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.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
2.) A misunderstanding between the two players on which kind of game they want to play. I may be too competitive for you but did you ever think you arent competitive enough for me? Its a 2 player game and both parties should agree how to play. Like i recently met a new fantasy player who told me he had an army that was a 14 on sweeeish comp (very soft) mine was a 5. So i toned down my list to his level and we had a great game.

I disagree. In a two player game, the rules should be balanced enough so that the players can just play, not agree how to play. This is a problem that ONLY exists in 40k (and presumably WHFB as well). No other game seems to have this issue; you can basically show up to play with virtually anything you want or think is cool and have a relatively equal (give or take a few percentages) chance of winning the game. GW games are the outlier here, where you can show up and have a very small chance of actually winning a game simply because the units you like happen to be weak/underpowered, or have a high chance of winning if the units you like happen to be the strong/overpowered units.

Mapkfaux, WM/H, even video games like LoL. Everygame that has balance issues will have good and bad choices and since balance is so hard thats bound to happen.

Those games don't have nearly the same balance issues as 40k. You can take pretty much whatever you want in Warmachine and still have a decent chance of winning a game if you use them right. The same cannot be said of 40k where you can take all the "bad" units and have little or no chance of winning against someone who took all the "good" units. That's the kind of balance people are talking about, and 40k doesn't have it.

Malifaux had hamelin and pandora. I dont know m2e that well but go ask a classic player about those 2. As for wm/h have you never seen the threads bitchibg about cryx? Plus with LoL there ARE pregame arrangements. You get to trafe BANS bef9re the game. Everyone likes to hate GW i get it but to say 40k is the "ONLY" one, and then say maybe fantasy, is just wrong and to me seems like youre railing agains5 GW not just 40k. Im not saying GW is perfect, and 40k does have balance issues, I'm saying a simple pregame discussion can make rhe game, any game, more enjoyable.

Well... knowing that the lists and codex's fall short of proper balance, (unless they're playing in a tournament) most experienced players will build a more "realistic" or flavourful list, rather than the "Must-Win" list-kiddies - in the interest of having a good time. It's a game, after all.

Now you say that the community hates "competitive players" - but I don't think that's true.
Everyone who enters a game of 40K will try to win - it's not a hate of competition - people just don't like douche-bags.
Take stock, and adjust your attitude if you find you might be in that camp. I don't know you - but judging on your comments here - I wouldn't play with you, either.

GW games have never been designed for competitive play. I can appreciate if the game isn't for you - but in my experience - people who have invested heavily in the hobby already (your claim of 3 Riptides) don't usually just abandon it because someone asked them not to post a full point-breakdown.

7 pages and not ONE reference to Ice-T. I'm ashamed. I'm still glad OP is giving WM/H a shot.

Voidwraith, as one of those fluff bunny players, I can say it's frustrating on both ends. I tend to flip back and forth to check rules even if a seasoned player tells me what the rule is, mostly to cement that rule in my mind but also to make sure they aren't just telling me whatever so they win.

I am still baffled as to how people can memorize their armies' rules and stats and not even bring a rulebook. It sounds like your opponent was much more annoying than I typically am though, so I feel a little better about that.

 gmaleron wrote:
-Everyone has the right to play with the models they want to play with be it for how "great they are on the tabletop", fluff reasons, look of the model ect. People who spout of "I hate that model/rules and I wont play against it" due to their fear of playing against it or any other reason outside of they don't have anything to deal with it are WRONG. I hate showing up to a game store and people giving me the stink eye because I brought my Elysians or Tau who have no good reason for it other then "they don't like it". The biggest problem also is that so many people REFUSE to change their tactics and feel that they should win with the same list regardless of who they face and demand their opponent change their list so they can, sorry it doesn't work like this. Adapt and overcome!

"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really powerful models that I like."

Do you see the problem here?

 vipoid wrote:


"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really powerful models that I like."

Do you see the problem here?

"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."

That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really powerful models that I like."

Do you see the problem here?

"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."

That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.

Which is why people have been saying that were it not for the rules, the gap between these people would not be so vast, and therefore there would be less debate (about this particular topic, anyway).

 CrownAxe wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really powerful models that I like."

Do you see the problem here?

"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."

That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.

The problem is that there are weak models.

