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.

Salous wrote:

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.

90% is an extremely overoptimistic number. Just look at the disagreement on the boards about which armies are the weakest/strongest. Also, what's the negotiation for BA vs Eldar look like? Do BA get double pts? Triple pts? 1.5 X pts? How bad is bad?

Salous wrote:
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.

Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here

I'm not offended, but there are realistic limits to how successful that approach can be. Plus, it's tedious and I shouldn't have to do it to begin with.

Martel732 wrote:
90% is an extremely overoptimistic number. Just look at the disagreement on the boards about which armies are the weakest/strongest. Also, what's the negotiation for BA vs Eldar look like? Do BA get double pts? Triple pts? 1.5 X pts? How bad is bad?

It should go somewhat like this:

Eldar player: "So, what lube do you like best?"
BA player: "I don't care. Just... be gentle, senpai..."

Salous wrote:
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?

1. Patently untrue, as people have varying definitions of what is balanced.

2. While they may have a negative impression of the current game, many of the posters in this thread have been around a long time (much longer than me) and have seen how the game has changed in ways that they view as for the worse. I might disagree with their opinion, but that doesn't make their opinion any less relevant.

3. Pot, there's someone one the line fro you named Kettle. He's here to discuss the subject of blackness, and how it relates to blatant hypocrisy on your part.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Salous wrote:
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.

Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here

It's not an issue of communication and social skills, but rather that things just aren't as simple as they're often being made out to be and quite often people just aren't going to see eye to eye or have the time to deal with that. We pay for rules for a reason, having to no only re-write them, but get two people to agree to re-write them and agree on how to do so, basically every game, is often just not possible, and simply shouldn't be necessary to the extent that it is.

Martel732 wrote:

Salous wrote:

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.

90% is an extremely overoptimistic number. Just look at the disagreement on the boards about which armies are the weakest/strongest. Also, what's the negotiation for BA vs Eldar look like? Do BA get double pts? Triple pts? 1.5 X pts? How bad is bad?

The Eldar player can't bring Scatbikers, Wraithknights, and anything with a D-weapon. The Blood Angel player can bring whatever they want.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Salous wrote:
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.

Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here

Well when the people posting such things tend to just insult everyone else suggesting that they, in fact, have quite poor social skills themselves....

Regardless, a few pages back I posted a series of questions about the riptide and how to balance it.
This was largely ignored by Salous. I would like to know how he would go about balancing it so that it can be played against the vast majority of armies, other than "don't take it".
It's a very controversial unit. Some people feel its weak, some that the upgrade is too much, some that its just beneath eldar levels of strong...its not something everyone can look at and decide instantly how to balance it.


Honestly, I'd rather invest my "social skills" into having a good time and getting excited about the game I'm playing. I want to meet new people who are into the game, start a league (possibly with narrative style games), and generally focus on having fun. All the other table top games, and this one up until recently, worked this way.
I don't want to debate with my opponent about how to balance his really good looking unit that he just dropped quite a bit of money on so we can actually play a game.

The answer is not simple. Personally, I enjoy the game and play Eldar and my opponents have fun as well. But, I am also selective with whom I play with.

However, to simply blame GW for not writing balanced rules is not totally correct, nor incorrect. 40K has NEVER been a balanced game. I've literally played since the RT era, and many times you can figure out the outcome in a lot of games simply by looking at the two opposing army lists. Should GW do more to balance codexes? Absolutely. However, they haven't done so since they created Codexes (2nd edition) and that has not changed.

Social contracts are important, especially when it comes to 40K. This game has so many lopsided matchups that it does and has always required some interaction between players prior to playing a game. I will concede that there may be a bit more pregame discussion in 7th than in previous editions, but these pregame discussions are nothing new. Go back a decade and these discussions still occurred, but may have been more revolved around tourney vs non tourney lists. Now, there is LoW, FW, # of Detachments, ITC format, NOVA missions, Maelstrom or not, Invisibility etc....

