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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Again, this is the only game or hobby I've seen where the players and consumers are blamed for problems with the rules and for not going out of their way to fix the rules they paid so much for themselves.

Well, that's because it is partially on them. You are responsible for the game you bring to the table, both in terms of what you put down and want to play, and how you play (ie the attitude behind it)". 40k is about the only game/hobby I've seen where players moan and complain endlessly about problems and then simultaneously do absolutely nothing proactive about it, whilst happily inflicting those same problems on their peers. You know, - it's also in their hands to make their games better. And when you have the power to effect changes and improvements, but you don't, then yes, you are part of the problem. Great quote from American history x - 'what have you done to make your life better'? Apply it to gaming.

Gamers can be incredibly lazy and selfish. Inertia is one of the greatest sins of our community. Let's not be so disingenuous as to suggest that we as a community, and as individuals have no responsibilities either to ourselves, or to the person across the board from us. That is selfish, short sighted and ultimately self destructive. And I see it all the time - gamers try to absolve themselves and shrug off any sort of responsibility, and any sense of shame and lay it as the feet of 'the rules'. That's blind faith in an angry God. That is no better than those deplorable individuals who involve scripture to an almighty power to justify appalling behaviours actions, intolerance or attitudes towards other people. It is no better than those individuals, who when charged with heinous crimes said 'we are not responsible. We were just following orders'. and while being a prick in wargames is a far cry from the deplorable acts I mention, the fundamental truths in what I say are identical. You are responsible for your actions, you are responsible for the game you bring to the table. You are responsible for who you play, what you play and how you play. Don't think for a moment your responsibilities as a gamer extend no further than what you plonk down on your side of the table with nary a word, token effort or anything like that towards the other guy. You are responsible for so much more than just the army you bring. Let's make the hobby more than just that, shall we?

Unit1126PLL wrote:This conversation has been enlightening for me, lads. Keep up the back and forth! It's given me a lot to think about, especially the bit where Deadnight said that players go to different games with the same attitude; it's what turned me off to Warmachine.

I'm a narrative player, all of my stuff is named and has a backstory that I'm excited to tell anyone who asks or will hear. That means that when I tried Warmachine, I was sorely disappointed; if you asked for a 'narrative' game where, say, there is a cortex-crippled jack that one side must rescue or something, people give you a very strange look, and even i they play it, they play to caster kill. It's wombo-combo bam-thwack "play like you've got a pair" competitive gaming, and I hated it. Quit after probably a year of playing.

Depends on who you play with though. If anything, it sounds like different expectations with regard to what you wanted and what thry wanted. There are narrative focused warmachine players. I wish you had found them. My first proper opponent for warmachine posted as paddyalexander on warseer (not sure if he posts elsewhere...) and he was one of those mythical narrative players. He did it for all his wargames from 40k onwards (I remember he told me how he filled out three or four 80 page copy books with hand amendments and fixes for 40k, for him and the people that he played with) - he was seriously into homebrewing and diy gaming. He approached WMH in exactly the same way. We never played steamroller, but while we always used 'regular' force construction, the scenarios were a lot more 'real' that just grab the geometric shape in the centre of the board. I remember one game where the big scrap was happening over a bridge that spanned a big river, and stuff kept getting chucked to their deaths over the side. Lots of fun, and it forced us both to step out of the comfort zone of 'ordinary' gaming.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Lucky. I'm in an area where basically everything has to be played "standard". Not necessarily competitive only, but like the notion of coming up with custom scenarios or letting someone use something that isn't 100% legally allowed in their army but really fits their fluff/army is unheard of.

Which ironically is one of the reasons that I wanted to pick up Warmachine; the appeal of a tight-knit game with a focus on competitive gaming sounded like a good idea at the time.

Everywhere I've ever lived I've been lucky. Heck, here, people are appalled at the idea of tournament lists XD.

To be fair, there are narrative players everywhere. In my experience, They tend to just get on with it at home, and don't tend to be very vocal or visible online or in your local stores.

nou wrote:This thread has been seriously heartlifting lately, with all that narrative talk. Quite refreshing after all those competetively focused and complaint oriented weekly discussions here on dakka.

Those things have value to, but agreed - I like the idea of another narrative focused thread.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
FWIW I think that Warmachine-speak wasn't meant to be actual stuff, just similar speech pattern...

Yeah, but the density of abbreviations/nicknames (four bits of jargon per sentence, by my count) was far beyond what I've ever heard anyone actually use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Honestly I liked Page 5. I thought it eloquently stated that this was a WARgame and you shouldn't expect to be coddled or "dumb down" what you bring, bring the best you have and expect your opponent to do the same and not whine something is "OP" or "cheese", which is something you commonly found in 40k (and I feel the original Page 5 in MkI was a direct shot at that mentality). What initially attracted me to Warmachine was the notion it was a game built to be competitive, with rules that fostered and encouraged "serious" gaming. I've since backtracked a bit on that stance, but at the time I was very much against 40k's diplomatic, casual, "narrative" approach to gaming and was hopeful to play a "real" wargame.

