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.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Well it's actualy you who doesn't make sense. Rick Priestley said that 3rd edition was a competitive, tourney oriented game. Someone else from the studio, I think Kelly (not sure) when commenting on 6th said that they went into direction of craziness because Allessio made 5th too competitive therefore a bit bland or sth like that. So in typical GW manner they created a tourney oriented player base only to be dicks later and crap on it, 3 - 5 edition were tourney rulesets (badly designed tourney rulesets but thats a different topic) and it's still the same game just with more random crap and narrative excuses to help cover up the atrocious balance. Adding a few forge narrative boxes doesnt change 2 player wargame with points and victory objectives into rpg, complete nonsense. Rogue Trader is long gone and it's the only edition that had anything to do with role playing and even then it was lite rpgish.

Not to mention forge the narrative is not an rpg thing at all, it's supposed to provide mood and context to battles. In WW2 wargames it's better to play a part of Kursk than random tank battle #15. Even if you played a 40k campaign where your general and units gain experience or skills, it still wouldnt be an rpg, every pc wargame does that ie Total War.

40k is a competitive game by nature. You can ignore that fact and mindlessly roll dice to see something awesome but you cant change it. It's also not casual, beer and ptetzels or whatever excuse people spew here on daily basis to justify what in reality is GW urinating on their faces while pretending it's rain.

Also congratulations on swallowing GWs hhhhhobby bs, Im sure without the game everybody would still buy minis in multiples to make dioramas. Few % at best.

I like GW btw, just am tired of the casual gentelman handicaping special snowflake game bs.

Pretty much this.

Akiasura wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

You actually did not say that. I bolded it to help you.

Yeah, you are right. Sorry for that, I was tired
Nonetheless, I meant it to be different. 40k is hard to learn but easy to master, WMH is the opposite.

No harm, but I would drop the condescending tone next time you're wrong. I still feel you are wrong, and don't often hear this from people who play both, but it's very subjective I suppose.

I apologise. When I get excited I often become confrontational without realising it. It is not really a problem when talking, but on the internet where you can't see the other person it can more easily be offensive. Also, English not being my native language might play a part.

Akiasura wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

If you're into modeling, 40k is fine. It has zero roleplaying elements in it.
As I said before, I challenge someone to find a roleplaying aspect to the game in the rules.

Maybe you should actually read the rulebook. The 'Forging a Narrative' bits all encourage you to roleplay (like that one on challenges which says you should adress a challenge 'in character')

Like this. It does nothing for your argument.
Roleplaying elements, RPGs, usually involve having a character stay with you for multiple sessions. I struggle to think of a game that doesn't do this that defines itself as an rpg.
In table tops, you usually work with a group of players towards a goal and build a story together. These games have moderators.
I'm not sure if you're group makes fun of the "Forge the Narrative" bits, like everyone at my group does (and most of the internet) but addressing a challenge in character isn't really the elements of a roleplaying game. It's not in the rules themselves, it's just a side bit, so my challenge still stands.
Take my Chaos army for example.
My character is an Alpha Legion warlord. He is a sneaky character who only cares about killing the enemy in the most complicated way to demonstrate his genius.
But now a guardsmen has insulted my mother. Time to drop everything I'm doing and accept that challenge and receive a chaos gift (despite the fact Alpha legion tends not to mutate much) because reasons.
Such roleplaying.

If you want to see a 40k roleplaying game, look at Necromunda or GorkaMorka. Your characters level up, wounds carry over, you keep the same characters, you end up telling stories about your characters (by game 3 everyone refers to all the models by name, nobody says Gang leader) and all the amazing things they did. Characters develop nicknames. When one gets captured you rescue them. Retiring them because of too many wounds actually pains you.
I can't tell you the name of any of my friends commanders in 40k in all my years of playing this game.

Yeah, the challenge part is silly. But it is nonetheless an example of roleplaying.
40k does have characters that carry over, but obviously you will have to play more than a single session (a campaign) to do so. See the Imperial Armour books for examples. Levelling up is not an atribute of roleplaying games, even if some do use it. Have you ever played a narrative campaign of 40k? It is very much roleplaying, and you will definitely get to remember the names of characters.
The definition of a roleplaying game is as follows:

A game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

40k definitely corresponds to this definition.

