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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/10 20:52:14
Subject: Re:Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Trustworthy Shas'vre
|
Makumba wrote:I dont think the army you play should govern whether you enjoy the game or not. All the armies are still great fun, and all can still work great in 7th. Its down to the player and their group to create and atmosphere and community where everyone can enjoy their toy soldiers. If you feel an army is overpowered, then try to steer your friends toward fielding less dominating lists, and create a game where you both have a laugh. For example, I rarely summon much when I play my Daemons. Perhaps the odd unit of Horrors, Flamers or Hounds. It helps if im having no luck shooting. And sometimes its just plain funny to turn that Herald into a Bloodthirster when youre really getting destroyed
Eldar players post new codex seem to have ton of fun . In general what I have been told about eldar , is that they were unfun to play for a short time between start of 6th and new 6th eldar codex. in 2ed they ruled all, in 3ed they were the same , in 4th they were super OP . So an eldar player had maybe 2 years of little or less fun with eldar , if he started in 2ed. Now on the other hand nid players hate themself since 5th ed codex. Chaos players whine since they lost 3.5 . IG is like a meteor , they were never fun longer then half an edition. I mean the last codex was maybe fun to play for what 4 months and then 7th came out , and everything that was suppose to be good about it stoped working and what was nerfed stayed nerfed.
Cough Cough, Eldar in 5th Edition.... and 6th until their new Dex.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/10 21:58:01
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
CalgarsPimpHand wrote:Except there's nothing casual at all about a game that requires a $500+ buy-in from both players, hundreds of hours of hobby time, has a hundred pages of rules, and takes 3 to 5 hours to set up and play.
The only players who *need* to spend over $500 are the ones trying to play in tournaments, not the casuals or narrative players. The FOC issues the competitive players are howling about are also the same rules allowing people to play lower point games while still using all of their toys.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote:And there's nothing narrative about introducing more and more elements to the game that reduce player agency and reduce the coherency of any story you're trying to tell, especially when these random traits, events, and missions affect the things that often matter most for true narrative games - characters and objectives.
Everything about this is arbitrary and wrong. The problem with 40k in terms of narrative gaming was that once the armies were picked and the first dice were rolled, the conditions never changed. The Chaos Gods didn't intervene, the battlefield was never altered, and there were no surprises that the players hadn't already agreed upon at the beginning. Nowadays, if your Warlord pleases the gods, he can be transformed into a demon prince; that objective you've been ordered to hold actually might do something weird to the game for better or for worse; terrain actually means something beyond how much cover it provides; and there are rules that can create battlefield wide anomalies with the warp or atmosphere. These elements are the hallmark of narrative storytelling. They create games that don't blend in to each other in which the only variation is either really good or really terrible dice rolls. These elements CREATE stories, not prevent them.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote:Again, you miss the point. You can have a literal laugh with a $20 set of Cards Against Humanity, and many other really casual and very fun board or card games. Casual games like that require little up front investment, take no time to set up, and usually not much time to teach (and some of them can still be incredibly deep and compelling games).
Which is why I compared it to D&D and you guys keep running back to board games to demean it. Someone can play D&D without buying books, minis, terrain, maps - but only in the same way many players use their friends armies, terrain and books for garage gaming. A regular, invested D&D player will easily have over $500 in books and minis. And the only edition of D&D that wasn't filled with random tables that removed player and DM agency...was the edition so many people abandoned.
CalgarsPimpHand wrote:No, any narrative you can create in 40k is by accident on the part of the designers (quite literally considering how many random tables there can be that affect a 40k game at a very high level). You can create narrative games using just about any wargaming ruleset if you have any imagination. 40k doesn't provide a single thing that actually enables narrative play. Truly great narrative games can be had far more easily with systems that DO support narratives, like games based around persistent rosters that gain experience or games that provide a framework for campaigns of linked games.
There's nothing actually narrative about 40k, it's just an excuse for sloppy writing. Just like there's nothing actually casual about 40k, it's a very expensive and intense hobby that's virtually impossible for a new player to get into.
