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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.

I could do better promoting 40K myself:

The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.

etc. etc.

Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh

Price doubled in a few years -- now higher than any other game.
Lack of balance. Obvious for years, easily correctable and yet nothing done about it.
Bad proofreading. Simple editorial skills lacking, can partly be achieved by use of Word.
Lack of advancement in the rules. Still no Moral or C&C rules (except for Tyranids). Turn sequence stuck in the 1960s.
Bad "optional" rules being forced into the main ruleset: Flyers, Allies, D Weapons, Fortifications.
Codex release rate too slow.
Faster code release rate increases lack of balance, bad proofreading and price.

Faster codex release isn't a necessity and therefore is a matter of opinion.

Lack of advancement in the rules is also an opinion and has no merit.

Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.

Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance. Been playing for 20+ years now and balance is something you hear from people who never win and can't come up with working strategies. Also not easily correctable as has been debated on over a dozen forums for multiple years.

Price is the only thing you have that is factual but it has a legit basis. People buy things which merits a price increase. GW is first and foremost a business, they are in it to make money.

The hobby aspect has almost been completely lost nowadays, pick up an old White Dwarf. Those often had, I kid you not, tutorials on how to build CUSTOM terrain. I am dead serious.

I think they also had how to scratch build vehicles as well those were a nice read.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
Really? You think so, all I've seen across the forums are mindsets based entirely on how things used to be and not how they are now. What I am seeing are people who are still adjusting to new rulesets and a more modern approach to war gaming.

Here is something that none of you have realized yet. The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.

Speaking as one of the new blood, the future of war gaming, change is good, random is good, looking back and longing for something in the past is not good at all.

The game has issues to be worked out, but honestly, none of them are as bad as any of you are portraying them except for the pricing on the models which is ludicrous.

In every competitive game I have played there are highs and lows, some armies will dominate for a season or two and others will have distinct disadvantageous when playing against other armies. There is no need to balance this approach because it is working as intended.

Of course it is, in fact GW's "modern approach to war gaming" was so successful that they lost 30% of their profits in 6 months! It was so great that they felt the need to release a new edition less than 2 years after the previous one was launched! That is the true mark of success right there!

Their "random is good" was so wildly received by old and new players alike, that their second flagship product disappeared from the list of top 5 most sold table top games in the US. This is, of course, great news!

Where I play, 7th is seen as more of a 6.5 edition as nothing major really changed except for the Psyker phase so it doesn't merit a full edition. GW made a new BRB for it strictly for cash. Companies lose profits, if you are judging a game strictly by how well they do financially, you'll never be satisfied. MtG for instance lost nearly 40% when the Mirrodin block released as it completed destroyed every international tournament for the next couple of years where the cards rotated out and were then unanimously banned from nearly all formats.

 Lobomalo wrote:


Faster codex release isn't a necessity and therefore is a matter of opinion

Yes, because codices that are older than 5+ years and completely outdated are a matter of "opinion".

Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.

"It's bad everywhere, so it's not bad with 40k!"

Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance.

Flames of War, WM/H, Starcraft II...want more?

Got any more baits?

 Lobomalo wrote:
...The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.

We'll see. I mean there's a chance that my mindset, the mindset of my gaming buddies, and so many greater online communities are wrong. That a new breed of gamer will emerge; one playing a game that is distanced from the old editions, full of imbalance, and ever-increasing in price. That would make me sad but whatever. Good on you if you enjoy it.

Or maybe the small numbers of new blood will figure out what's happening, GW will crash and burn, and we can look forward to something remotely resembling sanity in the future of the Wargaming industry.

Given my experience with people like you, here's my bet: In 6 months, you will have either quit GW or you will join the ranks of the severely dissatisfied.

 Lobomalo wrote:
...It's no secret how the hardcore players feel about the new edition, they make their opinions known every chance they get on any forum they can, but these are nothing more than the opinions of those who cannot let go and who don't like change.

I know that the internet view on GW is strongly negative with a few positive people; given the wide variety of websites, blogs, discussions, and the like that I've seen I think it's fairly safe to assume that the internet hatred of GW is statistically valid when considering the real world and gamers in general as well.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


Faster codex release isn't a necessity and therefore is a matter of opinion

Yes, because codices that are older than 5+ years and completely outdated are a matter of "opinion".

Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.

"It's bad everywhere, so it's not bad with 40k!"

Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance.

Flames of War, WM/H, Starcraft II...want more?

