Switch Theme:

Seeing all these hate posts on 40k... *sigh* it's not all bad is it?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

GW want the game to be more "toy soldiers", like the original Little Wars in which you actually shoot matchsticks at the enemy models.

I think that is a valid design choice.

These bits of slowness work fine as long as the game doesn't get too big.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

 ClockworkZion wrote:
TLoS came out of 5th edition and was created because players where basically doing just that. I'd much rather we back off and abstract it a little (draw a line from the unit to it's target, models that can't be targeted without drawing a line through terrain or an intervening unit (to include one of your own) grant cover saves.

Of course then you'd have to differentiate between shooting through a wall with no windows and one with windows I guess.

Well no system is perfect and at least it'd work better than the old LoS rules we had before TLoS.


Actually TLOS was a feature of RT, 2nd, 5th and 6th. Not sure about 4th, missed it completely.

So 40K IS a TLOS ruleset, and always has been for the overwhelming majority of it's lifespan. If you're not a fan, you'll need to make your peace with it, as having tried abstract and reverted to TLOS I suspect that's where it will stay.

Personally don't have an issue with it, but the definitions of what does and does not constitute a valid part of a model for targeting could use tightening up.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 azreal13 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
TLoS came out of 5th edition and was created because players where basically doing just that. I'd much rather we back off and abstract it a little (draw a line from the unit to it's target, models that can't be targeted without drawing a line through terrain or an intervening unit (to include one of your own) grant cover saves.

Of course then you'd have to differentiate between shooting through a wall with no windows and one with windows I guess.

Well no system is perfect and at least it'd work better than the old LoS rules we had before TLoS.


Actually TLOS was a feature of RT, 2nd, 5th and 6th. Not sure about 4th, missed it completely.

So 40K IS a TLOS ruleset, and always has been for the overwhelming majority of it's lifespan. If you're not a fan, you'll need to make your peace with it, as having tried abstract and reverted to TLOS I suspect that's where it will stay.

Personally don't have an issue with it, but the definitions of what does and does not constitute a valid part of a model for targeting could use tightening up.


TLOS was in 3rd/4th too. The only exception was for stuff like Area Terrain and all the size categories etc.


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

Well, there you go! I dropped out in early 3rd til mid-5th, so that era is all a little hazy.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

TLOS has always been part of 40k.

My opinion and it's shared by others is that a big problem is that the people who design the game play the game waaaaaaaaaaay differently than anyone else. It doesn't take smarts to figure this out. It's always been this way, in fact for a long time there were "house rules" at GW. Like what the hell you design the game but then have your own house rules.

I think that's a huge part of it though.

If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el






I just think that's where a majority of the wasted time in a game goes to. Measuring distance, putting the model in the spot and tinkering around to see if you can or can not draw tlos, putting the model back in the original place and trying again. Arguing over wether or not the model can see another unit and how much cover it's getting.

It's just a pain having to constantly bend down to try and see through a window at the correct angle. I recently started bringing laser pointers because of the issue.

A lot of it has to with the field. When I was playing 5th it was in a store on the opposite end of the country where we used a lot of craters and area terrain. Now at my new area we use tons of the buildings and it's just a pain getting models onto the bottom floor of the corner buildings.

I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."

"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby 
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

Infinity has it nailed, I feel.

If you can see the head of the model, or a piece of the torso equivalent to the head, you can shoot, legs and arms don't count.

Of course, vehicles would need some slightly altered version of that, and there will always be an element of judgement, but that is a fair, and quantifiable, approach IMO.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Warmahordes has a good system too. It's a little like 4th edition 40k's size categories (from what I remember of it). A model occupies a cylindrical volume based on whatever size base it is on.

Now as WMH has a very rigid system for what base something goes on the LOS to a from a model never changes. This also helps with players not getting penalised in LOS for a bit of extravagant modelling.

To top it all off, measurements for all of these standard bases LOS is on the templates for the game.


Games Workshop Delenda Est.

Users on ignore- 53.

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 Ravenous D wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
When did GW release a statement saying they hated their customer base? I must have missed that.

I will say as a returning player, the price increase is nothing to balk at but I've manage to snag good deals on Ebay.


I can attest to upper management having a disdain for older customers and treat people like bags of money during my time with the great enemy.

Here's GWs former director of growth.


> Director of Growth

> Types something that would result in a loss of customers

Heh...