At the end of the day, 40K is just one of those games that can be quite difficult. It has never had a tight set of rules, but we are so passionate about the game that it can drive us all a bit crazy. These days, I'll prearrange a game with someone via FB or attend a tourney in which all the pregame discussion is already established within the parameters of the event.

Akiasura wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Salous wrote:
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.

Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here

Well when the people posting such things tend to just insult everyone else suggesting that they, in fact, have quite poor social skills themselves....

Regardless, a few pages back I posted a series of questions about the riptide and how to balance it.
This was largely ignored by Salous. I would like to know how he would go about balancing it so that it can be played against the vast majority of armies, other than "don't take it".
It's a very controversial unit. Some people feel its weak, some that the upgrade is too much, some that its just beneath eldar levels of strong...its not something everyone can look at and decide instantly how to balance it.


Honestly, I'd rather invest my "social skills" into having a good time and getting excited about the game I'm playing. I want to meet new people who are into the game, start a league (possibly with narrative style games), and generally focus on having fun. All the other table top games, and this one up until recently, worked this way.
I don't want to debate with my opponent about how to balance his really good looking unit that he just dropped quite a bit of money on so we can actually play a game.

Sorry for not addressing your question. I'm a busy man these days, fighting off all the socially inept gamers here.

I have not played riptides much, but when I did I saw no problems with them. However, it also depends on which army you're playing against. Don't spam them, and don't use them against lists that have no counter to it. If bringing that one Unit means you win, leave it.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Salous wrote:

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.

90% is an extremely overoptimistic number. Just look at the disagreement on the boards about which armies are the weakest/strongest. Also, what's the negotiation for BA vs Eldar look like? Do BA get double pts? Triple pts? 1.5 X pts? How bad is bad?

The Eldar player can't bring Scatbikers, Wraithknights, and anything with a D-weapon. The Blood Angel player can bring whatever they want.

Sad part is that its still not remotely fair even with those changes.

Salous wrote:

First off, it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k.

Two issues here. The first is that it does for many people, and often enough, the solution is just not to play person X because of the balance gap. This is not a solution, this is a problem. It also ignores all those who either don't bring a massive collection to the store to constantly adjust and swap based on who happens to be there, or people who simply don't have a large army. It also means that the theoretical compromise may not (and would likely often) be that one or both players are not playing the force they want to play.

Again, problems with the game. The fact they can be worked around (any problem has a workaround) does not excuse that the problem exists and should not exist and that it reflects poorly on the state of 40k, especially its 7th iteration.

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.

I judge the state of 40k for myself and myself alone, as do you for yourself. That's why we're here, discussing. You also don't know how much these viewpoints are reflective of the 40k population at large. Judging by the growing popularity of a dozen other wargames, its fairly safe to assume many players are either not happy with the state of the game, or largely apathetic and have moved on. But we don't know that for sure, either way. So its probably best we don't assume that any one viewpoint represents a vocal minority either way, because for all we know, your ranting and raving could very well be the vocal minority.

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?

No, your posts add nothing because they're either nothing but insults, like the one I quoted, or filled with them.

Again, want to be taken seriously? Stop acting like an donkey-cave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Salous wrote:

Sorry for not addressing your question. I'm a busy man these days, fighting off all the socially inept gamers here.

You really don't get it, do you?

The irony is real.

I'd rather go play something where I dont have pregame begging. Thats like begging zerg players not to rush in starcraft. Pathetic.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 SDFarsight wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
According to your profile you only started gaming this year. I suggest you actually educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets before clambering upon your soapbox again. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 5th edition it was a (fairly) balanced rules set

Indeed, even now I still play 4th edition games when I can. But of course those players are a minority as most people want to keep honing their 7th ed tactics.

Re-reading what I put (and I can't edit as you quoted it! ) I should clarify I'm including 5th in that statement. It sounds like I'm only referring to RT through to 4th.

5th only got bad towards the end when Grey Knights appeared.

