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.

Why is it okay for GW to break their own game so long as they're doing it intentionally?

I just don't understand what the point is in telling people "GW doesn't want their game to be balanced". Yeah, I think GW's track record has made that clear by now, and I don't think anyone is "expecting" the company to fix the game; rather, they're hoping for it.

If the latest army is better than the previously released army, chances are you're going to buy said army...

What happened with Tyranids 6th edition though?

 xttz wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
This is the fantasy 40k edition.
Fantasy because GW thinks it will fix the game imbalance.
Fantasy because GW thinks merging two game systems is a good idea.

GW have never stated anywhere their intent is to fix game imbalance. If anything, their design philosophy is the exact opposite; they're creating a 'sandbox' game where balance is set aside for story purposes. If you're expecting carefully balanced rules and stats from 40k, you're playing the wrong game, because that's not what they're selling. Try chess instead.

Do you not think there is a sliding scale between controlled game mechanics/balance, and completely open-sandbox, and that it's possible to satisfy both elements within the context of 40k as a game?

On the one hand I completely agree with you - I play quite a few historical games where the 'points' system is extremely loose. But, we have a way of balancing the game by sticking to historical settings/battles (where it's not often as simple as 'win' or 'lose') and also knowing my playing partners well. The chances of someone turning up with some Panzer IVs and running over my units of Yorkist Billmen is pretty slim, because you are constrained by the setting.

But, I don't think 40k has these luxuries. Firstly, while the fantasy setting is well defined (as far as fantasies go) the 'right and wrong' of it is very much open to interpretation. While Nids playing alongside Marines might sound nuts to most players, I'm sure you could make a compelling, background-driven argument for it that would always be much more believable than Panzers running down chainmail-clad yeomen. As well as that, there will also be those who don't care about background, and will just go out and buy a number of massive plastic kits and plonk them down on the table.

This brings me to the other consideration - 40k is one of the most popular 'pick up' games in the wargaming world. You can go to pretty much any club or store and the chances are you will find someone who will give you a game. The problem is now that with the very loose rules structure, how do you balance that game and make sure that it can be enjoyable for both players? If you don't know the person socially, what kind of player they are and what they enjoy, you could be in for a bit of back and forth before you've even put your miniatures on the table. GW are now telling kids to go out and buy everything they want, put it down on the table, what then happens if they turn up with all of those expensive plastic kits, and are told they can't use them because that gaming community there has rejected that way of playing?

The more open nature of rules sounds great if you have a close-knit group of friends or club where you know each other. But, the problem is that these people will have being doing 'unbound' and 'apocalypse' for many years before GW codified it in a rule book. For everyone else, the tournament players and people who don't have regular opponents (and so need the rules structure in place) they are going to be forever worried that their forces of Hannibals elephants, crossing the mountains, looked very nice on the tabletop but don't tend to survive very well against cruise missiles.

 xttz wrote:
GW have never stated anywhere their intent is to fix game imbalance. If anything, their design philosophy is the exact opposite; they're creating a 'sandbox' game where balance is set aside for story purposes.

Those aren't opposites. Their inability to understand this is why they are so gak at their jobs. A balanced game still supports unbalanced scenarios; the difference is that everyone goes in knowing it's unbalanced because they're deliberately playing unbalanced points costs, or adding new rules on top to give one side an advantage over the other. Balancing the game is vital, even if it's for no other reason than to give people a landmark to work from.

Well the information leaks have slowed down, but the GW hate in this thread has picked up. Hard to get through all the banter and hand wringing.

Its kinda funny that the solid information from the new release comes from WD leaks that are going to be on the street anyways. Wheres the REAL dirt and leaks? Weekly WD the end of rumor mongers?

 Byte wrote:
Well the information leaks have slowed down, but the GW hate in this thread has picked up. Hard to get through all the banter and hand wringing.

Its kinda funny that the solid information from the new release comes from WD leaks that are going to be on the street anyways. Wheres the REAL dirt and leaks? Weekly WD the end of rumor mongers?

Solid rumor mongers have been dead for about a year now. 40k radio notwithstanding, and even they refuse to leak stuff anymore.