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Ravenous D wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
When did GW release a statement saying they hated their customer base? I must have missed that.

I will say as a returning player, the price increase is nothing to balk at but I've manage to snag good deals on Ebay.


I can attest to upper management having a disdain for older customers and treat people like bags of money during my time with the great enemy.

Here's GWs former director of growth.


> Director of Growth

> Types something that would result in a loss of customers

Heh...


Well he is the former Director of Growth so I guess he felt he needed to try and kneecap his old employer by flipping the bird to its customers like that.

You know, like any professional Director of Growth would.
   
Made in fr
Trazyn's Museum Curator





on the forum. Obviously

 ClockworkZion wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Ravenous D wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
When did GW release a statement saying they hated their customer base? I must have missed that.

I will say as a returning player, the price increase is nothing to balk at but I've manage to snag good deals on Ebay.


I can attest to upper management having a disdain for older customers and treat people like bags of money during my time with the great enemy.

Here's GWs former director of growth.


> Director of Growth

> Types something that would result in a loss of customers

Heh...


Well he is the former Director of Growth so I guess he felt he needed to try and kneecap his old employer by flipping the bird to its customers like that.

You know, like any professional Director of Growth would.


I know, I just thought it was a fun bit of irony

It would have been even better if he were the current one.

What I have
~4100
~1660

Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!

A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble

 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Ravenous D wrote:
Hollismason wrote:
When did GW release a statement saying they hated their customer base? I must have missed that.

I will say as a returning player, the price increase is nothing to balk at but I've manage to snag good deals on Ebay.


I can attest to upper management having a disdain for older customers and treat people like bags of money during my time with the great enemy.

Here's GWs former director of growth.


> Director of Growth

> Types something that would result in a loss of customers

Heh...


Well he is the former Director of Growth so I guess he felt he needed to try and kneecap his old employer by flipping the bird to its customers like that.

You know, like any professional Director of Growth would.


I know, I just thought it was a fun bit of irony

It would have been even better if he were the current one.

Then he would have been unemployed for sure!
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan






Austin, Texas.

heh this has gone off topic a tad

I do drugs.
Mostly Plastic Crack, but I do dabble in Cardboard Cocaine. 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





Does 6th edition have more variety in the tournament scene?

There are currently the below which can win a tournament:

1. Beastpacks
2. Seercouncils
3. Centuironstars
4. Oh’vessastars
5. Flying Daemons
6. Space Marine Bikers
7. TauDAR

There are also slight variations on those lists which people bring (for example the adepticon winner adding Chaos allies for a Helldrake to a FMC list)

I was not present during 5th ed tournament scenes but I understand that Grey Knight's lists were the norm?

   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight





Raleigh, NC

bodazoka wrote:
Does 6th edition have more variety in the tournament scene?

There are currently the below which can win a tournament:

1. Beastpacks
2. Seercouncils
3. Centuironstars
4. Oh’vessastars
5. Flying Daemons
6. Space Marine Bikers
7. TauDAR

There are also slight variations on those lists which people bring (for example the adepticon winner adding Chaos allies for a Helldrake to a FMC list)

I was not present during 5th ed tournament scenes but I understand that Grey Knight's lists were the norm?



Well, I can't comment too specifically since I am myself not a tournament player, but I am curious if the Adepticon tournament results from 2011 vs. 2014 are telling at all.

(Sources are from Blood of Kittens)

2011: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2011/04/05/adepticon-2011-pseudo-live-40k-champ-army-lists-and-anyalsis/

2014: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2014/04/04/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2014-top-16-championships-lists/

On face value (and I realize the comparison is a bit rough), it appears there is more variation with the old 5th edition tournaments. 2014 saw a lot of repetition, especially in allies (Inquisitors everywhere!)
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Tournaments will always be about playing the simplest and easiest list with the smallest number of variables that you have to account for to increase your chances of winning. Nothing will change that unless 40k gets so upended that the variables are somehow eliminated, which means basically getting rid of the dice, which means you're basically playing with little green Army Men at that point.
   
Made in au
Tough Tyrant Guard







 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tournaments will always be about playing the simplest and easiest list with the smallest number of variables that you have to account for to increase your chances of winning. Nothing will change that unless 40k gets so upended that the variables are somehow eliminated, which means basically getting rid of the dice, which means you're basically playing with little green Army Men at that point.