Got any more baits?

SCII is nowhere near balanced, I play it regularly and have since the game was Star Craft when the Koreans destroyed everyone in every game, it never has been balanced otherwise you wouldn't have people screaming for something to be done about the Protoss every other week or the Zerg the week after.

Warmachine is more balanced than 40k because it is smaller skirmished based which is easier to manage.

If you are whining about proofreading, how do you think I feel as an English teacher reading all of your posts? It really doesn't matter and honestly this is the first place I have seen anyone bring that up as a complaint really.

Let's see, what other things did you include. Never played Flames of War but I am sure I can find a forum where people clamor just as much as 40k players do here about balance.

Finecast did happen and bubbles are not opinion.


Edit: Proofreading sure does matter when your spending money on it. its not like we are buying your students essays.

It IS bad when they need to release a day one FAQ that adds so many amendments as was the case with dark angels.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Really? You think so, all I've seen across the forums are mindsets based entirely on how things used to be and not how they are now. What I am seeing are people who are still adjusting to new rulesets and a more modern approach to war gaming.

I don't see that at all. I see people taking a look at the new rule set and evaluating it for what it is. Further, there's nothing 'modern' about it at all. I'd ask what you consider to be modern for game design, but 40k is currently the only game with its approach, while every other game uses much more simplified mechanics and streamlined writing.

Here is something that none of you have realized yet. The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.

No, the success or failure of a game is dependent on the quality of the game, not the veterans or new bloods. People will stay if its good, and people will come to it if its good. Your store and experiences there are completely anecdotal, and I've come across as many stories from other locations with the exact opposite experience.

Speaking as one of the new blood, the future of war gaming, change is good, random is good, looking back and longing for something in the past is not good at all.

Change is good, but only when its good. Random is good to a point; randomly rolling for warlord traits and psychic powers is not a positive for a game. Randomly rolling to determine how many wounds I deal is good. Dice should be used as impartial judges to resolve an action; not decide what kind of personality your commander has today.

And, once again, it has nothing to do with looking back at the past. You keep bringing this up as some kind of point, when it has no relevance. People can dislike something because of a variety of reasons that don't amount to "Change is bad!".

The game has issues to be worked out, but honestly, none of them are as bad as any of you are portraying them except for the pricing on the models which is ludicrous.

And many people think these issues are significant, considering the competition. Why would I pay $85 for a rulebook and 60$ for a codex, when that amount of money can get me a tournament ready force and rules for another system with better balance and gameplay? If 40k is to survive, it'll need to clean itself up and put in the effort to provide a better ruleset with better balance at a fairer price.

Further, I don't think people are making it out to be any worse than it is. Its as bad as anyone is willing to think it is, which varies from person to person. I put greater emphasis on a cleaner ruleset than someone else who might take greater issue with the prices. Stop assuming the internet is some sort of collective entitiy. This community is made up of individuals with different opinions.

In every competitive game I have played there are highs and lows, some armies will dominate for a season or two and others will have distinct disadvantageous when playing against other armies. There is no need to balance this approach because it is working as intended.

There is need to balance the game more than it currently is. Both internally and externally, the codex system has glaring flaws that even the most casual player will find after a few read throughs. There's no reason Rough Riders should still be awful after two codices (if not more, only started in 5th).

Remember, no one is expecting 'perfect' balance; just a reasonable level that makes all units mostly viable.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.

What games have you played to make this claim? No, it is definitively not an issue in every game, not when you have problems arising due to a lack of proofreading within less than a day after the rules are released.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance. Been playing for 20+ years now and balance is something you hear from people who never win and can't come up with working strategies. Also not easily correctable as has been debated on over a dozen forums for multiple years.

That is a strawman argument. Competitive games are by its very definition balanced to the point that player skill will make the deciding difference in the outcome. MtG, Starcraft, Warmahordes.

Again, what games have you been playing for 20+ years that you don't even understand this basic fact?

 Lobomalo wrote:

Price is the only thing you have that is factual but it has a legit basis. People buy things which merits a price increase. GW is first and foremost a business, they are in it to make money.

So is every other miniature wargame company, and those other companies are growing while GW is shrinking so their business strategy doesn't seem to be working very well...

And "People buy things which merits a price increase"? What kind of logic is that?

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
...The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.

We'll see. I mean there's a chance that my mindset, the mindset of my gaming buddies, and so many greater online communities are wrong. That a new breed of gamer will emerge; one playing a game that is distanced from the old editions, full of imbalance, and ever-increasing in price. That would make me sad but whatever. Good on you if you enjoy it.