Akiasura wrote:

The difference between WMH and 40k is that the WGDS, for example, isn't the entire list. It's maybe 30% at best and can change quite a bit. It usually consists of 1 unit, some attachments (equivalent to weapons in 40k), and a solo.
The bakery is the bakery. I know it's going to contain a ton of Necron flyers that will be filled with troops. I know 60-80% of the list before I begin.
I know henchmen spam is going to contain a SC, henchmen armed with meltas and plasma guns, and rhinos. I know 60-80% of the list before I begin.
I know Leafblower is going to contain an awful lot of chimeras and a few other tanks. I know 60-80% of the list before I begin.
I know Rhino rush is a marine list with troops in transports that is going to dash towards me. I know 60-80% of the list before I begin.

This is due to the extremely spammy nature of 40k. The game is about taking a unit that is good in most situations, or very skewy, and spamming it until your opponent either is forced to design a hard counter that doesn't work against anything else, or face defeat. At least at the competitive level.

That is not a difference. The WGDS is not the entire list, but neither is the rhino rush or bakery. I can write a WGDS list with 60-80% Winter Guard and a Rhino rush list with only 30% Rhinos. There can be a lot of variation in a Rhino rush list, but I've yet to see a list in which Rhinos make up 80% of the list. Rhino rush does not describe any specific list (there are many possible Rhino rush lists), it just describes a tactic of putting a part of your army in Rhinos and moving them towards the enemy. The only exception here is the leafblower, which refers to a specific list that was once used on a tournament (and actually, I've seen people use leafblower to describe any list with chimeras and artillery in it)
Also, in general, you will not know close to 0% of your opponents list before you begin, unless your opponent tells you he is bringing certain units or using certain tactics.

40k is not roleplaying and has little actual rules for roleplaying in it.
It's a PvP strategy game, just not a very good one.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

You actually did not say that. I bolded it to help you.

Yeah, you are right. Sorry for that, I was tired
Nonetheless, I meant it to be different. 40k is hard to learn but easy to master, WMH is the opposite.

No harm, but I would drop the condescending tone next time you're wrong. I still feel you are wrong, and don't often hear this from people who play both, but it's very subjective I suppose.

I apologise. When I get excited I often become confrontational without realising it. It is not really a problem when talking, but on the internet where you can't see the other person it can more easily be offensive. Also, English not being my native language might play a part.

It's fine.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

If you're into modeling, 40k is fine. It has zero roleplaying elements in it.
As I said before, I challenge someone to find a roleplaying aspect to the game in the rules.

Maybe you should actually read the rulebook. The 'Forging a Narrative' bits all encourage you to roleplay (like that one on challenges which says you should adress a challenge 'in character')

Like this. It does nothing for your argument.
Roleplaying elements, RPGs, usually involve having a character stay with you for multiple sessions. I struggle to think of a game that doesn't do this that defines itself as an rpg.
In table tops, you usually work with a group of players towards a goal and build a story together. These games have moderators.
I'm not sure if you're group makes fun of the "Forge the Narrative" bits, like everyone at my group does (and most of the internet) but addressing a challenge in character isn't really the elements of a roleplaying game. It's not in the rules themselves, it's just a side bit, so my challenge still stands.
Take my Chaos army for example.
My character is an Alpha Legion warlord. He is a sneaky character who only cares about killing the enemy in the most complicated way to demonstrate his genius.
But now a guardsmen has insulted my mother. Time to drop everything I'm doing and accept that challenge and receive a chaos gift (despite the fact Alpha legion tends not to mutate much) because reasons.
Such roleplaying.

If you want to see a 40k roleplaying game, look at Necromunda or GorkaMorka. Your characters level up, wounds carry over, you keep the same characters, you end up telling stories about your characters (by game 3 everyone refers to all the models by name, nobody says Gang leader) and all the amazing things they did. Characters develop nicknames. When one gets captured you rescue them. Retiring them because of too many wounds actually pains you.
I can't tell you the name of any of my friends commanders in 40k in all my years of playing this game.