 Pacific wrote:

Do you not think there is a sliding scale between controlled game mechanics/balance, and completely open-sandbox, and that it's possible to satisfy both elements within the context of 40k as a game?

I think that while it's theoretically possible, it becomes highly impractical once you get to the complexities involved in 40k in addition to the release schedule. There's basically an infinite combination of units, upgrades, expansions and rules constantly adjusted by new products. A balanced game would require a fundamental shift in the way GW operates as a company, from product design to sales. Personally I think the only way to achieve balanced 40k is to 'fork' it and have a separate, tightly maintained and constantly updated branch of rules - the Epic Armageddon project was a great example of this. However GW will never see the benefit of doing this because it's clear that their management style is very short-term, and they only invest in ideas that are easy to quantify. The community suffers from far, far too many cooks to agree on a solution, and so in the end we're left with the 'easy' approach to balance; massive flexibility.

It's not ideal, but I'm sure deep down you know that even if GW did try to address game balance properly from the bottom up, there would still be a vocal minority screaming that it wasn't done properly because something didn't match the idealistic view in their heads.

 Pacific wrote:

This brings me to the other consideration - 40k is one of the most popular 'pick up' games in the wargaming world. You can go to pretty much any club or store and the chances are you will find someone who will give you a game. The problem is now that with the very loose rules structure, how do you balance that game and make sure that it can be enjoyable for both players? If you don't know the person socially, what kind of player they are and what they enjoy, you could be in for a bit of back and forth before you've even put your miniatures on the table. GW are now telling kids to go out and buy everything they want, put it down on the table, what then happens if they turn up with all of those expensive plastic kits, and are told they can't use them because that gaming community there has rejected that way of playing?

The more open nature of rules sounds great if you have a close-knit group of friends or club where you know each other. But, the problem is that these people will have being doing 'unbound' and 'apocalypse' for many years before GW codified it in a rule book. For everyone else, the tournament players and people who don't have regular opponents (and so need the rules structure in place) they are going to be forever worried that their forces of Hannibals elephants, crossing the mountains, looked very nice on the tabletop but don't tend to survive very well against cruise missiles.

I think GW's approach is the opposite of that scenario. They're making it easier for kids to use what they already have. Here's a related anecdote: when I first started with 40k in my early teens, my little sister insisted on buying some models too. She was about 9 or 10 at the time, didn't understand what anything was, and simply chose her purchases based on the picture on the front of the box. While I got Space Marines she had chosen a mix of Tyranids and WHFB Undead. Obviously we couldn't play against each other without trying to alter rules neither of us fully understood.
While that's a more extreme example, I have no doubt similar scenarios occur with new players every day. How many adolescents do you think will go in and buy a Dreadnought and box of Terminators thinking they look cool, only to find they're not game-legal because they don't fit the 1 HQ 2 Troop FOC? People try to demonise GW for "telling kids to go out and buy everything they want", but really I think the opposite is true. Kids will already buy what they want, GW are just trying to shut up the pedants who put rules above an inconsequential game and are happy to stop others from playing over a technicality.

The more I think about Unbound, the more I like it. It lets me work around the flaws in GW's products without waiting 4 years between fixes. As a Tyranid player who owns only one FMC (and doesn't want to buy anymore), I can struggle to compete with certain perfectly FOC-legal builds. Unbound means I don't need to have a long conversation with my opponent before a game explaining my lack of ranged anti-armour and why there should be some kind of handicap to fight his AV14-heavy army. Instead I just take a more appropriate force without worrying about the overcrowded Elite slots or mandatory but poorly performing Troops.

After reading some of the bile regurgitated here in the last couple of weeks, I'm inclined to agree. For every well reasoned post like yours with a constructive argument, there's several spewing mindless insults and throwing toys out of the pram because their personal little wishlist wasn't fulfilled. I've heard several quotes attributed to GW regarding a 'toxic element' in the playerbase, and that's never been clearer to me than in this last week. I'd much rather have a clueless customer to explain things to than a bitterly entrenched individual who whines about everything that changes and everything that remains the same.

GW has it's faults, sure. But an increasing number of the people around here are just as bad, if not worse, in the opposite way. It's god damn plastic spacemans people, get a grip.

