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.
2016/03/24 22:06:05
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
kodos wrote: GW just don't want to write good rules
So I am waiting for the day the community realise that they will never get better rules from GW and start to do their own version of the rules (or accept an already existing fan edition).
And I hope this happens before there is no one left any more.
Yeah, pretty much this.Over all I think that *could* work out, since there are aspects of the game many of us agree on that need change. Will never make everyone happy, but among our groups of friends and gamers I bet we could be much happier. GW gives us the models and framework for the rules, we can figure out the rest and tweak things without spending millions of dollars.
I don't play because I don't have the time, and I'm focused more on the hobby in my spare time. Waiting for a new CSM codex, and hopefully a subsequent revision of KDK based on those changes (which is a dubious prospect).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/24 22:07:20
2016/03/24 22:16:44
Subject: Re:Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
It is human nature to seek culpability in a time of tragedy. It is a sign of strength to cry out against fate, rather than to bow one's head and succumb.
-Gabriel Angelos
2016/03/25 01:26:15
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
My first army was "Chaos".
Then they took my "specific" daemons away.
Then they took them all away unless I can summon them.
While they were at it, melee became problematic and the little guys started seeming points expensive.
But this is the classic CSM grumble: points to effectiveness is not there.
I now have MANY armies I swear to try to ward-off the "least nerfed" of the month.
BUT I do not have Tau, Eldar or Necrons... woe's me!
A little more than a passing attempt at say a specifically selected series of "scenario" battles for a close game would be nice.
Outlining an escalation campaign for two specific armies would be neat (to act as a buying guide for growing your army! GW would be proud!).
It would be nice to devote a few books or white dwarf mags.
i always thought it would be fun to create a city at war format for cities of death, it cities at war your ammunition supply is finite and every time a unit pulls a trigger they roll on a d6 with each time after dropping down a dice tier. if you get the highest number on your roll (so in the case of a d2 it would be a 2) your unit runs out of ammo and can only use its grenades and melee weapons. this would force you to adapt to situations where suddenly your fire prisms and lootas, and guardsmen sometimes find themselves just totally out of ammo pulling the trigger only once the whole game. it would make for interesting list building
DA army: 3500pts,
admech army: 600pts
ravenguard: 565 pts
2016/03/25 01:41:55
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
1) Balance. I like casual games as much as the next guy, but I also enjoy tournaments and even in casual play the lack of balance back in 5th ed pushed me right away from the game.
2) Fluff. Murderfang murdering with his Murderclaws because of his Murderlust on the planet Omocide. Need I say more?
3) Models. Wolven? Really? I don't consider GW to be the top dog when it comes to quality anymore. I'd say that PP's latest resin/metal hybrids and their new on sprue plastics are on par detail wise (or better in the case of the resin) and GW is losing points for stupid design directions. Corvus Belli of course blows both our of the water.
3.5) Oh and please god fix some of the old models. GW have left things like the basic chaos space marines in the 90s, they suck, and they are supposed to be the core of an army. It seems like unless you're space marines you don't get old kits redone anymore, you get dino bots, or hover sleighs, and all kinds of other stupid gak no one wanted. Other companies are really exciting me by re releasing old models that look SO much better.
4) Community interaction. I simply feel better about buying from a company I like. I think that's a natural human trait, and I think that GW is probably the only company on the market that leaves a bad taste in my mouth because they are the only one that seems to not care if the community withers and dies so long as people keep buying their product.
5) Price. I'm an Australian, so not only do I think GW's fallen from it's top spot in terms of model quality, they are STILL charging a lot more than those I consider better quality.