Or maybe the small numbers of new blood will figure out what's happening, GW will crash and burn, and we can look forward to something remotely resembling sanity in the future of the Wargaming industry.

Given my experience with people like you, here's my bet: In 6 months, you will have either quit GW or you will join the ranks of the severely dissatisfied.

 Lobomalo wrote:
...It's no secret how the hardcore players feel about the new edition, they make their opinions known every chance they get on any forum they can, but these are nothing more than the opinions of those who cannot let go and who don't like change.

I know that the internet view on GW is strongly negative with a few positive people; given the wide variety of websites, blogs, discussions, and the like that I've seen I think it's fairly safe to assume that the internet hatred of GW is statistically valid when considering the real world and gamers in general as well.

In six months if I have stopped playing it will be because of the price and because I've finally had enough of the whining.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, have any of you actually played SCII?

If you have, rank and league please so I can see how far up the ladder you have ever been in your career, otherwise you're simply talking out of your bums.

SCII has never been balanced, in fact as an avid gamer myself, the only games that have been balanced are the ones that are not played competitively at all. Why else do you think people trend to certain things every few months or so and switch after nerfs and buffs happen?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
Finecast did happen and bubbles are not opinion.


Edit: Proofreading sure does matter when your spending money on it. its not like we are buying your students essays.

It IS bad when they need to release a day one FAQ that adds so many amendments as was the case with dark angels.

Dark Angels wasn't even that badly hit, my roommate runs them and has had no problems. Please, enlighten me to this issue?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:


Change is good, but only when its good. Random is good to a point; randomly rolling for warlord traits and psychic powers is not a positive for a game. Randomly rolling to determine how many wounds I deal is good. Dice should be used as impartial judges to resolve an action; not decide what kind of personality your commander has today.

I actually agree with the highlighted. It is a pointless concept in my opinion, but it is also something easily remedied by house rules.

 Lobomalo wrote:

SCII is nowhere near balanced, I play it regularly and have since the game was Star Craft when the Koreans destroyed everyone in every game, it never has been balanced otherwise you wouldn't have people screaming for something to be done about the Protoss every other week or the Zerg the week after.

So we either take your opinion or that of actual (competitive) players..hm...also, Koreans are OP.

Warmachine is more balanced than 40k because it is smaller skirmished based which is easier to manage.

You, obviously, have never played WM/H and neither have you read into it - yet you make such a claim. Guess how much "merit" your comment therefore has? Right, zero.

If you are whining about proofreading, how do you think I feel as an English teacher reading all of your posts? It really doesn't matter and honestly this is the first place I have seen anyone bring that up as a complaint really.

Oh, ad hominem. Classic. You have completely run out of arguments and resort to ad hominem to vent. Classy!

Let me just sum your posts up:

>> Claims that everyone who says something against GW is wrong because there's no substance to his arguments
>> Valid points with solid reasoning are brought up
>> Reacts with either "No, you're wrong because I think so!" ...without anything solid to back your point up or rebutt the other or reacts with ad hominem

You really are a shining example of how one should argument in favor of GW

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.

I could do better promoting 40K myself:

The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.

etc. etc.

Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh

Price doubled in a few years -- now higher than any other game.
Lack of balance. Obvious for years, easily correctable and yet nothing done about it.
Bad proofreading. Simple editorial skills lacking, can partly be achieved by use of Word.
Lack of advancement in the rules. Still no Moral or C&C rules (except for Tyranids). Turn sequence stuck in the 1960s.
Bad "optional" rules being forced into the main ruleset: Flyers, Allies, D Weapons, Fortifications.
Codex release rate too slow.
Faster code release rate increases lack of balance, bad proofreading and price.

Faster codex release isn't a necessity and therefore is a matter of opinion.

Lack of advancement in the rules is also an opinion and has no merit.

Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.

Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance. Been playing for 20+ years now and balance is something you hear from people who never win and can't come up with working strategies. Also not easily correctable as has been debated on over a dozen forums for multiple years.

Price is the only thing you have that is factual but it has a legit basis. People buy things which merits a price increase. GW is first and foremost a business, they are in it to make money.

You don't think the game codexes should be the same edition as the game rules.
You don't think a £130M corporation should use Word spellchecking.
You don't think that 30 years of development over 15 editions should have led to any advancement in the rules.
You don't think that a £130M corporation can put a bit of effort into avoiding the obvious gross mistakes of balance that GW make.

