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.
Ask the legal section of your company , if they think the same. If lets say they ever let the managers sign a contract where fixable things aren't clearly listed.
I put five minutes into building a list for WM, over $400 easily. I've put less than $250, not counting paints into my 40k army. Who has the highest price tag again? A box of guys for $50+ unless a sale happens, a starter set that offers less models at the same price as GW, seriously, your point is so bad here it's laughable.
The starter set for WM brings 2 fully legal lists, the one for 40k not so much. Number of miniatures is completely irrelevant if you can't play the actual game with them...
So show us those mythical 40k and WMH lists that somehow completely reverse the actual cost of both games. All I've seen from you so far is talk, time to actually deliver something.
You can follow through in this while you're at it too...
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
I'd venture you should at least put forward some hypotheticals, you must have some thoughts on how you'd use them, even if you've not had chance to do so yet?
Happy to let you do so on the provision that it hadn't been tested in practice, but practice is only really testing out theories anyway.
The Internet being what it is, if you take two weeks away from a topic, people will forget, not log on, move house, change their identity.. You know how it goes..
True, I'll give it 3 days and run mock battles in that time. Hard to give concrete ideas simply by looking at the codex. I'm full of off the wall strategies in every game I play, many of which only make sense to me so I'll need time to mull things over.
I wouldn't use them as anti armor-vehicle, S is nowhere near high enough to reliable puncture armor unless you're locking Rear Armor 10 vehicles in melee combat and hoping for 5+
I could see them being useful against Terminators. Acid Blood is very interesting to me as is Acid Maw, Flame Spurt is meh, wouldn't bother with it.
Volatile is just fun, I can think of many ways to have fun with this.
Biggest issue, 40 pts per model. Toss them into an ongoing conflict with some gaunts or something cheap, get one to explode. Watch shenanigans happen.
Exchange took place last Sunday, so you've had substantially longer than three days to formulate some hypothetical ideas of how to make the Pyrovore not suck.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 17:21:53
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I put five minutes into building a list for WM, over $400 easily. I've put less than $250, not counting paints into my 40k army. Who has the highest price tag again? A box of guys for $50+ unless a sale happens, a starter set that offers less models at the same price as GW, seriously, your point is so bad here it's laughable.
Okay I'm calling your bluff, because outside of some shenanigans with a list (e.g. double Stormwall versus Draigowing) that's a load of crap. Post the list, and it had better be a straight comparison not some garbage like buying a cheap 40k army off eBay versus paying retail for Warmachine. You show me an equal Warmachine army to a 40k army that costs more: For reference that'd be around 50 points in Warmachine and 1850 in 40k.
I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
That being said - every game smaller in size would be cheaper. If GW had rules in 40kBRB to play games at 300pts(I am not counting kill team as it's much different from regular 40k), it'd be cheaper too. But if the game requires more models and they're just as good or better than other companies in most cases, then I see no reason why it being more expensive is an issue. If the products are equal in quality and only quantities change, the price difference will be adequate.
The only thing I can agree upon is that the rulebook and Codexes are way too expensive, even though the visual quality is probably best on the market with all those fancy designs, print quality and such.
My arguments in this thread about LOS were only there to show how ridiculously stupid some 'problems' people have are when they nitpick or use some twisted logic to interpret them. Most 'issues' with 40k ruleset are overblown to an extreme level and, as I said, when confronted, they turn out to not be THE problem, but a part of some mythical thing that noone can mention by name. If someone overblows thing like the poor LOS argument and calls the rules broken because of thing like that it doesn't mean that it's a real problem.
