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.
Iron_Captain wrote: I strongly disagree with you here.
If you are a casual/narrative gamer, you should not be troubled by any unclear rules. Just make something up both players agree with. You will frequently be making up additional rules as well, so 'official rules' kinda stop being an issue as they are replaced by house rules.
If you are a competitive player, maybe you should look at Warmachine. GW openly states in the rulebook that the 40k ruleset is meant for narrative play.
Please explain how "make something up" is a valid solution? Especially if you don't always play the same people.
To be frank, I could care less what GW states, because what they believe and what the reality is are two different things. They can say 40k is whatever they like, but a lack of clear rules and even worse balance means it is not in any way, shape or form suited to narrative play.
Iron_Captain wrote: I strongly disagree with you here.
If you are a casual/narrative gamer, you should not be troubled by any unclear rules. Just make something up both players agree with. You will frequently be making up additional rules as well, so 'official rules' kinda stop being an issue as they are replaced by house rules.
If you are a competitive player, maybe you should look at Warmachine. GW openly states in the rulebook that the 40k ruleset is meant for narrative play.
Please explain how "make something up" is a valid solution? Especially if you don't always play the same people.
To be frank, I could care less what GW states, because what they believe and what the reality is are two different things. They can say 40k is whatever they like, but a lack of clear rules and even worse balance means it is not in any way, shape or form suited to narrative play.
Reality is subjective. GW's reality, my reality and your reality are all equally valid. 'Just make something up' is a valid solution because it is just a silly roleplaying game with plastic toy soldiers that is meant to be about having fun with friends, not about winning or being competitive.
Iron_Captain wrote: I strongly disagree with you here.
If you are a casual/narrative gamer, you should not be troubled by any unclear rules. Just make something up both players agree with. You will frequently be making up additional rules as well, so 'official rules' kinda stop being an issue as they are replaced by house rules.
If you are a competitive player, maybe you should look at Warmachine. GW openly states in the rulebook that the 40k ruleset is meant for narrative play.
Please explain how "make something up" is a valid solution? Especially if you don't always play the same people.
To be frank, I could care less what GW states, because what they believe and what the reality is are two different things. They can say 40k is whatever they like, but a lack of clear rules and even worse balance means it is not in any way, shape or form suited to narrative play.
Reality is subjective. GW's reality, my reality and your reality are all equally valid. 'Just make something up' is a valid solution because it is just a silly roleplaying game with plastic toy soldiers that is meant to be about having fun with friends, not about winning or being competitive.
They sure charge a heck of a lot for something that's just a silly game.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
In my case I dont know if I was fortunate or unfortunate, but I've never once stepped into a GW owned store and I pretty much played most of my games with the same group of people. Heck even at the few tournaments I went to it was the same group of guys playing.
So having a common dialogue on what was good and what sucked and what should be done was pretty easy to come to.
See pics of my Orks, Tau, Emperor's Children, Necrons, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar here:
Regarding the use of 3rd party miniatures. There's a few things to consider.
Firstly, I mostly play at the local GW because it's the strongest community still playing GW games. That said I mostly don't play at all any more, lol.
Secondly, for me personally, I collect and play 40k primarily because I do like the aesthetic, I've always felt the rules for 40k were pretty crap anyway. I would prefer if the scale of the models was a little less heroic and a little more realistic, but other than that I rather like most 40k armies. I also like consistency, if I can't create the entire army I want from a single range it irks me if the aesthetic is inconsistent from one unit to the next. For the most part it's quite difficult to find 3rd party models that can entirely replicate a 40k army.
Regarding the rules... yes they are bad rules for a competitive game. But they're also bad rules for a casual game. They're only good rules for people who don't give a crap about rules and only use the game as an excuse to put their models in a box, carry the to a store/club/FLGS/mate's house, line them up on the table and then put them away again.
I think it's a bit silly to pretend 40k has poor competitive rules because it was focusing on creating good narrative rules or a good sandbox. They're bad rules for everything, it's just some players care less
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/10 03:13:22
Jayden63 wrote: I say change anything that you dont like make the game yours again. Don't like the WS chart. Make your own. Think a unit is under/over priced, change it. Why should these conversations only be based on proxy models. Make the game truly yours. I know several posters over the years who have done just and I think they have enjoyed the table top gaming experience at a level far greater than just blindly following GW rules.