This is all very positive in supporting the good reputation of GW.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Faster codex release isn't a necessity and therefore is a matter of opinion.

Yeah, it's really just a personal preference thing, whether you want to have all armies get a current-edition codex, or be playing 4th edition armies in 7th edition.

Lack of advancement in the rules is also an opinion and has no merit.

No, it's fact. 40k's rules suck, largely because GW refuses to move beyond the original structure of a 1980s fantasy game with different models. Things like IGOUGO, the horrible WS chart, etc, need to go away, while the game needs to improve significantly in things like morale and reaction options.

Proofreading is an issue in every game, again no merit.

Not true. Other games don't have anywhere near GW's level of issues. MTG has a typo rate of maybe one per decade, X-Wing hasn't had any, etc. Meanwhile GW lets mistakes into their rules with alarming frequency, and that's not even counting the obviously broken rules that don't work properly but are grammatically correct sentences.

Balance in a competitive game, if you want balance, play chess, no other serious competitive game has real balance. Been playing for 20+ years now and balance is something you hear from people who never win and can't come up with working strategies. Also not easily correctable as has been debated on over a dozen forums for multiple years.

This is absolute nonsense. Other games have much better balance than 40k. The problem isn't the difficulty of making a balanced game, it's that GW doesn't care about making one.

Oh, and dismissing balance issues as "you just can't win" is just laughably wrong. Have you ever noticed that many/most of the people complaining about balance issues are perfectly aware of what the best strategies are, and would have no problems using them? Or that many of those people do win just fine, and are tired of the fact that they need to deliberately weaken their own lists so that they don't crush people too badly?

Price is the only thing you have that is factual but it has a legit basis. People buy things which merits a price increase. GW is first and foremost a business, they are in it to make money

People buy things therefore price increase? I suppose the goal of a business is to increase prices until nobody buys the product anymore?

Also, "GW is a business" isn't an excuse because their price increases are a bad business decision. It's nothing more than a desperate attempt to make the next financial report show a profit, likely at the expense of long-term growth. GW is trading sales volume for immediate profits, completely neglecting the fact that they produce social games where market share is absolutely vital to success. And each price increase means a higher barrier to entry for new customers, customers GW depends on to compensate for their losses in veteran players.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Where I play, 7th is seen as more of a 6.5 edition as nothing major really changed except for the Psyker phase so it doesn't merit a full edition. GW made a new BRB for it strictly for cash. Companies lose profits, if you are judging a game strictly by how well they do financially, you'll never be satisfied. MtG for instance lost nearly 40% when the Mirrodin block released as it completed destroyed every international tournament for the next couple of years where the cards rotated out and were then unanimously banned from nearly all formats.

So the place where you play doesn't consider it a new edition so it doesn't matter what GW call it? Do you even read what you post?

Of course GW made a new BRB strictly for cash, everybody knows that! Its the fact that they felt that need less than 2 years after their last edition change that is significant! Its a ploy to fleece more cash from a dwindling player base because they don't know what else to do... And the fact that you seem to applaud this for some reason is mind bogging: by your own words you realize that it brings nothing substantive to the game or its players, that its just a cash grab, yet you still support it?

However of course I am just "whining" so the points I have put forwards can be ignored.

PhantomViper wrote:


Again, what games have you been playing for 20+ years that you don't even understand this basic fact?

Star Craft
Star Craft 2
Better question here is what competitive sports or fighting game I don't play
Dota
League of Legends
Halo
Counter Strike (with and without cheats)
Poker
Chess
Magic the Gathering
Warmachine
Warhammer Fantasy
Dungeons & Dragons
Axis and Allies
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars

The list goes on, easier to talk about what I haven't started playing competitively, 40k and Flames of War, just started the first, nobody out here to play with on the 2nd

 Lobomalo wrote:


I actually agree with the highlighted. It is a pointless concept in my opinion, but it is also something easily remedied by house rules.

But this is the crux many people have with the game.

I thoroughly enjoy adding rules to games, or creating new units, or any variety or rules/mechanics things to add/tweak games. I've spent most of Dakka time in the proposed rules for just this reason.

However, for the price I'm paying, I'm expecting a finished product I don't need to 'fix' or houserule to function how it should. I should be houseruling things like custom characters, fun scenarios, and custom codices.

