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.

My only complaint that a box of space marines doesn't actually come with a packet of pretzels and a six pack.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I know that's how it works in the real world. But I don't want to have the first 4 turns of the game being artillery strikes, carpet bombing, and mine fields just for the sake of realism.

The key part about the small 5 man drop pod unit is how cheap and easy it is to get. It's a normal marine unit that now has the anti-tank capacity to render even the most heavily armored vehicle a smoldering husk. A 10 point upgrade. That's not tactics, that's common sense. Give up a bolter for that? Any day. And why not? You can take 5 more squads just like it. Why do we not see the same with MC? Not every squad can get the firepower necessary to take down a MC in one hit like we see available for anti-tank weaponry.

In fairness I think this is more a matter of the drop pod (in this case) being far too reliable. So a pod launched from orbit that reenters the atmosphere (and can't really fly) is somehow able to deploy and react with utmost precision in the same time it takes for another squad to cross the street? Uhhh...ok. If drop pods were more likely to mishap or drift further they wouldn't seem quite as jarring as a tactical option.

More grim, more dark, and most of all: more balance. Need I say more?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
What I want from 40K is the phrase "40K is not the game for you" to be put into physical form, frozen with liquid nitrogen, and filmed in slow motion hi-def video as it's hit with a shovel.

I utterly detest that phrase with every fiber of my being. It just reeks of elitism. "Oh you want a fair balanced rule set that people can enjoy and not hear complaints about OP units and spam lists? You want to a rule set that doesn't require heavy house ruling and forced list neutering? Sorry this is my game and I will have none of that. Now take this 80 page guide on how we play easy and friendly here and start setting up your games weeks in advance with proper setting and atmosphere, and Emperor protect you if you don't act out some dialogue!"

Didn't say it was my game, I just said that I was happy with it and it ticked all of the boxes for me. I fail to see how that is elitist. If the game isn't working for you, then I'm saying that there are lots of other options available. It just strikes me as silly people spending time posting on 40k forums about how they want the game to move to a tighter ruleset that supports competitive play and PUGs when the designers have clearly stated that is not the direction they want to take the game in. As I stated previously, that is the equivalent of me going onto Warmachine forums and telling them they need to relax a bit.

40k has never been balanced and has always had clumsy ruleset as from the outset it was based around making rules up for models, not the other way around. Despite its many flaws, I love it. Not that it's perfect - my group has about 5 house rules [that fit on one Facebook post, not 80 pages] that tweak it nicely to our mutual satisfaction [no neutering going on either]. It isn't balanced, has never been balanced, and never will be balanced, so you need to either accept that or move on.

I don't accept that. Nor will I plan on just dropping the time and money invested in the hobby just because GW thinks that they can sell rules and supplements for $50 a pop while still claiming to be only a model company.

I don't understand the apologetic approach. If it's fine the way it is, then you're supporting screamer stars. If it's fine the way it is, you're fine with triptides. If it's fine, you're happy with wave serpent spam. But generally I don't see the "beer and pretzel" crowd ever cheering on such fun and fluffy lists that are fully within the confines of the "good as is" rule set. Usually they have to house rule so much that they prevent players from running several units. That's not what GW intended. That's not the game they promote. They would have kept the 0-1 restrictions if they did. But they took that away and just established the FOC.

Honestly, I've never seen one person that is perfectly fine with all the death star and top tier lists and thinks the rules are fine where they at. Every single time I see either the competitive players asking for balance or the casual player saying it's fine as long as you severely house rule the game beyond what GW ever intended (but it's fine as is).

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I don't accept that. Nor will I plan on just dropping the time and money invested in the hobby just because GW thinks that they can sell rules and supplements for $50 a pop while still claiming to be only a model company.

I don't understand the apologetic approach. If it's fine the way it is, then you're supporting screamer stars. If it's fine the way it is, you're fine with triptides. If it's fine, you're happy with wave serpent spam. But generally I don't see the "beer and pretzel" crowd ever cheering on such fun and fluffy lists that are fully within the confines of the "good as is" rule set. Usually they have to house rule so much that they prevent players from running several units. That's not what GW intended. That's not the game they promote. They would have kept the 0-1 restrictions if they did. But they took that away and just established the FOC.