6) Rules. Forget balance for a second, the base rules themselves are flawed.
a) Cover should be a to hit modifier, or an armour save modifier so that the camo cloaked guardsman in dense trees is harder to hit than the bright yellow 8 foot giant in the open, and so that giant has better odds of surviving a lasgun shot if he is behind a fortified wall.
b) The game really also needs to pick a god dammed scale and go with it. No more individual movement, LoS, etc and superheavies on the same damn table. Speaking of...
c) Superheavies, Knights, even Riptides and Wraithknights are too big for the damn game.
d) Might sound like an odd one to some people but.. board size. I'd love to see 40k played more at a Dawn of War 2 scale, where 10 marines, 5 termies, and maybe 5 assault marines is a small army. 20 marines, a land raider, 5 termies and a captain might be a large army. As it currently stands with weapon ranges and army sizes a 4x6 board is just too small, and a bigger board is impractical. Armies shouldn't be shooting each other from their deployment zones, I think that's just a part of general game design.
e) Formations... I don't know what's going on with them, I dropped the game before they became a thing, but they seem dodgy. If you want benefits from taking more structured fluffy armies I feel like Warmahordes' theme lists are a better way to do it, as were the only 4th ed marine combat doctrine type rules.
f) Oh, another thing that annoys me, new editions for the sake of new editions. I think GW are the only people that do this, or think they need to do this. A new edition should come out because your fans have a problem with the current edition and you plan to fix 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.
2016/03/25 06:08:35
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
My Tyranid friend is painting his genestealer cult. I imagine he wants to lock wits with me again after.
He's now on a losing streak in both Armada as his Imperial fleet is in shambles and in 40k as his Nids haven't won since I was a newbie. When we first met I was but the learner, now I am the master.
2016/03/25 07:51:52
Subject: Re:Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
I want GW to take all the extra rules (Flyers, Fortifications, Formations, Apocalypse, Allies, Unbound, and so on) remove them from the core rules and put them into optional add-on rulebooks.
Have a good look over everything like opportunity fire and make sure it works properly. Psychics needs to be greatly simplified, for example.
Then issue rulebooks and codexes that cost half what they do at the moment.
Alternatively, if GW would AoSify the game, I would play it again because the rules would be much simpler and free.
Too many folks with a tournament mindset towards a ruleset that was never designed for that sort of play.
What is the ruleset designed for?
Blaming the players is a roundabout way of blaming the people behind the rules.
Indeed. Though he's got it bass ackwards. These so-called "tournament players" that love to bend the rules to their will are drawn to 40k simply because its rules are such a mess and are easy to exploit. Create a balanced system with clear and concise rules and all of a sudden these idiots (who will still be there, mind) have their main power over the game nullified. A balanced and concise set of rules benefits everyone, not just "tournament players".
Look at WMH, yes it attracts a certain type of player that I don't entirely care for, but guess what? You're not forced to play them unless its a tournament in which case they can't bamboozle you with their "is it, isn't it legal?" army with questionable interpretations of the rules as said rules do not support this behaviour. So these rules benefit your casual group where winning a game comes more down to player skill over who can use the rules the best.
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.
2016/03/25 12:48:53
Subject: Re:Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
Kilkrazy wrote: I want GW to take all the extra rules (Flyers, Fortifications, Formations, Apocalypse, Allies, Unbound, and so on) remove them from the core rules and put them into optional add-on rulebooks.
Have a good look over everything like opportunity fire and make sure it works properly. Psychics needs to be greatly simplified, for example.
Then issue rulebooks and codexes that cost half what they do at the moment.
So.. make people who enjoy things that have been around for several editions, and some new things.. have to pay more, so you can say "u cant use ur things" to people easier?
PPl who optimise their list as if they're heading to a tournament when in reality you're just gonna play a game for fun at your FLGS are bascially the Kanye West equivalent or 40K.
2016/03/25 12:55:14
Subject: Re:Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
Kilkrazy wrote: I want GW to take all the extra rules (Flyers, Fortifications, Formations, Apocalypse, Allies, Unbound, and so on) remove them from the core rules and put them into optional add-on rulebooks.
Have a good look over everything like opportunity fire and make sure it works properly. Psychics needs to be greatly simplified, for example.
Then issue rulebooks and codexes that cost half what they do at the moment.
So.. make people who enjoy things that have been around for several editions, and some new things.. have to pay more, so you can say "u cant use ur things" to people easier?
Lol... talk about an entitled attitude...