How can you pretend that the War Zone books - books designed entirely around running famous campaigns of the 40k universe - are accidental? That Campaign of Fire and Planetary Empires - giving us rules on how to have one battle have a marked effect on the next - don't exist? The the Echoes of War missions allowing you to refight the most important battles of the history are somehow for tournaments? That Planetstrike wasn't about how to run a planetary invasion campaign rather than one shots? And that the steady flow of new strategems for Planetstrike was about how to fill an extra page and wasn't about giving armies flavorful alternatives for use in those campaigns? That the words FORGING THE NARRATIVE are a persistent typo in the books? All evidence to the contrary, there is nothing accidental or sloppy about this direction. The only way that you can feel 40k isn't moving in a narrative direction is if you pretend a dozen different recent books and products don't exist.
You may not like their approach, you might think there are better games that fit this role, you might think the present ruleset is utter garbage - that's all opinion. But the narrative direction of 40 is fact. It is happening. They're writing book after book about it. My old D&D group and I are all playing 40k together now and we're having a blast. Telling stories. Painting minis. Planning campaigns. And we haven't had to write a single rule to make it work or feel more like a narrative. Because they're already there.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2025/06/06 15:02:25
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Massawyrm wrote:The only players who *need* to spend over $500 are the ones trying to play in tournaments, not the casuals or narrative players. The FOC issues the competitive players are howling about are also the same rules allowing people to play lower point games while still using all of their toys.
Err, no. Models cost the same whether you're buying a competitive army or a bunch of random stuff. If anything $500 is a fairly low estimate for the minimum cost required to play normal 1000-2000 point games. Just for the low end of that point range you're paying $50 for the codex, $100 for a cheap HQ model and 2-3 boxes of troops, $100 for a couple tanks/elite units/etc, $50+ for conversion parts since infantry boxes never come with all the options, etc. And then add in more money for paint and modeling supplies, terrain, alternate options so you don't have to play the same army every single game. The only way you're not spending that much money as a "casual or narrative" player is if you're living in some bizarre fantasy world where "casual or narrative" actually means "only plays 500 point games based around the two-player starter set".
The problem with 40k in terms of narrative gaming was that once the armies were picked and the first dice were rolled, the conditions never changed.
No, this is absolutely wrong. Conditions change because players do things. Your flyer that's supposed to deliver a squad to claim the far objective just got shot down, so now you've got to figure out a way to get over there and take it. And BTW, there's a whole army of orks between your tactical squad and the objective. Have fun with your new plan. You don't need tables of random events to make the game interesting.
And you're also wrong because this was something that was easy to "fix" with mission design, which you're doing anyway if you're playing story-based games. If you want the game to change halfway through then add it to the mission rules. There was no reason to put that kind of thing into the basic missions that you'll never even think about using if you're playing narrative games.
The Chaos Gods didn't intervene, the battlefield was never altered, and there were no surprises that the players hadn't already agreed upon at the beginning.
This is a good thing. Player decisions are always better than random tables. If you truly care about narrative play then work with your opponent to create a story, don't just pretend that the random events table is "narrative".
Which is why I compared it to D&D and you guys keep running back to board games to demean it.
It's not demeaning at all. A $20 "beer and pretzels" board game can be a lot of fun. It's just ridiculous to put a game requiring hundreds to thousands of dollars, months to years of painting work, and several hours of setup and playing time into the same "silly fun when you've got nothing better to do" category.
How can you pretend that the War Zone books - books designed entirely around running famous campaigns of the 40k universe - are accidental?
Because we're talking about the core rules, not the Apocalypse-only expansions.
That Campaign of Fire and Planetary Empires - giving us rules on how to have one battle have a marked effect on the next - don't exist?
Because Planetary Empires is a terrible campaign system that even GW gave up on. It's the kind of thing you make if your company's management declares "this is now a narrative game, make a campaign system" but you don't have the skill or ambition to do more than throw together the same kind of map-based campaign system that most players have already invented (and discarded, because they suck) on their own. It's the equivalent of saying "look what an awesome tournament game we made" because you added a note about how to randomly pair opponents in a tournament.
The only way that you can feel 40k isn't moving in a narrative direction is if you pretend a dozen different recent books and products don't exist.
