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.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Filch wrote: i can't wait for GW to Sigmarize wh40k. No more argument about competitive play. No more neck beard know it alls.
Sad thing is in my area 40k getting AoS'd would only attract the neck beards. I might be a bit biased but I find the local competitive players gravitate towards warmachine and X wing were they can pit their skill against their opponents, the local neck beards animatedly stick with 40k and buy and sell whole armies each time the meta starts to change, staying on top of the cheesiest lists they can. AoS lost a lot of players but the one WAAC player in the area dived right in eagerly since the few restrictions that were holding him back were removed.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 08:22:08
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.
After a while, with this kind of threads, it's just a matter of silently sitting at the corner, waiting for the time when (inevitabily) someone comes and blames the players for the dismal state of the game (the company which makes the models and publishes the rules can't be at fault, ever). Then you draw the popcorn out and enjoy the show.
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.
Korinov wrote: After a while, with this kind of threads, it's just a matter of silently sitting at the corner, waiting for the time when (inevitabily) someone comes and blames the players for the dismal state of the game (the company which makes the models and publishes the rules can't be at fault, ever). Then you draw the popcorn out and enjoy the show.
Standard conversation here nowadays. Apparently competitive playerbases are the cause of a game's downfall.
People should learn from the examples of Dota, LoL, etc on how competitive players KILL. THE. GAME. Look at how they destroyed the games. Clearly it's their fault the games collapsed the way they did.
C'mon people, how hard can it be?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 08:47:05
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right?
I'm not sure he's hearing you, standing so high on that soapbox as he is...
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
The argument for 40K to be competitive and balanced is so lost I'm slightly surprised it's still going on.
If I rolled up to a game with a fluffy fun list and my opponent put down the current FOTM of a deathstar unit and whatever the newest big robot thing is... I'm going to lose, no question of it. In much the same way as if I took a PvE levelling character in an MMO into a PVP zone. They are mutually incompatible styles of play and the rules would require a page one rewrite to make them otherwise.
Which isn't going to happen. Any attempt at balancing 40K would inevitably result in severe restrictions being put on (for example) the preposterously oversized and overpowered units that are GW's thing these days, and they're not going to do that because Player A has bought his Imperial Knights/Riptides/Whatever and he wants to use them. All. The. Time. That genie is out of the bottle now and there's no way to put it back in.
And even if they did, the truly 'competitive' players are still going to mathhammer the best possible combo of units that the 'balanced' rules still allow and field that instead.
Sure, GW could do more - a lot more - to at least provide the illusion of balance, but until they get past the idea that Anyone should be able to field Anything in a 'friendly' game they won't.
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys know that 40k works for both competitive play, narrative play, and casual play?
What 40k doesn't do is auto-filter its playerbase so you end up playing with the right people.
No, what it doesn't do is create an environment were two people can play without having to have a same idea of 'what the game should be'.
Other games don't really divide their playerbases into 'competitive' and 'casual' players. Everyone is just a 'gamer'.
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.
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys know that 40k works for both competitive play, narrative play, and casual play?
What 40k doesn't do is auto-filter its playerbase so you end up playing with the right people.
No, what it doesn't do is create an environment were two people can play without having to have a same idea of 'what the game should be'. Other games don't really divide their playerbases into 'competitive' and 'casual' players. Everyone is just a 'gamer'.
Well, WMH is starting to (if one is to believe their forums); but not even close to the same toxic gulf there is in 40k.
40k is somewhat unique in that its playerbase is at war with itself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 10:06:54
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
He's not wrong though. There is merit in what salous has to say here. As a player, you are directly responsible for the fun you have. Why should you 'have to' provide input into your fun? Easy. Because you will only get out what you are willing to put in. This doesn't change the fact that the eldar codex is on a completely different level to the chaos codex or whatever, and it doesn't make it ok either. I personally dislike the fact that one codex has to play down and limit itself to such a huge level to accomodate the other. It can be worked around however.