Yes 5th brought in some good things- like a more simple vehicle damage table, removing the domino effect from consolidation moves and making rending not so OP. It did however bring in some bad things like the disappearing wound shenanigans. The 'run' move isn't bad in itself but it did hail the start of what 7th edition is now- a faster, arguably dumbed-down affair rather than the more chess-like decision making of 4th ed.

40k is heading towards being AoS'd. Played it a year and a half ago, wondering what the hell kind of crap game GW was having us play. Kinda forgot about it until my buddy and I were talking about AoS. But it's been in development. Expect the beardy rules and such to be alive and well when it hits.

Atm, we try to get into 30k or HH.
Here the actual 40k rules will be used but the formation of armies is much tighter than in 40k.
What we hope are more balanced games as its just Marines vs. Marines.

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Salous wrote:
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.

Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here

Well when the people posting such things tend to just insult everyone else suggesting that they, in fact, have quite poor social skills themselves....

Regardless, a few pages back I posted a series of questions about the riptide and how to balance it.
This was largely ignored by Salous. I would like to know how he would go about balancing it so that it can be played against the vast majority of armies, other than "don't take it".
It's a very controversial unit. Some people feel its weak, some that the upgrade is too much, some that its just beneath eldar levels of strong...its not something everyone can look at and decide instantly how to balance it.


Honestly, I'd rather invest my "social skills" into having a good time and getting excited about the game I'm playing. I want to meet new people who are into the game, start a league (possibly with narrative style games), and generally focus on having fun. All the other table top games, and this one up until recently, worked this way.
I don't want to debate with my opponent about how to balance his really good looking unit that he just dropped quite a bit of money on so we can actually play a game.

Sorry for not addressing your question. I'm a busy man these days, fighting off all the socially inept gamers here.

I have not played riptides much, but when I did I saw no problems with them. However, it also depends on which army you're playing against. Don't spam them, and don't use them against lists that have no counter to it. If bringing that one Unit means you win, leave it.

What should we call this kind of attitude? l2talk? L2negotation?L2Beg? L2Social? Talkmoar?

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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?

It's a combination of things. First off I'm limited in what models I actually have. Secondly there is a large stigma against playing Tau or Eldar, either that they are just not fun to play against or things they've always had are suddenly too good for them to have. Third, look at the Proposed Rule section for what people think needs to be done to balance Tau or any other army. This isn't really something that amateurs can really do reliably and almost will never agree with.

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.

Again, that's the problem. There are no other gaming groups within a half hour drive for me and even that one is mostly dried up. I'll be lucky if I can walk into the store and even see a 40K army that isn't on a display shelf now.
And it's impossible to bring in new players because of the poor balance issues and the buy in cost.

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.

The difference with those games is that you actually have narrative and less competitive group environment. In 40K you have two players directly acting against each other.
For example, you can't have a table top RPG tournament. It's just impossible. You can set up 40K tournaments. The game is supposed to be set so you can literally bring what ever you want to the field and play a nice friendly game. But it's not like that at all.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What should we call this kind of attitude? l2talk? L2negotation?L2Beg? L2Social? Talkmoar?

Most people call it "normal behaviour". Every time you play social drinking games with people, you discuss rules first because they tend to vary by geography and social group. King's cup, beer pong, spoons, whatever.

Online gamer-types are notorious for poor social adjustment, and that's not exactly a news flash


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
For example, you can't have a table top RPG tournament. It's just impossible. You can set up 40K tournaments. The game is supposed to be set so you can literally bring what ever you want to the field and play a nice friendly game. But it's not like that at all.

I've seen battle reports that focus on custom missions and multi-game narrative, and honestly it looks a lot more fun (to me at least) than typical ITC Maelstrom type games.