Honestly, I've never seen one person that is perfectly fine with all the death star and top tier lists and thinks the rules are fine where they at. Every single time I see either the competitive players asking for balance or the casual player saying it's fine as long as you severely house rule the game beyond what GW ever intended (but it's fine as is).

What are you doing about it?

We are doing something about it and enjoy it. You are doing nothing and hating it.

 Rippy wrote:
My only complaint that a box of space marines doesn't actually come with a packet of pretzels and a six pack.

I think Games Workshop has a split personality, They say it's beer and pretzels game. It's aimed at 12 yr olds.
How many 12 yr olds are allowed to drink beer.

I want my 40k to be an actual game that doesn't involve 40% of its time to be spent rules lawyer or setting up house rules.

Just clean and well written rules with no multiple ways for interpretation.

I dont even care that some things are stronger than others.
dont even care about D weapons.

its that hour or two spent arguing that ruins the game more than anything else.

 Swastakowey wrote:

What are you doing about it?

We are doing something about it and enjoy it. You are doing nothing and hating it.

You and your assumptions. You're making it sound like I can't have fun or don't have fun playing the game with my friends and even pick up games in the area. We DID do something about it. We have house ruled the game way beyond what is intended. We threw Escalation and Stronghold assault to the side, did away with data slates, and tried to establish some semblance of balance.
But that's not my complaint. WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT. That is the companies job.

Btw, Poker is a perfectly fine game. As long as you throw out all wild cards and aces, Jacks no longer can be used when forming straights, and it's more about trying to get a prime number when you add up all the number cards than it is getting a good hand. But it's still poker right?

The biggest problem with 40k today is GW's refusal to patch old Codexes to handle changes in the rules and the meta. If there's a turnover time of five years for the rules as a whole then a bad decision the writers made is going to stick around and colour the game for five years, if you patch every Codex every time you release something new the power tiers are closer together, you keep a broader group of people playing the game since you don't end up with two-editions-old unplayable army books, and you don't get stuck with product you can't move because it sucks under the current rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

What are you doing about it?

We are doing something about it and enjoy it. You are doing nothing and hating it.

You and your assumptions. You're making it sound like I can't have fun or don't have fun playing the game with my friends and even pick up games in the area. We DID do something about it. We have house ruled the game way beyond what is intended. We threw Escalation and Stronghold assault to the side, did away with data slates, and tried to establish some semblance of balance.
But that's not my complaint. WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT. That is the companies job.

Btw, Poker is a perfectly fine game. As long as you throw out all wild cards and aces, Jacks no longer can be used when forming straights, and it's more about trying to get a prime number when you add up all the number cards than it is getting a good hand. But it's still poker right?

GW isn't going to change the way they do business because we're being self-righteous on the Internet. Your options are quit playing, keep playing with their rules, or keep playing with your own rules. Deal with it.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I don't accept that. Nor will I plan on just dropping the time and money invested in the hobby just because GW thinks that they can sell rules and supplements for $50 a pop while still claiming to be only a model company.

I don't understand the apologetic approach. If it's fine the way it is, then you're supporting screamer stars. If it's fine the way it is, you're fine with triptides. If it's fine, you're happy with wave serpent spam. But generally I don't see the "beer and pretzel" crowd ever cheering on such fun and fluffy lists that are fully within the confines of the "good as is" rule set. Usually they have to house rule so much that they prevent players from running several units. That's not what GW intended. That's not the game they promote. They would have kept the 0-1 restrictions if they did. But they took that away and just established the FOC.

Honestly, I've never seen one person that is perfectly fine with all the death star and top tier lists and thinks the rules are fine where they at. Every single time I see either the competitive players asking for balance or the casual player saying it's fine as long as you severely house rule the game beyond what GW ever intended (but it's fine as is).

I've never come across screamer stars, triptides or seercouncils because the people I play against have absolutely no interest in running lists like that. I have asked our Eldar player to bring a seercouncil just so I can see what all the hype is about but so far he's refusing. Having 5 house rules [mostly based around challenges, look out sir and warlord traits to keep the game flowing and remove pointless dice rolls] is hardly severely house ruling.