Or if you understand the difference between saying "forge the narrative" and actually writing good narrative gaming rules. GW is screaming very loudly about how 40k is "narrative", but what they actually mean is that you shouldn't have high standards for the game and should pretend that "narrative" means "fix all of the problems with the rules because we're too lazy and/or incompetent to do it". Meanwhile the things that make 40k a terrible tournament game don't make it a better narrative game.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 04:18:55
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
The darkness between the stars
|
I'm just going to toss back two counter arguments. First of all, the D&D example isn't that simple. The biggest problem with 4E is it feels more like a MMO than anything else. It managed to balance things drastically at the expense of leaning too much into formulaic dungeon crawling. That said, the 3.5 people praise was downright horrid with some of the worst balance ever. It's a game fun amongst friends but takes one munchink/cruncher in the group to break the spine. That and you forget that 3.5 was the most open that had an open book style meaning many were making supplementary books and then Pathfinder basically became 3.55 and people will often dislike change no matter what.
Now then your next defending the randomness. No it isn't fun. I shouldn't play chaos and play my narrative of my Lord Asmodeus the One Wing whom every game gets mutations, becomes spawn, becomes a prince only to return to normal? No. I want consistency. Having a rapid acclamation of mutations is ridiculous and just feels off. Add to that, it ruins my character being good at ____. I play 40k to play MY army. My warband, my segment of a legion, my regiment, my traitor forces, my _____. It's nobody else's to command especially no random rolls. It also means that often times the random spells and such will be arbitrarily useful.
|
2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 04:46:37
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
StarTrotter wrote:I play 40k to play MY army. My warband, my segment of a legion, my regiment, my traitor forces, my _____. It's nobody else's to command especially no random rolls.
Yours might be the most honest response I've seen to this point.
You're right about the 4E issue being more complicated than that, but this is far from the place to write epic poetry about that debacle. The one thing that can be said, building upon your own points, is that the problem with 4E is that they gave us a perfectly balanced game and a lot people ran back to the game filled with randomness and imbalance. I've long felt that part of the driving force behind FTN is GWs fear of making a game like D&D 4E, being compared to Starcraft rather than WoW. I'm not saying they're right, but I see it in many of the decisions they've been making.
I like the randomness. It's very easy to avoid when you don't want it, can be a lot of fun when you do. But I agree that it is awful for tournament play and the new narrative focus has really screwed over the competitive crowd.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 05:15:13
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
The darkness between the stars
|
Massawyrm wrote: StarTrotter wrote:I play 40k to play MY army. My warband, my segment of a legion, my regiment, my traitor forces, my _____. It's nobody else's to command especially no random rolls.
Yours might be the most honest response I've seen to this point.
You're right about the 4E issue being more complicated than that, but this is far from the place to write epic poetry about that debacle. The one thing that can be said, building upon your own points, is that the problem with 4E is that they gave us a perfectly balanced game and a lot people ran back to the game filled with randomness and imbalance. I've long felt that part of the driving force behind FTN is GWs fear of making a game like D&D 4E, being compared to Starcraft rather than WoW. I'm not saying they're right, but I see it in many of the decisions they've been making.
I like the randomness. It's very easy to avoid when you don't want it, can be a lot of fun when you do. But I agree that it is awful for tournament play and the new narrative focus has really screwed over the competitive crowd.
Frankly, you must understand I suffer from playing armies prone to chaos. Chaos Guard (whilst not rules wise, thematically they do), Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons. Chaos Daemons suffer it the most. I just wish they pointed things so you could purchase the spells or the warlord traits with random being an alternative. Sure, it might not be balanced in a general manner but at least then I could really fit to my army. I'm a fluffy player at heart and I love to play campaigns where we build special rules to forge a narrative and it always frustrates me when I have to roll for all of my equipment for my daemons and the mutations are always so random. Imagine if you could buy them! Slowly I could build them up continuously after every few games to show the god's favor before finally that critical moment came where he became prince or spawn.
If you like randomness though, I don't mind. I personally feel there is too much but I am glad to hear you are enjoying it!
|
2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 05:45:47
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Massawyrm wrote:The one thing that can be said, building upon your own points, is that the problem with 4E is that they gave us a perfectly balanced game and a lot people ran back to the game filled with randomness and imbalance.
Except that's not the problem at all. 4th edition was a disaster because it tried to be tabletop WoW, and a lot of players had no interest in a game like that where WoW-style combat is all that matters and characters are forced into WoW-style class roles. This problem had nothing at all to do with balance.
I've long felt that part of the driving force behind FTN is GWs fear of making a game like D&D 4E, being compared to Starcraft rather than WoW.