Well you know, in Warmac-*GUNSHOT*

Ehhh. Ahem.

There are different levels of seriousness in tabletop tournaments. You can have a little local tournament with a dozen people in it, and people will just turn up with whatever as long as the balance of the game is good enough. People won't just turn up with the strongest possible thing, because that's really boring and people want to have fun and to be creative with their lists. When you have a good tournament culture and plenty of tournaments, people won't just bring whatever they think the strongest list is, because people just aren't that fixated on winning. Besides, with good balance you get into an area where not running the "strongest" list can be an advantage, because everyone in the universe has seen and played against that list, so a different list that's nearly as strong but not as familiar can be even more powerful.

Netlisting will always be a thing to some extent just because it's easier to copy a netlist than to come up with your own thing, but most people won't just run a netlist for long unless they feel like they have no other choice to have a chance.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tournaments will always be about playing the simplest and easiest list with the smallest number of variables that you have to account for to increase your chances of winning. Nothing will change that unless 40k gets so upended that the variables are somehow eliminated, which means basically getting rid of the dice, which means you're basically playing with little green Army Men at that point.

Well you know, in Warmac-*GUNSHOT*


Warmachine controls a lot of variables by incorporating them into the caster. With specific feats, focus pools and spells pre-set it makes it so they becomes the main focus in your list building because it will largely dictate what you'll choose that works well with their abilites and even how many points of Jacks you take.

So it doesn't really disprove my point, controlling variables is something players want to do as much as possible.

It's a different system that does stuff that just doesn't carry over to 40k as well though so it's fairly moot.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Ehhh. Ahem.

There are different levels of seriousness in tabletop tournaments. You can have a little local tournament with a dozen people in it, and people will just turn up with whatever as long as the balance of the game is good enough. People won't just turn up with the strongest possible thing, because that's really boring and people want to have fun and to be creative with their lists. When you have a good tournament culture and plenty of tournaments, people won't just bring whatever they think the strongest list is, because people just aren't that fixated on winning. Besides, with good balance you get into an area where not running the "strongest" list can be an advantage, because everyone in the universe has seen and played against that list, so a different list that's nearly as strong but not as familiar can be even more powerful.

Netlisting will always be a thing to some extent just because it's easier to copy a netlist than to come up with your own thing, but most people won't just run a netlist for long unless they feel like they have no other choice to have a chance.

Yes there are differences in different levels, but you get people who treat every game like it's the finals in Nova too at every level so I don't want to say all competetive players are boring, they're just forced to be boring to keep up.
   
Made in au
Tough Tyrant Guard







 ClockworkZion wrote:
 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tournaments will always be about playing the simplest and easiest list with the smallest number of variables that you have to account for to increase your chances of winning. Nothing will change that unless 40k gets so upended that the variables are somehow eliminated, which means basically getting rid of the dice, which means you're basically playing with little green Army Men at that point.

There are different levels of seriousness in tabletop tournaments. You can have a little local tournament with a dozen people in it, and people will just turn up with whatever as long as the balance of the game is good enough. People won't just turn up with the strongest possible thing, because that's really boring and people want to have fun and to be creative with their lists. When you have a good tournament culture and plenty of tournaments, people won't just bring whatever they think the strongest list is, because people just aren't that fixated on winning. Besides, with good balance you get into an area where not running the "strongest" list can be an advantage, because everyone in the universe has seen and played against that list, so a different list that's nearly as strong but not as familiar can be even more powerful.

Netlisting will always be a thing to some extent just because it's easier to copy a netlist than to come up with your own thing, but most people won't just run a netlist for long unless they feel like they have no other choice to have a chance.

Yes there are differences in different levels, but you get people who treat every game like it's the finals in Nova too at every level so I don't want to say all competetive players are boring, they're just forced to be boring to keep up.

The thing is, if the game is balanced well enough then that isn't really a problem. Some people will run the "in" netlist, but most people will just run what they want, and because the balance is good enough it will all shake out in the end - any factor of "this list is a teensy bit better" gets lost due to people having more experience fighting that list. And IME many of the best players will be running weird lists too.

People will still search for killer combos, and other people will copy those combos even if they aren't overwhelmingly powerful, but if the balance is good then there will still be a vibrant set of other lists in play. They are only forced to be boring to keep up if the game balance is poor.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The thing is, if the game is balanced well enough then that isn't really a problem. Some people will run the "in" netlist, but most people will just run what they want, and because the balance is good enough it will all shake out in the end - any factor of "this list is a teensy bit better" gets lost due to people having more experience fighting that list. And IME many of the best players will be running weird lists too.