I agree that GW can't win it unless they, I don't know, start giving their rules for free, feed homeless people every tuesday, adopt stray puppies and kittens and pay people to take their products. It doesn't matter that 7th fixed a lot of issues while making only a small handful of it's own, that 7th is much better worded most the times, that it's balance tweaks are largely for the better(I know that MC-using players will disagree) or that the Codexes that came out this year are pretty well balanced externally with each having it's strengths but also weaknesses. Funnily enough those people whining on the forums that the game is broken and that it's unplayable are.. a minority. On the whole Dakka out of the loudest barking dogs you can see that only like... a dozen quit? And mostly in bursts of mass hysteria related to things that they didn't get to even try. "IMPERIAL KNIGHTS! SO OVERPOWERED. LOOK AT THEM STATS! THEY WILL RUIN THE GAME!" Bam, haven't seen a single case of Knights tabling a proper army at 1500 or more points played by a good player. Knights were far from being nigh invincible and their weapons weren't enough to ruin stuff like people predicted. "OOOH 7TH ED, SO BROKEN, MUST QUIT, NO HOPE!" aaaand 7th is so far the best* in last, what, four editions? But no, bashing all the way. Especially without testing. Of course YMMV between armies that are CC and ranged oriented, but things change all the time and various editions favoured various playstyles over time. Before someone says "other games don't have that issue" I will laugh at the idea of a 'ranged' Warmachine army until I get hiccups.
I, for one, think that 40k and WFB are taking steps in the good direction, the models are getting much, much prettier and seeing how the approach to Codex writing changed since they made the "design team" write them, there's no ridiculous overpoweredness on sight. Call me an optimist, but I think that if Codex: Eldar got re-written now, it'd be much more balanced.
Again - not saying GW is perfect, they make bad decisions, some of them are hurtful for the community, but they seem to be willing to change for the better. They even started putting up free and very nice miniature painting vids on their YT channel(rendering some of their digital products such as how to paint Tempestus Scions pointless).
*-- you may disagree based on your personal opinion and/or the position of rose-tinted nostalgia goggles as those affect one's view of stuff greatly.
Rough estimate of costs for my 40k armies at 2k points:
Marines: 600 plus codex
Eldar: 650 plus codex
Necron: 800 plus codex
Warmachine at 50 points. I have three lists for the same faction with some overlap but the total cost including my Colossal is roughly 500. The cost slowly grows as I build up (not stuff I have to have but just want in my showcase) but it is still substantially cheaper. I also do not need a codex or BRB.
The biggest difference how ever is the buy in cost. I had 35 points for two separate armies for around 175 and I was able to find games constantly.
I will also concede that GW does have better crafted models but still a cost that I find unjustifiable.
When I started 40k no one wanted to play 500 points, 1000 points or even 1500. In order to play I had to purchase 900 points and hope three other people were willing to play doubles. The upfront cost into 40k is substantially higher unless you have people willing to play down.
I can post full lists with costs when I get home for any one wanting proof.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 17:59:18
I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
That being said - every game smaller in size would be cheaper. If GW had rules in 40kBRB to play games at 300pts(I am not counting kill team as it's much different from regular 40k), it'd be cheaper too. But if the game requires more models and they're just as good or better than other companies in most cases, then I see no reason why it being more expensive is an issue. If the products are equal in quality and only quantities change, the price difference will be adequate.
The only thing I can agree upon is that the rulebook and Codexes are way too expensive, even though the visual quality is probably best on the market with all those fancy designs, print quality and such.
My arguments in this thread about LOS were only there to show how ridiculously stupid some 'problems' people have are when they nitpick or use some twisted logic to interpret them. Most 'issues' with 40k ruleset are overblown to an extreme level and, as I said, when confronted, they turn out to not be THE problem, but a part of some mythical thing that noone can mention by name. If someone overblows thing like the poor LOS argument and calls the rules broken because of thing like that it doesn't mean that it's a real problem.
I agree that GW can't win it unless they, I don't know, start giving their rules for free, feed homeless people every tuesday, adopt stray puppies and kittens and pay people to take their products. It doesn't matter that 7th fixed a lot of issues while making only a small handful of it's own, that 7th is much better worded most the times, that it's balance tweaks are largely for the better(I know that MC-using players will disagree) or that the Codexes that came out this year are pretty well balanced externally with each having it's strengths but also weaknesses. Funnily enough those people whining on the forums that the game is broken and that it's unplayable are.. a minority. On the whole Dakka out of the loudest barking dogs you can see that only like... a dozen quit? And mostly in bursts of mass hysteria related to things that they didn't get to even try. "IMPERIAL KNIGHTS! SO OVERPOWERED. LOOK AT THEM STATS! THEY WILL RUIN THE GAME!" Bam, haven't seen a single case of Knights tabling a proper army at 1500 or more points played by a good player. Knights were far from being nigh invincible and their weapons weren't enough to ruin stuff like people predicted. "OOOH 7TH ED, SO BROKEN, MUST QUIT, NO HOPE!" aaaand 7th is so far the best* in last, what, four editions? But no, bashing all the way. Especially without testing. Of course YMMV between armies that are CC and ranged oriented, but things change all the time and various editions favoured various playstyles over time. Before someone says "other games don't have that issue" I will laugh at the idea of a 'ranged' Warmachine army until I get hiccups.