40k lacked those things in the core rules for far longer than they were included in them. All of the things KK listed were optional extras to the game (or had a game size restriction in the case of Superheavies and Apocalypse) that were in fact in extra books such as Cities of Death, Planetstrike and Apocalypse.
It is only since 6th edition that all of those things became standard.
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.
2016/03/25 13:16:52
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
I'm waiting for my interest in MTG to dip back down a bit and for my local meta to return to the more fluffy state it used to be. I haven't even bought the Genestealer Cults because there is no one I can reasonably play against. The fluffy players went over to Infinity.
2016/03/25 13:19:44
Subject: Re:Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
Fortifications are not new. The Fortress of Redemption came out well before Stronghold assault, Bastions have been around forever. New ones have been added that's true and given their own slot, but as a whole not new.
Storm Ravens, Valkyries, the dark angel.. thing have been around again since at least 5th, ForgeWorld flyers for regular 40k just as long, not new, but there are more of them and they aren't game ending things either.
Whining about apocalypse is, in my opinion, dumb. You have to agree to a points level before you play a game. So don't agree to 2-3k + games.
Allies agreed Formations I couldnt possibly care about as I don't and never will likely use em.
All this suggestion does, is again force the people who enjoy these things to spend More money, for you to be able to say No to them, which you're already able to do.
PPl who optimise their list as if they're heading to a tournament when in reality you're just gonna play a game for fun at your FLGS are bascially the Kanye West equivalent or 40K.
2016/03/25 13:30:15
Subject: Re:Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
Kilkrazy wrote: I want GW to take all the extra rules (Flyers, Fortifications, Formations, Apocalypse, Allies, Unbound, and so on) remove them from the core rules and put them into optional add-on rulebooks.
Have a good look over everything like opportunity fire and make sure it works properly. Psychics needs to be greatly simplified, for example.
Then issue rulebooks and codexes that cost half what they do at the moment.
So.. make people who enjoy things that have been around for several editions, and some new things.. have to pay more, so you can say "u cant use ur things" to people easier?
Lol... talk about an entitled attitude...
No, if you like Flyers etc, you will still be able to play them as optional rules.
No, if you like Flyers etc, you will still be able to play them as optional rules.
You know, technically everything is already an optional rule. Don't want someone to bring a Wraithknight? Tell them so. Does it matter if it's in another book or not? Not in the slightest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/25 13:39:18
40k:
8th Edtion: 9405 pts - Varantekh Dynasty
2016/03/25 13:42:49
Subject: Re:Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
Kilkrazy wrote: I want GW to take all the extra rules (Flyers, Fortifications, Formations, Apocalypse, Allies, Unbound, and so on) remove them from the core rules and put them into optional add-on rulebooks.
Have a good look over everything like opportunity fire and make sure it works properly. Psychics needs to be greatly simplified, for example.
Then issue rulebooks and codexes that cost half what they do at the moment.
So.. make people who enjoy things that have been around for several editions, and some new things.. have to pay more, so you can say "u cant use ur things" to people easier?
Lol... talk about an entitled attitude...
No, if you like Flyers etc, you will still be able to play them as optional rules.
Then, if your point isn't to be able to restrict who plays what easier like I said, then what is the point. At that point it literally is "you need to pay more than me to play this stuff.. because Reasons".
PPl who optimise their list as if they're heading to a tournament when in reality you're just gonna play a game for fun at your FLGS are bascially the Kanye West equivalent or 40K.
2016/03/25 13:47:04
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
No, if you like Flyers etc, you will still be able to play them as optional rules.
GW will love this.
Book with core rules, 40€
Book for flyers, 20€+
Book for tanks, 20€
Book for psionics, 20€
Codex: 40€
Codex add on with formations, 40€
Codex add on with psionics and flyers 60€
And you don't need to buy them if you don't want to play one of this (of course you need the psionic and flayer book to be able to use AA fire and block psionic powers)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/25 13:49:39
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2016/03/25 13:51:36
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
Kilkrazy wrote: I want GW to take all the extra rules (Flyers, Fortifications, Formations, Apocalypse, Allies, Unbound, and so on) remove them from the core rules and put them into optional add-on rulebooks.