That's what's kind of funny, there -are- really good players who play weird lists. But they fine either different ways to control the probabilities their list needs to have to wrok well, or they're good enough to work around the problem that comes up when those things don't pan out like the should.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
People will still search for killer combos, and other people will copy those combos even if they aren't overwhelmingly powerful, but if the balance is good then there will still be a vibrant set of other lists in play. They are only forced to be boring to keep up if the game balance is poor.

Oh I know they will. MtG's entire meta is based around the "killer combos" for instance.

I think a lot of newer players (and some older players) don't have a good grasp of the mechanics or how to use them effectively to play certain kinds of armies effectively. I mean, how many brand new players would you recommend an army like Dark Eldar too? Even if you move past the things that kicked them in the shins this edition, they're not an easy army to be able to drop on the table and win with. You need a strong understanding of other codexes and how to pull their lists apart to play Dark Eldar effectively (there is more, but the crux of it is needing to know pretty much every weakness of every army to pull those armies apart effectively while not getting blown to little bits).

I'm not saying a new player can't learn to play Dark Eldar well, it's just that there is a serious barrier to entry for most of them to enter the army. It's because of this we have a lot of people instead gravitating to easier to use and run lists, because that barrier is much lower and there is a lot less to account for and be aware of.

Now this isn't a thing that exists in every game, many games have lower barriers to entry all around, or do things to lower those barriers, resulting in the ability for everyone to jump in that much easier and really get started (going back to the MtG thing, they lower the barrier by selling prebuilt decks for instance, making it easier to build off of a combo they've created or learn how to play in general).

Could 40k use something like this? Perhaps more than it does so now (perhaps a set of ultra-simplified Quick Start rules packaged with the Battleforces and Starterboxes that walks players through the basics of movement (regular moving, difficult and dangerous terrain as those things are the core elements of moving with things like embarking and disembarking and coming in through reserves or scout moves being less important for the basics), shooting (TLoS namely, likely cover as those are the cores of the Shooting every player needs to know), and Assault (charges, overwatch and combat without getting into things like Power Weapons or modifying Overwatch with abilities or special rules. Get them used to how to resolve the basic components and then get them onto the next part with all the otherstuff that modifies those basic rules)).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/07 03:11:06


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





 Accolade wrote:
Well, I can't comment too specifically since I am myself not a tournament player, but I am curious if the Adepticon tournament results from 2011 vs. 2014 are telling at all.

(Sources are from Blood of Kittens)

2011: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2011/04/05/adepticon-2011-pseudo-live-40k-champ-army-lists-and-anyalsis/

2014: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2014/04/04/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2014-top-16-championships-lists/

On face value (and I realize the comparison is a bit rough), it appears there is more variation with the old 5th edition tournaments. 2014 saw a lot of repetition, especially in allies (Inquisitors everywhere!)


2011 Results

1st - Space Wolves
2nd - Orks
3rd - Space Marines
4th - Blood Angels
5th - Orks
6th - Daemons
7th - Blood Angels
8th - Orks
9th - Space Wolves
10th - Imperial Guard (who are these guys
11th - Tyranids

7 x Different codices (2 x SW, 3 x Orks, 2 x BA)

2014 Results

1st - Farsight / Tau / Inquisition
2nd - Space Marines / Space Marines / Inquisition
3rd - Tau / Space Marines / Inquisition
4th - Daemons
5th - Eldar / Dark Eldar
6th - Tau / Space Marines / Inquisition
7th - LOTD / Eldar / Inquisition
8th - Eldar / Dark Eldar / Inquisition
9th - Daemons / Chaos Space Marines
10th - Eldar / Dark Eldar / Inquisition
11th - Daemons / Chaos Space Marines

5 x different codices and 3 x different supplements (Farsight, Inquisition and LOTD)

It is arguable that either of these results indicated 5th or 6th had more variety.There are more armies represented in 5th but there is more variety in the list build in 6th however overall I would consider it to mean there is slightly less variety as id put more weight on the different armies present in 5th (2011) I could see an argument for equal variety though (with 5th being slightly in front). Also.. I wanted to do top 10 but felt top 11 was needed as the 2014 winner was seeded 11th. I do not believe adding between 12-16th adds to the argument either way.