I, for one, think that 40k and WFB are taking steps in the good direction, the models are getting much, much prettier and seeing how the approach to Codex writing changed since they made the "design team" write them, there's no ridiculous overpoweredness on sight. Call me an optimist, but I think that if Codex: Eldar got re-written now, it'd be much more balanced.
Again - not saying GW is perfect, they make bad decisions, some of them are hurtful for the community, but they seem to be willing to change for the better. They even started putting up free and very nice miniature painting vids on their YT channel(rendering some of their digital products such as how to paint Tempestus Scions pointless).
*-- you may disagree based on your personal opinion and/or the position of rose-tinted nostalgia goggles as those affect one's view of stuff greatly.
I'd point out how much of your post is subjective (which is fine, it's just useless if you're trying to "prove" anything) but I'm concerned I'd wear out the letters s,u,b,j,c,t,i,v and e on my keyboard.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Klerych wrote: I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
Building a 50 pt Trollblood, I care very little for small point games, too boring for me. He'd be right in that low point warmachine games will cost less to build an army, but if I go into a hobby, I build for the big games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 18:06:48
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
isatarin wrote: Rough estimate of costs for my 40k armies at 2k points: Marines: 600 plus codex Eldar: 650 plus codex Necron: 800 plus codex
Warmachine at 50 points. I have three lists for the same faction with some overlap but the total cost including my Colossal is roughly 500. The cost slowly grows as I build up (not stuff I have to have but just want in my showcase) but it is still substantially cheaper. I also do not need a codex or BRB.
The biggest difference how ever is the buy in cost. I had 35 points for two separate armies for around 175 and I was able to find games constantly.
When I started 40k no one wanted to play 500 points, 1000 points or even 1500. In order to play I had to purchase 900 points and hope three other people were willing to play doubles. The upfront cost into 40k is substantially higher unless you have people willing to play down.
I can post full lists with costs when I get home for any one wanting proof.
I don't think anyone would not believe you, those prices seem plausible. :-) The only case I know of a cheaper army there is are the Ogre Kingdoms. At little less than 250$ and some very simple converting you can literally make a 2400pts ETC tournament-ready army. Can't beat that!
As for your experience with 40k.. I'm really surprised that you had problems finding a game below 1500 to play. While 500 is very restricted and some armies tend to do it better than others, 1000, 1250 and 1500 point battles are very popular in my local community. In fact fewer people like to play 2k pts than 1500.
Edit:
azreal13 wrote: I'd point out how much of your post is subjective (which is fine, it's just useless if you're trying to "prove" anything) but I'm concerned I'd wear out the letters s,u,b,j,c,t,i,v and e on my keyboard.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to prove anything with that, I just stated my very subjective opinion and if someone disagrees, I'd like him to still try reconsidering his stance based on my honest opinion and eventually try to counter my points with reasonable arguments should he still be sure that I am wrong in, again, my opinion. :-)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 18:13:17
Klerych wrote: I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
Building a 50 pt Trollblood, I care very little for small point games, too boring for me. He'd be right in that small scale warmachine games will cost less to build an army, but if I go into a hobby, I build for the big games.
Klerych wrote: I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
Building a 50 pt Trollblood, I care very little for small point games, too boring for me. He'd be right in that small scale warmachine games will cost less to build an army, but if I go into a hobby, I build for the big games.
Not really, said it before, will say it again, not Zodiark. Do I know him, yes, am I him, no. I told you, I was recruited into these forums by a friend, or did it only now register with you that the BA list I am building is built specifically to go up against my friends DA list? Not very bright are we now. As for Warmachine, we both want trolls and we want to beat each other bloody.