Salous wrote:

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... This doesn't help salous. Really, it doesn't, nor does it need to be said. People would be a lot more willing to listen if you were less abrasive and more inclusive. Personally, I put it down to a lack of knowledge. People really know one way of playing, and it can be daunting to imagine playing wargames in an entirely different way. Gaming cultures are a thing. Let's face it - you go abroad, it's often easier to get a McDonald's than try the local cuisine due to its unfamiliarity, no matter how amazing it might be. same thing here. Show them the other path, and show them the value of it and what can be done with it - ultimately, it's about being positive and selling a message of empowerment. Certainly garners a dad better response than your cheap shots, passive aggressive comments and nasty jabs.

jonolikespie wrote:But there is absolutely nothing stopping you doing any of that with warmahordes, infinity, x wing, etc.

Indeed there isn’t. And if you’d read my post, you’d also see that that is precisely how we play flames of war, historicals, infinity etc. However, what those games don’t have is battles in the forty first millennium, with space marines duelling with chainswords, and tyranids and titans and all that other sheer insanity against a backdrop of hundred kilometre high skyscrapers, millennia old battleships, insane gods and even more insane mortals, and all that grotesque nihilism and mind numbing horror, as well as apocalyptic wars on a scale that is almost beyond comprehension. You play 40k to play in that world. You play the way I suggest to get the most out of your games that you possibly can.

jonolikespie wrote:
40k doesn't have rules for building scenarios.

So? The whole point of ‘players being in the driving seat’ is that the players can come up with interesting scenarios. You don’t need gw to tell you how to play. You don’t need to play out of a book either. If that’s your outlook – that you need someone to tell you how to do this, then you’ve already failed at ‘being creative’. In your games of 40k or whatever else, have you ever thought ‘wouldn’t it be cool if…’ Well, what I suggest is ‘yes, it would be cool. So, how do we go about organising it’ followed by being practical, and actually organising that game as both a scenario, and organising thematic armies that fit that scenario. Doesn’t have to be hard.

jonolikespie wrote:
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.

It doesn't sound like you are saying you don't want to do the work, it sounds like you are saying you are unfamiliar with other styles of gaming and don't know how to make other styles of play work due to lack of familiarity.

I disagree about it adding nothing. It’s an attitude shift. Playing a scenario out of the book does not let me be creative. It does not let me add my own touches, to write my own script or bring my ideas to life. It does not allow for imaginative and clever scenarios. It also means that you’re more likely to end up playing against like minded opponents who want the same things out of their games as you.

Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
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.

I don’t recall tight rules sets coming up in the chat to Jonolikespie conversation – I was responding to the argument that ‘why should I take charge of my own games’ and the sheer horror of discussing things with opponents and possibly accommodating them. Lets also be clear that wargames should have a direction, and don’t necessarily need to accommodate all styles of play. You don’t need a ‘magic button’. There is no ‘one size fits all’ game suitable for everything.

But Lets be clear. I enjoy having a tight, well written rules set. But I will disagree with you to an extent. And I will point out your post is indicative of my earlier point about players changing their attitudes to suit a game, rather than changing a game to suit an attitude. You talk about pick-up games as a thing. Well, what about games that are not meant to be pick-up games? No, wait – here me out. As I said earlier, there is great value in games designed to be played out of the box. But it is not the only way to play. Or the right way. PUGs are fine, but are essentially only the arcade setting, rather than the simulation. One could argue that PUGs themselves offer limited, or even no value (depending on your perspective) and instead represent a very lazy, intellectually dead, creatively stifling, and smug, entitled gaming culture that is unwilling to be proactive and shoulder responsibility for their own hobby and enjoyment. Not that I agree with that statement – I’m trying to be dramatic. I enjoy pugs, but games (eg warmachine) need to be built to be pug friendly to accommodate them. I also would argue that pugs are not necessarily representative of how a lot of wargamers play their games. I also enjoy other ways of playing my wargames, so don’t view ‘pug friendly’ as a requirement for a good wargame. Some of the best I’ve ever played have been at my mates house, where over the course of an evening we set up the board, organise thematic forces and discuss victory conditions or any house rules, set out multi layered ‘stories’ and mission creep, and over the following evenings (hey, we work, and have other commitments and can’t do twelve hour game days; I’m not sure if we’d even want to!) play it out. This wouldn’t work for pugs. I actually cant imagine playing FOW in a PUG form after this. Its just so boring and light. Like I said, its an attitude shift where I do feel that while PUGs are fun, and have a viable and necessary niche (great basis for a tournament format, ease of play, universality of play, time constraints etc), players should also acknowledge that they can get so much more out of their games than ‘just’ a pug, and that a requirement for the former isn’t necessarily relevant in aiming for the latter.