To be honest, there is great merit in having a game you can play right out of the box. Warmachine. Steamroller. Select point size, swap lists, roll for scenario, off you go. But this is not the only way to play, and this should be seen as the 'one true way' or the 'right' way. Do not casually dismiss the idea of a group of mates who are willing to play up or down, discuss things in advance, and accomodate Their opponents. There is as much merit in having a game where you sit in the driving seat, write up your own missions and scenarios rather than 'line up and charge', sort stuff out with your opponents and build a great game. Because everyone wants something different, and it's an interesting way of making some very cool and involving scenarios and scratch that creative itch.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish. Now, I agree with you - games should be balanced. Game designers should seek to build robust games that can cater to a wide variety of styles. Other games do this. 40k is not that game. 40k is a broken mess. So much of it could be built so much better. You can wish it to be all you want, but you'll go nowhere. The sad reality on the ground is that yes, if you want to enjoy 40k, you have to put in some legwork. The good news is that this can be incredibly rewarding. Remember, the argument that 'the game is wrong. The same should change to suit me' can just as easily be turned on its head with the question 'is the game wrong? Does it need to change Or is it the gamers attitudes that could change to accomodate the game? Should the players not try to adapt, and try different ways of playing the game?'
Different perspectives. Different ways of playing games. I genuinely encourage you to try it. We do it with our historicals, flames of war, and sometimes infinity as well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/05 11:35:37
But there is absolutely nothing stopping you doing any of that with warmahordes, infinity, x wing, etc.
40k doesn't have rules for building scenarios.
My argument is not that I don't want to do the work, it's that forcing players to do the work adds nothing to the game while detracting from it.
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.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
He's not wrong though. There is merit in what salous has to say here. As a player, you are directly responsible for the fun you have. Why should you 'have to' provide input into your fun? Easy. Because you will only get out what you are willing to put in. This doesn't change the fact that the eldar codex is on a completely different level to the chaos codex or whatever, and it doesn't make it ok either. I personally dislike the fact that one codex has to play down and limit itself to such a huge level to accomodate the other. It can be worked around however.
To be honest, there is great merit in having a game you can play right out of the box. Warmachine. Steamroller. Select point size, swap lists, roll for scenario, off you go. But this is not the only way to play, and this should be seen as the 'one true way' or the 'right' way. Do not casually dismiss the idea of a group of mates who are willing to play up or down, discuss things in advance, and accomodate Their opponents. There is as much merit in having a game where you sit in the driving seat, write up your own missions and scenarios rather than 'line up and charge', sort stuff out with your opponents and build a great game. Because everyone wants something different, and it's an interesting way of making some very cool and involving scenarios and scratch that creative itch.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish. Now, I agree with you - games should be balanced. Game designers should seek to build robust games that can cater to a wide variety of styles. Other games do this. 40k is not that game. 40k is a broken mess. So much of it could be built so much better. You can wish it to be all you want, but you'll go nowhere. The sad reality on the ground is that yes, if you want to enjoy 40k, you have to put in some legwork. The good news is that this can be incredibly rewarding. Remember, the argument that 'the game is wrong. The same should change to suit me' can just as easily be turned on its head with the question 'is the game wrong? Does it need to change Or is it the gamers attitudes that could change to accomodate the game? Should the players not try to adapt, and try different ways of playing the game?'
Different perspectives. Different ways of playing games. I genuinely encourage you to try it. We do it with our historicals, flames of war, and sometimes infinity as well.
The point is though, that a tight ruleset, would benefit the people wanting to play pick up games, it would benefit the more competitive minded people and it would still have no impact on the people who are going to put the 'legwork' in to change it up. An all over the place mess, doesn't benefit either of the first two and the people who are going to change it up are still going to change it up so it doesn't really affect them.
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys know that 40k works for both competitive play, narrative play, and casual play?
What 40k doesn't do is auto-filter its playerbase so you end up playing with the right people.
No, what it doesn't do is create an environment were two people can play without having to have a same idea of 'what the game should be'.
Other games don't really divide their playerbases into 'competitive' and 'casual' players. Everyone is just a 'gamer'.
Well, WMH is starting to (if one is to believe their forums); but not even close to the same toxic gulf there is in 40k.
Really? I roll through their forums pretty often and it's not really that toxic. I think the worst forum is the Khador forum, but it's gotten a lot better since the recent errata which nerfed the two strongest control casters in the game. Khador hated seeing either one of them on the field, now (when they get their new big guy with that absurdly long range gun) they won't have a problem with them. Especially with butcher3. If Denny, who used to be the strongest caster in the strongest faction, feats on butcher, he just casually rolls up and kills her. Makes the game way less lopsided.
