines and so on. A game needs to be more than its rules.

I just find it odd you are stating he is a broken record when infact, you are a more brokener record To put it plainly.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 knas ser wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Except we find that gamers who have left 40K, are increasingly coming back when they find out that Malifaux/Warmachine/Infinity/etc.. aren't any better either.

These days, the only thing propping up the non-40K games is the persistent hype of the 40K haters. But virtually every time people genuinely try these alternatives, they are revealed to be largely hot air with no legs to run. Better to pay more for 40K, than waste money on some Warmachine or Infinity models that just collect dust.

I never knew that. I'm really interested to find out more about this. Can you post the actual numbers and sources you got this information from, please. I'd never known anyone had actually done formal research into this.

Anecdotal I know, but I know at least a couple of people who have gotten into Warmachine and then come back to 40k because they found it too much like playing a game of chess and preferred the more relaxed mechanics of 40k [and much prefer the models]. However any statements about the popularity of a particular game are always going to be anecdotal and subject to local variances.

Sorry, I was actually being facetious to make the same point that you did, that none of us really know what numbers of people are leaving and coming back or not coming back. All we can (very) roughly note is that apparently GW is shrinking and these rivals are enjoying success. But there's a natural turn over and balancing whenever new entrants compete with an established seller. It's suggestive, but really tells us nothing for definite. Thank you for the serious response and it's interesting what you say about it feeling like chess. I do play chess, but I prefer Go, and that feels more like how a good wargame should play than chess, imo.

 Swastakowey wrote:

If I had 1 USD for every time some infinity player slandered 40k id be a tiny bit happier.

I play Infinity about as much as I play 40k. Which is not at all these days (40k stopped being fun, and there wasn't an established Infinity community in my current city back when I still played. Now that there is supposedly an Infinity community in my town, it's a store I assume I've essentially been blacklisted from ever since I won a painting award over the owner, who took the loss far too personally).

He has a point, I see people go try infinity etc and they just come back to 40k (except flames of war). Its like there is some huge movement from 40k that nobody except a select few internet people seem to witness and be a part of. The game to me looks like a waste of money.

If you go in with preconceptions against the system and an unwillingness to learn it (for what it's worth, Infinity's rules are intimidatingly complex, however, unlike 40k, they are actually pretty well written) or build up a community, of course you'll look upon it badly.

Ugly models, unit cards, bland machines and so on. A game needs to be more than its rules.

What? Infinity's models are gorgeous. Quite a few degrees better than what GW has been putting out lately, which seem to fit more with a fisher price aesthetic than anything else. What's more, Infinity's fluff is nothing short of fantastic (albeit a very different universe from 40k). While 40k's universe itself is massive, detailed, and generally good, as of late, more recent codecies have seen a general down-turn in quality.

I just find it odd you are stating he is a broken record when infact, you are a more brokener record To put it plainly.

Except the fact remains that the numbers for GW's competitors are moving ever upwards, while GW's own are doing the exact opposite.

Additionally, 'brokener' is not a word.

 Swastakowey wrote:


If I had 1 USD for every time some infinity player slandered 40k id be a tiny bit happier. He has a point, I see people go try infinity etc and they just come back to 40k (except flames of war). Its like there is some huge movement from 40k that nobody except a select few internet people seem to witness and be a part of. The game to me looks like a waste of money. Ugly models, unit cards, bland machines and so on. A game needs to be more than its rules.

I just find it odd you are stating he is a broken record when infact, you are a more brokener record To put it plainly.

I don't know who you think I am but I have never played a game of Infinity in my life....

So, yeah.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


If I had 1 USD for every time some infinity player slandered 40k id be a tiny bit happier. He has a point, I see people go try infinity etc and they just come back to 40k (except flames of war). Its like there is some huge movement from 40k that nobody except a select few internet people seem to witness and be a part of. The game to me looks like a waste of money. Ugly models, unit cards, bland machines and so on. A game needs to be more than its rules.

I just find it odd you are stating he is a broken record when infact, you are a more brokener record To put it plainly.

I don't know who you think I am but I have never played a game of Infinity in my life....

So, yeah.

Sorry, I read it through email and stupidly didnt check who I thought i was replying to.

Embarrassing haha.