Have a good look over everything like opportunity fire and make sure it works properly. Psychics needs to be greatly simplified, for example.
Then issue rulebooks and codexes that cost half what they do at the moment.
So.. make people who enjoy things that have been around for several editions, and some new things.. have to pay more, so you can say "u cant use ur things" to people easier?
Lol... talk about an entitled attitude...
No, if you like Flyers etc, you will still be able to play them as optional rules.
Then, if your point isn't to be able to restrict who plays what easier like I said, then what is the point. At that point it literally is "you need to pay more than me to play this stuff.. because Reasons".
I am sorry you have taken issue with what I have proposed that would get me playing 40K again, which is the topic of the thread.
The point is I don't want to play Apocalypse, that's why I didn't buy it back in 5th edition, and that's why I gave up 40K in 6th edition when it became obligatory Apocalypse.
You apparently want to play Apocalypse. You were able to do this under 5th edition and you will still be able to do it under my proposed 8th edition.
The difference is that you would have to pay £25 for the core game, and £25 for the Apocalypse rules, instead of the £50 you are seem to be happy to pay now.
I don't see why you are so resentful of my only paying £25 for the core rules. You will get a load of extra fun rules for the £25 for Apocalypse.
Kilkrazy wrote: I want GW to take all the extra rules (Flyers, Fortifications, Formations, Apocalypse, Allies, Unbound, and so on) remove them from the core rules and put them into optional add-on rulebooks.
Have a good look over everything like opportunity fire and make sure it works properly. Psychics needs to be greatly simplified, for example.
Then issue rulebooks and codexes that cost half what they do at the moment.
So.. make people who enjoy things that have been around for several editions, and some new things.. have to pay more, so you can say "u cant use ur things" to people easier?
Lol... talk about an entitled attitude...
No, if you like Flyers etc, you will still be able to play them as optional rules.
Then, if your point isn't to be able to restrict who plays what easier like I said, then what is the point. At that point it literally is "you need to pay more than me to play this stuff.. because Reasons".
I am sorry you have taken issue with what I have proposed that would get me playing 40K again, which is the topic of the thread.
The point is I don't want to play Apocalypse, that's why I didn't buy it back in 5th edition, and that's why I gave up 40K in 6th edition when it became obligatory Apocalypse.
You apparently want to play Apocalypse. You were able to do this under 5th edition and you will still be able to do it under my proposed 8th edition.
The difference is that you would have to pay £25 for the core game, and £25 for the Apocalypse rules, instead of the £50 you are seem to be happy to pay now.
I don't see why you are so resentful of my only paying £25 for the core rules. You will get a load of extra fun rules for the £25 for Apocalypse.
Im not "resentful" of anything you've posted. I don't understand it, and it doesn't make sense to me, so I am trying to understand.
P.S. Apocalypse is still a different Ruleset beyond what standard 40k is now. Just saying.
PPl who optimise their list as if they're heading to a tournament when in reality you're just gonna play a game for fun at your FLGS are bascially the Kanye West equivalent or 40K.
2016/03/25 15:13:57
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
Azreal13 wrote: 40K is a sci fi game based on a 30 year old Fantasy/Historical rule set trying to play army level engagements at a squad level of granularity
Fantastic!
This perfectly encapsulates 40k's problems.
I've begun playing - after a long absence - a bit of 7th ed 40k, and the best thing I can say for it is that at low points values/model counts, and between two players who both know the rules well and understand the game's design ethos (in so far as there is one), the system is just about adequate to provide an entertaining game and even a bit of a tactical challenge.
Trying to play the game in the way the base rulebook actually describes? Between all the cumbersome rules the system imposes, the meaningful tactical choices it lacks, and the laughable balance issues, it's an unbelievably dull and frustrating chore. The only way to save 40k as a game - rather than as an accompaniment to painting plastic spacemen and reading novels about them - would be for the studio to hire some proven, competent writers (ones who have actually played games written in the last two decades) to rebuild it from the ground up.