Even the factions who lost their strong casters haven't been complaining and have been pretty optimistic in trying new things.
Usually the worse I hear on those forums is cryx's "Why isn't the Inflictor out yet?". Honestly they have some of the most positive gaming forums I've ever been on.
40k is somewhat unique in that its playerbase is at war with itself.
Well, unique in tabletop gaming. It's actually pretty similar to the LoL, HoS, or WoW forums. It also reminds of DnD 4e forums. Many players were very bitter over 4e who had been playing since 1 or 2e, and made their stance known on the forums.
I remember when Warseer used to be called Whineseer, and dakka used to be the more reasonable forum. Now dakka is players insulting each other, waiting for GW to die or the game to get fixed, and the occasional "gut good".
I miss the tactics forum.
jonolikespie wrote: Other games don't really divide their playerbases into 'competitive' and 'casual' players. Everyone is just a 'gamer'.
"Rec league"
"NCAA"
Plenty of games discriminate between competitive and casual. You just don't realize it!
As best as I can tell those are sport things, I was talking about tabletop gaming.
Even then though, I played little league when I was 8 and we still tried to win. No one told us we were wrong for playing that way, we just weren't pitted against 14 year olds for obvious reasons.
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.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish
How do you force eldar, necron and sm players who are clearly having fun to make the game fun for you? Your not having fun, but they do, so they won't care. Unless your a store owner you can't force them to do anything and unless your a local important person you won't be able to enforce house rules that make only your army stronger.
Same with the walk away thing. You can't use w40k models in other games, and you won't start new games when your w40k can't get sold.
Or is the deal with it just some version of use your infinite stash of money ?
40k players argue over the context of the game -- powerlisting, abusing imba mechanics, and exploiting rules quirks.
Pushing your 10x Kabalites onto an objective to score a VP in pursuit of winning isn't what people get annoyed at.
Conversely, if Roger Clemens was chucking 90mph fastballs in Little League at 8 year olds, or at a 16 year old girl in rec league, you don't think it's a little out of place? Everyone's trying to win after all.
That's why sportsmanship and social skills are important. A gifted pitcher with no understanding of when it's not appropriate to bring his A game, is not just a TFG but actually dangerous to other people -- can you imagine beaning some poor girl in a beer league and then claiming she was crowding the plate?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makumba wrote: How do you force eldar, necron and sm players who are clearly having fun to make the game fun for you?
Cut off their free drinks
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/10/05 12:46:34
Do people factor in buy in cost when they start throwing around these ideas? It's not something like a sport where someone just has to put less effort in to make it a casual setting. Sometimes it's having to completely go out of your way to purchase and build bad models just so that you can "even" the playing field.
Develop a casual group? Yeah it seems perfectly reasonable to try and get people to pay hundreds into a game to try and get to decent point values. The hours spent modeling wysiwyg and possibly painting. And the flexibility to completely stop using models they spent hundreds on and many hours creating for the sake of casualness.
Just dropping the game has the same issue. Some people have gotten upset when people that no longer play respond in these threads. Guess what? Those people probably spent thousands on the game and countless hours modeling and painting. Shelving an army is painful.
I shelved a Tau army that I spent a lot of time putting together.
I shelved an Eldar army I was in the progress of making. I got the Wraith set they were selling around the beginning of 7th and was putting in a lot of time into modeling them to swap between different weapons. 7th hit and now I can't even feel decent about making them because I'd probably be considered a TFG just for pulling them out at the shop.
I want to get into 40K again, like I'm sure many others do as well. I have all the models to get back into it. But I can't. The rules are just bad. We've tried having group discussions and making a gentleman's agreement on what "should" be brought into games so we don't start going into insane competitive lists. But that's still models getting shelved or in some cases entire armies not being able to be used.
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right?
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
He's not wrong though. There is merit in what salous has to say here. As a player, you are directly responsible for the fun you have. Why should you 'have to' provide input into your fun? Easy. Because you will only get out what you are willing to put in. This doesn't change the fact that the eldar codex is on a completely different level to the chaos codex or whatever, and it doesn't make it ok either. I personally dislike the fact that one codex has to play down and limit itself to such a huge level to accomodate the other. It can be worked around however.