Yeah, the challenge part is silly. But it is nonetheless an example of roleplaying.
40k does have characters that carry over, but obviously you will have to play more than a single session (a campaign) to do so. See the Imperial Armour books for examples. Levelling up is not an atribute of roleplaying games, even if some do use it. Have you ever played a narrative campaign of 40k? It is very much roleplaying, and you will definitely get to remember the names of characters.

40k characters do not carry over. Combat kills people, sometimes through instant death, yet my warlord is there each week. Sometimes my leader turns into a spawn or Daemon prince and is back to human next week because reasons. I can't even roleplay the personalities I want because of the challenge rules and random nature of the powers. So it isn't roleplaying. Our characters don't talk to each other outside of challenges (which I have never even heard of being done...ever), they don't talk to the squads, they just roll dice and buff squads.

I have done narrative games in fantasy, the chaos ones are great. This doesn't work in 40k.
Btw in the fantasy one, if your character becomes a spawn he retires. It's pretty cool.
For narrative games I play, you know, 40k narrative games. Gorkamorka and Necromunda. Not 40k.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The definition of a roleplaying game is as follows:

A game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

40k definitely corresponds to this definition.

That is one definition which is very loose.
There is little to no narrative in 40k, and no acting in character except outside of challenges I suppose? Which, as my example showed, is very out of character for many characters. There is also so no character development, so 40k actually fails by your definition.
Why do nids challenge? Why do daemons that aren't of khorne? Why do Tau? Why do they suddenly not get to participate in combat?
How is my character the same character if he has different abilities from week to week with no rhyme or reason given for this? If he dies in combat, why is he alive next week? Why did abaddon turn into a spawn? Or my lord become a daemon prince but went back to normal the next game?
No roleplaying game works like this. 40k has rules that actually work against roleplaying by taking the ability to invest in your warlord away from you, since he feels like a random character each time I play.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

The difference between WMH and 40k is that the WGDS, for example, isn't the entire list. It's maybe 30% at best and can change quite a bit. It usually consists of 1 unit, some attachments (equivalent to weapons in 40k), and a solo.
The bakery is the bakery. I know it's going to contain a ton of Necron flyers that will be filled with troops. I know 60-80% of the list before I begin.
I know henchmen spam is going to contain a SC, henchmen armed with meltas and plasma guns, and rhinos. I know 60-80% of the list before I begin.
I know Leafblower is going to contain an awful lot of chimeras and a few other tanks. I know 60-80% of the list before I begin.
I know Rhino rush is a marine list with troops in transports that is going to dash towards me. I know 60-80% of the list before I begin.

This is due to the extremely spammy nature of 40k. The game is about taking a unit that is good in most situations, or very skewy, and spamming it until your opponent either is forced to design a hard counter that doesn't work against anything else, or face defeat. At least at the competitive level.

That is not a difference. The WGDS is not the entire list, but neither is the rhino rush or bakery. I can write a WGDS list with 60-80% Winter Guard and a Rhino rush list with only 30% Rhinos. There can be a lot of variation in a Rhino rush list, but I've yet to see a list in which Rhinos make up 80% of the list. Rhino rush does not describe any specific list (there are many possible Rhino rush lists), it just describes a tactic of putting a part of your army in Rhinos and moving them towards the enemy. The only exception here is the leafblower, which refers to a specific list that was once used on a tournament (and actually, I've seen people use leafblower to describe any list with chimeras and artillery in it)
Also, in general, you will not know close to 0% of your opponents list before you begin, unless your opponent tells you he is bringing certain units or using certain tactics.

Okay, I am thinking you do not play WMH at all. The Solo you need to create a WGDS is FA:1, so you can only take 1 in your entire list. You can't even take the solo in another list that you pair up with, because he's a special character. So yeah, can't do that. You could take a few WG units, but they aren't going to be a WGDS list since only one exists at a time for both of your lists. The lists would also be bad, since you need to cycle upkeeps and defensive upkeeps don't cycle effectively.