In most "balanced" games the different models would have different applications based on circumstance and would have a game cost accordingly.

Artillery / long range, Cavalry / Fast Attack, Heavy / Mechanized / Armor, Troop / Main force, Command / HQ.
These are all the normal choices in any era of gaming.
Each have their strengths and weaknesses.
As soon as units have combined capabilities with few of the weaknesses and at a cheap points cost: games get imbalanced.

Wave serpents, Riptides, Nightscythes have few weaknesses when faced with a variety of foes they must answer to.

I should focus on the models that are "not worth considering" where points to capability is so bad the models are basically shelved until the next update / rules change.

Bulgryn /Ogryn, Centurion Assault Squad, Helbrute, Mutilators... I am sure there is more but this is from my own experience of being something I would not typically use.

 CrownAxe wrote:

"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."

That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.

I think the bigger problem is that the fluff vs competitive debate exists at all. There shouldn't be vast differences in power between models - hence players shouldn't have to compromise on models/lists just to stand a decent chance.

 vipoid wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."

That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.

I think the bigger problem is that the fluff vs competitive debate exists at all. There shouldn't be vast differences in power between models - hence players shouldn't have to compromise on models/lists just to stand a decent chance.

For me, that's really the biggest problem I have with 40k. I'm a fluff player but don't like to get stomped to the ground every time just for making an army like the fluff says they're supposed to be like.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Throughout the entire thread, it is being suggested and put forth that we should hate all "competitive players" because the rules are broken.

Who has suggested that? You keep repeating it, even accused me of it, but it just don't see it. Quote the post.

(as is being suggested, nay demanded we do in this thread)

No, it's not.

I seem to be alone in this.

No, you're not. This isn't a failure to articulate - you're literally saying things have been said that haven't been. You're reading posts that don't exist.

To me, it comes down to how nice and friendly of a guy the player is MUCH more so than their army list or the rules in the main book when it comes to disliking that player on a personal level..

So... While it's a small part, it's a part? K.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

"Everyone should be able to play the models they want - so my opponent's should change their lists and use models they don't like, just so I can use these really fluffy and weak models that I like."

That's just the problem with the fluff vs competitive debate. Both players are right to play how they want so it's just a lose-lose debate that often leaves people with egg on their face.

I think the bigger problem is that the fluff vs competitive debate exists at all. There shouldn't be vast differences in power between models - hence players shouldn't have to compromise on models/lists just to stand a decent chance.

For me, that's really the biggest problem I have with 40k. I'm a fluff player but don't like to get stomped to the ground every time just for making an army like the fluff says they're supposed to be like.

In some ways I don't really understand why we separate fluff and competitiveness at all, because to me what a unit can do on the table is vitally important to how I view them in fluff terms.

If I had to describe myself, I'd say I'm a fluff player... but I think the way people on this forum would describe me it would be more as a competitive player because I really struggle to take units that are terrible. But the reason I struggle to take units that are terrible is because it disrupts my fluffy suspension of disbelief when my fluffy army gets blown off the table by the end of turn 2.

How does a complete lack of competitiveness not feth with the fluffy perceptions people have of their armies? Unless they specifically created their army for the fluffy reason that it's a punching bag for all other armies.

A couple of my friends and I used to (they've now quit 40k and WHFB) try and make more fluffy battles, basically be completely ignoring the points values of units. Instead of constructing armies to points, we'd construct a fluffy army, then start constructing a fluffy army that would compete with it, going through, unit by unit, trying to get an idea of what unit in army B would be a fair table top equivalent for army A.

It was a fun way to play the game, sometimes we were off by miles sometimes we actually got some really close fought battles... probably more often than when we just constructed armies to specific points values, but the whole concept is not practical for pick up games, which is 99% of what I play these days because all those friends have long since quit What we were doing was closer to a role playing game than a balanced wargame since 40k was not a balanced wargame to start with

well, it seems that i have finally gotten some support. lol
I dont care if my models are weak, I use them because I like them. Does that mean I lose? No, I still often with. Usually through strategy and tactics.
Of course, even when I play someone with a tooled up list, I dont mind playing because its a challenge to me and I often learn something from the game to help me in future ones. I base my "hatred" for those who are jerks and deserving of it.
Even then, it is not a hatred. They just become someone I'm not fond of or refuse to play against. Before I ACTUALLY hate someonee going to have to do a LOT more than tooled up tournament list ad a good bit more than be a jerk ing a single game of 40k.
And yes, I'm a fluff playe that enjoys winning using my fluffy armies. So I suppose I am a "hated one' (obvious through reading the thread and the vitriol aimed at me because of my stance) but also one of the ones who are supposed to hate. So feel free to hate me because I enjoy winning all you like, but I refuse to hate for that reason personally.

 MWHistorian wrote:

For me, that's really the biggest problem I have with 40k. I'm a fluff player but don't like to get stomped to the ground every time just for making an army like the fluff says they're supposed to be like.

I have similar problems. I'm trying to make a themed IG army, but it seems at every turn I'm having to make bad decisions with regard to my army's overall strength.

Possibly the worst one is that I'm trying to kit out my leader appropriately, but forcing myself to buy the overcosted garbage the book calls 'wargear' is pretty damn painful.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

How does a complete lack of competitiveness not feth with the fluffy perceptions people have of their armies? Unless they specifically created their army for the fluffy reason that it's a punching bag for all other armies.

I think it depends on why the unit isn't competitive.

For example, many units aren't competitive simply because they're overcosted. They might still fit their fluff quite well, but they're just not an efficient choice.

Conversely, you have units like Wyches - which are supposed to be elite combat units... yet suck in combat. In this case, there's a definite gap between their rules and their fluff.

 vipoid wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

For me, that's really the biggest problem I have with 40k. I'm a fluff player but don't like to get stomped to the ground every time just for making an army like the fluff says they're supposed to be like.

I have similar problems. I'm trying to make a themed IG army, but it seems at every turn I'm having to make bad decisions with regard to my army's overall strength.

Possibly the worst one is that I'm trying to kit out my leader appropriately, but forcing myself to buy the overcosted garbage the book calls 'wargear' is pretty damn painful.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

How does a complete lack of competitiveness not feth with the fluffy perceptions people have of their armies? Unless they specifically created their army for the fluffy reason that it's a punching bag for all other armies.

I think it depends on why the unit isn't competitive.

For example, many units aren't competitive simply because they're overcosted. They might still fit their fluff quite well, but they're just not an efficient choice.

Conversely, you have units like Wyches - which are supposed to be elite combat units... yet suck in combat. In this case, there's a definite gap between their rules and their fluff.

Well, the Aquilla relic is pretty boss... If not absurdly expensive though.

I think a disparity between fluff and crunch is something we have to live with to an extent, after all we're told that a handful of Space Marines can be sufficient to reclaim a planet and that the big heroes can turn the tide of invasion single handed.

What's frustrating is when they essentially get it right, then arbitrarily change it. My best example from personal experience would be Bloodcrushers. In the last book they were arguably too strong, but that was down in substantial part to Fateweaver's abilities as much as their own rules. They were tough, durable and could hit hard, but we're perhaps too slow for what they were supposed to be. The current book changed them to cavalry, which solved the speed issue, but took away Fatey's reroll ability, lowered their toughness, removed EW and their armour save.

Somewhere in that mess of changes is the exact right portrayal of Bloodcrushers - a T5, 3+\5++ 3W cavalry unit, which would, appropriately costed, be about perfect IMO.

But no, GW essentially play their games in a vacuum, don't communicate with fans and often don't appear to understand their game. More unforgivably they don't appear to care about maintaining their game, which is the defining difference between those games cited as being better balanced and 40K - frequent FAQs, Errata and communicating with the player base.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I think a disparity between fluff and crunch is something we have to live with to an extent, after all we're told that a handful of Space Marines can be sufficient to reclaim a planet and that the big heroes can turn the tide of invasion single handed.

What's frustrating is when they essentially get it right, then arbitrarily change it. My best example from personal experience would be Bloodcrushers. In the last book they were arguably too strong, but that was down in substantial part to Fateweaver's abilities as much as their own rules. They were tough, durable and could hit hard, but we're perhaps too slow for what they were supposed to be. The current book changed them to cavalry, which solved the speed issue, but took away Fatey's reroll ability, lowered their toughness, removed EW and their armour save.

Somewhere in that mess of changes is the exact right portrayal of Bloodcrushers - a T5, 3+\5++ 3W cavalry unit, which would, appropriately costed, be about perfect IMO.

But no, GW essentially play their games in a vacuum, don't communicate with fans and often don't appear to understand their game. More unforgivably they don't appear to care about maintaining their game, which is the defining difference between those games cited as being better balanced and 40K - frequent FAQs, Errata and communicating with the player base.

I totally agree with this and its a good example. It also points out specifically that the blame lies on GW. Why should I be forced to hate the player across the table with a teeth knashing uncontrollable murderous hatredbecause he just happens to have a unit of bloodcrushers on the table because he thinks the models look cool? (heck, I have 3 of them for that very reason). When as you pointed out, GW made the rules and in a vacuem with no input from us players. Wouldnt it make sense to put that hatred where it belongs?
Not saying your the one telling to hate the players. I'm just using your post to exhibit my point.

 Zewrath wrote:

Well, the Aquilla relic is pretty boss... If not absurdly expensive though.

That one is nice, but sadly doesn't really fit the flavour my my commander.

Unfortunately, the most flavourful items seem to be The Death Mask of Ollanius (Sorry, I pay how much for IWND on a T3 model? ), and a Power Fist (Do these really need to be 25pts on S3 guys?).

It's just frustrating because I don't want to sacrifice the flavour of my commander, but at the same time I don't like feeling that I'm throwing a ton of points down the drain.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I think a disparity between fluff and crunch is something we have to live with to an extent, after all we're told that a handful of Space Marines can be sufficient to reclaim a planet and that the big heroes can turn the tide of invasion single handed.

What's frustrating is when they essentially get it right, then arbitrarily change it. My best example from personal experience would be Bloodcrushers. In the last book they were arguably too strong, but that was down in substantial part to Fateweaver's abilities as much as their own rules. They were tough, durable and could hit hard, but we're perhaps too slow for what they were supposed to be. The current book changed them to cavalry, which solved the speed issue, but took away Fatey's reroll ability, lowered their toughness, removed EW and their armour save.

Somewhere in that mess of changes is the exact right portrayal of Bloodcrushers - a T5, 3+\5++ 3W cavalry unit, which would, appropriately costed, be about perfect IMO.

But no, GW essentially play their games in a vacuum, don't communicate with fans and often don't appear to understand their game. More unforgivably they don't appear to care about maintaining their game, which is the defining difference between those games cited as being better balanced and 40K - frequent FAQs, Errata and communicating with the player base.

I totally agree with this and its a good example. It also points out specifically that the blame lies on GW. Why should I be forced to hate the player across the table with a teeth knashing uncontrollable murderous hatredbecause he just happens to have a unit of bloodcrushers on the table because he thinks the models look cool? (heck, I have 3 of them for that very reason). When as you pointed out, GW made the rules and in a vacuem with no input from us players. Wouldnt it make sense to put that hatred where it belongs?
Not saying your the one telling to hate the players. I'm just using your post to exhibit my point.

Your point isn't clear, and doesn't seem to actually use A13's post much, if at all.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

As for wm/h have you never seen the threads bitchibg about cryx?

Yup. And the majority is from noobs who have been rough housed by them. Then people get advice and learn how to actually deal with them.

Cryx is annoying, but the stats don't put them out of whack at all. Cryx can be dealt with. They're not broken by any stretch of the imagination. Cryx are dangerous in the hands of an experienced player, but that is true for pretty much every faction.

It is clear to me. In other systems there are either no such things as screamer stars, eldar from various editions or everything is on the level of those . So people in other systems aren't hating armies or people like they do in w40k or WFB.

Makumba wrote:
It is clear to me. In other systems there are either no such things as screamer stars, eldar from various editions or everything is on the level of those . So people in other systems aren't hating armies or people like they do in w40k or WFB.

It has nothing to do with that, it's that other games are approximately fair despite what you take; it might not be straight 50/50 but it's relatively close. In WM/H Cryx and Legion are pretty strong armies, but they aren't invincible. A powerhouse Cryx army can be defeated with good tactics, while the list can factor in (if you aren't prepared for example) it's nowhere near the discrepancy in 40k. However, that's also why WM/H is balanced around scenarios and multiple lists (or at least it appears that way) , so you minimize the chance of a bad matchup because you have two lists so presumably one of them can deal with those problem matches and the other is more generic. Also the fact is that almost anything is viable in a list. Even units that are considered "bad" (e.g. Man o War Shocktroopers, Exemplar Cinerators) have a place in lists and can see success if you use them correctly. Almost nothing is so bad that you're punished for taking it, even if there's a mathematically better choice.

The issue with 40k though is that certain units are just bad, while others are just too good. Look at CSM for example; basically you have to go Nurgle in order to really be "competitive", because the regular choices are bad. If I want a fluffy Iron Warriors army that's basically footslogging with some mobile units (for after the breach) I'm at a disadvantage right out of the gate for not taking Plague Marines, Nurgle Bikers and Nurgle Oblits even though none of those fit the army I want to do. Or if I really like Raptors and Warp Talons (which I do), neither are very good so I'm hurting myself by taking them even if I like how they look or how they fit my army.

Or another, more relevant example: I very recently had the idea to do an all Terminator army, not Deathwing or Grey Knights, just standard Terminators from a chapter I was going to make up as I went along. I had a cool army theme that was basically an elite strike team sent to capture a key objective or eliminate a prime target where only the best of the best could suffice; in this imaginary scenario achieving this objective would turn the tide of the battle, so failure was not an option and the 1st Company of my chapter was dispatched to do it, because if they can't do it then nobody can. I even had some ideas to expand the army with a Tempestus force and an Imperial Knight, making it an elite vanguard army. It was cool and fluffy. But Terminators suck. I would likely lose every game through no fault of my own just because I picked the wrong units because I had a cool concept for them.

That's the kind of crap we're talking about. Things like that should not ever happen in a game. If I want an all Terminator army it should at least be approximately viable with any other choice in the Codex; I shouldn't be punished because I like the idea of a small but elite strike team instead of taking all Drop Pods or all Bikers. Instead, I would get the "privilege" of spending hundreds on a cool but ultimately worthless force, and who the hell wants that?

Alpharius, The point is one of the things I have been saying. GW made the rules. We players did not.it is eing suggested (well, many are agreeing with the hating of players who play to winand are validating that hate and trying to convince us to agree with them which amounts to trying to get us to hate those players) purely because ofthe rules written in the book.
His post is pointing out that GW rote the rules and not us players. Therefore why should we hate the players for them? That reinforces the fact that we should hate the company if we dont like the rules rather than the poor folks using them. We should hate the player only if the exhibit behavior to warrent it.

I agree, the rules are poorly written, we have never had a perfect set of rules. There have been sets worse than the current set (or at least one). We players did not write ANY of them.


Makumba your right. wait 20 years/5 editions or so and you'll have newer players of those games complaining about the good old days and how their current rules are trash while the veteran players try to explain that their game has never had a perfect set of rules. Then the newer players will refer to the perfect rules of Battle Hog (or whatever fly by night new game is out) and the cycle will continue.

I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.

As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.

It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.

 Voidwraith wrote:
I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.

If that were the case, 40k would have grown following 6th and several of the codices released in that time.

As we saw, GW experienced a decline, and most forums and anecdotal evidence suggests that 40k's popularity is shrinking in some part due to the quality of the rules, while other games with much greater balance have experienced steady growth in the same time frame.

All the unfairness and imbalance does is divide the community and get players to look elsewhere for a game who's rules are worth the price tag.

 Voidwraith wrote:
I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.

As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.

It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.

Actually I think it's a combination of the fluff and the investment, because 40k is one of the worst written tabletop games I've ever seen, and I've read some 30 year old Napoleonic wargaming rules that required you to like track logistics and basically felt closer to an old Nintendo strategic simulation game than a tabletop game.

40k is popular IMO because of the rich fluff/backstory, the good looking (for the most part) figures and the fact that for 20 some years it was virtually the only real game in town so it's the one most of us got involved with unless you are a real grognard and cut your teeth on historical gaming in the olden days. It's kind of like with D&D, there's a lot of history that people remember fondly so it's the "go-to" choice, but if you look at that comparison Pathfinder has equaled (or surpassed?) D&D in everything but brand name because subjectively during 4th edition it was a better game and more familiar.

 Voidwraith wrote:
I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.

As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.

It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.

That is an interesting idea. I wouldnt say the constant argueing but rather the constant horse race of who is ahead by a nose and how to beat the odds. I still think the fluff,modeling aspect plays a large part. The game has been growing for decades and has never had a decline always getting bigger and more popular. That may indeed be part of the reason.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Alpharius, The point is one of the things I have been saying. GW made the rules. We players did not.it is eing suggested (well, many are agreeing with the hating of players who play to winand are validating that hate and trying to convince us to agree with them which amounts to trying to get us to hate those players) purely because ofthe rules written in the book.
His post is pointing out that GW rote the rules and not us players. Therefore why should we hate the players for them? That reinforces the fact that we should hate the company if we dont like the rules rather than the poor folks using them. We should hate the player only if the exhibit behavior to warrent it.

I agree, the rules are poorly written, we have never had a perfect set of rules. There have been sets worse than the current set (or at least one). We players did not write ANY of them.


Makumba your right. wait 20 years/5 editions or so and you'll have newer players of those games complaining about the good old days and how their current rules are trash while the veteran players try to explain that their game has never had a perfect set of rules. Then the newer players will refer to the perfect rules of Battle Hog (or whatever fly by night new game is out) and the cycle will continue.

No, you've taken my example and hammered it to fit your argument, but not really honoured the intent - I should have quoted Skink's post a little further up for clarity as it was that which I was responding to, I was providing a specific example where GW have got it nearly right on a couple of occasions but have so far failed to nail it to try and illustrate that it is within the realms of possibility to close the gap between competitive and fluffy to something much more manageable for many players.

To address your points that you seem to be taking my post in support of..

Firstly, where on earth are you getting the idea that anyone is forcing anyone to do anything? I really do think you're reading a different thread to the rest of us.

Secondly, GW do indeed hold the ultimate responsibility of publishing the rules we use, but while they continue to be hamfisted and barely competent about it, the onus is on us as a playing community to be responsible in our gaming choices and to respect our opponent sufficiently to make choices that won't ruin their enjoyment of the game.

The issue with competitive players arises when they choose to disregard this gentleman's agreement in environments where it isn't appropriate.

If 40K were a better game, a player's intentions would be irrelevant, one could turn up with "an army" and classing it as fluffy or competitive or somewhere on some arbitrary scale wouldn't be necessary.

Sadly, modern 40K is not that game.

Now, if one plays where everyone brings their hardest list, this is not a problem. If the environment is less about hard lists and more about fun, variety and fluff, and one plays according to those criteria, not a problem.

Issues arise when a player is new to a playing environment and gets it wrong, or when they place their somewhat questionable need to win what is ultimately a meaningless game intended to pass some time in an enjoyable manner ahead of respecting their opponents right to enjoy the game too.

It is this latter element that causes the bad blood and gives "competitive" a bad name in some parts of the 40K community.

 EVIL INC wrote:
it is eing suggested (well, many are agreeing with the hating of players who play to winand are validating that hate and trying to convince us to agree with them which amounts to trying to get us to hate those players) purely because ofthe rules written in the book.

No. No it's not. Please stop making things up.

His post is pointing out that GW rote the rules and not us players. Therefore why should we hate the players for them? That reinforces the fact that we should hate the company if we dont like the rules rather than the poor folks using them. We should hate the player only if the exhibit behavior to warrent it.

...correct. Who has said otherwise, exactly?

 Voidwraith wrote:
I'd like the posit the idea that it's the imbalance and "unfairness" of certain rules and codecies that is what makes 40k more popular than the other table-top wargames. It certainly helps spark and keep alive heated debates, which in turn keeps the game (and how to succeed in it's imbalanced state) in the forefront of our minds.

As an example, we all learned checkers, a balanced and uncomplicated game, as children, but I doubt even a small percentage of children obsessed about it at all. Chess is totally balanced and has an extreme amount of tactical depth, but I can't remember the last time anyone bragged about taking out someone's queen.

It can't be 40ks fluff alone that keeps us plodding along. Out of break time...I may add more later.

The constant UPDATES definitely helps their popularity, the imbalance? No. I don't think so, not at all.

They are (or have been in the past) good at snaring new players. The good fluff. The expansive range. The frequent new releases. The fact that once you've bought a 40k army you are financially and emotionally invested.

Those are the things that help the popularity of 40k, not the junky rules and imbalance.