To be honest, there is great merit in having a game you can play right out of the box. Warmachine. Steamroller. Select point size, swap lists, roll for scenario, off you go. But this is not the only way to play, and this should be seen as the 'one true way' or the 'right' way. Do not casually dismiss the idea of a group of mates who are willing to play up or down, discuss things in advance, and accomodate Their opponents. There is as much merit in having a game where you sit in the driving seat, write up your own missions and scenarios rather than 'line up and charge', sort stuff out with your opponents and build a great game. Because everyone wants something different, and it's an interesting way of making some very cool and involving scenarios and scratch that creative itch.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish. Now, I agree with you - games should be balanced. Game designers should seek to build robust games that can cater to a wide variety of styles. Other games do this. 40k is not that game. 40k is a broken mess. So much of it could be built so much better. You can wish it to be all you want, but you'll go nowhere. The sad reality on the ground is that yes, if you want to enjoy 40k, you have to put in some legwork. The good news is that this can be incredibly rewarding. Remember, the argument that 'the game is wrong. The same should change to suit me' can just as easily be turned on its head with the question 'is the game wrong? Does it need to change Or is it the gamers attitudes that could change to accomodate the game? Should the players not try to adapt, and try different ways of playing the game?'
Different perspectives. Different ways of playing games. I genuinely encourage you to try it. We do it with our historicals, flames of war, and sometimes infinity as well.
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/10/05 16:14:39
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right?
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
He's not wrong though. There is merit in what salous has to say here. As a player, you are directly responsible for the fun you have. Why should you 'have to' provide input into your fun? Easy. Because you will only get out what you are willing to put in. This doesn't change the fact that the eldar codex is on a completely different level to the chaos codex or whatever, and it doesn't make it ok either. I personally dislike the fact that one codex has to play down and limit itself to such a huge level to accomodate the other. It can be worked around however.
To be honest, there is great merit in having a game you can play right out of the box. Warmachine. Steamroller. Select point size, swap lists, roll for scenario, off you go. But this is not the only way to play, and this should be seen as the 'one true way' or the 'right' way. Do not casually dismiss the idea of a group of mates who are willing to play up or down, discuss things in advance, and accomodate Their opponents. There is as much merit in having a game where you sit in the driving seat, write up your own missions and scenarios rather than 'line up and charge', sort stuff out with your opponents and build a great game. Because everyone wants something different, and it's an interesting way of making some very cool and involving scenarios and scratch that creative itch.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish. Now, I agree with you - games should be balanced. Game designers should seek to build robust games that can cater to a wide variety of styles. Other games do this. 40k is not that game. 40k is a broken mess. So much of it could be built so much better. You can wish it to be all you want, but you'll go nowhere. The sad reality on the ground is that yes, if you want to enjoy 40k, you have to put in some legwork. The good news is that this can be incredibly rewarding. Remember, the argument that 'the game is wrong. The same should change to suit me' can just as easily be turned on its head with the question 'is the game wrong? Does it need to change Or is it the gamers attitudes that could change to accomodate the game? Should the players not try to adapt, and try different ways of playing the game?'
Different perspectives. Different ways of playing games. I genuinely encourage you to try it. We do it with our historicals, flames of war, and sometimes infinity as well.
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
And this answers any of the questions how? Or are you still not going to answer them and go on about how people are unable or unwilling and fill your posts with ad hominem?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/05 16:26:19
I have to ask this, as it is amusing to understand. I play sisters, ever since 3rd edition actually, and have recently repacked them after trying them out for 7th and probably sticking to infinity from now on. The reason? My store has a large majority that uses Necrons, IK, and DA. I have played nearly a hundred games this year, and can honestly say my win count is in the single digits. This is not through lack of trying, as I have taken the best I can and have allied in inquisition and Space Wolves here and there. But the sheer one sidedness of all of these losses has killed my love of the game. So please, people who say all I need to do is 'git gud', explain to me how my army can win against anyone with enough effort
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
People might be inclined to take you seriously if you didn't act like an ass. Straight up man, your post above adds nothing of any value to the conversation. None. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.