2016/03/25 15:47:45
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
A working and complete AdMech-Codex, with all subfactions included.
Removing of stupid formations-crap. A fixed CAD.
Whatever, that will probably not happen. Because GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/25 15:58:48
30k: Taghmata Omnissiah(5,5k)
Ordo Reductor(4,5k)
Legio Cybernetica(WIP)
Chapter Master Angelos wrote: Fortifications are not new. The Fortress of Redemption came out well before Stronghold assault, Bastions have been around forever. New ones have been added that's true and given their own slot, but as a whole not new.
Both of which were released and given rules as part of Planetstrike. They were not in the core game.
Storm Ravens, Valkyries, the dark angel.. thing have been around again since at least 5th, ForgeWorld flyers for regular 40k just as long, not new, but there are more of them and they aren't game ending things either.
The Flyer rules have been only part of FW expansions to the core game since 3rd. Only 6th made them part of the core rules. Some of these Flyers were shoehorned in as fast skimmers (this began with the Valkyrie, which was a Flyer under its FW rules) , but none were part of the core game.
Whining about apocalypse is, in my opinion, dumb. You have to agree to a points level before you play a game. So don't agree to 2-3k + games.
Allies agreed Formations I couldnt possibly care about as I don't and never will likely use em.
All this suggestion does, is again force the people who enjoy these things to spend More money, for you to be able to say No to them, which you're already able to do.
Please don't dismiss legitimate complaints as "whining". You saw what the title of the thread was. You know what its contents should be, why did you even enter it if all you are doing is telling people why they're wrong for not playing 40k in its current state.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/25 16:33:08
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.
2016/03/25 16:46:20
Subject: Re:Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
bocatt wrote: I quit playing because of the rules
Came back for the Genestealer Cult
Ha! Their new offering certainly makes you want to accept it "warts and all".
I just have to justify the cost I like Deathwatch and then they dare to include Genestealer cults... "resistance is futile".
At least it is a self contained game so like a scenario it should work out OK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormonu wrote: I quit playing actually because of the PLAYERS.
Too many folks with a tournament mindset towards a ruleset that was never designed for that sort of play.
For me, until the player base and the ruleset are changed to be in line, I don't plan to be playing anyone beyond my son & brother.
The problem is how far to dial back from a tournament level army?
Where do you and a new player find the middle-ground?
Through the years of gaming I have not seen the players get all that much worse for being munchkins.
5th edition had some issues but I felt I got good games in and it seemed to fall apart from 6th onward.
I REALLY liked the models that came out later, no complaints there, it is just the army lists with inherent strengths and weaknesses became pointless due to ally selection removed those balances.
If GW meant what they say (they are a MODEL company), a fan-base ruleset I think could work out, problem is they still sell rules and codexes and formation rules so we run the risk of IP infringement.
Here is still holding out hope that with them wanting to do tournaments again they could try to clean things up.
1) Balance. I like casual games as much as the next guy, but I also enjoy tournaments and even in casual play the lack of balance back in 5th ed pushed me right away from the game.
2) Fluff. Murderfang murdering with his Murderclaws because of his Murderlust on the planet Omocide. Need I say more?
3) Models. Wolven? Really? I don't consider GW to be the top dog when it comes to quality anymore. I'd say that PP's latest resin/metal hybrids and their new on sprue plastics are on par detail wise (or better in the case of the resin) and GW is losing points for stupid design directions. Corvus Belli of course blows both our of the water.
3.5) Oh and please god fix some of the old models. GW have left things like the basic chaos space marines in the 90s, they suck, and they are supposed to be the core of an army. It seems like unless you're space marines you don't get old kits redone anymore, you get dino bots, or hover sleighs, and all kinds of other stupid gak no one wanted. Other companies are really exciting me by re releasing old models that look SO much better.
4) Community interaction. I simply feel better about buying from a company I like. I think that's a natural human trait, and I think that GW is probably the only company on the market that leaves a bad taste in my mouth because they are the only one that seems to not care if the community withers and dies so long as people keep buying their product.