Sorry


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fafnir wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

If I had 1 USD for every time some infinity player slandered 40k id be a tiny bit happier.

I play Infinity about as much as I play 40k. Which is not at all these days (40k stopped being fun, and there wasn't an established Infinity community in my current city back when I still played. Now that there is supposedly an Infinity community in my town, it's a store I assume I've essentially been blacklisted from ever since I won a painting award over the owner, who took the loss far too personally).

He has a point, I see people go try infinity etc and they just come back to 40k (except flames of war). Its like there is some huge movement from 40k that nobody except a select few internet people seem to witness and be a part of. The game to me looks like a waste of money.

If you go in with preconceptions against the system and an unwillingness to learn it (for what it's worth, Infinity's rules are intimidatingly complex, however, unlike 40k, they are actually pretty well written) or build up a community, of course you'll look upon it badly.

Ugly models, unit cards, bland machines and so on. A game needs to be more than its rules.

What? Infinity's models are gorgeous. Quite a few degrees better than what GW has been putting out lately, which seem to fit more with a fisher price aesthetic than anything else. What's more, Infinity's fluff is nothing short of fantastic (albeit a very different universe from 40k). While 40k's universe itself is massive, detailed, and generally good, as of late, more recent codecies have seen a general down-turn in quality.

I just find it odd you are stating he is a broken record when infact, you are a more brokener record To put it plainly.

Except the fact remains that the numbers for GW's competitors are moving ever upwards, while GW's own are doing the exact opposite.

Additionally, 'brokener' is not a word.

Brokener was used intentionally.

And its great you play another game, everyone should try new games in my opinion. I just dont like the way Infinity players and so on advertise their game. Its like when I go to a forum about Flames of war and see people slander it and say (insert games here) are better. Im simply never going to try those games because of that. And its the same thing that keeps me from at least trying infinity and so on. I dont like the look of infinity etc but I would be open to trying it if the players didnt feel superior about their not following the common trend of GW.

So its not the rules that stops me trying. Its the attitude of the players (on the internet that is, the guys at the club are nice from what i can tell). Its like those people who listen to bands nobody has heard of and then make fun of people who like "popular" music because they want to feel superior. Thats where the broken record comment came from.

People just need to remember whats good for one, isnt good for another. If they like the game, then sure suggest it. But infinity players are generally not very nice with how they promote their game.

 Swastakowey wrote:


Sorry, I read it through email and stupidly didnt check who I thought i was replying to.

Embarrassing haha.

Sorry

For full disclosure I play Warmahordes almost exclusively now. Up until the current edition of 40k I flitted between the two, as 5th was a nice change of pace. 6th is just untenable in so many ways. The wheels have truly come off the wagon in terms of balance (to say nothing of how 6th plays. I'd still be dissatisfied with it even if it did have good balance between codexes as much of the core rules are terrible).

I'd never put down anyone for playing 40k, but at the same time I'd never recommend it. A colleague is getting back into 40k and he knows I'm into this too and TBH I'm dreading having to have a game eventually with him as my heart is just not in it. I love the setting, but GW has destroyed any semblance of credibility this game has IMO. They've thrown out the baby with the bathwater in an attempt to put anything and everything into the game, and damn the long-term ramifications.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Sorry, I read it through email and stupidly didnt check who I thought i was replying to.

Embarrassing haha.

Sorry

For full disclosure I play Warmahordes almost exclusively now. Up until the current edition of 40k I flitted between the two, as 5th was a nice change of pace. 6th is just untenable in so many ways. The wheels have truly come off the wagon in terms of balance (to say nothing of how 6th plays. I'd still be dissatisfied with it even if it did have good balance between codexes as much of the core rules are terrible).

I'd never put down anyone for playing 40k, but at the same time I'd never recommend it. A colleague is getting back into 40k and he knows I'm into this too and TBH I'm dreading having to have a game eventually with him as my heart is just not in it. I love the setting, but GW has destroyed any semblance of credibility this game has IMO. They've thrown out the baby with the bathwater in an attempt to put anything and everything into the game, and damn the long-term ramifications.

Im the opposite, I love the way the game is now. SO many options, so much material and heaps releases. I am so used to going months without anything new happening and now it happens weekly ish. But my friends and I play the game in ways that minimizes the problems that come with 40k. I personally find 6th isnt that much different from 5th unless you are the kind of player who maximizes lists etc. In which case other games are probably better for those people anyway.