Did you play in 3rd edition? The edition that is practically called rhino rush? Armies were literally swarms of troops in rhinos, specifically blood angels. They moved incredibly fast and were in combat by turn 2. The list was 60% Rhino+Troops in Rhinos.
There are a few rhino rush lists (the other 40-20% of the list) but they all follow the same strategy. Take Rhinos, load with troops and beat sticks, rush at enemy.

The Bakery is similar. The concept behind the list is that everything flies all the time so the enemy must spam AA weapons (Which, at the time, were incredibly weak or armies didn't get them at all). It's one specific flyer that drops it's troops when it is destroyed. Necron troops can target any enemy in the game and do alright, so the army became spamming that with some HQ's to deal with AP2. Some variation existed (again, a small portion of the list) but the strategy and list format was always the same. Take all infantry and flyers, don't leave viable targets on the table, win.

If people used leafblower incorrectly, that's a thing. I mean, you just used WGDS wrong, so it happens.

I don't understand your last sentence. If someone tells me their dex I know what they are bringing. 40k has pretty bad internal balance, so only a few possibilities exist.
1) We both take good lists and only have a few builds to choose from that are similar. See Nids for an example of this.
2) He takes a crappy list and I take a good list, in which case I walk over him because 40k works that way.
3) We discuss what lists we are taking so they are at similar power levels. I know all of his list.

In other games, this is not the case at all. I don't get to construct my list knowing what my opponent is bringing, well, ever.

If you think 40k is a narrative game you will find yourself in a very small minority.

Btw can someone explain to me what's narrative about a psyker forgetting his powers after each battle and randomly learning new ones just before the next battle? Or your warlord giving a different buff to your army every time he steps on the battlefield? Or your speedy TWC running/charging a shorter distance than your big bulky terminators on foot?
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

 Toofast wrote:
Btw can someone explain to me what's narrative about a psyker forgetting his powers after each battle and randomly learning new ones just before the next battle? Or your warlord giving a different buff to your army every time he steps on the battlefield? Or your speedy TWC running/charging a shorter distance than your big bulky terminators on foot?
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

Thats cause GW is company that believes its product is a collectible, justifying the higher and higher price tag of the entry. The game is just a bonus in their eyes and as such can have a horrible rules set lol cause you know we were all just gonna run out and buy these models no matter if there was a game or not.

Boy I know I'd be around 5k in without the game (sarcasm over)

 Toofast wrote:
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

It isn't a good competitive game so it must be a good "beer and pretzels" game.

I've asked many FLGS owners what % of their GW customers buy the models and don't play. The answer has never been higher than 20%. Also, their band aid for the bullet wound of plummeting revenue as of late has been to invalidate books twice as fast, so obviously they know how many of their customers are buying the rulebooks and codexes. "The game is secondary", "beer and pretzels" and "forge the narrative" are bad excuses for incompetence and apathy.

 Toofast wrote:
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

In all fairness, $800 doesn't buy you that much booze :X But, just think, more that time for beer! And pretzels!! If the game were only 30 minutes long including setup and teardown, how many pretzels could you cram down your piehole?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toofast wrote:
I've asked many FLGS owners what % of their GW customers buy the models and don't play. The answer has never been higher than 20%. Also, their band aid for the bullet wound of plummeting revenue as of late has been to invalidate books twice as fast, so obviously they know how many of their customers are buying the rulebooks and codexes. "The game is secondary", "beer and pretzels" and "forge the narrative" are bad excuses for incompetence and apathy.

Instead, they could use the proven method of bumping up profits that food companies have adopted. Just like chocolate bars, give you less every year, so next year's Eldar would be... shorter than this year's! If you shrink it just the right amount, people won't notice that their kitkats and peanut butter cups... er... Space Marines and Orks... are going on a diet and have a tighter waistline.

And then, just like bags of chips which just get filled with more air, make all the boxes 25% larger, while shrinking the contents by 25%. That way people will feel they are getting their money's worth.

Oh, and then to finish it off, do it like Coke and Pepsi does with the midget size cans and retro bottles: produce a squad of 10 as a box of 5, advertise it as being "Faster to paint!" and then sell it for 25% more. And bring back the 1990's lead Inquisitors, sell them as "Classics" for 800% more!