2012 Results

1st - Necrons
2nd - Grey Knights
3rd - Space wolves
4th - Grey Knights
5th - Daemons
6th - Dark Angels
7th - Grey Knights
8th - Orks
9th - Imperial Guard
10th - Grey Knights
11th - Space Wolves

7 x Different codicies, (4 x armies from GK and 2 x Armies from SW)

As you can see the introduction of Grey Knights really tilts the scene towards less variety. I feel that this is a better comparison as this is what 5th edition was before the introduction of 6th. Using this you would conclude that variety in the scene was improved on 5th and on par with what they had before the introduction of the Grey Knights.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
^^ My caveat to the above is that there may be a "feeling" of less variety as more people every year are able to know what the top players intend on taking (threads, podcasts, forums etc membership goes up every year) and likely try to copy that list. This would lead to less creativity on the "lesser" tables.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/07 05:20:05


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

During 5th edition several armies suddenly became flavour of the month on publication of their new codex. IG, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Orks all got new rules or units that enabled very strong extreme builds that quickly got netlisted.

The interesting thing about the 6th edition tournament line-up is that almost no-one is running an army without allies. That clearly proves my point that allies change the nature of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However it is also worth mentioning that tactics do play a part. The people who get to the top of the bigger tournaments are good players as well as having a strong list.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/07 05:50:08


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Wraith






As much as I hate, I'd love to see what the game would look like if allies were dropped completely. Maybe get a local tournament to try doing a zero allies tournament.

Do Grey Knights suddenly crawl back out on top? Does Tau become the big ticket even though it cannot effectively run O'vesa Star like before?

That's kinda what I would like to see even though it cripples SoB into some really boring lists.

Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb

 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





It is too late to remove allies with the knights and tempestus.

Removing battle brothers and re-jigging the Matrix on the other hand..
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

A lot of people think the Allies rule could work all right without Battle Brothers.

Knights is in theory a standalone army, of course, but in truth it was designed to sell lots of models to be used as Allies. Storm Troops will be the same no doubt

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





I'd be completely okay if they dropped "battle brothers" but kept allies.

But the matrix does need reworking.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in de
Crazed Savage Orc





Germany

 AtoMaki wrote:
 Mitranekh the Omniscient wrote:

-Can we give GW a break?? I know they've made some stuff-ups, and possibly broken 6th and maybe the whole game. But they're trying. Without them there's no FW, no BL, no 40k.


Untrue. 40k would live on without GW, no problem. Actually, it would probably prosper even more without GW's "We are just in for the money!" policy.



And it would become a better game I guess. I am actually was playing 40k/WHF for nearly 20years but the new GW way drove me off. Get yourself into the company and learn that the hobbyists/customers are treated like idiots. Lie to them, milk them and try to blow sugar in their ass to sell the gak. Don´t push veteran gaming, try to keep the tables clean of "non profit games" and don´t make veterans feel like they are really valuable since they won´t buy as much stuff as someone who joins new to the hobby. What the management up there is on is something I don´t know but it´s some strong stuff that blows away reality. In this case I "hate" the player/company not the game. But since it became so fricking expensive I don´t buy the stuff anymore and play with houserules and in a friendly environment. Starting nowadays with the hobby means you have to spend a ton of money and a ton of time except you don´t like to play with painted miniatures.

Boss, Raglun´z mob ´az redda trouserz dan uz!
Too bad, da mob got stinky about ...
Dakka Gallery 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Deadnight wrote:
And then, things changed. Codex grey knights. Utterly terrible fluff. As in the 'we're so pure, so uncorruptible, but need to wear the blood of our allies not to be corrupted', there's the sword of un fathomable evil that it too dangerous to be locked away on Titan, so they run around battlefields with it. There were so many ridiculous things that I just rolled my eyes. Capped off with Kaldor bloody Draigo. That guy is probably the most stupid, unbelievable and over the top fanboy spank I have ever read. He alone would have killed the codex.but you know what? Maybe it was a once off... I'll give them a chance. Next up is necrons. And they're rewriting them, giving them actual fluff rather than ++++kill the living ++++ and 'the c'tan did everything'. And I had hopes. I wanted to see tragedy. I wanted to see loss. An ancient race plucked from slumber to see everything they'd known, everything they'd built and everything they'd fought for pass through their hands like dust. Gone, all gone. A race out if time, struggling to hold on and understand... Like I said, I wanted tragedy. What I got was 'codex: comedy robots' with a whole bunch of eccentric academics who collect battles and send emails to inquisitors. Then there was the guy whose circuits are completely fried to such an extent that he thinks orks are necrons with green face paint. Headdesk. It wasn't tragedy, it was bad comedy. And it turned me off if 40k's vaunted lore.