With the way the game is changing I see myself still playing in 20 years... for now

 Swastakowey wrote:

Im the opposite, I love the way the game is now. SO many options, so much material and heaps releases.

But my friends and I play the game in ways that minimizes the problems that come with 40k.

What way do you play that both gives you so many options
and yet reduces the problems with spam lists and various deathstar builds?
I have a feeling it's a way that cuts out those "SO" many options.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Im the opposite, I love the way the game is now. SO many options, so much material and heaps releases.

But my friends and I play the game in ways that minimizes the problems that come with 40k.

What way do you play that both gives you so many options
and yet reduces the problems with spam lists and various deathstar builds?
I have a feeling it's a way that cuts out those "SO" many options.

We play smaller games generally. That cuts out any builds that are named deathstars etc (not that anybody takes them in the first place). It also keeps everyone at an equal level in terms of fancy toys.

Then we have heaps of terrain to block line of site. This stops armies destroying the enemy on turn 1. Also gives people places to hide units and makes things like mortars useful too.

We also all have the same attitude towards keeping the game fun. Most of us will make lists knowing who we are up against and so on to avoid bad match ups.

Its easy if you belong to a club of course but for pick up games all you can do is try persuade people to give it a try.

But attitude is key. None of us take the latest and greatest in terms of crazy allies and or everyone and their future children taking inquisitors and so on.

Its the kind of game that seems to be made for clubs rather than randoms getting together. But the trend of playing Huge 2000 point games with hardly any terrain is what is really killing 40k. Well a large part of it I think.

I don't know why you assume that competitive players don't try to have fun or don't want to have fun for some reason.

And I thought you were loving the options available, but now you're saying how taking crazy allies and Inquisitors ins't such a great idea. And why the low point values? To cut out certain death star and power builds? How is that tons of options? I can barely field a decent army in under 1k, anything below 1.5K feels pressured. That doesn't feel like options.

Here's a quick question though. Who does a fair and balanced codex and rule set hurt more, competitive players or non-competitive players more?

 Fafnir wrote:
I hate it when people post that video as an excuse for imbalance in a game. It just doesn't apply to GW. At least in the case of Riot, they are constantly releasing, updating, and balancing content. Additionally, they're constantly in touch with the playerbase and reacting to their feedback. While I don't agree with the notion explained in the video, Riot does a decent job of actually maintaining it. GW, quite plainly, does not.

When I posted the video on Dakka it was to show what an imbalanced game done right was like and how Games Workshop has completely failed in that regard. It's not an excuse for imbalance, it's an accusation of ineptitude.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I don't know why you assume that competitive players don't try to have fun or don't want to have fun for some reason.

I think this mostly come from whenever a “Non-Competitive” player talks about not being competitive or just fluffy a lot of “Competitive” usually AKs why we NERF our list or would play a y unit.
I have actually stopped giving a lot of advice unless I am told it is a “Non-Competitive” or fluffy list. I would start to give advice and all of a sudden I would catch flakk for my "Fluffy" choices.

Here's a quick question though. Who does a fair and balanced codex and rule set hurt more, competitive players or non-competitive players more?

I don’t think it it would hurt anybody.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I don't know why you assume that competitive players don't try to have fun or don't want to have fun for some reason.

And I thought you were loving the options available, but now you're saying how taking crazy allies and Inquisitors ins't such a great idea. And why the low point values? To cut out certain death star and power builds? How is that tons of options? I can barely field a decent army in under 1k, anything below 1.5K feels pressured. That doesn't feel like options.

Here's a quick question though. Who does a fair and balanced codex and rule set hurt more, competitive players or non-competitive players more?

Hmmmm im not saying competitive players aren't tying to have fun, what I mean is the game is more geared towards casual players. So having the right attitude for the game is toning down the competitive attitude. Its how these rules work. So the "right attitude" to play 40k is to try tone down your desire to win. Which is hard sometimes as its so easy to make very powerful lists. But its how the game is.

I never said it isnt a great idea, i merely said we arent the type of players who abuse the options given to us. I have an inquisitor but its far from crazy powerful. I just made up a guy and gave him gear I thought suited the model. Same with henchmen. And the low point values make a better game over all. It wasnt to cut out any power builds (as we dont use them to begin with) but to make games shorter so we can play more and to even out the playing field. Not all the players can afford to play huge games. It also makes games look nicer and have less clutter.