Hurray, you've solved a mystery, no wait, you didn't, you're just as wrong as the last guy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
isatarin wrote: Rough estimate of costs for my 40k armies at 2k points:
Marines: 600 plus codex
Eldar: 650 plus codex
Necron: 800 plus codex
Warmachine at 50 points. I have three lists for the same faction with some overlap but the total cost including my Colossal is roughly 500. The cost slowly grows as I build up (not stuff I have to have but just want in my showcase) but it is still substantially cheaper. I also do not need a codex or BRB.
The biggest difference how ever is the buy in cost. I had 35 points for two separate armies for around 175 and I was able to find games constantly.
I will also concede that GW does have better crafted models but still a cost that I find unjustifiable.
When I started 40k no one wanted to play 500 points, 1000 points or even 1500. In order to play I had to purchase 900 points and hope three other people were willing to play doubles. The upfront cost into 40k is substantially higher unless you have people willing to play down.
I can post full lists with costs when I get home for any one wanting proof.
40k in my opinion is garbage at any point under 2k. This game isn't skirmish based, it's war based. Less than 2k isn't a war, it's a slap fight.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 18:13:05
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
Sorry to tell you this, but Zodiark sold all his Dark Angels, and, strangely, Blood Angels, stuff earlier this week.
He's starting Trolls for Warmahordes too!
You two should communicate better on your factions, could all get a bit samey.
Funny this isn't the first time you've been accused of multiple personalities, but is the first time you mention you know him......
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
XenosTerminus wrote: That's life, folks. Things change. Sometimes for the worse. You move on and adapt. Don't like GW or the game anymore? Tough. Other people clearly still do, and you are doing nobody any favors by self-loathing and tirelessly whining about the days of yore.
Those other people don't seem to care about us no longer enjoying a part of the hobby we've invested $000's into, so why should we care about their enjoyment in our attempts to get change? That would be a pretty bad stance to take though wouldn't it?
BTW, I'm not a veteran. I arrived on the tail of 5th so I'm not pining for the days of yore. It didn't take me long to realize GW were horrible at rule writing. Doesn't mean I can't do whatever I can to remedy that to make the hobby more fun.
There is a difference between attempting to make the hobby more enjoyable and simply complaining that it isn't more enjoyable.
GW has given us a toolbox to do whatever we want, within reason. ... ...
Well, they have attempted to sell it to us at double the price it was a few years ago.
Forgive my cynicism. I came back at the start of 4th.
The funny thing is that GW have got a bit better at rule writing than 10 years ago, but they are putting out a lot more rules like Escalation that a lot of people don't like, and haven't addressed balance at all, which was always a concern and has got worse due to Allies and Unbound.
I can't quote on my BlackBerry 10 potato for some reason. Regarding not finding lower point games this was when I was new and purchasing my first army years ago. People were ok for the first two days playing down so I could learn the game.
After that everyone wanted back up to their 1850 lists and not play with the new guy. So for my first two months I took most of the money I would normally commit to savings and bought my full marine army.
40k is lack luster and arguably imbalanced the lower points you go. So is warmahordes because some casters break the meta at low points. Our local club usually avoids the meta breakers unless you ask permission. At the normal 50 points though it is all fair game.
When I started warmachine I had no issue with people playing 15 points and allowing me to grow at a comfortable rate.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Lobomalo wrote: This is where common sense comes into play. An optical sensor is an eye in fact, just an eye for technological things, it serves the same function. If you need to be told that, something is wrong with you, not the rule.
Just to go back to this and make the same point again--let's take this scenario. The game hinges on whether a Wraithlord has LOS to a certain target. One player applies his common sense to measure from the top of that big head-like area, and thinks it does have LOS. The other applies their common sense to measure it from halfway up the head-like area, where it doesn't have LOS.
Now what? The options are:
--The players argue until one player concedes either because they don't want to be seen as antisocial, or trying too hard to win, or because they're not enjoying the game anymore because of all the debating.