I seriously doubt there is any connection between GW publishing rough drafts as finished products and some bizarre fear of producing a micromanagement-heavy game where clicks-per-second is the most important player skill. In fact, if anything, GW's current design direction is moving closer to Starcraft. The tedious "roll dice to see how many dice you get to roll" nonsense, random tables, awkward wound allocation system, etc, are all very similar to Starcraft's dominant theme of making dealing with the poor interface more important than the story or gameplay.
I like the randomness. It's very easy to avoid when you don't want it, can be a lot of fun when you do.
You have a strange definition of fun. And it's only easy to avoid if you remove all of the random elements, which brings up the question of why they exist in the first place. The fact that it's easy to fix certain bad design decisions by ignoring them doesn't in any way justify the original decisions.
But I agree that it is awful for tournament play and the new narrative focus has really screwed over the competitive crowd.
1) There is nothing new about it. All of these things have been around before. The "forge the narrative" boxes were in previous rulebooks, just without the ridiculous titles. The "new" campaign books are just stripped-down versions of the Forge World campaign books with a higher price-per-page and lower quality. The only thing "new" is how determined GW is to put their "forge the narrative" brand on everything.
2) It's not a narrative focus. Screaming "THIS IS A NARRATIVE GAME!!!!!" is not the same as making a great narrative game. 40k's decision decisions, especially the ones that make it bad for tournament play, don't make it a better narrative game. They just make it a bad game for everyone.
3) It's not just tournament players getting screwed over. Narrative players are screwed just as badly. The only difference between the two groups is that more narrative players are willing to put up with bad design decisions and poor balance, while tournament play makes the game's flaws so obvious that nobody can deny them.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 05:49:24
Subject: Re:Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
I still can't believe there are people who seriously insist that 40k is a casual game.
I want to make this clear;
There is nothing inherently casual about the rules for 40k
Whether that be the core rules, or the codices, nothing about the game is causal. Its expensive, its clunky, its burdensome, and its poorly written and balanced. None of these things are conducive to casual play or competitive play. It just means that its a universally poorly written/designed game.
Making excuses like 'Forge the Narrative' are so beyond ridiculous in comprehension, that the only way I can imagine someone truly defending this principle as a core mechanic of their game design is if they're actively being paid by GW.
There is absolutely nothing inherently narrative oriented with the rules we've been provided. Anything narrative based is purely the production of the players playing the game, which would be better served through a product who's rules were even remotely consistent with the background and among other rules in the game.
When my game is decided by a random card, which is further decided by how well I roll for VPs, I am no longer forging a narrative.
I'm forging a story I didn't intent to forge, dictated by random events entirely outside my control that have no rhyme or reason to exist in the first place. Regardless of the optional nature of TacOs, they are an awfully executed aspect of the game, as one of many such aspects. I shouldn't have to create a story about my veteran commander of several campaigns becoming an amnesia ridden caricature who forgets his basic commanding abilities, or that my Primaris Psyker, also a veteran of a dozen battles, wakes up every morning knowing two entirely different powers, despite years of training.
For anyone who claims 40k is a casual game, I have yet to see a shred of evidence that would point to that.
Being poorly balanced, awkwardly worded, relying on random tables, and otherwise excessively costly, does not create a game in which people line up to play in a casual setting. It actively turns people to seek better rules and systems, ones that happen to also be tournament friendly.
Amazingly enough, people don't write rules to be 'tournament level', they write them to be a good set of rules, which by their nature engender a community that can be built equally around competitive and casual gaming alike with very little to no divide among the players.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/11 05:50:15
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 06:10:09
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
|
Bravo!
Exalted!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 11:40:05
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Sinewy Scourge
|
Exalted. I can't imagine a more apt rebuttal of the "let it be caaaj" camp.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 11:46:13
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
As usual Peregrine hits a home run. Blacksails makes really good points too. There is nothing casual about 40k, and the idea that adding randomness adds to anything is outright laughable.
|
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 13:20:55
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
Israel
|
A game that needs heavy house ruling to be playable between strangers and requires willfully discarding numerous pages of rules and random tables to make way for an actual sensible "narrative" game (unless your idea of a narrative game is one that takes place inside the Eye of Terror, in which case sure- random tables for EVERYTHING) is by no means a "casual" or "narrative" game, and that's before you even start considering practicalities such as setup/play times and the game having hundreds of pages of rules.