We all just play with whatever units we feel like taking on that particular day, whether they're competitive or not. No-body really cares who wins [apart from gaining bragging rights] because for us it's just an excuse to get together with mates, have a few beers, trash talk each other and play with our toys. I got tabled last game but managed to take down the Greater Daemon of Slaanesh that spawned out of a random Eldar psyker and it was one of the best games of 40k that I've played.

So, for me, a 'casual' player who gives fluff, narrative and using cool models a much higher importance than winning or losing, this game is great. IGOUGO system is a bit annoying, as are all of the USRs, but there's always next edition

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

What are you doing about it?

We are doing something about it and enjoy it. You are doing nothing and hating it.

You and your assumptions. You're making it sound like I can't have fun or don't have fun playing the game with my friends and even pick up games in the area. We DID do something about it. We have house ruled the game way beyond what is intended. We threw Escalation and Stronghold assault to the side, did away with data slates, and tried to establish some semblance of balance.
But that's not my complaint. WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT. That is the companies job.

Btw, Poker is a perfectly fine game. As long as you throw out all wild cards and aces, Jacks no longer can be used when forming straights, and it's more about trying to get a prime number when you add up all the number cards than it is getting a good hand. But it's still poker right?

So why so bitter if you are having fun? You may not like what GW has done, but many do. So why not take the bits you like (which you have done) and then stop complaining. Its what the game is for. They give you everything as a rough guideline then you slim or expand it to your needs. Sounds like you are playing the game as intended. So in other words you want a new game?

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I've never come across screamer stars, triptides or seercouncils because the people I play against have absolutely no interest in running lists like that.

Then you really can't say everything is fine if you haven't seen what's wrong with the system.

@Swastakowey: Why would I not complain? Do you think it takes away anything from me to complain? Do you value your opinion to talk about the positives of the game outweigh my opinion on the negatives? If everything is fine, why post about it online. It's fine, it'll be fine without your comments.
It takes nothing from me to express my opinion on the matter. The joy I get from the game still happens, more so from my friends efforts than GW's rules.
However we still have pick up games with new players in the area. It should not be part of any game where I have to go over an hour discussing how we set up terrain, handle list making, and so on. The "rough guideline" is a terrible standard. Seriously, why not play G.I. Joes if that's your opinion on the matter?

40K has rules. If someone comes up to me and says "Want to play X points of 40K" I should be able to say "Sure!" and start setting up. That's how real games work. If you have to start comparing pages of house rules before you even decide if you're playing the same game, then is it really a "good" game?

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I've never come across screamer stars, triptides or seercouncils because the people I play against have absolutely no interest in running lists like that.

Then you really can't say everything is fine if you haven't seen what's wrong with the system.

@Swastakowey: Why would I not complain? Do you think it takes away anything from me to complain? Do you value your opinion to talk about the positives of the game outweigh my opinion on the negatives? If everything is fine, why post about it online. It's fine, it'll be fine without your comments.
It takes nothing from me to express my opinion on the matter. The joy I get from the game still happens, more so from my friends efforts than GW's rules.
However we still have pick up games with new players in the area. It should not be part of any game where I have to go over an hour discussing how we set up terrain, handle list making, and so on. The "rough guideline" is a terrible standard. Seriously, why not play G.I. Joes if that's your opinion on the matter?

40K has rules. If someone comes up to me and says "Want to play X points of 40K" I should be able to say "Sure!" and start setting up. That's how real games work. If you have to start comparing pages of house rules before you even decide if you're playing the same game, then is it really a "good" game?

House rules are not done in pages. you are exaggerating. It takes a few minutes to discuss some rough guidelines before a game. You shouldnt complain because nobody is making you play a game you speak so negatively about. Its fine to not like things about the game I just feel people like you are taking it too far. I dont like things about the game. But I dont expect to like it all. But there is no reason for all the hatred and anger directed at something you cant control and have complete freedom to partake in or not.

Taking it too far?! I'm talking about it on an opinions section in a forum about the topic! That's your definition of too far?! Are you serious?

There's no reason for the hate and anger? There totally is. I played Tau through a lot of 5th and had an uphill battle every game. Now with the 6th ed codex my primary army is considered to be OP almost by default. The units I like are considered to be the OP units that are no fun to play against. If I use Riptides, I'm TFG. If I use crisis suits, I get called TFG because suits are too good because they hide too well. If I use gunline I'm TFG because it's too hard to assault. The rules imbalance makes this a very hard army to justify.