Not trying to untangle the mess of random tables and convoluted rules.

*Edit* Why are video games being used as a comparison point for a miniature wargame?

Seriously, who cares about Starcraft in a discussion about 40k? If you're going to use comparisons, at least compare with another wargame. Like X-Wing, or Infinity, or Firestorm.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


I actually agree with the highlighted. It is a pointless concept in my opinion, but it is also something easily remedied by house rules.

But this is the crux many people have with the game.

I thoroughly enjoy adding rules to games, or creating new units, or any variety or rules/mechanics things to add/tweak games. I've spent most of Dakka time in the proposed rules for just this reason.

However, for the price I'm paying, I'm expecting a finished product I don't need to 'fix' or houserule to function how it should. I should be houseruling things like custom characters, fun scenarios, and custom codices.

Not trying to untangle the mess of random tables and convoluted rules.

I realized something just now. I was happier about this game before I listened to a friend and joined these forums lol, too much negativity on all sides.

We shouldn't need to add or remove rules for the game to run the way we want, but GW specifically gives us permission to do so, so we can do it and stop whining about it.

If people are so unhappy about the game, quit. Honestly, what good are you accomplishing by bashing people who find positive things about the game?

Also video games were listed as for some reason, people who obviously haven't climbed the ladder very high in SCII claim that SCII is balanced

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


This is just an example - others include asking for more content in White Dwarf, then complaining about being charged to access the content that's exclusive to White Dwarf.

When people say they want more White Dwarf content, they don't mean they want limited runs of a splash release of rules (such as the Sisters "Codex" before it got released digitally).

What I often see wanted is a return of the detailed battle reports (complete with turn by turn battlefield diagrams showing charges, casualties etc.), a return of DIY scenery articles, conversion tutorials, perhaps a return of comic strips such as the old Malus Darkblade series.

So, content that isn't required to actually play the game but rather builds on the background and provides you as a hobbyist with more ideas and inspiration to squeeze every bit of enjoyment out of the hobby.

Not the adverts for next weeks releases which White Dwarf has become.

When I started the game in 2nd, a tactical squad had just gone up to £10. They now cost £25. Yes they are now of better quality and not just multiples of the same single pose model... but 150% more in the space of 12/13ish years??? That is ridiculous!
It costs more to make the varied casts. But at the same time technology has improved to make such things cheaper.

 Lobomalo wrote:
I realized something just now. I was happier about this game before I listened to a friend and joined these forums lol, too much negativity on all sides.

We shouldn't need to add or remove rules for the game to run the way we want, but GW specifically gives us permission to do so, so we can do it and stop whining about it.

If people are so unhappy about the game, quit. Honestly, what good are you accomplishing by bashing people who find positive things about the game?

This is a location where people debate, mano. Where they pick a point and argue in favor of their beliefs. It might be considered negativity; I consider it player involvement.

I would compare your point to showing up to a debate club and saying "Goddamn! You pricks are making me question my political beliefs!? This is awful, why am I here?." I mean questioning, complaining, and debating is kind of the point of dakka (especially a topic like this).

It's not that we have any disrespect to you, or your beliefs, or the fact that you like the direction GW is going while we don't. It's that you're stating a belief and so we're questioning you.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Sorry, have any of you actually played SCII?

If you have, rank and league please so I can see how far up the ladder you have ever been in your career, otherwise you're simply talking out of your bums.

SCII has never been balanced, in fact as an avid gamer myself, the only games that have been balanced are the ones that are not played competitively at all. Why else do you think people trend to certain things every few months or so and switch after nerfs and buffs happen?

Yeah! Starcraft II is never balanced, much less in any kind of competitive environment! Just yesterday I was watching the Red Bull Battlegrounds North America finals. The 6 players that made it to the finals were 2 Zerg, 2 Protoss and 2 Terran. Now that is just completely unbalanced!

 Lobomalo wrote:


I realized something just now. I was happier about this game before I listened to a friend and joined these forums lol, too much negativity on all sides.

We shouldn't need to add or remove rules for the game to run the way we want, but GW specifically gives us permission to do so, so we can do it and stop whining about it.

If people are so unhappy about the game, quit. Honestly, what good are you accomplishing by bashing people who find positive things about the game?

More of this tired old argumentation. Great, you don't like hearing other peoples' opinions on a forum designed to share this kind of discussion. Its not about negativity, its about people who care about a game they love, and watching degrade and otherwise rejected by the parent company through absurd business practices.