The small games also force choices on the players. Will you rely on your 1 anti tank unit? Or will you cut down on anti infantry and take more anti tank? Do I really need another command squad or will I be better off with another 10 men... and so on. Forces choice and decisions which is fun as it adds a new layer of strategy. It also culls peoples need to buy more models to keep playing huge game sizes.

And a new "fair rule set" hurts us more. Why? Because we have to pay more money for a different game when we where happy with the last one. When at the end of the day the rules are great for what we want. So why change it? We may as well play another game if we have to buy entirely new rules just to play another game we didnt ask for. Unless these new balanced rules are similar to the game we enjoy playing then of course it hurts no one. So it depends how they balance the game really. Not that they will so get over it

 Swastakowey wrote:

Hmmmm im not saying competitive players aren't tying to have fun, what I mean is the game is more geared towards casual players. So having the right attitude for the game is toning down the competitive attitude. Its how these rules work. So the "right attitude" to play 40k is to try tone down your desire to win. Which is hard sometimes as its so easy to make very powerful lists. But its how the game is.

I never said it isnt a great idea, i merely said we arent the type of players who abuse the options given to us. I have an inquisitor but its far from crazy powerful. I just made up a guy and gave him gear I thought suited the model. Same with henchmen. And the low point values make a better game over all. It wasnt to cut out any power builds (as we dont use them to begin with) but to make games shorter so we can play more and to even out the playing field. Not all the players can afford to play huge games. It also makes games look nicer and have less clutter.

But there's a bit of a problem when someone's favourite or fluffy options end up throwing a lot of brute force onto the table then. For example, when the Grey Knights codex released, I ended up getting a lot of flakk amoungst a less competitive community for playing a Paladinstar. But I wasn't trying to break the game, I was playing what was genuinely my favourite army setup in the book. I had played Grey Knights back during the days of the awful (as far as strength is concerned, as far as fluff, it was miles above the current codex) Daemonhunters codex, and the small squads of Grey Knights up against countless foes was something I wanted to preserve in my games. To me, it wasn't a power build, but to other players, it was something they found to be greviously offensive.

With that in mind, am I obligated to stop playing my favourite army the way I get the most enjoyment out of it to cater to other players, simply due to a very poorly balanced system?

The small games also force choices on the players. Will you rely on your 1 anti tank unit? Or will you cut down on anti infantry and take more anti tank? Do I really need another command squad or will I be better off with another 10 men... and so on. Forces choice and decisions which is fun as it adds a new layer of strategy. It also culls peoples need to buy more models to keep playing huge game sizes.

There's not much strategy to be had once you realize that you can't take a well rounded list, and your opponent's army will steamroll yours on the basis that you couldn't afford to fit in any form of proper counter.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Here's a quick question though. Who does a fair and balanced codex and rule set hurt more, competitive players or non-competitive players more?

Non competitive players, duh. Everyone knows the only way to make the game balanced is to make a space marine exactly equal to a fire warrior, who is exactly equal to an ork, and remove allies entirely, as well as riptides, screamers and the entire eldar codex.
Its just common sense

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Here's a quick question though. Who does a fair and balanced codex and rule set hurt more, competitive players or non-competitive players more?

Non competitive players, duh. Everyone knows the only way to make the game balanced is to make a space marine exactly equal to a fire warrior, who is exactly equal to an ork, and remove allies entirely, as well as riptides, screamers and the entire eldar codex.
Its just common sense

Naw. SM and Fire Warriors should only be equal if they cost the same points

Also don't remove screamers! NOOOOO! Remove the herald on disc with the +2 invuln plus Fateweaver :U

 Fafnir wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Hmmmm im not saying competitive players aren't tying to have fun, what I mean is the game is more geared towards casual players. So having the right attitude for the game is toning down the competitive attitude. Its how these rules work. So the "right attitude" to play 40k is to try tone down your desire to win. Which is hard sometimes as its so easy to make very powerful lists. But its how the game is.