Totally agree. There's no harm in tweaking values where something is under or overpowered. As long as the game remains fun it's all good -so I'd always ask an opponent if they don't mind playing with a certain rule or stat alteration. Unfortunately many of the "fixes" players advocate are way over the top, and in trying to rectify they're not considering the detrimental effect it will have on the enjoyability and flow of the game. Even a small rule or stat change can have unconsidered knock-on effects. So I'm all for rule tweaking, but it has to done with care. (After all GW put considerable time and cash into testing and points balancing and they still occasionally get it horribly wrong).
Warhammer 40 is not, never was, and will never be a game meant to be played competitively. It is fundamentally a game of unbalanced units facing off, where random dice rolls have a massive impact, and tactics on the tabletop is roughly equal to list-building in terms of importance.
The core rulebook is a guide, and the codexes are just there to give you ideas. Terrain isn't standardized, and the missions have significant random elements. Even if you stay strictly within the bounds of the core rules, you already have plenty of ways to vary up the game. Adjust terrain, or use LVO/BAO/Altar of War missions.
In short, Warhammer 40,000 is already a game you have to make your own. If you don't like something, change it. As long as you and your opponent agree to it, your game is no more or less valid than anyone else's.
TheNewBlood wrote: Warhammer 40 is not, never was, and will never be a game meant to be played competitively. It is fundamentally a game of unbalanced units facing off, where random dice rolls have a massive impact, and tactics on the tabletop is roughly equal to list-building in terms of importance.
The core rulebook is a guide, and the codexes are just there to give you ideas. Terrain isn't standardized, and the missions have significant random elements. Even if you stay strictly within the bounds of the core rules, you already have plenty of ways to vary up the game. Adjust terrain, or use LVO/BAO/Altar of War missions.
In short, Warhammer 40,000 is already a game you have to make your own. If you don't like something, change it. As long as you and your opponent agree to it, your game is no more or less valid than anyone else's.
Ah, historical revisionism. Ain't it grand?
At one point 40k was meant to be an actual game instead of a forge a narrative medium. It had tournament support and everything. GW just gave up after 5th edition because of reasons.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
TheNewBlood wrote: Warhammer 40 is not, never was, and will never be a game meant to be played competitively. It is fundamentally a game of unbalanced units facing off, where random dice rolls have a massive impact, and tactics on the tabletop is roughly equal to list-building in terms of importance.
The core rulebook is a guide, and the codexes are just there to give you ideas. Terrain isn't standardized, and the missions have significant random elements. Even if you stay strictly within the bounds of the core rules, you already have plenty of ways to vary up the game. Adjust terrain, or use LVO/BAO/Altar of War missions.
In short, Warhammer 40,000 is already a game you have to make your own. If you don't like something, change it. As long as you and your opponent agree to it, your game is no more or less valid than anyone else's.
Ah, historical revisionism. Ain't it grand?
At one point 40k was meant to be an actual game instead of a forge a narrative medium. It had tournament support and everything. GW just gave up after 5th edition because of reasons.
Yep. I never played, but years ago I used to see a bunch of stuff for it, even up through 5th. About the time 6th came out, a lot of it seemed to die or was already dead.
A friend of mine (unfortunately turned WAAC in recent months) had a theory I wrote off as pure conspiracy drivel at about the the time 6th dropped.
5th had been a fairly successful edition, all things considered; the power curve was pretty shallow, and while transports/vehicles were king, they weren't indisputable kings, and even the best codex, Grey Knights, could be fought by lowly CSM and both players could feel like they had a chance, though the GK having a much better one. Monobuild codexes were rare, Tyranids being the most likely contendors, but all in all the game worked casually and competitively (and the distinction between the two was not very pronounced).
However, as this was a pretty successful tournament edition (that's what Alessio Calvatore was supposed to be for - making a tighter ruleset), it fueled the aftermarket industry with a passion. Outdated kits with very limited bit selection versus actual wargear options, extremely slow update cycles and lots of rules with no models gave a strong impetus to resellers and aftermarket producers. As the tech for making resin models had become affordable and reliable enough for almost any tom dick or harry to open a storefront and sell stuff GW wasn't, this created something GW strongly disliked.
To my friend, the solution was simple; kill the tournament scene (which he felt was the main driver for this sort of thing, and he's probably not wrong - 3rd party lines probably aren't relevant here, like Victoria's counts-as Guard, but bits/conversion sites like Chapterhouse or Anvil Industries most likely owe a great deal oftheir initial success to a healthy tournament arena). A suitably loose ruleset with lots of ambiguities, designed intentionally to be heavily house ruled based on individual groups makes the game largely incompatible with a larger tournament community. It will also, he reasoned, drive a lot of competitive players in general away and after an extended period of time with an intentionally bad ruleset, GW can reign things in and restructure the game how they please, provided the 3rd party has gone off and died as they like.
He probably wasn't wrong, but GW's plan didn't go off right - CHS was a debacle which seriously undermined their position and business strategy, the 3rd party has not only persisted, but begun to offer their own rulesets, some of which designed to be inclusive to GW model ranges, fan rulesets exist aplenty, though mostly for Kill Team level games, and their ruleset has driven an exodus more of casual players than competitive - the massive power swings and lack of restriction lets hardcore WAAC players dominate the game, more moderate or social players have found themselves isolated and hesitant to stay invested. However, GW's decline remains quite slow, so they seem to have doubled down on this model, as it still seems to be mostly working for them, or working well enough that they're happy with their "Revenue generating machine."
Therefore, I conclude, Valve should announce Half Life 2: Episode 3.
TheNewBlood wrote: Warhammer 40 is not, never was, and will never be a game meant to be played competitively. It is fundamentally a game of unbalanced units facing off, where random dice rolls have a massive impact, and tactics on the tabletop is roughly equal to list-building in terms of importance.
The core rulebook is a guide, and the codexes are just there to give you ideas. Terrain isn't standardized, and the missions have significant random elements. Even if you stay strictly within the bounds of the core rules, you already have plenty of ways to vary up the game. Adjust terrain, or use LVO/BAO/Altar of War missions.
In short, Warhammer 40,000 is already a game you have to make your own. If you don't like something, change it. As long as you and your opponent agree to it, your game is no more or less valid than anyone else's.
Ah, historical revisionism. Ain't it grand?
At one point 40k was meant to be an actual game instead of a forge a narrative medium. It had tournament support and everything. GW just gave up after 5th edition because of reasons.
It's more accurate to say that it went through a phase where the designers were more interested in fostering "anonymous" competitive play. That in itself was a big departure for a game which originally recommended having a GM to run scenarios for the players. 2nd edition was pretty easy-going too; that was, after all, the time when painting, sportsmanship and the pub quiz were all relevant to the official competitive events. 3rd was pretty much the golden age for "fluffy" expansions (until now, I suppose), what with all the "campaign" Codexes (Cityfight, Armageddon and Eye of Terror) and all the White Dwarf articles, and of course the scenarios list in that rulebook was second to none, with several different FOCs (the "Standard" chart was so-called because it wasn't the only one). The only problem was the lack of background information in the early Codexes.
Someone above mentioned the game not being suitable for PUGs. Well, it's never been ideal for dogs, but it's simple enough to come up with a set of house rules and put them on the internet. After that, it's up to you if you want to tell the new guy "sorry, you've not read the rules; please come back with a compliant army and I'll give you a game" or "I see your army doesn't conform to our rules here, but since you're new I'll give you a game this once, and then we can see how to sort things out for next time."
MajorStoffer wrote: A friend of mine (unfortunately turned WAAC in recent months) had a theory I wrote off as pure conspiracy drivel at about the the time 6th dropped.
I think this is one of those "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" things. IMO the more convincing explanation is that we're seeing the ugly convergence of two separate bits of incompetence:
1) The belief, which has been there since the beginning, that 40k is a "beer and pretzels" game and anyone who cares about the rules is a WAACTFG.
2) The more recent belief that nobody should be paid to play games (which isn't real work obviously) on company time and therefore playtesting is not necessary. And it's probably not worth spending more money than absolutely necessary on writing rules.
The inevitable result of these two factors is that a rule author comes up with an idea and writes it down, but then nobody bothers to test it or even really pay attention to how it fits into all of the other rules. And first draft rules inevitably suck. Even WOTC, a company that has emphasized competitive gaming for decades, has to spend months of serious playtesting and development time on a new MTG set. And that includes employees whose entire job is to edit the card text and make sure all of the rules function properly even in the hands of the worst WAAC rules lawyers. Printing their initial ideas would be a game-killing disaster. But in 40k all of those initial concepts don't get refined into a finished product and the result is a bloated mess of rules that are only balanced by sheer luck.
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.
If I were asked for examples of "making the game yours", I'd have to suggest this.
It's in spanish but there's a healthy amount of pics so you can get an idea of what's going on. I'll translate just a few bits to put things into context:
Spoiler:
We used Second Edition rulebook but with a lot of Rogue Trader spirit in terms of freedom of action, movements and choices. We also improvised some house rules as we faced challenging situations. I know it's a very little orthodox way of playing and not everyone will like it. But it works wonders for us and we enjoy it inmensely.
(...)
A group of renegade Space Marines have stolen a precious terminator armor and have defected to sold it in a black market forbidden and/or stolen tech shop.
The Master of Sanctity of the Chapter, Tow Takka-Chow, has tasked two Chapellans to lead two squads of Field Police to tackle the issue.
Rebels deploy in the port (pic below, to the right, under the green arrow); they have a Land Speeder in reserve. Their goal is to get to Mama Balaklava's shop, to get rid of the stolen armor (blue arrow, more or less at the center of the pic). The Field Police will deploy their two squads by turns in the only imperial facility, the Arbites police station (red arrow, towards the left side of the pic). The Chapellans will play bad chapellan/good chapellan. One wants to execute the rebels on the spot, while the other aims to capture them alive, if possible.
Also, there are civilians in the neighborhood (who move randomly with the scatter dice) and some mutants/xenos/beastmen will be joining in (with reserve rules). These ones feel great animosity towards the Imperium and will shoot any Marine on sight.
(...)
But the rebels play their Strategy Card (this is Second Edition). Explosive traps!
(...)
The fugitives crawl up the roulotte and try to convince its owner (via initiative roll) to give them a ride.
(...)
One of the fugitives gets on the crane and pushes off the civilian standing there, who falls into the water channel (slow-motion, A-Team style).
This didn't happen in the A-Team, though.
The marine on the crane instructs the Servitor to hook up his terminator teammate and carry him over.
Right over the gangway!
(...)
At last, the other fugitives manage to confiscate the vehicle.
They run a female civilian over, while the other - fortunate - one manages to jump off to the water (also in slow-motion).
(...)
One of the civilians is actually an anti-imperial activist, he gets on a car and tries to run the police down.
In the end the Cops manage to shoot the terminator down, securing their chapter relic, while the pisceans get away with a barge full of fresh fish!
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
WayneTheGame wrote: The problem with this is they also haven't really given anything that enables a "narrative-based build-your-own" style of game either. They claim that's the focus, but unclear rules and lack of balance means that the game often works worse for the casual/narrative gamer than the competitive player. GW does nothing to allow narrative, collaborative play and in fact hurts it by having units that are outright worse than others because the casual player is the one who will end up maybe picking them. The competitive WAAC/TFG type is the one who won't even look at the "crap" units in the first place.
Not to mention that if you want to forge a narrative, you'll be hampered by things like your leaders having different specialties from day to day, or your psykers randomly forgetting powers and learning new ones between games.
Reality is subjective. GW's reality, my reality and your reality are all equally valid. 'Just make something up' is a valid solution because it is just a silly roleplaying game with plastic toy soldiers that is meant to be about having fun with friends, not about winning or being competitive.
I don't pay GW rulebook prices so that I can not use the rules. I can not use the rules for free!
"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."
Most people realize that these are all things that they should discuss with their gaming friends, but for some reason feel nervous to pull that trigger. When playing various RPGs I have spent hours conversing with the DM/GM on what direction I want my character to go and make any possible changes that might be necessary to the official path progression. Why should a GW publication be any different? I say change anything that you dont like make the game yours again. Don't like the WS chart. Make your own. Think a unit is under/over priced, change it. Why should these conversations only be based on proxy models. Make the game truly yours.
And, infact, this is basically what GW has stated things should be like. They provide us a sandbox, we decide what game to play. GW has never stated that you shouldn't agree about things with your fellow players, create your own scenarios, campaigns, tournament rules and whatnot. And one doesn't even need to bring up games among friends - it's so blatantly obvious you can play your Space Marines as Necrons if both parties are fine with it, or pretend a 6 on a die is a 1 if that floats your boat for whatever reason.
It's only people with a compulsive need of everything needing to be official who have big issues. This game currently is about the players and tournament organizers customizing it to suit their tastes and needs. It has pretty much always been so, it is nothing new.
~3000 (Fully Painted)
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
~1.5k
Astra Militarum 2250pts
Khorne 750pts
Space Wolves 1550pts
Orks 500pts