But here's a scenario for you. If I asked to play you about a 1750 list with three riptides, buff commander, and allied Enclave or eldar would you accept the game? It's a fully legal and fluffy list.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Taking it too far?! I'm talking about it on an opinions section in a forum about the topic! That's your definition of too far?! Are you serious?

There's no reason for the hate and anger? There totally is. I played Tau through a lot of 5th and had an uphill battle every game. Now with the 6th ed codex my primary army is considered to be OP almost by default. The units I like are considered to be the OP units that are no fun to play against. If I use Riptides, I'm TFG. If I use crisis suits, I get called TFG because suits are too good because they hide too well. If I use gunline I'm TFG because it's too hard to assault. The rules imbalance makes this a very hard army to justify.

But here's a scenario for you. If I asked to play you about a 1750 list with three riptides, buff commander, and allied Enclave or eldar would you accept the game? It's a fully legal and fluffy list.

Whos fault is that? Does GW label you those or does the attitude of the gamers make you one of those? GW didnt do it. Also playing with lots of Line Of Site blocking terrain will help you get more enjoyment out of your Tau.

And yea sure. I wont enjoy it because I know why you are using an abusive list. But i wont say no as im all for people playing what they enjoy. And id hardly call that fluffy... at all.

Just remember that the attitude of you and your gamers has more effect on the game than any rule or list. Good attitude, good game.

 Swastakowey wrote:

And yea sure. I wont enjoy it because I know why you are using an abusive list.

Because it's fluffy for my home made fluff which is just as valid as house rules?

id hardly call that fluffy... at all.

Oh. I guess not.

So as far as I'm to understand, 40K is perfectly fine so long as you're not playing 40k anymore. Afterall if you're not using the terrain options, mysterious objectives/terrain, allies, escalation and so forth then it's not 40k. If I decided to remove rows and columns from Battleship then it stops being the original game.
Also, why is my list abusive? I'm within the points and FOC limits. All my war gear options are legal. Perhaps you're not forging the narrative enough?
You think it's an abusive list because you have a house rule stuck in your head that tells you that what I'm bringing isn't going to be enjoyable and somehow abuses the rules. You know that there is something wrong with it, despite it not being wrong. This is a good start.

Ummm for someone so against assumptions you are pretty stained yourself...

Its not fluffy really. I never related house rules to fluff. As far as im concerned fluff takes 2nd place to making a fun game with fun rules.

I use allies... I have a titan so i must use escalation... so where is the bit where I am removing everything? I use anything and everything as me and my opponents sees fit. So what about it isnt original? The original rules is like vanilla. If you love vanilla thats awesome, but a lot of people like to use vanilla in sundaes, smoothies, or add flavours or candy to it. Why? To make it interesting, because it suits their taste. 40k is the same.

If you hate vanilla and all the flavours that are ripe for you to create. Maybe you are lactose intolerant and need to find something else to eat.

Much like 40k.

I never said the rules are wrong, I said the attitude is wrong. Taking a list like that is showing you got the wrong attitude dude. The main rule is to have fun. You are breaking the main rule by taking a list you know is not going to be fun. So yes it does abuse the rules.

How is it not fluffy? Do Riptides not occupy the elite slot and are used to provide a strong fire base to soften the enemy? Explain to me why it's not fluffy, since I don't have much to go off of other than the FOC positions and the FOC itself.

In the other thread you stated that you play low point games, which didn't allow for allies or titans. I did make an assumption about you, but the assumption still applies to most "casual" players who do tend to cut out the "abusive" units such as the Eldar titan.

Taking a list like that is showing you got the wrong attitude dude.

You keep saying that, but can't show me where. What page number states that my use of 3 elite slots is abusive? Is it using three elite slots or is it bringing multiples of the same unit. I can't find that page reference.

How is my list breaking the fun rule? You are so close to the answer, but you just can't get there. How do I know it's not going to be fun? What rules am I abusing? Is there a page number?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
How is it not fluffy? Do Riptides not occupy the elite slot and are used to provide a strong fire base to soften the enemy? Explain to me why it's not fluffy, since I don't have much to go off of other than the FOC positions and the FOC itself.