Kudos to Peregrine and Blacksails, I hereby join the exalting bandwagon- +1s all around!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/11 13:21:42
6,000pts (over 5,000 painted to various degrees, rest are still on the sprues) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 16:22:21
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Angry Blood Angel Assault marine
|
"Forge the Narrative", more like "Suffer the Narrative", amirite?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 16:29:00
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
Israel
|
"Suffer the Narrative"? More like "Suffer everyone in the setting including many inanimate objects being tourette ridden amnesiac schizophrenics"...
|
6,000pts (over 5,000 painted to various degrees, rest are still on the sprues) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 17:32:50
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Horrific Howling Banshee
|
I don't know that 7th has brought more balance, it seems to be a direct effort to reduce the power of the lists that show up at the top of tournaments. Flying circus, wave serpent spam, taudar, buffmanders, heldrakes, heavy blessing lists, all got a power reduction. A few things were clarified (overwatch), but in general a fair number of questions still exist.
The real shame is the double digit % upwards price trend. I don't mind having to reshape my lists with new models frequently, the cost of doing it though is annoying. There is a near 100% mark up on models, not including profit made by GW on distributer prices. Diamonds have that kind of markup. It makes following the hobby more difficult and drives me to look for 3rd party solutions rather than support the parent company
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 17:36:13
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
Dessorag wrote:I don't know that 7th has brought more balance, it seems to be a direct effort to reduce the power of the lists that show up at the top of tournaments. Flying circus, wave serpent spam, taudar, buffmanders, heldrakes, heavy blessing lists, all got a power reduction. A few things were clarified (overwatch), but in general a fair number of questions still exist.
The real shame is the double digit % upwards price trend. I don't mind having to reshape my lists with new models frequently, the cost of doing it though is annoying. There is a near 100% mark up on models, not including profit made by GW on distributer prices. Diamonds have that kind of markup. It makes following the hobby more difficult and drives me to look for 3rd party solutions rather than support the parent company
If people did not try to min/max in order to have the most over-powered army possible, regardless of any actual tactics I might ass (gun-line is a prime example) they would not have needed to balance the armies.
|
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 17:56:00
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Horrific Howling Banshee
|
Lobomalo wrote:
If people did not try to min/max in order to have the most over-powered army possible, regardless of any actual tactics I might ass (gun-line is a prime example) they would not have needed to balance the armies.
Honestly this is exactly what the hobby is. People spend lots of money and time to make competitive lists to compete at National levels. This cannot and will not stop. I see this as the clear drive behind the new battleforged FOC, it offers lots more ability to min/max and thus hopefully more variety in top tier play. Unbound is Apocalypse for small game. Many players have lots of old models, I applaud them for finding ways to help people pour them back on the table. It would be nice if they helped to open up the doors for newer players rather than just bandaid fixing powerful lists.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 17:57:22
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Lobomalo wrote:
If people did not try to min/max in order to have the most over-powered army possible, regardless of any actual tactics I might ass (gun-line is a prime example) they would not have needed to balance the armies.
You're right. Its quite obvious its the players fault for playing the game within the rules with armies they enjoy that are perfectly fluffy.
How could we be so blind. Asking for a better ruleset that allowed every kind of player to field any type of army they want without being accused of being a WAAC douche canoe is clearly the wrong answer, when all we have to do is self police and ensure everyone is playing the game exactly how you want them to.
Please.
Its almost like a better balanced set of rules would make these issues go away.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 19:46:12
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Lobomalo wrote:If people did not try to min/max in order to have the most over-powered army possible, regardless of any actual tactics I might ass (gun-line is a prime example) they would not have needed to balance the armies.
Yeah. It's like all those people who bought a new Ford, and found that the doors fell off when they drove above 15 miles an hour... If they just stop driving above 15 miles an hour, there's no problem. What the hell are they complaining about?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 20:01:33
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
insaniak wrote: Lobomalo wrote:If people did not try to min/max in order to have the most over-powered army possible, regardless of any actual tactics I might ass (gun-line is a prime example) they would not have needed to balance the armies.
Yeah. It's like all those people who bought a new Ford, and found that the doors fell off when they drove above 15 miles an hour... If they just stop driving above 15 miles an hour, there's no problem. What the hell are they complaining about?
I do not think you are understanding the point. Let me use another competitive game as an example.
Magic the Gathering is arguably similar, but rather than an army, you build a deck. You spend money on the cards for your deck to play it however you want and this is fine.