Aside, balanced game does not equate to chess. Play other Wargames before stating this as almost all the other popular non historical aim for balance and succeed while maintaining faction and unit diversity.

Oh, and telling people to "get a grip" doesn't make friends. Balanced games are better for all play. Allows folks to bring what you want is bad... Structure helps ensure we don't get Jet Seer council + serpent spam versus a poorly organized Tyranids force. As stated, the ability for a game to operate in a pick up setting it important to many players and is a true test on the games rules.

Because if we aren't abiding by a rule set, why are we playing a game? Let's go get a beer instead....

 Wayshuba wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Could it be we are "exploring the time of ending".??

We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.

Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.

Well, I have ten years on you (I'm 48), and will be avoiding this edition completely as well. Possibly even to the point of divesting myself entirely of 40k.

After playing several other games, from other manufacturers, over the last six months I will say that it becomes more obvious just how poorly done 40k really is as a game. Sad part is, I no longer think for people still clinging to it that it is the rules doing it, but the years of building and collecting armies.

Everything I have seen with this edition so far, from my personal perspective, sounds like this is actually going to be worse than 6th edition turned into. They are, once again, just piling more on top of an already clunky ruleset and fixing NOTHING of what is really needed. There are a few tweaks, sure, but not any true fixes from everything that is known at this point.

Well I am 58, so I've got ten years on you aswell. I've played second world war games, I dabbled in DnD in the seventies. If I wanted to play a fantasy type game I would. But I chose 40k instead. Random this, random that is not fun.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Could it be we are "exploring the time of ending".??

We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.

Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.

Well, I have ten years on you (I'm 48), and will be avoiding this edition completely as well. Possibly even to the point of divesting myself entirely of 40k.

After playing several other games, from other manufacturers, over the last six months I will say that it becomes more obvious just how poorly done 40k really is as a game. Sad part is, I no longer think for people still clinging to it that it is the rules doing it, but the years of building and collecting armies.

Everything I have seen with this edition so far, from my personal perspective, sounds like this is actually going to be worse than 6th edition turned into. They are, once again, just piling more on top of an already clunky ruleset and fixing NOTHING of what is really needed. There are a few tweaks, sure, but not any true fixes from everything that is known at this point.

Well I am 58, so I've got ten years on you aswell. I've played second world war games, I dabbled in DnD in the seventies. If I wanted to play a fantasy type game I would. But I chose 40k instead. Random this, random that is not fun.

Infinity is a great sci-fi game that keeps both players active. Dropzone commander is another solid sci-fi game, but I have no experience with it outside of the praise I've heard.

 TheKbob wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

 Flashman wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Could it be we are "exploring the time of ending".??

We are exploring the time of 40k ending for alot of people I believe.

Yes, this will be the first edition of 40K I haven't bought. It might be my age (38) or it might be that I prefer games with a bit more structure and balance.

Well, I have ten years on you (I'm 48), and will be avoiding this edition completely as well. Possibly even to the point of divesting myself entirely of 40k.

After playing several other games, from other manufacturers, over the last six months I will say that it becomes more obvious just how poorly done 40k really is as a game. Sad part is, I no longer think for people still clinging to it that it is the rules doing it, but the years of building and collecting armies.

Everything I have seen with this edition so far, from my personal perspective, sounds like this is actually going to be worse than 6th edition turned into. They are, once again, just piling more on top of an already clunky ruleset and fixing NOTHING of what is really needed. There are a few tweaks, sure, but not any true fixes from everything that is known at this point.

Well I am 58, so I've got ten years on you aswell. I've played second world war games, I dabbled in DnD in the seventies. If I wanted to play a fantasy type game I would. But I chose 40k instead. Random this, random that is not fun.

Infinity is a great sci-fi game that keeps both players active. Dropzone commander is another solid sci-fi game, but I have no experience with it outside of the praise I've heard.

Well sometimes I feel I've backed the wrong horse with 40k. But the fluff and the models drew me in. The idea I could get a game anywhere helped.

 xttz wrote:

While that's a more extreme example, I have no doubt similar scenarios occur with new players every day. How many adolescents do you think will go in and buy a Dreadnought and box of Terminators thinking they look cool, only to find they're not game-legal because they don't fit the 1 HQ 2 Troop FOC? People try to demonise GW for "telling kids to go out and buy everything they want", but really I think the opposite is true. Kids will already buy what they want, GW are just trying to shut up the pedants who put rules above an inconsequential game and are happy to stop others from playing over a technicality.