Exalted for truth and hilarity. Apparently in GWs opinion of "beer and pretzels" is anything you can do while drinking beer and eating pretzels. Hell, owning an F1 team is a beer and pretzels hobby.

So is running an international company, apparently.

 Talys wrote:
In all fairness, $800 doesn't buy you that much booze :X

at $20 for a 1.75l (~60oz) bottle of tequila, $800 gets you 40 bottles of Tequila.
If you are a HEAVY drinker, one of those bottles will still have you reeling at the end of the night. That's 40 people getting absolutely smashed for the price of one person's army. Now if all those 40 people were to have that party once, that would allow you to get wrecked 40 times.
And that's not the cheapest booze I've ever bought either.

 Ravenous D wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes they can be an ally source, but is it worthwhile taking up your 1 other "source" allowance on a lone assassin?

What about detahcments composed of formations? (Decurion, Slaught cult, etc)

While I have no issue in general with trying to comp, blanket systems such as this really struggle. You still cannt cut the compleexity down sufficiently I dont think, while still working within the very loose system GW has gone with. FOr example Be'lakor IS a HQ choice for a chaos marine army, but as he coems from a slate is that another "source"? He technically isnt (the slate is subsumed within the codex RAW)

Flat out ban on the combined formation detachments, they have shown to be too abusable. Plus half of them don't work with the 0-2 limits. Works just fine and makes for better 40k Da Boyz GT does it and its actually a good time.

So when SM gets redone, and the chapter tactics equivalent requires some for of Decurion style detachment, you'll just tell Ultra / WS / et al that theyre not allowed to play their own army, just generic Space Marines? I'm not saying this is a certainty, but it seems increasingly likely.

I'm playing at a tournament like your suggestion in Aldershot next week. CAD only, one Allied Detachment OR Formation. I'm playing Grey Knights who are no longer as good at deep striking, and my husband is likely playing blood angels who are suddenly not really blood angels any longer, but slightly angrier marines. Its already quite unsatisfying.

So I disagree strongly that even as a *concept* it "works just fine" and makes for "better" 40k - it absolutely doesnt.

Truth be told the Eldar dex doesn't worry be being so powerful. I won't deny it is probably overpowered and breaks balance. But that doesn't really worry me.
See I play Imperial Guard and Blood Angels. S8 AP3 ranged weapons? Check. Plenty of choices for MSU? Check. Able to general massive amounts of psychic defense? Check.
Eldar is huge in my meta, and even though I'll lose a lot more now, I'm pretty keen for games.
Tell me souped up Wraithknight, do you bleed? You will

nosferatu1001 wrote:
CAD only

So Skitarii are not allowed in this tournament?

 Toofast wrote:
I've asked many FLGS owners what % of their GW customers buy the models and don't play. The answer has never been higher than 20%. Also, their band aid for the bullet wound of plummeting revenue as of late has been to invalidate books twice as fast, so obviously they know how many of their customers are buying the rulebooks and codexes. "The game is secondary", "beer and pretzels" and "forge the narrative" are bad excuses for incompetence and apathy.

Having been involved in the operations of a FLGS, I would put the number higher. There are a significant number of people who buy a second army, spend a lot of time making it beautiful and never use it on the table. I see the psychology to it being something along the lines of "hey, even if the game's not fun anymore, at least I can have something awesome to look at."

I disagree about the incompetence and apathy part. GW knows exactly how to move their products, it's just that not everyone likes the product they are pushing. The rules are really a way to sell models, and a lot of Eldar bikers will be sold over the next couple years because of how those rules are laid out.

Akiasura wrote:
Roleplaying elements, RPGs, usually involve having a character stay with you for multiple sessions. I struggle to think of a game that doesn't do this that defines itself as an rpg.

Paranoia for one. If you are not creating a new character for each session (or even mid-game) something has gone horribly wrong.

 Toofast wrote:
Btw can someone explain to me what's narrative about a psyker forgetting his powers after each battle and randomly learning new ones just before the next battle? Or your warlord giving a different buff to your army every time he steps on the battlefield? Or your speedy TWC running/charging a shorter distance than your big bulky terminators on foot?
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

To be fair while I agree with the random traits, the reasoning is that it was a power/strategy that was of particular use in that particular battle, so the story focuses on it. It's not the only power they have in the narrative, just it's supposed to be the one that stood out.