And I know why - it was kiddified. Fair play, if that's the choice gw wanted to make. I won't hold it against them. But it did mean the lore was no longer for me. It was gw saying 'I'm too old for this now'. And then a thought hit me - the nostalgic 'it was better in the old days' attitude. Which I don't necessarily believe (so much stuff I loved as a kid, well, it's aged terribly, and I can't understand how I, or other kids used to enjoy it! But we did) well, I checked my fluff bible and read all the lore I loved as a teenager. And reading it as an adult, it didn't grab me. At all. It was just really, really light. It was 'ok', but not engaging. Nostalgia wouldn't save me! This was the same fluff - written fir kids, and as a kid, I enjoyed it. As an adult, I didn't. As an adult, I'd simply moved on.


I think Newcrons are exactly kids stuff, down to the models. It was awful, you suggest it was always like that but I disagree, Newcrons hit the new low.

btw I ussualy cringe at the fluff apart from unit entries and straigh roll eyes at the books especialy Horus Heresy stuff. I love the mood of the Imperium, Chaos, Nids, the visuals, the general ideas but stories I think are unnecessary, I think I would even prefer the story to be "here's Emperor, here's Abadon, this is like it is, noone knows why and how it started". It would imo add more mystery to it and no so much of the imo cringeworthy stuff.

btw 2 you're wrong, it wasn't written for kids back then - Bryan Ansell set the target demographic at "intelligent 18 years old" which was really high, most of nowadays game stuff is 12+.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back to the topic, I take the point about Warmachine also having lots of dice rolls. That doesn't mean it is a "good" mechanism, though. To me, it's a way to vary the percentage range of results possible with six sided dice. The same range of results probably could be achieved faster with a more sophisticated percentage dice based technique.

The main plus point -- Apart from enjoyment of buckets of dice -- is that it gives the non-moving player something to do.

Presumably it is easier to understand and use, as you don't have to make any calculations, which must be good for younger players whose mental arithmetic is not fully developed.


Throwing multiple dice is meant to be a cinematic representation of every shot, swing etc, you can't do that with d10. Also it's not for younger players to have it easier

Mechanical advantage would be that if you throw 4 times when shooting, or multiple dice for CC attack you get closer to statistical probabilities so have less wild results. They limit the role of luck, which is good imo, I don't think buckets of dice are a problem with 40k. The problem is that the rules are not tactical enough, there is no real overwatch or other form of interrupts, no positioning or movement based modifiers or sth. If they give us skirmish games complexity and micromanagment, at least the skirmish games depth should follow.





This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/09 12:21:01


From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.

A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.

How could I look away?

 
   
Made in ca
Executing Exarch






 TheKbob wrote:
As much as I hate, I'd love to see what the game would look like if allies were dropped completely. Maybe get a local tournament to try doing a zero allies tournament.

Do Grey Knights suddenly crawl back out on top? Does Tau become the big ticket even though it cannot effectively run O'vesa Star like before?

That's kinda what I would like to see even though it cripples SoB into some really boring lists.


Im working on it. Sadly people just jump on wave serpent spam. What needs to happen is a ETC approach and write handicaps and restrictions for each list.

Rick Priestley said it best:
Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! The modern studio isn’t a studio in the same way; it isn’t a collection of artists and creatives sharing ideas and driving each other on. It’s become the promotions department of a toy company – things move on!
 
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





SF Bay Area

I dislike the 40k community because very few people in it seem to be concerned with having fun as a group. It seems to me that most 40k players are in it purely to live out a fatasy of being a ruthless general, no matter how many friends they lose in real life. I do not entirely blame the gamer, rather, most of the blame is on GW for continuing to ignore the pleas and concerns of their costumers in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

I have only ever had fun competing with other 40k gamers at a team tournament because people were encouraged to take fun lists. However, tournaments seem to be the biggest creator of soulless, cheesy, rulenaxis.

I still love fantasy. The random silliness appeals greatly to me, but allas I have no one who plays anymore.

Tyler


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: