Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 02:53:11
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Dreadnought
|
Desubot wrote: Veteran Sergeant wrote:
What 2nd Edition 40K needed was a tweaking and streamlining. 3rd Edition was an entirely new game. And it was crappy.
Id like to see it
Iv never played 2nd ed. exactly how different was it?
Like others have said, a lot.
It was much more wargamey. Vehicles had movement rates (that they had to cycle through) and turning radiuses; damage charts were a bit more exciting (exploding Hellhounds = hilarious). Models had facings, but units could split fire ("Durr, you mean we shouldn't shoot our bolters at that tanks? Just Bob with his missile launcher?"), and the missile launcher could stand still and everyone else could move so long as the unit stayed within coherency, for example. Overwatch was a "condition", where the unit gave up its own shooting phase to fire (with a slight penalty) in the opponent's turn. Assault troops were much better at their job, but they were also much more fragile (imagine that, in a game where there are guns) so required more intelligence to maneuver into position. Tyranids could shoot. Orks could shoot. Not only that, they were actually pretty good at it. And so on.
Not everything was great. Armor save modifiers needed to be toned down/refined (the all-or-nothing AP stat isn't ideal either). Close combat was clunky. Characters were overpowered ( WS 10 Chaos lord wiping out my 6 genestealers in close combat comes to mind). Psychic phase was time consuming (I saw psykers banned at more than one store tournament simply out of interests of time). A lot of silly wargear (virus grenades for example, but again, a lot of these things were consensus banned at most stores/gaming groups). Some wonky army lists (Woot woot, All Wolf Guard Termis with Assault Cannon/Cyclone Spam!) But these were really just a byproduct of the game still not having fully found its identity in the wake of Rogue Trader.
A 2.5th Edition game could have easily fixed these things. Heck, most of them disappeared in 3rd, so we know they were easily fixable. I mean, it isn't like there was something unique to 3rd Edition that allowed it to reorganize army list building, or leave out Vortex Grenades, or disallow 5 Space Wolf Terminators with fully automatic krak missile launchers (the Assault Cannon was S8 in 2nd) and a 12" pieplate. But what 3rd Edition did instead was completely gimp shooting by nearly halving effective ranges, and almost doubling movement rates (tripling it in some cases), removing overwatch, strengthening armor (in many cases at least), removing the ability to shoot into close combat, etc. Most of 3+ th Edition 40K stems from this change. There was no such thing as an "Assault Army" in 2nd Edition, so there was no need to balance the game for that.
Ultimately, most wargames exist in an "era" so they have less trouble balancing. There will be play style balances. Some armies will be more professional, better equipped, etc, but everybody uses the same weapons and more or less the same tactics. Ancients or medievals, everyone has spears and rudimentary ranged weapons. WW2, everyone is using guns, etc. When you try to blend fantasy and science fiction as hard as 40K tried to in 3rd Edition, ultimately you're adding layers of complexity that a simple game like 40K is going to struggle to balance. Thus why there were so many complaints in 6th Edition about it "nerfing assault". Because players who played factions that had become reliant on close combat units (and balanced in that direction in previous editions, not to mention the model releases for those factions oriented in that direction too). Those play styles would have never existed in a 2.5th Edition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote:Talys wrote:Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.
What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?
Then you're a lucky WAACer?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 02:54:25
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 02:54:36
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
insaniak wrote:Talys wrote:Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.
What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?
WAAC is more about the Attitude.
>Look at my Waves Serpents, don't they look cool with their paint job. Not WAAC
>My Wave Serpents are going to kick your  and there is nothing you can do about it. WAAC
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 02:58:09
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Anpu42 wrote:
WAAC is more about the Attitude.
>Look at my Waves Serpents, don't they look cool with their paint job. Not WAAC
>My Wave Serpents are going to kick your  and there is nothing you can do about it. WAAC
I've come across any number of competitive players who were well adjusted enough to not talk smack unless it was amongst friends who they knew would take it in the right spirit.
You're equating wanting to win with being an ass, which is not necessarily the case.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 03:04:00
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
Talys wrote:I don't think any of the things you describe are WAAC.
We had a thread a short while back about what the definition of WAAC was... I don't think most people would consider me WAAC but the definitions several people gave in that thread I would be, that's why I just said "bordering on WAAC"
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 03:04:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 03:09:08
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
insaniak wrote:Talys wrote:Packing an army with wave serpents and fire dragons, riptides, IKs, or wraithknights, or any other gimicky army is WAAC, in my book.
What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?
Whatever, man, play with what you like  . If nobody wants to play with ya, deems the breaks.
Our gaming groups has unit limits on super-heavies (based on game point cost) and ratio requirements that scale up the cost of certain units past 3 to discourage cheesy lists.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 03:12:29
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Talys wrote:Whatever, man, play with what you like  . If nobody wants to play with ya, deems the breaks. .
But that was the point. This isn't a problem of player attitude... it's a flaw in the rules for building those armies.
A player shouldn't be penalised or looked down on for bringing a legal list. That's just an absurdity, and the fact that so many players are so happy to just accept that this is the way it is and try to section the community off into different 'groups' is a constant source of incredulity for me.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 03:29:44
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
insaniak wrote:Talys wrote:Whatever, man, play with what you like  . If nobody wants to play with ya, deems the breaks. .
But that was the point. This isn't a problem of player attitude... it's a flaw in the rules for building those armies.
A player shouldn't be penalised or looked down on for bringing a legal list. That's just an absurdity, and the fact that so many players are so happy to just accept that this is the way it is and try to section the community off into different 'groups' is a constant source of incredulity for me.
Let's just agree to disagree. I don't have a problem recognizing that tabletop games have flaws and that some tuning may be required to suit a play group. To me, this does not reduce the funness of the game even a little.
On an online game with matchmaking, I'm full-on WAAC. First thing I did when Hearthstone went live was spend money until owned every card, and then I mercilessly tuned lists until I got to Legendary, and them worked my way up the ladder. I would never do that in an RL game with friends, because if nothing else I'd rather they keep talking to me.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 03:30:51
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Homicidal Veteran Blood Angel Assault Marine
Oz
|
Mr. Burning wrote:GW's repeated efforts to update their rules has lead them to become like a copy of a copy.
Data is constantly degraded.
At its heart the rules that were somewhat okay for narrative based skirmish gaming (overseen by a GM no less) are the same that are being pushed for battalion+ sized gaming with vehicles and other shenanigans.
If anything I long for the narrative based days of massive battles (Epic) with some individual platoon unit actions taking place with 40k and maybe some space based combat too (spacefleet/ BFG).
................................
I have played every incarnation of 40k. Maybe I see it through rose tinted specs. I have to say what I see though.
40k has never really been up to scratch rules wise - I have always said it about 40k from RT upwards. And I would hate to play a game of RT now.
I agree with this, but for me there was always a feeling that they were at least trying with every new edition. Like the designer notes that explained why the rules had shifted. Or andy chambers infamous "hey we've come to the conclusion that you're right about terminators, theres a problem and here's our attempt to fix it" crux terminatus save. I had massive respect for that. They started losing momentum with 5th and by 6th there was an immediate and obvious feeling that they were just recycling the same thing over and over again. I think copy of a copy with data degradation sums it up brilliantly.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 03:45:05
Subject: Re:What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The problem with bad rules, or leaving questions caused by unanswerable rules interactions is that it kills the ability to be clever.
For instance, you have some building and some terrain set up in the middle of the table. You deploy some set of models near that terrain because according to your understanding, Rule X causes Effect Y so your unit's in a great position. Your opponent looks at that, according to their understanding Rule X causes Effect Z, so they spend two turns moving their unit up the table to attack your unit. You're both sitting their enjoying the feeling of being clever, and then in the third turn of the game you both discover the contradictory interpretations.
And trying to guess what the other player was trying to do doesn't really work to prevent the problem. Because you're just as likely to figure "Oh, that unit's not coming up that direction to do A, because we both know how the rules work, so it must be going off to do something else. Hmmmm...." Not to mention how obnoxious it would be for everyone involved if everyone was constantly having to the other player's second guessing of what they're doing.
So now you're in the middle of the game, and you've both got two turns of actions that you would have done differently if the rules interaction had been discussed earlier. You've got two players who were both trying to be clever, and now neither of them can be.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 03:48:27
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Talys wrote:Let's just agree to disagree. I don't have a problem recognizing that tabletop games have flaws and that some tuning may be required to suit a play group. To me, this does not reduce the funness of the game even a little.
I doubt that you will find many people at all who expect a game to have no flaws.
It's having the same flaws carry through 7 iterations that people might start to get a little tired of. The point of a new edition is to finetune the rules, not just to sell new books to everyone.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 03:52:43
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
insaniak wrote: Anpu42 wrote:
WAAC is more about the Attitude.
>Look at my Waves Serpents, don't they look cool with their paint job. Not WAAC
>My Wave Serpents are going to kick your  and there is nothing you can do about it. WAAC
I've come across any number of competitive players who were well adjusted enough to not talk smack unless it was amongst friends who they knew would take it in the right spirit.
You're equating wanting to win with being an ass, which is not necessarily the case.
No, I am equating being a jerk with WAAC.
I was a WAAC Back in 2nd or 3rd, now I am Semi-Competitive-Fluffy Player. I get my enjoyment form the socializing and playing a good game, winning just makes the game better.
Here is the other difference: I will play an Ultra-Competitive Player dragging out 6 Riptides and as long they are cool about it and when I ask for a re-match they don't reply "No Not Until You Play Better." The last line was from WAAC Player.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 07:03:02
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Anpu42 wrote:
No, I am equating being a jerk with WAAC.
I was a WAAC Back in 2nd or 3rd, now I am Semi-Competitive-Fluffy Player. I get my enjoyment form the socializing and playing a good game, winning just makes the game better.
Here is the other difference: I will play an Ultra-Competitive Player dragging out 6 Riptides and as long they are cool about it and when I ask for a re-match they don't reply "No Not Until You Play Better." The last line was from WAAC Player.
You know, I think the *concept* of a horde of Orks grunts being able to fight 6 Riptides is actually a cool idea, as in, "What would happen if...". I like that the gaming system supports such a battle. And I like Riptides, IK's, Wraithknights, and Baneblades. I mean, these are awesome models that look epic on a gaming table.
However, I dislike a guy who just wants to play 6 Riptides because he knows that the person he's playing against can't win against them.
I mean, once we figure out a battle is a bad idea (no fun, and totally predictable) -- whether it's Riptide spam or Wave Serpent spam, a "friendly" player would move on, *especially* if no strategy, playskill or luck is involved. I mean, just save everyone the time, right? A WAAC player, instead, would want to keep replaying such lists and to feel that they are "better" player.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 14:21:41
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Bryan Ansell
|
Talys -
You may find it fun to house rule but think about it you have paid for the privilege to make up your own rules because the £60 book + codexes as is mean your group wont be happy.
Would you buy into anything else like that in life?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 20:29:10
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
insaniak wrote:
6th/7th edition has some great ideas for narrative building, but implements them in a way that makes no sense. Want to build a back-story for your army that you carry with them from battle to battle? You can't, unless your story includes an explanation as to why your army commander and any psykers tagging along all have multiple personality disorder, thanks to the random generation of warlord traits and psychic powers (and yes, people hated the random generation of psychic powers in 2nd edition as well).
Alright, valid point there
insaniak wrote:
This is a common misconception. For starters, there have always been players who were in it to win it. What has changed is that somewhere along the line people decided that playing a game that pits two players against each other for the purpose of one of them beating the other and caring about the outcome is in some way a bad thing...
However, taking "determine to win" to the level of "it's okay to act like a dick and generally have no social skills", if not originating from the video game community, is largely found there, or at least, in internet gaming communities, which by default are largely video game communities. For some reason, many people apparently think because you're communicating through a computer, social skills and being civil can just be dropped whenever you feel like it).
Desubot wrote:As above
Its hard to forge the narrative when you are spending half the game argueing or getting blownover because some one always brings 20 Daemon princes of nurgle that fly.
MWHistorian wrote:I'm a fluffy player that thinks its ridiculous that 40k punishes the fluffy player by being curb stomped by every other army. I want a game that rewards fluffy players or at least doesn't beat them up and steal their lunch money.
However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist. They exist because people want competitive lists for a game that hasn't been truly competitive at any point in its existence. The only differences is, GW being less vocal on the subject of "that's not how the game is intended to be played", and arguably, because it's been around for longer, that people shouldn't be more widely aware it isn't designed with truly competitive armies in mind.
insaniak wrote:
What if you packed your army with wave serpents, fire dragons and wraithknights because you just happen to like the models?
In fairness, liking the models doesn't oblige someone to include the maximum number.
insaniak wrote:
Case in point: Captain Shrike was introduced in 4th edition with a rule that allowed a unit joined to him to infiltrate... but had no legal way for this to actually happen. It wasn't until towards the end of 5th edition that GW got around to fixing this, by issuing an errata to the rules for ICs joining units that actually allowed them to join a unit before deployment. And then 3 minutes later, 6th edition came along with no sign of that change, and we went back to Shrike having an almost completely useless special rule.
Except not.
If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K.
solkan wrote:The problem with bad rules, or leaving questions caused by unanswerable rules interactions is that it kills the ability to be clever.
For instance, you have some building and some terrain set up in the middle of the table. You deploy some set of models near that terrain because according to your understanding, Rule X causes Effect Y so your unit's in a great position. Your opponent looks at that, according to their understanding Rule X causes Effect Z, so they spend two turns moving their unit up the table to attack your unit. You're both sitting their enjoying the feeling of being clever, and then in the third turn of the game you both discover the contradictory interpretations.
Fair point. That would be annoying.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 20:43:51
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 20:55:35
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
Seattle
|
If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K.
It is if your opponent says it is.
However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist. They exist because people want competitive lists for a game that hasn't been truly competitive at any point in its existence. The only differences is, GW being less vocal on the subject of "that's not how the game is intended to be played", and arguably, because it's been around for longer, that people shouldn't be more widely aware it isn't designed with truly competitive armies in mind.
If it's not intended to be played that way, why not write your ruleset to indicate this?
It'd be real easy to add caps to how many of Unit X can appear on the table.
|
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 21:04:46
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
Tyranno wrote:
However, taking "determine to win" to the level of "it's okay to act like a dick and generally have no social skills", if not originating from the video game community, is largely found there, or at least, in internet gaming communities, which by default are largely video game communities. For some reason, many people apparently think because you're communicating through a computer, social skills and being civil can just be dropped whenever you feel like it).
There is no correlation between being determined to win and acting like a dick. They are two entirely seperate problems. People who act like dicks and generally lack social skills will act that way regardless of the list they use or skill at the game.
However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist. They exist because people want competitive lists for a game that hasn't been truly competitive at any point in its existence. The only differences is, GW being less vocal on the subject of "that's not how the game is intended to be played", and arguably, because it's been around for longer, that people shouldn't be more widely aware it isn't designed with truly competitive armies in mind.
How do you know they weren't supposed to exist? What a bold claim with nothing to back it up. If its in the codex, and fits within the Force Org chart (or indeed, Unbound now), then who are you to say it wasn't intented?
Further, how is the game intended to played? If they wanted it to be played a certain way, the rules would reflect that. Currently, they don't. It sounds a lot like you're telling us how we should play based on how you enjoy playing.
Your argument slides down a slippery slope of trying to say a certain way of having fun is superior.
In fairness, liking the models doesn't oblige someone to include the maximum number.
In fairness, someone shouldn't be judged for taking the amount of models they want for any reason.
Except not.
If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K.
The intention isn't obvious. If people are having issues with the rules, they obviously aren't clear. Other games don't have this problem. Other games have well written rules that don't require intentions to be discerned or common sense to applied. You just look at the rules.
|
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 21:26:10
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Tyranno wrote:However, taking "determine to win" to the level of "it's okay to act like a dick and generally have no social skills", if not originating from the video game community, is largely found there, or at least, in internet gaming communities, which by default are largely video game communities. For some reason, many people apparently think because you're communicating through a computer, social skills and being civil can just be dropped whenever you feel like it).
I'm still not seeing the connection here. People were acting like dicks before computers came along.
However, much like the Pulsa Rokkit list, today's Wraithknight/Riptide spam lists (or lists with 20 Daemon Princes) weren't supposed to exist.
And yet GW gave us an army selection process that allows players to take whatever the heck they want. So on what basis are you deciding that they're not 'supposed' to exist?
In fairness, liking the models doesn't oblige someone to include the maximum number.
Who mentioned obligation?
People should be free to build their army with whatever they want, within the bounds of what he game deems legal. So if someone is really fond of the Wraithknight model, and they can legally build an army consisting entirely of Wraithknights, why shouldn't they do so?
If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K.
Missing the point. Yes, the intention of the rule is obvious. But GW have had 4 separate editions now in which to match the actual rule to what was intended. They did so in one of those editions, through errata at the end of the edition.
For the 'market leader' in this hobby, that's simply poor.
People shouldn't have to read between the lines to divine how a rule was intended to work. Simply reading the written rule should be sufficient. Especially when the company writing that rule has had 20+ years and 7 attempts at getting it right.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 21:40:55
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Bryan Ansell
|
You can hardly blame hobbyists who want to win taking units in their armies that allow them to do so?
Why else would GW write their rules and codexes that way?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 21:52:19
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Oh man, speaking of trying to get "rules as intended" down, we're back to once again having multiple different rulesets for the same unit/wargear. In 5th, we had a point where there were like three different sets of rules for Assault Cannons and Stormshields and at least two for Drop Pods, along with Rhino's having different costs in different books. It took them two years to Errata that, deciding halfway through 5th to change mindsets from "use whatever it says in the codex" to "yeah, that was dumb, use the newest set of rules".
Now we've got two different rules for the Chimera, one in the Astra Militarum book (which has 65pt Chimeras with 2 fire points and Lasgun arrays) and a different set in the Inquisition E-book (which has 55pt Chimeras with 5 firepoints and no lasgun arrays).
And that's just some of the explicit issues...
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 22:04:33
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Bryan Ansell
|
Vaktathi wrote:Oh man, speaking of trying to get "rules as intended" down, we're back to once again having multiple different rulesets for the same unit/wargear. In 5th, we had a point where there were like three different sets of rules for Assault Cannons and Stormshields and at least two for Drop Pods, along with Rhino's having different costs in different books. It took them two years to Errata that, deciding halfway through 5th to change mindsets from "use whatever it says in the codex" to "yeah, that was dumb, use the newest set of rules".
Now we've got two different rules for the Chimera, one in the Astra Militarum book (which has 65pt Chimeras with 2 fire points and Lasgun arrays) and a different set in the Inquisition E-book (which has 55pt Chimeras with 5 firepoints and no lasgun arrays).
And that's just some of the explicit issues...
The only thing GW intend is to charge extortionate amounts for something that is incomplete or totally incorrect.
It still boggles me that people willingly hand over money to have to try and correct this tripe themselves.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 22:23:09
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
When in the history of w40k wanting to win turned in to being a dick? Was it around the 2000s or later?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/13 22:34:36
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Tyranno wrote:
However, taking "determine to win" to the level of "it's okay to act like a dick and generally have no social skills", if not originating from the video game community, is largely found there, or at least, in internet gaming communities, which by default are largely video game communities. For some reason, many people apparently think because you're communicating through a computer, social skills and being civil can just be dropped whenever you feel like it).
With respect, Your understanding of the situation is flawed.
Computers have bugger all to do with things.
You do realise gamers in the 80s were equally lacking in social skills, hygiene, and as full of asshatery as today, right? It's a geek thing, not a computer thing. Asshatery didn't just come out of the woodwork with the dawn of the internet,
I'm sure the roman nerds were just as vocal in their complaints two thousand tears ago. I'm sure Marcus got called every horrible name under the sun when he fielded hislegionnaires against Brutus' Gauls because they were so broken.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/14 02:28:19
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf
|
Psienesis wrote:If the obvious intention of the rules, then the strict letter of the rules isn't really a barrier, especcially if the rules aren't set in stone, like in 40K. It is if your opponent says it is.
While sometimes it might be obvious what a rule's intention might be, frequently it's not. Especially since the game is so abstracted that you can't just think "well what is more realistic". Whether or not intervening models need to cover 25% to confer a cover save and what is meant by "through the gaps" is something that was not clearly written in 6th and STILL is not clearly written in 7th. It's entirely open to interpretation, something so fundamental to how the game is played should not be open to interpretation and has now slipped by 2 editions without being fixed nor clarified through errata/ FAQ.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/14 02:29:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/14 03:46:39
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Twisting Tzeentch Horror
|
If you go and use the way back machine - and look at old forums from 10-15 years ago... the arguments are EXACTLY the same (Prices, rules inequalities, etc. etc)
This same discussion has been going on forever.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/14 03:51:58
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
cvtuttle wrote:If you go and use the way back machine - and look at old forums from 10-15 years ago... the arguments are EXACTLY the same (Prices, rules inequalities, etc. etc).
Yes... that's the problem.