In the other thread you stated that you play low point games, which didn't allow for allies or titans. I did make an assumption about you, but the assumption still applies to most "casual" players who do tend to cut out the "abusive" units such as the Eldar titan.

Taking a list like that is showing you got the wrong attitude dude.

You keep saying that, but can't show me where. What page number states that my use of 3 elite slots is abusive? Is it using three elite slots or is it bringing multiples of the same unit. I can't find that page reference.

How is my list breaking the fun rule? You are so close to the answer, but you just can't get there. How do I know it's not going to be fun? What rules am I abusing? Is there a page number?

Common sense is needed.

I play bigger games too. As stated to you earlier. But those are for fun special times. Not always as it gets old.

Yet again common sense.

Yet again common sense. Oh and attitude. I wouldnt play you if you spoke like this to people in person. Just because they see no need to rant and rave about revolution and change among a model company. Im sure not many people would. If you are viewing the game as a "I want to do this because I can" game despite the opponent then I think you are 40k intolerant and need an alternative treat.

You seem to think that because the rules mean you can do something that you have to do it. But thats not at all what they are their for. They are there for you to choose how you play it. If its too much for you to handle (it seems to be) then reduce it to something you can swallow. After all you dont want to choke.

I think you need to step back and think about the things that are ruining the game in a mature manner. Eliminate the bits that dont work and go from there. If you cant do that for whatever reason then you have failed in your investment. In which case try make as much of your money back as possible. Otherwise you are loosing precious time you wont get back.

So try common sense and have a pleasing attitude. If everyone did that then everyone will be happy.

I fun game I can play to spend time with my friends when we all happen to be home at the same time and gives me some fun time assembling and painting models...so pretty much exactly what it is.

You have a problem with the way I'm talking to you, when I'm asking why my list is abusive and not fluffy.

Common sense? Can't be that, since I'm looking at it and think it's fine. Out of two people only one thinks it's bad so it must not be that common.

But the whole point I'm making is that my list is bad because IT'S NOT THE GAME YOU WANT TO PLAY! It's a list made from the 40K rules and you're saying it's bad. It's a game system where you have to willfully set up a mental barrier declaring valid units and rules abusive with no actual basis what so ever. The problem with the game is that the rule of "For Fun" is only important to you as long as it's YOUR DEFINITION OF FUN.

But if everything is fine as you state, why are you posting in a thread about what people want out of the game. You already have it. How is this not a waste of your time defending something you already have? You harped on me about being negative, so I'm assuming you have a wonderful and thoughtful answer.

I so do enjoy apologetics.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
You have a problem with the way I'm talking to you, when I'm asking why my list is abusive and not fluffy.

Common sense? Can't be that, since I'm looking at it and think it's fine. Out of two people only one thinks it's bad so it must not be that common.

But the whole point I'm making is that my list is bad because IT'S NOT THE GAME YOU WANT TO PLAY! It's a list made from the 40K rules and you're saying it's bad. It's a game system where you have to willfully set up a mental barrier declaring valid units and rules abusive with no actual basis what so ever. The problem with the game is that the rule of "For Fun" is only important to you as long as it's YOUR DEFINITION OF FUN.

But if everything is fine as you state, why are you posting in a thread about what people want out of the game. You already have it. How is this not a waste of your time defending something you already have? You harped on me about being negative, so I'm assuming you have a wonderful and thoughtful answer.

I so do enjoy apologetics.

If you think that list is fun then all id ask is a compromise so we can both have fun. Compromise comes from common sense and a good attitude. Nothing to do with what i think. Im fairly sure I made it clear last thread that im mopen to do anything my opponents want but if there is a clash in wants then meeting down them middle fine by me. So no its not my view of fun. My view of fun is its fun if everyone has fun. Unlike yours which is it can only be fun if the rules let me have fun.