--Hit the books in a vain attempt to resolve the question, bringing gameplay to a screeching halt.
--Decide the game on a 4+ roll off. Tactics, what tactics?
For a contrast, look at Warmachine, where determining line of sight is wholly within the rules: Can you draw a line between the bases of the two models that isn't blocked by terrain or effects defined as LOS-blocking, or by models with equal or larger bases than the target? If so, you have LOS.
It's not something to obsess over, but it is an excellent example of shoddy rules writing that creates needless arguments and hands the burden of applying the rules off to the players out of laziness, when it could be easily be resolved by clear rules. Arguments over LOS add exactly nothing to the game, and are trivial to avoid if you pay a little attention to the rules system.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
I have to say I am rather fed up with the "eyes discussion" however it must be granted that LOS rules are basic to a modern/SF wargame due to the great amount of direct fire involved, so GW would have done well to do it properly from the start.
azreal13 wrote: You can follow through in this while you're at it too...
Good luck on that. I'm still waiting for him to explain his absurd claims about MTG:
1) U/W control is unbeatable, the best you can do is also play U/W control and tie them. Which is pretty easily disproved by looking at top-8 decklists from recent major tournaments, where U/W control is barely present and control decks as a whole aren't winning more than their fair share.
2) Mono-blue decks exploit the rules (and no, counterspelling your favorite 10-mana creature is not exploiting the rules) to win.
Needless to say, despite claiming to be an experienced competitive MTG player (and dismissing everyone else as inferior to his awesome skill) he has refused to even attempt to defend his claims with evidence.
Klerych wrote: If someone overblows thing like the poor LOS argument and calls the rules broken because of thing like that it doesn't mean that it's a real problem.
Except the point you keep missing is that it doesn't matter if the argument is "overblown". Games with well-written rules don't have this problem. You can attempt to nitpick and rules lawyer all you want in MTG and you aren't going to get anywhere with it, because the rules don't have anything to argue about. The only way to have an extended MTG rules argument is for one or more of the participants to deliberately refuse to accept what the rules say just so they can continue the argument.
XenosTerminus wrote: GW has given us a toolbox to do whatever we want, within reason. This is absolutely fantastic for people that just want to disconnect and enjoy a game with beautifully sculpted miniatures that we all spend countless hours painting, converting, and crafting into coherent forces based on lore we all hold dear.
So have other game companies, except they have given us a toolbox that works instead of a broken toolbox that has to be fixed before you can start using it to build what you want. The only advantage GW has over other companies is their models, especially the tanks/aircraft/scenery/etc that other scifi games tend to lack. Set aside the models and look purely at the rules and you'll find that GW's rules are garbage without any redeeming qualities, and other companies publish "toolbox" games that work just as well in sandbox/narrative/whatever games, without all of the rule arguments.
The problem is that this is not how 40k is, or has ever been, give or take subtleties from prior editions. Instead of MAKING 40k the game they want, often with little effort required, these people want everything spelled out or spoon-fed to them. They either lack effort or imagination.
You (and people like you) keep complaining about "lazy" players, but you still haven't explained why exactly we should have to make those changes ourselves. Why shouldn't we expect GW to meet the same standards that other companies manage and publish a complete game that works "out of the box" without any house rules or "interpretation"?
Lobomalo wrote: This is where common sense comes into play. An optical sensor is an eye in fact, just an eye for technological things, it serves the same function. If you need to be told that, something is wrong with you, not the rule.
No, it's a problem with the rule. Other games don't have this "interpretation" problem, where you have to assume that the printed words aren't actually how the rule is supposed to work and find the "obvious" way that it was "intended" to work. They just tell you what you're supposed to do, and it works. If GW intended for optical sensors to be an acceptable location to draw LOS from then they should have said so. The fact that they didn't, despite having "lol your model in a helmet can't draw LOS" being a cliche of how GW rules are badly written for multiple editions, shows that they simply do not care about making the rules function properly.
This point, obvious. You are playing in a 40k setting, there will be robots and alien races with different optical parts/pieces than humans. It becomes a little obvious if you simply look at the model and stop looking for a literal sentence always telling you what to do.