If you’re interested – get away from pugs and tournaments for a wee bit and try and expand your horizons if you’ve never done this before – not necessarily ‘play different games’, but rather ‘play the same games, but play them in different ways’. I’m quite serious. try and find some old historical players. Talk to them. See how they play their games, join in if you can and try and take some notes. I’ve learned a lot from those old boys and its done nothing but enhance my enjoyment of this hobby.

Makumba wrote:
How do you force eldar, necron and sm players who are clearly having fun to make the game fun for you?

No, I just play with nice people. I don't have to 'force' anyone - I just explain that no, I'm not having fun, and no, I don't like getting roflstomped- I like being a participant in games.

Makumba wrote:
Your not having fun, but they do, so they won't care.

Why not? Doing the gaming version of clubbing baby seals isn't fun either, unless you are a socially inept loser with no empathy. If they're the kind of players that just want to roll dice against helpless opponents, they are shallow, mannerless bullying cowards with no shred of decency or morals, and are no better than those bullies on the playground when we were kids - in other words, they aren't worth me giving them the time of day, let along partnering up for a wargame.

Makumba wrote:
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.

Course I can. Because I have social skills and can talk to my mates and bring them on side with interesting scenarios and clever mission ideas. 'Wouldn't it be cool if...' Is usually answered with 'yeah, let's do it'. You'd be amazed with how far a simple chat with decent folks can get when organising games. It's just a shame you play with losers and tfg, but really, the fact that you refuse to better yourself, and step beyond that mentality yourself and see how stifling self destructive and narrow minded it is means I have little sympathy for you.

Makumba wrote:
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.

Why not? I've had no issues selling any of my old taus on Facebook. And yes, you can still use 40k models in other games, assuming they are appropriate stand ins. I'm planning on using my rhinos and kasrkin as generic sci fi human troopers from now on.

Makumba wrote:
Or is the deal with it just some version of use your infinite stash of money ?

Oh I wish I had infinity money. I really do. I have to be clever with my purchases. I have a mortgage and a car to pay for, and a girlfriend to feed and mind. Hobby money is quite a bit down the list of things I need to spend money on. So I am smart with it.

But in the meantime, assume the truth that my gaming budget is quite small, and the time I can give towards gaming is even more limited, I can just chat to my fellow gamers and bring them onside with playing our games. It's called 'socialising' and it offers some remarkable rewards. You'd be amazed how a chat with decent folks can clear up any amount of grievances and lead to common ground. Maybe you should leave your group and try and find some nicer people, eh?

Yoyoyo wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
What should we call this kind of attitude? l2talk? L2negotation?L2Beg? L2Social? Talkmoar?

Most people call it "normal behaviour". Every time you play social drinking games with people, you discuss rules first because they tend to vary by geography and social group. King's cup, beer pong, spoons, whatever.

Online gamer-types are notorious for poor social adjustment, and that's not exactly a news flash

I'm not referring to pre-game discussions as a whole because most people do it. I'm talking about the strange attitude that all of 40k's problems can be waved away if you just talk to your opponent. Eldar overpowered? Just talk to your opponent. Your army can't fight it's way out of a paper bag? Get to talking, m8. Don't like how your opponent brings his favorite army which is completely broken and refuses to change it because he has nothing else? Talk harder you socially inept loser.

It's just as blindly broad and arrogant as the "L2p" attitude. Sure, talking can help settle some rules disputes but it is hardly a solution to the myriad of problems 40k has.

I'm quite astounded by the implication of "they enjoy pick up games/ competition, so they can't come up with scenarios or modify the rules and don't have the social skills to do so".