But there are players out there who specifically go online to see the results of tournaments around the world, find out what is winning these tournaments and will go out and buy those exact cards because they simply want to win. The game for them becomes more about winning than anything else and the same is true for these "competitive" wargamers. It isn't competitive to go out and buy the most expensive things because they win the most, it truly is nothing more than jumping on the side of the winning team. You are in fact, benefiting more from the hard work of someone else rather than trying to find your own way to win.
You are still playing the game and in a sense, one could make the argument that you are being competitive, but really all you are doing is trying to win at all costs, which is fine for the tournament scene, but when this occurs outside of tournaments, it is nothing more than a cheap tactic used by players who arguably are unable to come up with their own strategies, they just copy someone else's.
We had a name for players like this in Magic and I think it would apply here, but I cannot remember the name of it right now.
But there are players who play to play, to have fun, to experience the game as well as to have a challenge.
Then there are players who only play to win. Those players who dump their money into the strongest army simply because it is the strongest army are only playing to win, winning has in fact become all that matters to them.
A couple of weeks ago I was reading a thread about how some players would buy and sell armies to make sure they always had the army that was "top dog" for every tournament scene. People in magic do the same, actually, people in almost every competitive game I have ever played do this and it is okay to do it. But it changes the purpose of the game from having fun and experiencing the game for what it is to a game where all you care about is winning.
Some people do not understand this concept and I have tried, fruitlessly to get those people who only care about winning to see all of what they are missing, but they don't want a hard fought win, they want an easy one. A win where they do not have to work, a game where their deck/army plays themselves and they just sit back and watch as their opponent squirms.
This concept of winning at all costs, destroys that games community and while it may not hinder the game itself as money is being made either way, player opinion and focus shifts from the competitive scene to a more casual one and you see fewer and fewer players showing up simply because the average casual player and the normal competitive player simply do not want to have to spend hundreds of dollars on something just to go into a tournament with the exact same deck/army as everyone else.
|
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 20:08:11
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Repentia Mistress
|
insaniak wrote: Lobomalo wrote:If people did not try to min/max in order to have the most over-powered army possible, regardless of any actual tactics I might ass (gun-line is a prime example) they would not have needed to balance the armies.
Yeah. It's like all those people who bought a new Ford, and found that the doors fell off when they drove above 15 miles an hour... If they just stop driving above 15 miles an hour, there's no problem. What the hell are they complaining about?
But the guys who bought the Ford and are liking it for the doors falling off, have every right to like it. They can say that they like it and there is no need to convince them they are wrong.
Actually I must say that this thread started out pretty well. Both the OP and Blacksails were discussing civilly about what they were enjoying or not enjoying about the new Edition. Things started going downhill after a while and it sounded a bit like "casual players" bashing near the end. The atmosphere is such that if anyone were to post anything good, there is this automatic reprisal and I'm not sure if it'll stop everyone talking about good things. I find it a little depressing that we find more joy in coming together to condemn than coming together to find celebrate what is good about things.
To the OP, I agree with some of your views and I'm glad you have a group or players you are able to enjoy it with. Here's to more enjoyable games ahead!
|
DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+
Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 20:17:54
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
milkboy wrote:
To the OP, I agree with some of your views and I'm glad you have a group or players you are able to enjoy it with. Here's to more enjoyable games ahead!
This is what this game is all about.
Not winning, not being "competitive" or having the most over-powered army
|
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 20:28:34
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
milkboy wrote:But the guys who bought the Ford and are liking it for the doors falling off, have every right to like it.
Well of course they do. That wasn't the point.
The statement I was responding to was claiming that flaws in the game are the fault of the players. Which is a claim that doesn't become any less odd the more I hear it, Those flaws are the sole responsibility of the guys who wrote the game. Players building an army for a game that pits one player against another with the goal of one of them beating the other are not at fault for putting together a list using the options available to them from the printed game rules.
If those flaws don't bother you, that's great. It's awesome that you can enjoy the game the way you like. But people really need to stop pointing the finger at other members of the community and blaming them for something that is solely the fault of Games Workshop's design studio.
To address the actual topic at hand, there are certainly elements of 7th that I like. I appreciate that after 6 previous editions they finally took the time to address LOS with models that don't have heads, for example.
And to a certain extent, I actually like the freedom in army design that comes from the Unbound system, as it 'legitimises' some fairly crazy army ideas that I've had over the years. Time will tell if the potential abuse from such a system outweighs the fun aspect of being able to take an entire army of grots, though.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 20:29:38
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Fireknife Shas'el
|
Lobomalo wrote: milkboy wrote:
To the OP, I agree with some of your views and I'm glad you have a group or players you are able to enjoy it with. Here's to more enjoyable games ahead!
This is what this game is all about.
Not winning, not being "competitive" or having the most over-powered army
You're making it seem like you can't have both though. I have friends and we enjoy competitive games just fine. It's not like anyone goes out of their way to make an over powered list, it's just the natural way things work out. For example I play Tau. I tend to see a lot of Leman Russ Battlecannons. SO I end up running Riptides due to their great versatility and durability against Battlecannons and the like. Some people would see this as min/maxing while I'd say it's just a case of not bringing a knife to a gun fight. Just like how I've had Riptides killed off with Beast Huntershells while that player gets a pat on the back for bringing a fluffy Tank company.
But are you actively saying the game is about not winning? Like... Do you cheat and say you failed more armor saves than you really did just so you don't win? Are you actively playing the game in the hope of losing objectives?
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 20:31:11
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
insaniak wrote: milkboy wrote:But the guys who bought the Ford and are liking it for the doors falling off, have every right to like it.
Well of course they do. That wasn't the point.
The statement I was responding to was claiming that flaws in the game are the fault of the players. Which is a claim that doesn't become any less odd the more I hear it, Those flaws are the sole responsibility of the guys who wrote the game. Players building an army for a game that pits one player against another with the goal of one of them beating the other are not at fault for putting together a list using the options available to them from the printed game rules.
If those flaws don't bother you, that's great. It's awesome that you can enjoy the game the way you like. But people really need to stop pointing the finger at other members of the community and blaming them for something that is solely the fault of Games Workshop's design studio.
To address the actual topic at hand, there are certainly elements of 7th that I like. I appreciate that after 6 previous editions they finally took the time to address LOS with models that don't have heads, for example.
And to a certain extent, I actually like the freedom in army design that comes from the Unbound system, as it 'legitimises' some fairly crazy army ideas that I've had over the years. Time will tell if the potential abuse from such a system outweighs the fun aspect of being able to take an entire army of grots, though.
Actually, if you had read my earlier posts, I said this was one of the reasons, not the single reason.
|
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 20:32:36
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Lobomalo wrote:But there are players who play to play, to have fun, to experience the game as well as to have a challenge.
Then there are players who only play to win. .
And you know what? Those players who play to win? They're playing to have fun as well.
They just enjoy a slightly different style of play to you. They're not wrong. They don't destroy communities. They just enjoy a wargame for different reasons to you.
The key is simply to find opponents who are looking for a similar game experience to you, and play those people.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 20:33:33
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
Savageconvoy wrote: Lobomalo wrote: milkboy wrote:
To the OP, I agree with some of your views and I'm glad you have a group or players you are able to enjoy it with. Here's to more enjoyable games ahead!
This is what this game is all about.
Not winning, not being "competitive" or having the most over-powered army
You're making it seem like you can't have both though. I have friends and we enjoy competitive games just fine. It's not like anyone goes out of their way to make an over powered list, it's just the natural way things work out. For example I play Tau. I tend to see a lot of Leman Russ Battlecannons. SO I end up running Riptides due to their great versatility and durability against Battlecannons and the like. Some people would see this as min/maxing while I'd say it's just a case of not bringing a knife to a gun fight. Just like how I've had Riptides killed off with Beast Huntershells while that player gets a pat on the back for bringing a fluffy Tank company.
But are you actively saying the game is about not winning? Like... Do you cheat and say you failed more armor saves than you really did just so you don't win? Are you actively playing the game in the hope of losing objectives?
No competition is fine, but games are at their core meant to be fun and enjoyable, not beat your opponent into the ground until they scream for mercy. Winning is fine, but if winning is your only reason for playing, it simply isn't enough in my opinion and strictly in my opinion.
I'm as competitive as the next guy and it is simply beyond annoying to watch people bring the "best" deck simply because it is. Personally, I use rogue decks/tactics in the games I play because those players who spend all their time only playing "competitive" have no idea what to expect and have no idea how to stop it. Automatically Appended Next Post: insaniak wrote: Lobomalo wrote:But there are players who play to play, to have fun, to experience the game as well as to have a challenge.