If it's so obvious then why didn't GW say "eyes or other equivalent"? Why didn't someone at GW realize that they're playing in a scifi setting full of models without eyes, and write a LOS system that can handle those situations without house rules?
And yes, the solution to the stupid rule was obvious and everyone used whatever equivalent for eyes seemed appropriate. But that's not the point. The point is that GW shouldn't have published a rule that needs everyone to fix it before the game can function.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/27 22:14:27
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.
Okay I wanted to share this little story that happened last Tuesday at my FLGS...
My dad decided he wanted to run some Stronghold Assault units and put a Vengeance Weapon Battery into his list at 75 points base line with the Quad Icarus Lascannon. That was cool but before the game he was playing with our good friend got rolling, my friend and I were looking over the rules for the Vengeance Weapon Battery and things started to get murky...it was listed as an impassable building with AV14 no hull points. We looked in the core book and we found mention of the chart for buildings with no listed HP based off of their side, the problem then arose that it was listed as "Impassable Building" with no mention of size because infantry could not enter it. So my friend, who was running Deathwing, had to have a S9 weapon to even scratch this thing and to make matters worse because it was purchased as part of my fathers force it could SCORE. So of course he had this AV14 building that was controlling an objective against our buddy whose only option to kill it was take it out with one of his chain fist...not great odds. So what we have is a AV14 objective controlling building with no HP and two TL Lascannons for 75 points. When we kept reading we figured out that "Emblaced Weapons" in battlefield debris are the same as "Weapon Emplacements" so you could attack the TL Lascannons at T7 3+. The point of this story is that it took us TWO hours of flipping between to rule books to figure all of this out because of how poorly written the GW rules are.
The point is, GW needs to use consistent language, clear organization, and just all around better editing for how much they charge for their products. Forget for a second the horrible power imbalances between armies and the flat out useless units in some codices, just play this game with a variety of people and not just the same old club to get a spread of peoples opinions and interpretations of the rules. There shouldn't be so many differences club to club because the rules should be clear enough that I can go to any state, any country, and play this game without having to figure out the house rules. I can play any other major war game and do just that, I only have a problem when I try and play 40k. Hell even when I play WFB, just so people don't tell me I am bashing GW, I can more or less have an understanding because the BRB for WFB seems to have more effort put into it to simplify and consistency.
^ This is a good way of making a point. Real life examples instead of EXTREME mouintain building out of mole hills which we had with the LOS thing.
I'm inclined to sympathize with Arbiter's post a lot more than simple statements that the rules are trash and no one can be expected to use common sense.
I think some people misunderstand the "Eyes and LoS"-example.
Maybe this will explain:
1) GW has some rules that are unclear.
2) People claimed they couldn't write perfect rules because it would make the BRB an additional 200 pages.
3) LoS-rules technically didn't work during 6th.
4) 99% of the players didn't care and let you shoot anyway.
5) Doing that is not strictly following the RAW, that's why others call it houseruling. (Even if it's as obvious as this).
6) GW fixed this issue while only adding a word or two to the total length of this ruling.
So what do we learn? They can fix the ruling without adding hundreds of pages.
Another example would be the Psychic Powers issue, they wouldn't need much additional text if they just used the word "equal".
Some people have no issue with this, they are okay with using common sense to house-rule it.
My common-sense interpretation of some rules differ from the common-sense interpretation of others.
The thing that upsets me and others is that I pay a gakload of money for things that I have to house-rule and then I have to hope my next casual opponent has the same interpretation!
1) RAW for drawing LOS is broken, as models with no eyes (models in helmets, gun drones, etc) can not draw LOS and therefore can never shoot or charge.
2) The fact that RAW is broken was a cliche of "GW can't write clear rules" arguments for multiple editions.
3) Fixing the problem is a trivial task, if you accept that a problem exists and needs to be fixed.
Conclusion: the fact that GW did not fix the problem until 7th edition proves that they simply do not care about writing clear and functional rules, something other game companies are able to do without any problems. They are quite happy to publish rough drafts as $50-100 rulebooks and then hide behind a "4+ it" excuse, which shouldn't be considered acceptable behavior.
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.
An example I like even better is the Rapid Fire rules.