GW has given us no more or less permission to change the rules than any other game. Those other games, however, come finished.

If it makes you feel better, I sold all my GW stuff, and my Guard is now all 3rd party. I still hold on to a 40k army because I love the background, I can find games easily, and I love the models/aesthetics for the game.

Finally, its not bashing. Its not hating. Its not whining. Its not any of these frankly asinine comments you and others on this board love to make about a valid post outlining what issues I and others have with this game.

It is simply an opinion, backed with reason. You can attribute to it whatever you like in your mind, but leave it out of your posting. If you want to engage in a sensible discussion, start posting like you mean it.

 Lobomalo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Again, what games have you been playing for 20+ years that you don't even understand this basic fact?

Star Craft
Star Craft 2
Better question here is what competitive sports or fighting game I don't play
Dota
League of Legends
Halo
Counter Strike (with and without cheats)
Poker
Chess
Magic the Gathering
Warmachine
Warhammer Fantasy
Dungeons & Dragons
Axis and Allies
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars

The list goes on, easier to talk about what I haven't started playing competitively, 40k and Flames of War, just started the first, nobody out here to play with on the 2nd

So two relevant games to the discussion, one of which is also a poorly produced Games Workshop product.

So what's your opinions on Warmachine; the fact that it has a lower barrier to entry, better customer support, free mission support, tournaments and events supported by the company, better written rules, and better pricing overall (save a few extreme models, Vlad3 WHYUSOSPENSIVE?!).

So far, Lobomalo, or Bad Wolf as we shall call him, is spouting off many things a new player to the game of Warhammer 40k says. I said the same things when I started. It just how quick does one catch on to the bad practices and bad quality and value of the game the determines when they become a "vet," or the other terms Mr. Wolf has used in the past that are quite derogatory.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Sorry, have any of you actually played SCII?

If you have, rank and league please so I can see how far up the ladder you have ever been in your career, otherwise you're simply talking out of your bums.

SCII has never been balanced, in fact as an avid gamer myself, the only games that have been balanced are the ones that are not played competitively at all. Why else do you think people trend to certain things every few months or so and switch after nerfs and buffs happen?

You do know that words have actual meaning and that those things are easily disproved by a simple google search right?

For example, I was just yesterday watching the Red Bull Battlegrounds North America finals. The 6 players that made it to the finals were 2 Zerg, 2 Protoss and 2 Terran. Funny, that seems pretty balanced to me...

Sorry, you made me laugh so hard I shot soda out of my nose.

North America has never been a serious competitor in Star Craft, ever. Look at the last World Tournament from last year and then look at Intel Extreme Masters from this year.

Halo? LOL! Yup, that makes ya an expert on tabletop gamming.

 Lobomalo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Sorry, have any of you actually played SCII?

If you have, rank and league please so I can see how far up the ladder you have ever been in your career, otherwise you're simply talking out of your bums.

SCII has never been balanced, in fact as an avid gamer myself, the only games that have been balanced are the ones that are not played competitively at all. Why else do you think people trend to certain things every few months or so and switch after nerfs and buffs happen?

You do know that words have actual meaning and that those things are easily disproved by a simple google search right?

For example, I was just yesterday watching the Red Bull Battlegrounds North America finals. The 6 players that made it to the finals were 2 Zerg, 2 Protoss and 2 Terran. Funny, that seems pretty balanced to me...

Sorry, you made me laugh so hard I shot soda out of my nose.

North America has never been a serious competitor in Star Craft, ever. Look at the last World Tournament from last year and then look at Intel Extreme Masters from this year.

Irrelevant. If Starcraft were as unbalanced as you claim, you would see the same skew of results everywhere.

 Lobomalo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


Again, what games have you been playing for 20+ years that you don't even understand this basic fact?

Star Craft
Star Craft 2
Better question here is what competitive sports or fighting game I don't play
Dota
League of Legends
Halo
Counter Strike (with and without cheats)
Poker
Chess
Magic the Gathering
Warmachine
Warhammer Fantasy
Dungeons & Dragons
Axis and Allies
Lord of the Rings
Star Wars

The list goes on, easier to talk about what I haven't started playing competitively, 40k and Flames of War, just started the first, nobody out here to play with on the 2nd

So in other words, you've never played any miniature wargame other than 40k? Right...

Actually, nvm. You people have your minds made up about the game and that's fine. I really hope you find what you are looking for as this game is obviously not for you