I don't think the desire to play by the rules is a minor detail that someone could be "pedantic" about. While there are handfuls of kids that go out and buy what they want and expect to be able to play it, there are people who also put a lot of time and money into building a game-legal army and expect to be able to play by the rules. Rules are there for a reason. The FoC chart has always been there to give the army a bit of structure and so that both players know the limitations of each army. Just throwing down whatever you want is sort of a spit-in-the-face of people who take the rules seriously and want to play by them. Now, it is in the rules, so you might can see why those people are a little miffed by this.

I don't think it makes anyone a pedant to read through the rules and expect everyone who walks up to a table to also know them and want to play by them. It's like you sitting at a chess board and someone walks up with their checkers and puts them on their squares and says, "Okay, let's play!" Are you being pedantic to refuse to play whatever hybrid of Chess and Checkers you're about to create?

Who does GW think they're appealing too? Is there some central England core of gamers with millions invested in 40k we don't know about? Why can't they fix a few glaring loopholes? One PDF would fix this game?! Instead we get Unbound. I can't wish failure more on a company. They need to learn to follow their customers. Not screw/ignore them.

They think they are appealing to casual gamers.

 Nem wrote:
They think they are appealing to casual gamers.

Maybe next we'll see Space Marine Crush Saga on all smart phones?



{EDIT} Oh wait, that actually might make money. Scratch that idea

puma713 wrote:While there are handfuls of kids that go out and buy what they want and expect to be able to play it, there are people who also put a lot of time and money into building a game-legal army and expect to be able to play by the rules. Rules are there for a reason. The FoC chart has always been there to give the army a bit of structure and so that both players know the limitations of each army. Just throwing down whatever you want is sort of a spit-in-the-face of people who take the rules seriously and want to play by them. Now, it is in the rules, so you might can see why those people are a little miffed by this.

I don't think it makes anyone a pedant to read through the rules and expect everyone who walks up to a table to also know them and want to play by them. It's like you sitting at a chess board and someone walks up with their checkers and puts them on their squares and says, "Okay, let's play!" Are you being pedantic to refuse to play whatever hybrid of Chess and Checkers you're about to create?

You want to play by the rules? Awesome, because the rules now say you don't need to follow the FOC anymore! However if you still choose to do so, there's a benefit. You may personally disagree if that benefit compensates for the choice, but that's your opinion. And you know what they say about customers and opinions.

Also that analogy is terrible and doesn't help your case at all. How come most people post decent analogies?*

*that's rhetorical by the way

Lobukia wrote:Who does GW think they're appealing too?

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say that they're successfully appealing to you, because that's a substantial donation you've made to the Lenton staff Christmas party right there.

Exciting times for the hobby!!

I don't understand some of the negative reactions to the psychic phase. Psychic powers are a huge part of the 40K lore, heck isn't it basically how the Emperor is kept alive?? Farseers prevalent in the Eldar armies, the very existence of chaos itself?? having it's own phase is a major step forward if you ask me. It shouldn't be all about the shooting phase (oh, you play Tau...got it), and even the assault phase is an important aspect of the 40K lore. Sure, you'd expect melee to be dead in sci-fi, but it's not. It also doesn't have to represent a marine bashing in the skull of his opponent with the butt of his bolter, it could simply be close quarters use of his bolt pistol...still shooting.

I would say that there needs to be 2 more games added (some just brought back) into the 40K universe. Epic needs to return and a sqd based skirmish game needs to be introduced. 40K is trying to be all of these and it doesn't work so well. A tactical space marine is supposed to be a bad-ass, but that's not the case on the 40K battlefield (way too many AP3+ weapons abound), so a skirmish game should be developed where the role of individual marines (other races too) are highlighted. Also, some of this stuff we are seeing on tables (Titans, good lord) should be reserved for EPIC. 40K should be a middle of the road game with sqds of troops, some vehicles, dreads etc. Super heavies shouldn't be the norm (but I'm fine with rules allowing it for one off games) and fighter aircraft at this scale just is plain silly IMHO.

As it currently stands, 40K is trying to be a singular game that encompasses skirmish style troops, wargame style vehicles/sqds, and epic style games with super heavies, flyers and titans. A singular ruleset will just have too many problems incorporating these elements effectively together. I don't know about you guys, but I loved playing Space Marine and Adeptus Titanicus (why did I get rid of that stuff) and would love to see it's return as a mainstream game.

I have pre-ordered the rulebook for next week as I want to get back into 40K after a 6 year hiatus (playing FOW) but my games will be reserved to a small group where we can decide what level to play. I certainly don't relish removing sqds of tactical marines with a dustpan and brush each shooting phase so here's keeping my fingers crossed.

 Lobukia wrote:
Who does GW think they're appealing too? Is there some central England core of gamers with millions invested in 40k we don't know about? Why can't they fix a few glaring loopholes? One PDF would fix this game?! Instead we get Unbound. I can't wish failure more on a company. They need to learn to follow their customers. Not screw/ignore them.

GW isn't interested in maintaining a game, they want to make models with a few rules hovering around. That's what makes them different from other tabletop games like Flames of War or WM/H that explicitely focus on having a viable and reliable ruleset. GW doesn't care for balance or well thought-out rules. This has been a subjective impression a lot of people had in the past and 7th reinforced those "rumors" and made it official.

All GW games offer are lots of shinies, i.e. good-looking (often...some models are terrible) models, but as soon as the shiny effect wears off, the game falls apart as the ruleset is a terrible mess. 7th and especially Unfun is GW publicly saying "We gave up!" and now, they're desperately trying to push models.

 Nem wrote:
They think they are appealing to casual gamers.

And it seems that they are appealing to most casual gamers as well.

My small group of friends & I can't wait to try some Unbound, as it now gives us the ability to play the super fluffy forces we've always wanted to but never could due to the how restrictive the "3 and done" slot system is...
- Our DA player is hyped as he can now field a pure Ravenwing + Deathwing force without being forced to take an expensive special character. Instead, he get's his Bike Chappy + Termie Libby and a free for all between the various Ravenwing units and then some Deathwing Termies to Deep Strike into play.
He also has a Chaos Marine force, (because let's face it, DA's are just CSM's who haven't admitted it yet!), and is wanting to try out an all Termie CSM force.

- Our Ork player loves his Nobs. Now he can just field nothing but various Nob units + Flash Gits + Battlewagons.

- Our Night Lords player is stoked about being able to field a proper 'Terrorwing' force of massed Raptors + Bikers + deep striking Termies with only a handful of Chaos Marines in a supporting roll.

- I myself can finally field a 100% Daemonic force of Tzeentch goodness supported by masses of Possessed, Warp Talons, Oblits & Daemon Engines.

And so on so forth...



Unbound is only 100% awful when used by the same donkeycaves who already abuse the hell out of the system with the sole intent of dick-punching their opponent & crushing their army as fast as possible.
Tournaments will almost certainly ban Unbound lists, so hyper competitive players who only view 40k as a semi-pro sport shouldn't have too many problems.
That leaves Little Timmy & his friends to go play their own game of 'pew-pew' noises and immature name-calling, and TFG's who measure their tiny weenis by how "skilled" they are at toy soldiers.

Besides, IIRC, the WDW also mentioned that Unbound will be 'opponent's permission', which if true, means you can always just refuse to play it if that's your choice and/or you feel an opponent is only using it to curbstomp your army.

 xttz wrote:


The more I think about Unbound, the more I like it. It lets me work around the flaws in GW's products without waiting 4 years between fixes. As a Tyranid player who owns only one FMC (and doesn't want to buy anymore), I can struggle to compete with certain perfectly FOC-legal builds. Unbound means I don't need to have a long conversation with my opponent before a game explaining my lack of ranged anti-armour and why there should be some kind of handicap to fight his AV14-heavy army. Instead I just take a more appropriate force without worrying about the overcrowded Elite slots or mandatory but poorly performing Troops.

Or it means, as the WD quote suggested, that he's going to show up with an entire list of AV14. Scoring AV14.