I am doing this because I like wargaming. I want people to not just see angry players all the time. Its not inviting. I may be fueling the fire but maybe, just maybe some others will silently read this and agree. Why? Because they are sick of hearing your words repeated and uttered by angry gamers at every opportunity. I want gamers to realize that the hobby is about more than just blindly following the crowd despite it not working that way. I want them to be more open to the idea of working the game to fit their groups need to have fun, through compromise and quick discussion. Because unlike you at least i have some kind of solution. Are the rules perfect? No, but can they work, yes! And I want people to know that. Not squander in a dirty spa with people who only agree. Its easy when everyone just agrees. But it doesnt solve anything. You all agree the rules are a problem. But nothing good is coming from it. But good is coming from trying to make the game enjoyable. Or at least more enjoyable. So lighten up and ask yourself what the point of wargaming is. Ill give you a hint, its about making friends with like minded people who enjoy what you enjoy. You cant really enjoy it with your friends if only half are having fun. So compromise, improve and adapt. Do things that benefit the community.

What I am saying is not "Play my way", im saying compromise and work towards the goal of making it fun. You dont like one sided lists? then talk to your friend and find out what can be done. Dont just say "the rules say i can, so shut up and let me do it". Go "these rules dont work for what we want, so lets tweak this".

Its easy to shift the blame. Harder to solve a problem. But which one gets results? Definitely not the blame game. Blame games go in circles.

I'd like to see a few things.

First, is the removal of the AV system. Models can have the "Vehicle" sub-type that makes them immune to poison, but "melta" weapons can re-roll wounds, and they can have their own movement and shooting rules, that sort of thing, but put everything on the same "destruction" table.

Next would be to have rules options that change with point values. For example, No MC / Vehicles below 500 pts, Fortifications start at 1000 points, Allies and Flyers at 1500 pts, Super Heavies only available at 2000 pts plus. This would keep skirmishes, engagements, battles, invasions and "WARS" as distinct elements, with reasonable expectations of what you'll face.

A GW sponsored "house rule" site, that could help with game balance issues. FAQ's that adjust point values on a 3 to 6 month cycle, and allow the internet to have some say in things. You can still have powerful units, but those units can be brought down a bit, or boosted up if needed.


As a "pickup game player" that has come from a tight group of guys that used to play together when we were younger, I can appreciate a willingness to house rule, but I'd prefer a system that adapts instead of denying problems.

You keep throwing out the "good attitude" like I'm some how a bad person for taking the list I want. Compromise? I'm assuming you're going to take a list you want, why can't I?

You don't get it though. "Abusive" and "not fun" lists are listed no where in the rules. There is no guidance on that. It's something you are literally making up with no actual basis for it. If I can take a fully legal army which there is no fluff to say it's not a valid army composition, and you still know that it's a bad list and shouldn't be used, then how is everything "just fine as it is?"

 Savageconvoy wrote:
You keep throwing out the "good attitude" like I'm some how a bad person for taking the list I want. Compromise? I'm assuming you're going to take a list you want, why can't I?

You don't get it though. "Abusive" and "not fun" lists are listed no where in the rules. There is no guidance on that. It's something you are literally making up with no actual basis for it. If I can take a fully legal army which there is no fluff to say it's not a valid army composition, and you still know that it's a bad list and shouldn't be used, then how is everything "just fine as it is?"

Ummm no as stated to you before I try my best to take lists so that you have as much fun fighting me as I do using my list. I take a list that i think my opponent will enjoy as much as me. Hence why I talk with my opponents beforehand.

And no not a bad person just a sour attitude. You dont get it. Nowhere in the rules does it say these rules must be followed with strict adherence. It says change the rules as you see fit. SO cite plenty of reason why the rules let you, but if one or more players doesnt see it fit to follow then a compromise needs to be arranged. Just like any game. As I said, you dont need absolute guidance. We are creatures of free will and have the common sense to do things properly if we need to. Remember the first rule (and only important rule) is have fun. Take lists that equates to fun games. There is all the guidance you need.

I'm honestly getting sick of being told I have a sour attitude. Do you think I advocate a system of rules that excludes a large section of the playerbase? NO! Not once. I want a fair and balanced rule system that both casual and competitive players can enjoy. You are happy with the rules because you're a casual player and don't seem to care at all about competitive players. You've told me many times already to just give up the hobby and sell off my things because I'm not a casual player like you.

Which of us honestly has the "sour attitude?"

What about the simple fact that this is a thread about our opinion on the game, in a subforum dedicated to the game in general. You've repeatedly told me time and time again that I shouldn't voice my opinion just because it's not your opinion.