In 5th, being able to "charge after firing" was dependent on the model carrying a Rapid Fire weapon. It also said that a model that had a Rapid Fire weapon could fire twice up to half the weapon's range, but didn't say fire the Rapid Fire weapon twice. This means that a model carrying a bolter could not legally charge after firing their pistol as written, but everyone inferred that they really meant fire the Rapid Fire weapon.
They cleaned up the charging part in 6th to be based on firing the Rapid Fire weapon, but still didn't make it clear that firing twice up to half the max range was when firing the Rapid Fire weapon. The sentence about a unit partially in range is also written confusingly. If they simply used "models that fire Rapid Fire weapons" in all of the sentences it would be far more clear without taking up any more space.
All it takes is a slightly different wording to make things clear, and this is true for a lot of the rules.
Elemental wrote:For a contrast, look at Warmachine, where determining line of sight is wholly within the rules: Can you draw a line between the bases of the two models that isn't blocked by terrain or effects defined as LOS-blocking, or by models with equal or larger bases than the target? If so, you have LOS.
Las wrote: So you can't see over hedges in warmachine?
Most hedges would be considered a Linear Obstacle though the rules do define the requirements to be considered such (including height). As defined in the rules, Linear Obstacles do not block LoS.
The point I believe that was trying to be made though was that LoS- among other things- in WM/H is very rarely called into question because between first edition- which had a fair number of LoS issues- and the current edition virtually every issue has been addressed. It took PP a single edition to go from pretty good rules to extremely tight. If GW wants to start 'winning' again they need to meet that level of professionalism. You can't beat your competition by making excuses for why you're not meeting the bar they're setting. Phrases like 'forge the narrative' or 'the GW experience' are sideways attempts to distance, to separate what GW does from other companies. They're not about tournaments and competitive play or restrictive rules see? They shouldn't be compared to those other companies because they're selling something different.
But they're not. They're selling little plastic men that you assemble, paint and play a game with. And they're selling them to the same people. GW players and other game system players aren't different groups with some overlap, they're the exact same group and the sooner GW realises that the better because that group has finite disposable income. GW is competing, like it or not, and no amount of spin will change that fact and sooner or later no amount of cost cutting will hide it. GW has lost a sizable portion of the market. The people in charge at GW need to own up to this fact too and get in the damn game. They have the best IP out there and the ability to make amazing models. If they supported it with a well written, value for money rules set they would be winning by a mile. They can win but first they have to acknowledge they're competing. Then they have to raise their game to the point where people are talking about how affordable it is to start, how clear and well written the rules are and how well they treat their customers. They can win, but it'll be hard and take effort, not to mention cost some money in the short term. Whatever is holding GW back though is embedded firmly within GW.
Kojiro wrote: The point I believe that was trying to be made though was that LoS- among other things- in WM/H is very rarely called into question because between first edition- which had a fair number of LoS issues- and the current edition virtually every issue has been addressed. It took PP a single edition to go from pretty good rules to extremely tight. If GW wants to start 'winning' again they need to meet that level of professionalism.
This is what gets me. It's not so much the state of GW rules as the fact that after 7 editions they're still this bad with problems persisting from one to the next. A new edition should fix the problems from the previous edition. Ideally, it'll largely just be incorporating the FAQs that cleared up the problems from the previous edition, with enough additional content to warrant a new edition. A "lateral change" is just not acceptable to me, and why after starting at the tail of 5th I'm already over it. The fact that poorly balanced units make it from one codex to another drives me batty ; p
The purpose of a new edition of 40K is to allow GW to sell everyone a new rulebook and codex.
Some people will say it allows GW to shake up the game and prevent it getting boring. I would say if a game is boring, play a different game for a while.
I don't understand why GW stopped making any other games. They have a load of production facilities and retail shops. It ought to be a snap.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't understand why GW stopped making any other games. They have a load of production facilities and retail shops. It ought to be a snap.
It's such a shame GW stopped making other games, I'd have less complaints about GW and 40k if they still made Epic, BFG, mordheim, etc.
), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for 
In the works
Thought for the day 
40IK - PP Conversion Project Files