It's really similar to how epic casters in Warmachine have different spells and feats, but in the fluff they didn't magically unlearn the other one, it just represents the caster at a particular point in time when the other powers were the ones commonly used.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Btw can someone explain to me what's narrative about a psyker forgetting his powers after each battle and randomly learning new ones just before the next battle? Or your warlord giving a different buff to your army every time he steps on the battlefield? Or your speedy TWC running/charging a shorter distance than your big bulky terminators on foot?
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

To be fair while I agree with the random traits, the reasoning is that it was a power/strategy that was of particular use in that particular battle, so the story focuses on it. It's not the only power they have in the narrative, just it's supposed to be the one that stood out.

It's really similar to how epic casters in Warmachine have different spells and feats, but in the fluff they didn't magically unlearn the other one, it just represents the caster at a particular point in time when the other powers were the ones commonly used.

True, but warmachine isn't sold as a narrative game. It could be I suppose, but that's not the draw.

Prime Epic (is there a name for the third form yet?) seem to keep similar...themes or at least one spell. Sometimes it's a major shift in power (looking at you Cygnar) or represents a fundamental change (Xerxis legs not working) that requires the character to change. But you can tell it's the same character evolving over time.

Edit, with rare exception, most forms are not flat out superior in every way to another form. That's not always true, but often is.
In 40k I would take a few powers all day every day if given the chance, since they are so much better than anything else. I can't imagine a time when my caster would need the weaker powers.

It still doesn't help the warlord traits, having to challenge, lords becoming daemon princes and then changing back, or what have you.

 Purifier wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
CAD only

So Skitarii are not allowed in this tournament?

No, but for a diffferent reason - theyre too new

Harlies were given an exception to the requirement to have an HQ selection, and allowed in

 Talys wrote:

Instead, they could use the proven method of bumping up profits that food companies have adopted. Just like chocolate bars, give you less every year, so next year's Eldar would be... shorter than this year's! If you shrink it just the right amount, people won't notice that their kitkats and peanut butter cups... er... Space Marines and Orks... are going on a diet and have a tighter waistline.

And then, just like bags of chips which just get filled with more air, make all the boxes 25% larger, while shrinking the contents by 25%. That way people will feel they are getting their money's worth.

Oh, and then to finish it off, do it like Coke and Pepsi does with the midget size cans and retro bottles: produce a squad of 10 as a box of 5, advertise it as being "Faster to paint!" and then sell it for 25% more. And bring back the 1990's lead Inquisitors, sell them as "Classics" for 800% more!

Stop giving them ideas!

Or well in the case of halfing a box size, Stop reminding them of ideas!

 Toofast wrote:
Btw can someone explain to me what's narrative about a psyker forgetting his powers after each battle and randomly learning new ones just before the next battle? Or your warlord giving a different buff to your army every time he steps on the battlefield? Or your speedy TWC running/charging a shorter distance than your big bulky terminators on foot?
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

Hey Brent,

Remember that thing I said about when you can't win someone over to your point of view you move on to a topic and try to do it again there? You just copy and pasted this post from that exact conversation into this one. Thanks for proving me right.

WayneTheGame wrote:


To be fair while I agree with the random traits, the reasoning is that it was a power/strategy that was of particular use in that particular battle, so the story focuses on it. It's not the only power they have in the narrative, just it's supposed to be the one that stood out.

Except there's a non-negligible chance you will roll something useless (for example, as Tau I could roll 'can give Warlord and his unit Skyfire for 1 turn' in a game where the enemy has no fliers and skimmers). Does that mean my warlord is 'forging the narrative' of being dumb and making useless calls for that battle just because a d6 decided so?

IMO 40k is so random it couldn't be less narrative even if they tried.

 Chosen of Malal wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Btw can someone explain to me what's narrative about a psyker forgetting his powers after each battle and randomly learning new ones just before the next battle? Or your warlord giving a different buff to your army every time he steps on the battlefield? Or your speedy TWC running/charging a shorter distance than your big bulky terminators on foot?
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

Hey Brent,

Remember that thing I said about when you can't win someone over to your point of view you move on to a topic and try to do it again there? You just copy and pasted this post from that exact conversation into this one. Thanks for proving me right.