Once again I'll reiterate, The current set of rules isn't good for anybody, having to fix things to make it work doesn't make it good, whereas a solid base rules set improves it things for everyone. Strangely enough I could (before the current rules set killed 40k in my area) socialise my way out of a wet paper bag, and come up with scenarios, campaigns and alter the rules. But when I have to alter the rules to fix the base game, then there's probably something wrong.

A good rules set does not stop creativity, it in fact makes it easier

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:


A good rules set does not stop creativity, it in fact makes it easier

You.

I like you.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
I'm quite astounded by the implication of "they enjoy pick up games/ competition, so they can't come up with scenarios or modify the rules and don't have the social skills to do so".

It isn't my implication though - I play and enjoy pick up games, tournaments and genuinely love coming up with scenarios and modifying the rules. if what I said came across the way you claim, I can only apologise. I do know, however that there are a lot of gamers out there that are only familiar with a certain way of playing. I was one of them. Meeting those older historical players really opened my eyes, and let me learn the value of other gaming 'styles'. I simply encourage others to do the same - i see enablement and empowerment in this as a good thing.

As to social skills - let's be fair - they various gaming subcultures do attract a lot of maladjusted and socially inept people.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Once again I'll reiterate, The current set of rules isn't good for anybody, having to fix things to make it work doesn't make it good, whereas a solid base rules set improves it things for everyone.

I will agree with you. I think the 40k rules are rubbish, and have been for a long time. I think they are crude, clunky, bloated and sluggish. Having to fix things doesn't make it good. At all. My point is less on the 'fixing' and more on the 'diy' approach - as I said, I play this way with flames of war, infinity and various historicals. I think there is a tendency to focus in on 'the rules' rather than different approaches to gaming.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Strangely enough I could (before the current rules set killed 40k in my area) socialise my way out of a wet paper bag, and come up with scenarios, campaigns and alter the rules. But when I have to alter the rules to fix the base game, then there's probably something wrong.
]

I'll agree again. 40k is far from perfect. There is so much wrong with it. And I've said that previously. If anything, my suggestion is more about making the best out of a bad situation, and being practical with the reality on the ground.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

A good rules set does not stop creativity, it in fact makes it easier

Hmm, I think you are on the right track. In my mind, what is necessary though for creativity is both the will to be creative, and good scenario and game design tools moreso than game balance or 'good rules'. Let's be clear as well - I am not dismissing good rules sets - there is a reason I adore warmachine and infinity over 40k after all.

To be fair, warmachine is a brilliant game, with excellent rules but is pretty light on scenario design tools. If anything, I would need to use the same creative approach to designing scenarios and appropriate mission rosters in infinity, fow, warmachine, historicals or even forty-k. The tightness and clarity of warmachine rules set doesn't necessarily aid me any more in designing my own scenarios any more than 40ks clunky rules. They may aid in the in-game 'flow' but that is partly a separate issue.
I think a universal 'diy' approach to scenario/mission design etc is actually a completely separate thing altogether from a 'good rules set. The quality of the rules, I'd argue is merely incidental to how clever you can be in designing your own games.
Obviously though, elegant rules help the flow of a game better than crude and clunky ones. And good rules lead to more interesting interactions than bad ones.

Good points though mozzy - internet beers are on me for this one

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

To paraphrase what I said earlier in the thread...

I suggest you educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 6th edition came along it was a (fairly) balanced rules set that was suitable for tournament play. GW also fostered this part of the game with their own sponsored tournaments such a Throne of Skulls and 'Ard Boyz.

Deadnight wrote:

Salous wrote:

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... This doesn't help salous. Really, it doesn't, nor does it need to be said. People would be a lot more willing to listen if you were less abrasive and more inclusive. Personally, I put it down to a lack of knowledge. People really know one way of playing, and it can be daunting to imagine playing wargames in an entirely different way. Gaming cultures are a thing. Let's face it - you go abroad, it's often easier to get a McDonald's than try the local cuisine due to its unfamiliarity, no matter how amazing it might be. same thing here. Show them the other path, and show them the value of it and what can be done with it - ultimately, it's about being positive and selling a message of empowerment. Certainly garners a dad better response than your cheap shots, passive aggressive comments and nasty jabs.