Yet I'm the negative one? Use your own logic. If this forum of opinions isn't what you want out of it, then why stay?

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I'm honestly getting sick of being told I have a sour attitude. Do you think I advocate a system of rules that excludes a large section of the playerbase? NO! Not once. I want a fair and balanced rule system that both casual and competitive players can enjoy. You are happy with the rules because you're a casual player and don't seem to care at all about competitive players. You've told me many times already to just give up the hobby and sell off my things because I'm not a casual player like you.

Which of us honestly has the "sour attitude?"

What about the simple fact that this is a thread about our opinion on the game, in a subforum dedicated to the game in general. You've repeatedly told me time and time again that I shouldn't voice my opinion just because it's not your opinion.

Yet I'm the negative one? Use your own logic. If this forum of opinions isn't what you want out of it, then why stay?

No im saying instead of voicing an opinion voice a solution. Nothing to do with casual or competitive. Competitive players just want a close game where they can challenge each others wits. Same system, they know a battle will be one sided so why cant they compromise and work out the best way to squeeze as much challenge into the game as possible.

You want a balanced rule set, but refuse to play one. You seem to want to turn 40k into something it wasnt made for (without putting in effort). I have said its ok to voice your opinion, but when all people can say is negative things then why bother. All you do is say. I tried offering ways to help people out and all of a sudden people who seem to not like the game shoot it down. My solution is as simple as find the problem, eliminate it and compromise.

And I will walk away. Like I did on the last thread. Because it was going nowhere. Like this one has started to. Yes I do think you have a sour attitude. Why? Because all your reasons involve "I want." All of them. Nothing to do with the other players. Its literally I want to do this without consequence.

Also twisting words does not make a good argument. I never said quite because you arent casual. I said quit because the game doesnt offer what you want.

So, as I have said, carry on your ways. They are clearly working for you.

The only thing I agree with what you have said is to take my own advice. So yes I will leave this thread. Just remember a rule book can only offer what its made for. Accept it and make it work as intended, or move on. No need to linger.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
40K is not without problems at all, but neither is it awful.

If I and my friends spot RaW trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaW in the balls and move on.

If I and my friends spot RaI trying to stop us from having fun, we kick RaI in the balls and move on.

This has worked well for us so far.

Again, posting this personally for about the third time this week, 40K works fine for social groups/friends/families that play together regularly, they can do this, and they are clearly the set that GW seem to be tilting at, the problem is that many players play in a very different environment where they may not play the same people regularly, or not know them well, if at all. At this point, a clear, concise, well written ruleset backed up with a solid, well tested and reasonably balanced set of codexes becomes infinitely more important.

Then clearly 40k isn't for you. There are lots of other options though. 40k lets me do what I want to do, which is play narrative games with the awesome models GW and FW make. If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option. You won't find me posting on Warmachine/Infinity threads about how the game should be more beer & pretzels though.

Well, what a desk face of a reply!

Seriously? I like 40K, I have a great deal of affection for, and long running history with, the game and the background, I care enough that I'm wasting time on the Internet talking about how I wish the people that make it would concentrate on improving it so even more people could enjoy it, and people who have become disillusioned could fall in love with it again.

But it clearly isn't for me? Or is it not for me basically because we want different things, and as it works for you, I'm the one who must be wrong, because you're alright?

I'm going to require a piece of your reply again, because I want to really emphasise something (again) so I'm going to syphon it off here...

If I wanted a tight, balanced game with very similar units on each side I would pick another option

I'm now going to use formatting for emphasis

Balance does not mean having everything the same

How many times? I mean? Really? Is it so hard?

You can still have every unit in the game, all broadly similar in function to how they are now, but if the points costs are adjusted, making some units cheaper, others more expensive, and employ tweaks to abilities where necessary to flatten the disparities in power more, bingo, your game is more closely balanced.

Some of the core rules could handle some adjustment too, but the primary source of imbalance are the codexes, and they need the most attention.

But no, my desire to see a game I have a near quarter century history with become more playable and involving clearly means it isn't for me!

40k is a beer and pretzels game aimed at kids. Maybe that is why we have so many posts that seem like they were posted by drunken 12 yr old's.