The volume of complaints, however, appears to have increased. And GW have, in the last few years, added a few new complaints (regional pricing, direct-only ranges, ridiculous litigation, cutting off communication, refusing to publish errata and FAQs, uneccessary DLC, and a 2-year lifespan for a 40K edition, just to name a few) to the mix.
And the volume of complaints will continue to increase the longer GW refuses to actually address those complaints. Unless everyone along the way just stops caring and moves on to other games. Which is also happening, if you compare the sales figures to those of 10-15 years ago.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/14 04:51:27
Subject: Re:What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I think a lot of the early gamers would have migrated from games like D&D, so forging a narrative was probably second nature for them. I don't imagine that is true today, so it stands to reason that things would feel different. 2nd edition also had a lot more narrative build into the game. Vehicles weren't just destroyed, you actually got a little story blurb which tells you how "The axle snaps, sending debris hurling into the fuel tanks, igniting them..." or something to that effect. You would get a different story depending on the vehicle and what you rolled on the damage table. Some of them were quite funny and they all had different in game effects.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/14 04:52:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/14 04:52:17
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Boom! Leman Russ Commander
|
cvtuttle wrote:If you go and use the way back machine - and look at old forums from 10-15 years ago... the arguments are EXACTLY the same (Prices, rules inequalities, etc. etc)
This same discussion has been going on forever.
Very true. The difference is that in earlier editions of the game, that was all we had. Now in later editions, players look to the "good old days" and compare it to the present. Back in the earlier editions, we didnt HAVE "good old days" to compare it too as that was all we had. so we accepted it.
This is why you see a higher volume of complaints because they had something earlier to compare to. Had we had the same luxury, you can bet we would have complained just as loudly. You also need to note that years ago, we didnt all have access to the internet that we do now so didnt all have the forums to complain on and when we did, we had to go through the whole turning on the computer or going to the lab or library and so forth and had time to cool off and say " nah, the hell with it" and go back to gaming. Now, everyone and their kid brother has the internet on their cell phone and can complain in the heat of the moment. Not to mention the whole internet bully, or 10 foot tall and bullit proof online while being 95 pounds and 5'2" in real life thing going on. (although to be fair, THAT you see in all internet things though.)
And before someone complains, I will note that I am not directing that to anyone here although, I think I am the only one who ever adds that truthful caveat.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/14 04:58:15
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Hacking Proxy Mk.1
|
insaniak wrote: cvtuttle wrote:If you go and use the way back machine - and look at old forums from 10-15 years ago... the arguments are EXACTLY the same (Prices, rules inequalities, etc. etc).
Yes... that's the problem.
The volume of complaints, however, appears to have increased. And GW have, in the last few years, added a few new complaints (regional pricing, direct-only ranges, ridiculous litigation, cutting off communication, refusing to publish errata and FAQs, uneccessary DLC, and a 2-year lifespan for a 40K edition, just to name a few) to the mix.
And the volume of complaints will continue to increase the longer GW refuses to actually address those complaints. Unless everyone along the way just stops caring and moves on to other games. Which is also happening, if you compare the sales figures to those of 10-15 years ago.
I believe 10-15 years ago GW where growing as a company as well. That's probably the most important difference.
Dismissing naysayers when you're the market leader and still growing is perfectly acceptable.
dismissing naysayers when your industry is experiencing almost 20% year on year for about 6 years now and you've only grown in line with inflation (2% or so) while cutting costs to the bone.. I think they call that suicide.
|
Fafnir wrote:Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/14 05:05:14
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Chicago, Illinois
|
Who did you guys play with in 2nd edition that did not turn into a game of who can be a bigger dick to their opponent with wargear and strategy cards.
4 Words. Virus Grenade Imperial Guard.
People are right though 2nd edition will not be topped for sheer absolutely maddening insanity when it comes to rules though.
It was horribly unbalanced game.
It was also amazingly fun to play with a group of friends who weren't trying to kill the Imperial Guards entire army on turn one with a Virus Grenade.
That's the most important thing
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/14 05:06:36
If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/11/14 05:11:14
Subject: What has changed? [warning: long]
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
2 word response: Vortex Detonator
The Vortex psychic power was a much safer option. On the Level 4 Inquisitor in Terminator Armour with a Displacer Field.
But yeah, the club I played at for most of 2nd edition, trying to build a nastier list than everyone else's was pretty much where it was at.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|