I never said it isnt a great idea, i merely said we arent the type of players who abuse the options given to us. I have an inquisitor but its far from crazy powerful. I just made up a guy and gave him gear I thought suited the model. Same with henchmen. And the low point values make a better game over all. It wasnt to cut out any power builds (as we dont use them to begin with) but to make games shorter so we can play more and to even out the playing field. Not all the players can afford to play huge games. It also makes games look nicer and have less clutter.

But there's a bit of a problem when someone's favourite or fluffy options end up throwing a lot of brute force onto the table then. For example, when the Grey Knights codex released, I ended up getting a lot of flakk amoungst a less competitive community for playing a Paladinstar. But I wasn't trying to break the game, I was playing what was genuinely my favourite army setup in the book. I had played Grey Knights back during the days of the awful (as far as strength is concerned, as far as fluff, it was miles above the current codex) Daemonhunters codex, and the small squads of Grey Knights up against countless foes was something I wanted to preserve in my games. To me, it wasn't a power build, but to other players, it was something they found to be greviously offensive.

With that in mind, am I obligated to stop playing my favourite army the way I get the most enjoyment out of it to cater to other players, simply due to a very poorly balanced system?

The small games also force choices on the players. Will you rely on your 1 anti tank unit? Or will you cut down on anti infantry and take more anti tank? Do I really need another command squad or will I be better off with another 10 men... and so on. Forces choice and decisions which is fun as it adds a new layer of strategy. It also culls peoples need to buy more models to keep playing huge game sizes.

There's not much strategy to be had once you realize that you can't take a well rounded list, and your opponent's army will steamroll yours on the basis that you couldn't afford to fit in any form of proper counter.

That first part is where attitude comes in. Its not the rules fault those players act that way. You get that in a lot of games. We had no problems with the grey knights guy at our club, or the eldar or the tau or anything. Because no ones a jerk about the game. Attitude is the most important part and it seems that all these examples are a result of bad attitude. We dont make anyone change their lists. People are smart enough to change theirs if they feel no one will have fun playing that game. Because you arent gonna have fun playing that list if no you win on turn 2. So why would you want to play that list?

And no because we plan games in advance. If I was facing my chaos friend I wouldnt bring aircraft. He has no AA guns. We list tailor to each other. For some reason people on the internet hate that. But its great for us. We dont see each others list in detail. But we know what to expect from each other all the time. And who couldnt take a well rounded list at 500 points? There is generally like 3-5 units at most in a game that size. Nobody can afford to out counter someone else without loosing something important. It becomes a war of troop choices instead of heavy support.

Just try play the game as a community instead of screaming I want this and that and calling it quits. You paid good money for those rules so play them in a way that gets the most fun. Surely you have far more fun playing a game where your weaker list fought their weaker list in a close game. View it as a step forward not a huge problem. If the game is better that way then do it.

At the end of the day you are choosing to do this. GW doesnt advertise it as an extremely competitive cut throat game. They advertise it as a set of rules that allow you to use the cool models with cool backgrounds (for most) in creative ways you see fit. I see it fit to not use GW models and not read the fluff but play the game and use models I enjoy. The rules are made for that. So dont expect the rules to do what it wasnt made to do. Have fun with it. After all you purchased the game and it wasnt falsely advertised and you werent mislead.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmmm im not saying competitive players aren't tying to have fun, what I mean is the game is more geared towards casual players. So having the right attitude for the game is toning down the competitive attitude.

The problem with that is that how broken a given unit, or combination of units is, is not reliant on the player's attitude.

Essentially what you're saying is that players should just not take those broken units as that would be unfair on other players and reduce their fun... but that's the exact opposite of having more options.

And a new "fair rule set" hurts us more. Why? Because we have to pay more money for a different game when we where happy with the last one.

So keep playing the last one.

Whether GW choose to make the next edition of the game more balanced or not, it's going to come. So you're going to face a new rulebook sooner or later either way.

 Swastakowey wrote:

That first part is where attitude comes in. Its not the rules fault those players act that way.

The rules are literally there to define what players can and can not do. That is the black and white of it, anything else is your opinion. Either a player is playing inside the rules or he is cheating, weither you or GW disagree with the spirit of how he plays is irrelevant if the rules allow it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hmmmm im not saying competitive players aren't tying to have fun, what I mean is the game is more geared towards casual players. So having the right attitude for the game is toning down the competitive attitude.