That's not a counter-argument. I'm not sure what it is, other than random smugness, maybe?

 Chosen of Malal wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Btw can someone explain to me what's narrative about a psyker forgetting his powers after each battle and randomly learning new ones just before the next battle? Or your warlord giving a different buff to your army every time he steps on the battlefield? Or your speedy TWC running/charging a shorter distance than your big bulky terminators on foot?
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

Hey Brent,

Remember that thing I said about when you can't win someone over to your point of view you move on to a topic and try to do it again there? You just copy and pasted this post from that exact conversation into this one. Thanks for proving me right.

It seems like most of the top threads for Eldar/GW rage are the same group of 5 to 6 people.

In regards to the question, I think it's very plausible that your psyker/warlord is not the exact same guy in every fight. What about if the model qA removed as a casualty in the previous match? Then it would have to be a new guy I would assume.

And a $800 entry mark? That's pretty steep, unless you consider entry mark to be 2K points. Just browsing the GW store you can pick up a bundle from any faction for around $250 to $350, and that's paying full list price. Plenty to make games out of. Or even go the used route, double the models for the same price and they're likely already assembled and ready to go.

I like that I have the option to play a 2 to 3 hour game of 40K. If I'm looking for something quick I'll hop on LoL or play MtG.

 clamclaw wrote:


In regards to the question, I think it's very plausible that your psyker/warlord is not the exact same guy in every fight. What about if the model qA removed as a casualty in the previous match? Then it would have to be a new guy I would assume.

Soooo...Ahriman has Alzheimer's and can't remember the spells that he knows from one battle to the next?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:


In regards to the question, I think it's very plausible that your psyker/warlord is not the exact same guy in every fight. What about if the model qA removed as a casualty in the previous match? Then it would have to be a new guy I would assume.

Soooo...Ahriman has Alzheimer's and can't remember the spells that he knows from one battle to the next?

Nah, he used the divination he doesn't have to determine that weaker spells would be better for this battle

 Elemental wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Btw can someone explain to me what's narrative about a psyker forgetting his powers after each battle and randomly learning new ones just before the next battle? Or your warlord giving a different buff to your army every time he steps on the battlefield? Or your speedy TWC running/charging a shorter distance than your big bulky terminators on foot?
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

Hey Brent,

Remember that thing I said about when you can't win someone over to your point of view you move on to a topic and try to do it again there? You just copy and pasted this post from that exact conversation into this one. Thanks for proving me right.

That's not a counter-argument. I'm not sure what it is, other than random smugness, maybe?

That's because there isn't a logical counter argument to the points I make, so they resort to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. The white knights are out in full force, they've even followed me from Facebook to dakka to continue to not make any kind of logical counter argument.

 Toofast wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

 Chosen of Malal wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
Btw can someone explain to me what's narrative about a psyker forgetting his powers after each battle and randomly learning new ones just before the next battle? Or your warlord giving a different buff to your army every time he steps on the battlefield? Or your speedy TWC running/charging a shorter distance than your big bulky terminators on foot?
Also, can someone tell me what's so "beer and pretzels" about a game that takes 20-30 mins each for setup and teardown, 2-3 hours minimum to play, has 500+ pages of rules that are complicated to learn and has an entry point somewhere around the $800 mark?

Hey Brent,

Remember that thing I said about when you can't win someone over to your point of view you move on to a topic and try to do it again there? You just copy and pasted this post from that exact conversation into this one. Thanks for proving me right.

That's not a counter-argument. I'm not sure what it is, other than random smugness, maybe?

That's because there isn't a logical counter argument to the points I make, so they resort to ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. The white knights are out in full force, they've even followed me from Facebook to dakka to continue to not make any kind of logical counter argument.

Hey, toy soldiers is serious business... You'll get pinned one day, you'll see.

 clamclaw wrote:

Hey, toy soldiers is serious business... You'll get pinned one day, you'll see.

So essentially, you're trolling?