While I agree that Salous could use some work with how he approaches people who disagree with him (which is cutting off his social skills argument at the knees), I doubt it's lack of knowledge. Some of the people here have vast experience with table top gaming outside of 40k, and it involves many different ways of playing. He's just started this year.

Myself, I've played Mordenheim, Blood Bowl (not a fan), Necromunda, and Gorka morka. All of these games are narrative games that involve a league creating some house rules and creating stories. They are excellent games that involve an agreed upon contract, especially since the game is no longer supported.
For larger games, I play 40k since 3rd dropped, and Fantasy since 4th. I own, between the two, over 10 armies. I tried infinity and own 4 armies in WMH.
For Role playing games, I've played every dnd ever, BESM, d20 modern, Exalted 1e/2e (which requires more house rules than anything known to man), all of nWOD and oWOD, and too many others to think of.

The point is, I've played many games. No game has been as difficult to play as 40k has become lately (though fantasy comes close, I think that was my local player base being elf/VC heavy). Exalted and the specialist games don't work without a series of house rules and social contracts, and I've had no problem doing that. I've run a DnD amazing race style game that included 20+ players in teams of 4, and didn't have an issue, even though the teams often attacked each other (which was hilarious, since it was in 3rd edition and that game had horrible balance).

I still have yet to get an answer to my simple question about the Riptide, from anyone. This is starting to suggest it can not be answered with anything other than "don't take it", which for an expensive centerpiece seems odd.
I find your travel analogy suspicious as well. I've been to many countries across the board, and have more stomach issues than a diabetic grandmother, and always sample the local cuisine exclusively. Any group I've toured with, everyone has done the same. I can't imagine going to Japan and eating McDonalds.

Deadnight wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:But there is absolutely nothing stopping you doing any of that with warmahordes, infinity, x wing, etc.

Indeed there isn’t. And if you’d read my post, you’d also see that that is precisely how we play flames of war, historicals, infinity etc. However, what those games don’t have is battles in the forty first millennium, with space marines duelling with chainswords, and tyranids and titans and all that other sheer insanity against a backdrop of hundred kilometre high skyscrapers, millennia old battleships, insane gods and even more insane mortals, and all that grotesque nihilism and mind numbing horror, as well as apocalyptic wars on a scale that is almost beyond comprehension. You play 40k to play in that world. You play the way I suggest to get the most out of your games that you possibly can.

No one will argue the setting isn't fantastic. That and the money we all have invested is most likely the reason any of us are here today.
What we are suggesting is that you can put in way less effort, focus on having fun, and have a same result.
Have you tried Death Watch, DH, or any of those games? They are excellent, and deliver the setting in a way the 40k does not. They require relatively few house rules (and some great ones are freely available on the forums and have been extensively playtested by the community).

Deadnight wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:
40k doesn't have rules for building scenarios.

So? The whole point of ‘players being in the driving seat’ is that the players can come up with interesting scenarios. You don’t need gw to tell you how to play. You don’t need to play out of a book either. If that’s your outlook – that you need someone to tell you how to do this, then you’ve already failed at ‘being creative’. In your games of 40k or whatever else, have you ever thought ‘wouldn’t it be cool if…’ Well, what I suggest is ‘yes, it would be cool. So, how do we go about organising it’ followed by being practical, and actually organising that game as both a scenario, and organising thematic armies that fit that scenario. Doesn’t have to be hard.

When the rule books are expensive, you expect something of value out of them. Old specialist games, and fantasy back in the day, had narrative league style rules that were excellent. It serves as a good jumping off point for people to set up games and modify them.