Because that is a legal list now. I don't understand why you can't understand that. It was in the very first White Dwarf quote. He said you can make an entire list of Leman Russes, and even encouraged it.

 TheKbob wrote:
Aside, balanced game does not equate to chess. Play other Wargames before stating this as almost all the other popular non historical aim for balance and succeed while maintaining faction and unit diversity.

Oh, and telling people to "get a grip" doesn't make friends. Balanced games are better for all play. Allows folks to bring what you want is bad... Structure helps ensure we don't get Jet Seer council + serpent spam versus a poorly organized Tyranids force. As stated, the ability for a game to operate in a pick up setting it important to many players and is a true test on the games rules.

Because if we aren't abiding by a rule set, why are we playing a game? Let's go get a beer instead....

This. I don't buy games so that I can not use their rule systems. And if I'm paying as much for a set of rules as the new book will cost, I'm expecting a set of rules that's worth that money--I can pass on the background and army profiles that every other edition featured.

 Nem wrote:
They think they are appealing to casual gamers.

When I think "casual" games, I think of something with a low buy-in, where I can just sit down and play without needing to negotiate with my opponent to ensure neither army is "too good", and something where the rules can be explained quickly and clearly.

 Elemental wrote:


When I think "casual" games, I think of something with a low buy-in, where I can just sit down and play without needing to negotiate with my opponent to ensure neither army is "too good", and something where the rules can be explained quickly and clearly.

This 1000 times. Casual is sit down and have a few laughs over a game that's easy to pick up and requires nearly zero time learning to play...that's casual by any definition. Deck building games are casual, miniature board games like descent or even super dungeon explore or casual, warhammer is not a casual game.....unless you play like the developers do and ignore the rules. If we can just ignore the rules, there's really no point in paying $85 for them; I can ignore them just fine without paying a penny.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Nem wrote:
They think they are appealing to casual gamers.

Maybe next we'll see Space Marine Crush Saga on all smart phones?



{EDIT} Oh wait, that actually might make money. Scratch that idea

Nah, Xenos Crush Saga, obviously. Crush the Xenos, mighty Space Marine!

I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any. Cirtanly non that reach the diversity and scale of 40k. Yes 40k could be more balanced, but the more open you get, the more rules interactions you get, the more room for broken combinations. And the more open the choices the more rules interact, the more likely there is to be problems.

I would disagree and say that "narrative play" is an excuse to apply a little handwavium in order to explain no attempt whatsoever at any semblance of balance. Take that excuse away and you have a poorly written rule set. Let's take the larger context away and look at individual army books. The writers at GW can't even produce an army book that is balanced with itself much less a larger game system.

Warmachine/Hordes does a fair job of balance while having literally more options than GW games to deal with. More factions, more special rules even two entirely different rules mechanics that somehow play nice with each other (hordes vs. warmachine). Sure certain builds are more viable than others but the difference is that skill plays a larger role in WM/H than 40k or WHFB and a good general can take a subpar list and actually beat net-lists....not so much with 40k....though it used to be better than it's currently headed.

bullyboy wrote:
(oh, you play Tau...got it)

And?

Shooting is as much a part of the game as assault is and has every right to be, especially when you have entire armies dedicated to the concept, like Tau, which simply won't function without it. I've invested as much into this game as anyone else and I have every right to enjoy it the same, whether I'm playing Tau or Marines, and whether or not the dice I'm rolling are for bullets or clubs.

Assault is not "the most important aspect of 40k lore". It's an aspect, like shooting is, but nothing more than that. If it seems like the game, art or fluff revolves around assault or that it's glorified in some way, then it's only because close quarters fighting is considered more "cinematic" than shooting at range, and that's what GW's all about anymore. It's more "cinematic" when the plucky hero and the hard villain get into a long, dramatic, "honorable" sword fight instead of poking out of cover every few seconds to pop shots off at each other. Having the mighty Space Marine smash a demon's skull with his energy hammer tells a better "narrative" than having the same Marine put a bolter round between its eyes from range. In other words it makes the product look "cooler" and that's pretty much it.

 Elemental wrote:


When I think "casual" games, I think of something with a low buy-in, where I can just sit down and play without needing to negotiate with my opponent to ensure neither army is "too good", and something where the rules can be explained quickly and clearly.