Then there are players who only play to win. .
And you know what? Those players who play to win? They're playing to have fun as well.
They just enjoy a slightly different style of play to you. They're not wrong. They don't destroy communities. They just enjoy a wargame for different reasons to you.
The key is simply to find opponents who are looking for a similar game experience to you, and play those people.
One of the shops I play at has banned players from only bringing top tier lists, cookie cutter is what they're called. These players go online, find what wins and then proceed to try and dominate people with it. It does not support a fun and engaging environment, then again, this is a more modern mentality.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/11 20:35:25
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 20:51:03
Subject: Re:Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
|
Blacksails wrote:... Its the excessive randomness and the fact that some of the results are useless, or otherwise completely situational. I would really like to know prior to the game what my warlord woke up today feeling like, or how bad of a case of amnesia my Primaris Psyker has.
For all the talk about 'Forging a Narrative', I feel like the game is actively working against that goal. It feels like its forcing a particularly random set of events and forcing the player to justify in their head why things are happening the way they are...
... I'll likely just end up houseruling much of the things I don't like. Assign point values to powers/warlord traits and just pick them would probably be near the top of my list.
These bits hit the nail on the head.
It seems random for the sake of random rather than an actual choice with consequences.
I feel like they make these rules so that you cannot be certain you get to use that ability, so you cannot build an army list around it "problem solved!!! balance is restored once again!"
Looking at that parallel of 40k being a bit like an RPG, you should be able to pick "optional" abilities of a character, to have some vested interest in them rather than as some random event.
Picking warlord traits would do much to set the tone for a game, it would be truly scary figuring out the point value for each of those traits however, I wish you luck.
|
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 21:00:45
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Fireknife Shas'el
|
Lobomalo wrote:
No competition is fine, but games are at their core meant to be fun and enjoyable, not beat your opponent into the ground until they scream for mercy. Winning is fine, but if winning is your only reason for playing, it simply isn't enough in my opinion and strictly in my opinion.
I'm as competitive as the next guy and it is simply beyond annoying to watch people bring the "best" deck simply because it is. Personally, I use rogue decks/tactics in the games I play because those players who spend all their time only playing "competitive" have no idea what to expect and have no idea how to stop it.
Do you think this is the problem of a competitive game or a few players?
If it's the few players, they'll do what they can no matter what and a less restrictive rule set will do nothing to mitigate it. If the rules are naturally balanced, then it's more able to reign them in.
If you think it's the fault of a balanced and competitive system then it means you're never able to play baseball, basketball, football, or any other naturally competitive and balanced game. Most FPS games as well. Wow the list of balanced and competitive games that you could play with friends goes on and on. So maybe it's not the issue of a game, but a few jerks. The guy that shoulder checks you in a game of flag football will probably shouldercheck you in Calvin ball as well.
|
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 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/06/11 21:06:56
Subject: Just a few of my initial thoughts on 7th. Its actually a positive viewpoint!
|
 |
Sneaky Lictor
|
Savageconvoy wrote: Lobomalo wrote:
No competition is fine, but games are at their core meant to be fun and enjoyable, not beat your opponent into the ground until they scream for mercy. Winning is fine, but if winning is your only reason for playing, it simply isn't enough in my opinion and strictly in my opinion.
I'm as competitive as the next guy and it is simply beyond annoying to watch people bring the "best" deck simply because it is. Personally, I use rogue decks/tactics in the games I play because those players who spend all their time only playing "competitive" have no idea what to expect and have no idea how to stop it.
Do you think this is the problem of a competitive game or a few players?
If it's the few players, they'll do what they can no matter what and a less restrictive rule set will do nothing to mitigate it. If the rules are naturally balanced, then it's more able to reign them in.
If you think it's the fault of a balanced and competitive system then it means you're never able to play baseball, basketball, football, or any other naturally competitive and balanced game. Most FPS games as well. Wow the list of balanced and competitive games that you could play with friends goes on and on. So maybe it's not the issue of a game, but a few jerks. The guy that shoulder checks you in a game of flag football will probably shouldercheck you in Calvin ball as well.
What is Calvinball? And it is more those players mindset individually not any perceived imbalance within the game.
|
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
|
|
 |
 |
|