This discussion is about the state of 40k. That state is one of unbalanced mess that is only getting more complicated and more expensive while also not being particularly good for competitive games, casual games, and any shade in between. Yes, players can invest tons of effort and compromises to make something work in 40k. But, if that's the case, wouldn't it be incredibly obvious that the state of 40k is flat out bad? If you need to put in that much effort to make the game work when nearly every other game currently on the market works out of the box the way its intended to, it means 40k is not in a good position.
You can like it all you want, and that's fine, but again, seeing as this thread is about the state of 40k, most people agree its not good or at least could be dramatically improved. Your own arguments support that statement too. If the game needs tons of compromising and only playing with close friends and ensuring you're all on the same power level and developing your own sets of FAQs and other houserules, that pretty much makes the game, well, bad.
Oh, posting politely might help your case. Right now, its been a lot of personal attacks and snide remarks with no backing.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
People might be inclined to take you seriously if you didn't act like an ass. Straight up man, your post above adds nothing of any value to the conversation. None. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.
This discussion is about the state of 40k. That state is one of unbalanced mess that is only getting more complicated and more expensive while also not being particularly good for competitive games, casual games, and any shade in between. Yes, players can invest tons of effort and compromises to make something work in 40k. But, if that's the case, wouldn't it be incredibly obvious that the state of 40k is flat out bad? If you need to put in that much effort to make the game work when nearly every other game currently on the market works out of the box the way its intended to, it means 40k is not in a good position.
You can like it all you want, and that's fine, but again, seeing as this thread is about the state of 40k, most people agree its not good or at least could be dramatically improved. Your own arguments support that statement too. If the game needs tons of compromising and only playing with close friends and ensuring you're all on the same power level and developing your own sets of FAQs and other houserules, that pretty much makes the game, well, bad.
Oh, posting politely might help your case. Right now, its been a lot of personal attacks and snide remarks with no backing.
First off, it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k. Second, I question how you can judge the state of 40k off this thread. Just because the loud minority rants and raves on these forums does not mean the game is bad.
Lastly, I'm sorry that you gain nothing from my posts. Possibly you're unable to see someone else's point of view if it conflicts with your own?
Savageconvoy wrote: Do people factor in buy in cost when they start throwing around these ideas? It's not something like a sport where someone just has to put less effort in to make it a casual setting. Sometimes it's having to completely go out of your way to purchase and build bad models just so that you can "even" the playing field.
Develop a casual group? Yeah it seems perfectly reasonable to try and get people to pay hundreds into a game to try and get to decent point values. The hours spent modeling wysiwyg and possibly painting. And the flexibility to completely stop using models they spent hundreds on and many hours creating for the sake of casualness.
Just dropping the game has the same issue. Some people have gotten upset when people that no longer play respond in these threads. Guess what? Those people probably spent thousands on the game and countless hours modeling and painting. Shelving an army is painful.
I shelved a Tau army that I spent a lot of time putting together.
I shelved an Eldar army I was in the progress of making. I got the Wraith set they were selling around the beginning of 7th and was putting in a lot of time into modeling them to swap between different weapons. 7th hit and now I can't even feel decent about making them because I'd probably be considered a TFG just for pulling them out at the shop.
I want to get into 40K again, like I'm sure many others do as well. I have all the models to get back into it. But I can't. The rules are just bad. We've tried having group discussions and making a gentleman's agreement on what "should" be brought into games so we don't start going into insane competitive lists. But that's still models getting shelved or in some cases entire armies not being able to be used.
Are people in your area so set against Tau and Eldar that they don't believe that the armies can be played in a casual setting? If that's really the case, you're better off finding a new group, and hopefully one where people aren't so dead set against allowing people to field entire factions. In my experience, the easy way to avoid being overly competitive is to avoid spamming certain units and to be upfront with your opponent about what you are bringing. For Tau, let them know if you're planning on bringing more than one Riptide. For Eldar, let them know if you're bringing jetbikes or Wraith units (the Wraithknight is another story altogether).
Warhammer 40k just doesn't really work well as a "pick up and play" sort of game. You have to know the group of people you're playing and what kind of games you can expect in that group. I compare it to tabletop RPGs, in that you need to be familiar with the DM and the kind of group you'll be joining.
Martel732 wrote: " it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k. "
Patently untrue, as many different people have different definitions of "balanced".
It is true that people have different definitions of balanced. However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
~3000 (Fully Painted)
Coming Soon!