The problem with that is that how broken a given unit, or combination of units is, is not reliant on the player's attitude.

Essentially what you're saying is that players should just not take those broken units as that would be unfair on other players and reduce their fun... but that's the exact opposite of having more options.

And a new "fair rule set" hurts us more. Why? Because we have to pay more money for a different game when we where happy with the last one.

So keep playing the last one.

Whether GW choose to make the next edition of the game more balanced or not, it's going to come. So you're going to face a new rulebook sooner or later either way.

Yes but I know that GW wont drastically change the game, as I said if thats the case great. If not and they make it into a new game ill play something else. One things for sure I wont spend my time complaining like you guys do.

And broken units are reliant on attitude. Most broken units are only a problem when not used in moderation.


And to the guy who said the rules are there to define what you can and can not do, re read the rule book. The designers clearly state that the rules are not absolute and it encourages people to change and play it as they see fit. After all its the fround work for a game. You are meant to add to it or take away from it. the rules are not law. the players are law.

What are the rules of the game if both players say infantry can move 20"? the rule says the players can if they both choose to.

 Swastakowey wrote:
We list tailor to each other. For some reason people on the internet hate that.

Because generally list tailoring is used as a way to focus your list specifically to beat the opposiing list, rather than as a way of making your list 'fairer' for your opponent.

And who couldnt take a well rounded list at 500 points?

Most people, since it's far smaller than the game is designed for.

Just try play the game as a community instead of screaming I want this and that and calling it quits.

That's great if you have that sense of community. Many gaming groups are just a venue that has a steady stream of relatively random people coming and going as time goes by. The sort of arrangement you're talking about is one that can only work when the player base is steady and the players all know each other reasonably well.

That's why you see people complaining - when you're largely playing against people you don't know, having the game reasonably balanced is the only way that you can be at all guaranteed of a fair game, because you're never going to know what your opponent is going to bring to the table.

 insaniak wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
We list tailor to each other. For some reason people on the internet hate that.

Because generally list tailoring is used as a way to focus your list specifically to beat the opposiing list, rather than as a way of making your list 'fairer' for your opponent.

And who couldnt take a well rounded list at 500 points?

Most people, since it's far smaller than the game is designed for.

Just try play the game as a community instead of screaming I want this and that and calling it quits.

That's great if you have that sense of community. Many gaming groups are just a venue that has a steady stream of relatively random people coming and going as time goes by. The sort of arrangement you're talking about is one that can only work when the player base is steady and the players all know each other reasonably well.

That's why you see people complaining - when you're largely playing against people you don't know, having the game reasonably balanced is the only way that you can be at all guaranteed of a fair game, because you're never going to know what your opponent is going to bring to the table.

Then thats another problem to overcome. If your only solution is to complain and wait then im sorry but you will never be happy with the game. Im only trying to help people enjoy the hobby.

Try forming a club if you have so many people coming.

What size is the game designed for? Its designed for whatever size the players want to play.

And list tailoring is onyl bad if you have the wrong attitude like you just said.

If it makes you feel any better, I sold my entire collection. Over $20,000 worth. I was super hardcore, with multiple, massive
Apocalypse armies, and I have been undefeated in the last 3 local competitive tournaments.

This attitude from GW is the final nail in the coffin. There was a post on Natfka a few months ago, about how
the design studio doesn't care about game balance. That was the beginning of the end for me.

I have absolutely no desire to play a game that is inherently un-balanced, so much so that the design studio comes
out and says it. GW has turned into nothing more than a toy model company, with very poorly written and horribly
balanced rules. I want no part of it, and would feel like a looser at this point trying to seriously play it competitively.

It is one of the most poorly balanced games I have ever played. No longer can someone just pick an army, build a reasonable
list, and hope to do well in games. If you want to play competitively, you have to flush\rebuild your army 2-3x a year. And
going to the FLGS for a pick-up game is a lesson in bad comedy more often than not.

I blew everything out; legions of models, massive amounts of Forge World, rulebooks, terrain, paints, airbrushes, the works. I am done.

From the proceeds I purchased a brand new HDTV, PS4, and am taking my kids to Disney for 5 days at the end of May.
And I will still have some left to put in savings.

It was fun while it lasted, but I will never touch another GW product again.