There is not a single game out there that doesn't place players in the driving seat. If you and your friends want to create house rules and league games, that's not a problem. But if I am spending that much for a game, I shouldn't have to do so just to play.
As I've stated, so far no one has been able to balance the riptide. This suggests that it takes some effort to rewrite the game. I mean, it's one model. How hard can it be to balance it across the game?

Deadnight wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:
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.

It doesn't sound like you are saying you don't want to do the work, it sounds like you are saying you are unfamiliar with other styles of gaming and don't know how to make other styles of play work due to lack of familiarity.

I didn't get that from him at all. Table top gaming isn't super common, I imagine most people who do it play games like DND, other board games, or even other table top games nowadays. Not many people jump into the ocean before dipping their tool in a pool, in terms of finances.

I disagree about it adding nothing. It’s an attitude shift. (1) Playing a scenario out of the book does not let me be creative. (2) It does not let me add my own touches, to write my own script or bring my ideas to life. (3) It does not allow for imaginative and clever scenarios. (4) It also means that you’re more likely to end up playing against like minded opponents who want the same things out of their games as you.

What's the point of owning a Riptide and leaving it at home?

Tau were at best 2nd tier from 3rd edition to 6th edition, and had only about four or five viable units in their codex.

Then along comes the 6th edition codex and makes them awesome, and suddenly Tau players are supposed to leave all the awesome units at home?!?!?

Sarigar wrote:The answer is not simple. Personally, I enjoy the game and play Eldar and my opponents have fun as well. But, I am also selective with whom I play with.

However, to simply blame GW for not writing balanced rules is not totally correct, nor incorrect. 40K has NEVER been a balanced game. I've literally played since the RT era, and many times you can figure out the outcome in a lot of games simply by looking at the two opposing army lists. Should GW do more to balance codexes? Absolutely. However, they haven't done so since they created Codexes (2nd edition) and that has not changed.

Social contracts are important, especially when it comes to 40K. This game has so many lopsided matchups that it does and has always required some interaction between players prior to playing a game. I will concede that there may be a bit more pregame discussion in 7th than in previous editions, but these pregame discussions are nothing new. Go back a decade and these discussions still occurred, but may have been more revolved around tourney vs non tourney lists. Now, there is LoW, FW, # of Detachments, ITC format, NOVA missions, Maelstrom or not, Invisibility etc....

At the end of the day, 40K is just one of those games that can be quite difficult. It has never had a tight set of rules, but we are so passionate about the game that it can drive us all a bit crazy. These days, I'll prearrange a game with someone via FB or attend a tourney in which all the pregame discussion is already established within the parameters of the event.

Grimtuff wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

To paraphrase what I said earlier in the thread...

I suggest you educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 6th edition came along it was a (fairly) balanced rules set that was suitable for tournament play. GW also fostered this part of the game with their own sponsored tournaments such a Throne of Skulls and 'Ard Boyz.

These two pieces of anecdotal evidence seem to contradict each other. And yes, some of the senior players at the FLGSs that I frequent have told me about the history of their experience with the game. From what they've told me and from what I've read about previous editions (especially 5th), I'm going to have to go with Sarigar's word. No offense.

While GW may have supported tournaments before, they don't do it know and that's what matters. GW has made it clear what kind of game they want. The players can modify it to their wishes if they so choose, but 40k has never been balanced enough for tournament play in the same sense as Warmahordes and X-Wing are now.

Kilkrazy wrote:What's the point of owning a Riptide and leaving it at home?

Tau were at best 2nd tier from 3rd edition to 6th edition, and had only about four or five viable units in their codex.

Then along comes the 6th edition codex and makes them awesome, and suddenly Tau players are supposed to leave all the awesome units at home?!?!?

Could be worse. You could play Eldar, and not get to bring units at all!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's the point of owning a Riptide and leaving it at home?

Tau were at best 2nd tier from 3rd edition to 6th edition, and had only about four or five viable units in their codex.

Then along comes the 6th edition codex and makes them awesome, and suddenly Tau players are supposed to leave all the awesome units at home?!?!?

No, but don't expect people to just keep letting you murder them over and over.