5) Price. I'm an Australian, so not only do I think GW's fallen from it's top spot in terms of model quality, they are STILL charging a lot more than those I consider better quality.
6) Rules. Forget balance for a second, the base rules themselves are flawed.
a) Cover should be a to hit modifier, or an armour save modifier so that the camo cloaked guardsman in dense trees is harder to hit than the bright yellow 8 foot giant in the open, and so that giant has better odds of surviving a lasgun shot if he is behind a fortified wall.
b) The game really also needs to pick a god dammed scale and go with it. No more individual movement, LoS, etc and superheavies on the same damn table. Speaking of...
c) Superheavies, Knights, even Riptides and Wraithknights are too big for the damn game.
d) Might sound like an odd one to some people but.. board size. I'd love to see 40k played more at a Dawn of War 2 scale, where 10 marines, 5 termies, and maybe 5 assault marines is a small army. 20 marines, a land raider, 5 termies and a captain might be a large army. As it currently stands with weapon ranges and army sizes a 4x6 board is just too small, and a bigger board is impractical. Armies shouldn't be shooting each other from their deployment zones, I think that's just a part of general game design.
e) Formations... I don't know what's going on with them, I dropped the game before they became a thing, but they seem dodgy. If you want benefits from taking more structured fluffy armies I feel like Warmahordes' theme lists are a better way to do it, as were the only 4th ed marine combat doctrine type rules.
f) Oh, another thing that annoys me, new editions for the sake of new editions. I think GW are the only people that do this, or think they need to do this. A new edition should come out because your fans have a problem with the current edition and you plan to fix it.
Amen.
I liked the option to play "Apocalypse" type games but the skirmish rules fall apart when playing what is more an "Epic" battle.
Individual model placement in a squad mattering, highlights it being a squad based rule-set.
Remove those elements to make the game play bigger (preferred) or remove the big stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: ...Alternatively, if GW would AoSify the game, I would play it again because the rules would be much simpler and free.
I would tentatively agree.
The game needs to be a bit less fussy with all the detail for such large battles.
I must also echo what others said: there is no wrong opinion here of what it would take to play again.
We all went into 40k for different reasons.
I want to play but keep asking myself "what are you waiting for??" and the answer keeps changing.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/03/25 17:16:01
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2016/03/25 18:00:41
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
hobojebus wrote: 1) rules that are less based on random, it's just bad game design to have everything relying on a die roll the way 7th does.
The rest of your points have some level of agreement but this came up a few times and seems the most relevant..
I REALLY like tactical decisions not every blessed thing decided by dice roll.
This is why I like so many other games where I see 1/5th the rolling and feels like 5X the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/28 16:11:00
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
2016/03/28 16:53:19
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
Azreal13 wrote: But, in all seriousness, I'm waiting for GW to acknowledge the game drives models sales, and that a fair contest between two parties is all most of us want without needless amounts of ore-game negotiation, cheese guilt, unit envy and faction inequity.
Then start making a game people can play, rather than 'experience.'
I'm quite excited by the whole FAQ thing.
This. I play 40k presently, but the amount of pre-negotiation gymnastics that are necessary just to setup a game is beyond ridiculous. I want GW to take responsibility & fix the plethora of issues that plague the game atm & create a competitive/balanced rulset. Basically every codex has units that are never used, suffer from point cost bloat or are poorly designed.
2016/03/28 17:36:59
Subject: Not playing 40k? What change are you waiting for?
back when I played in a GW store 2004 before they cancelled veterans night and purposefully alienated older players I could go in ask for a game agree on the points and play.
I don't want to waste 30mins on negotiations I don't want to lose out on a game because the other guy wants to use a titan I have no hope of killing.
If I go play games like x-wing I don't have this nonsense.
It's not about being antisocial it's about getting a game in with someone, we can talk and have a laugh while we play.
40k feels like work to play these days and your not supposed to pay money to work.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
32,000 points (Blood Ravens) 
2500 (and growing) 
1850
- 535pts
40K - 2000pts
HH - 3000pts
- 40 Wounds 
Taghmata Omnissiah(5,5k)