This, pretty much. 40k and WHF are about the farthest you can possibly get from "casual" games, with buy-ins easily approaching four figures and requiring massive investments of time on top of that to learn the rules and get your army in a playable state, and then you still need a table to actually play on. 40k is anything but casual, and when we're paying almost as much as it costs to buy entire self-contained board games just for the rules, people have every right to criticize them if they don't hold up to scrutiny. 40k is priced like it's the best game on earth and it's a fething joke. Good on you if you think it's worth it, but it really isn't for a lot of people.

Cards Against Humanity is the perfect example of a casual, "beer and pretzels" game. $100 gets you the game and all the expansions for it. It's easy to learn in minutes, easy to set up and play, and almost literally designed for intoxicated friends wanting to kill time. It requires no real thought or investment.

 xttz wrote:

puma713 wrote:While there are handfuls of kids that go out and buy what they want and expect to be able to play it, there are people who also put a lot of time and money into building a game-legal army and expect to be able to play by the rules. Rules are there for a reason. The FoC chart has always been there to give the army a bit of structure and so that both players know the limitations of each army. Just throwing down whatever you want is sort of a spit-in-the-face of people who take the rules seriously and want to play by them. Now, it is in the rules, so you might can see why those people are a little miffed by this.

I don't think it makes anyone a pedant to read through the rules and expect everyone who walks up to a table to also know them and want to play by them. It's like you sitting at a chess board and someone walks up with their checkers and puts them on their squares and says, "Okay, let's play!" Are you being pedantic to refuse to play whatever hybrid of Chess and Checkers you're about to create?

You want to play by the rules? Awesome, because the rules now say you don't need to follow the FOC anymore! However if you still choose to do so, there's a benefit. You may personally disagree if that benefit compensates for the choice, but that's your opinion. And you know what they say about customers and opinions.

Also that analogy is terrible and doesn't help your case at all. How come most people post decent analogies?*

*that's rhetorical by the way

Lobukia wrote:Who does GW think they're appealing too?

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and say that they're successfully appealing to you, because that's a substantial donation you've made to the Lenton staff Christmas party right there.

There is nothing pedantic about wanting a set of rules that are logical. The last gasp of logic in the rules was 5th ed. and it was pushing it.

What they say about customers opinions is...."The customer is always right." I don't think that this particular cliche works to prove your point.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any.

That would be virtually any war game. All you need for a "narrative" game is some imagination from the players. It's easy to tinker with a ruleset in order to play a special scenario you dreamed up, or use an unusual force composition, if that's what you want to do. "These guys are ambushing your column, so they get to deploy here in hiding, and you get 50% more units", or whatever. Literally anyone could do that in any war game, and because it's actually a narrative, the winner or loser doesn't matter so much. It's a story and you're seeing what happens. You can always choose to break a ruleset as much as you like, they don't need to come pre-broken for you.

If you want to square off against someone on equal footing, it's much harder to go the other way, and balance an unbalanced game.

Incidentally I would say that 90% or more of 40k games I've seen involved zero narrative. Grabbing two armies, picking a rulebook mission, and seeing who gets more points in the end isn't actually a narrative game, no matter how loose and random the ruleset is.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I really want the people saying "balance is possible with open gaming and narrative play" to show games that manage it, as I can't think of any.

That would be virtually any war game. All you need for a "narrative" game is some imagination from the players. It's easy to tinker with a ruleset in order to play a special scenario you dreamed up, or use an unusual force composition, if that's what you want to do. "These guys are ambushing your column, so they get to deploy here in hiding, and you get 50% more units", or whatever. Literally anyone could do that in any war game, and because it's actually a narrative, the winner or loser doesn't matter so much. It's a story and you're seeing what happens. You can always choose to break a ruleset as much as you like, they don't need to come pre-broken for you.

If you're worried about squaring off against someone on equal footing, it's much harder to go the other way, and balance an unbalanced game.

Incidentally I would say that 90% or more of 40k games I've seen involved zero narrative. Grabbing two armies, picking a rulebook mission, and seeing who gets more points in the end isn't actually a narrative game, no matter how loose and random the ruleset is.

Have an exalt for explaining it better than I could.