The problem with Page 5 is that there were people who read half of rule 2 (play aggressively) and the bit at the bottom that said 'play like you've got a pair' and skipped the rest. Page 5 was intended to say 'play well and be mature about it', but it got read as 'be a tough-guy jerk about it' so often the devs dropped it.

Yep, agreed 100%. Too many people saw it as an excuse to be a dbag and basically call out "wimps" and not to bring their A-game but be respectful and help others improve.

For those who argue that the overly competitive nature is the issue: how many of you think that the MLB teams playing the All-Stars should include the worst players that year in the spirit of fair play? A competition is a competition whether it is a ball and bat or it's little plastic statues. OR cards, or whatever. Anybody not bringing their A game to anything other than specific scenarios that sound fun is an insult, and even then I would expect the player in the scenario play to do his absolute best as well.

Deadnight wrote:


Cheers vak - really enjoying this conversation.

Apologies as I dont currently have time to respond to your points in detail, but it's been a fun convo

Deadnight wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Again, this is the only game or hobby I've seen where the players and consumers are blamed for problems with the rules and for not going out of their way to fix the rules they paid so much for themselves.

Well, that's because it is partially on them. You are responsible for the game you bring to the table, both in terms of what you put down and want to play, and how you play (ie the attitude behind it)". 40k is about the only game/hobby I've seen where players moan and complain endlessly about problems and then simultaneously do absolutely nothing proactive about it, whilst happily inflicting those same problems on their peers. You know, - it's also in their hands to make their games better. And when you have the power to effect changes and improvements, but you don't, then yes, you are part of the problem. Great quote from American history x - 'what have you done to make your life better'? Apply it to gaming.

Gamers can be incredibly lazy and selfish. Inertia is one of the greatest sins of our community. Let's not be so disingenuous as to suggest that we as a community, and as individuals have no responsibilities either to ourselves, or to the person across the board from us. That is selfish, short sighted and ultimately self destructive. And I see it all the time - gamers try to absolve themselves and shrug off any sort of responsibility, and any sense of shame and lay it as the feet of 'the rules'. That's blind faith in an angry God. That is no better than those deplorable individuals who involve scripture to an almighty power to justify appalling behaviours actions, intolerance or attitudes towards other people. It is no better than those individuals, who when charged with heinous crimes said 'we are not responsible. We were just following orders'. and while being a prick in wargames is a far cry from the deplorable acts I mention, the fundamental truths in what I say are identical. You are responsible for your actions, you are responsible for the game you bring to the table. You are responsible for who you play, what you play and how you play. Don't think for a moment your responsibilities as a gamer extend no further than what you plonk down on your side of the table with nary a word, token effort or anything like that towards the other guy. You are responsible for so much more than just the army you bring. Let's make the hobby more than just that, shall we?

I guess my go to response here would be that we're talking about an expensive leisure hobby we pay someone else a whole lot of money to develop a whole lot rules for, and not geopolitics or the depths of human depravity. Likewise, why does this seemingly apply mostly to 40k while most other wargames, even narrative focused wargames, not seem to have these same issues, at least not to anything near the same degree?

GW makes every opportunity available for abuse, seemingly intentionally pushing rules and abilities tailor made to be broken in fact, then makes noises about deploring it but does nothing to actually curb or stop it. No errata, late and incomolete FAQ (that often reinforces/confirms abusable mechanisms), armies that go multiple editions without updates (or updates that reapond to issues from an older edition than the current one just before we get a new edition), and few to zero rules for supporting alternative and narrative play that is something more than a slight "reskin" of existing pickup options and almost always some sort of random table of often wildly different but ultimately usually irrelevant results.

People's idea of fun varies wildly and if you give people the freedom to do anything then they will, and we are not so large a community that most people can freely pick and choose specific opponents who share similiar mindsets, particularly if we want to play regularly and not just half a dozen games a year against the same couple armies.

The parameters the game provides simply do not mesh with the vision, and thats not the fault of the players for getting it "wrong". Yes there is some responsibility not to being the ultra OP list to everything, but its GW's fault that stuff is Ultra OP to begin with and perceptions of where that line is varies wildly, particularly as the game offers no guidance. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the responsibility is on GW, not the playerbase in this case.

I agree but I feel the playerbase is also willfully not doing anything when they know GW won't. It's been common knowledge the GW team does things weirdly, from how they design armies to their battle reports where they purposely change rules or take specific things just because they like them.

Yet the playerbase refuses to accomodate that mindset. As I've said, I can count on one hand the number of games I've seen where people are willing to discuss extra rules for a scenario, do something not "in the book" or even talk about a reason behind why their armies are fighting, despite that being the approach to the game that GW themselves encourage doing and says as much in their own battle reports (how often do they customize the mission or set their own restrictions on armies that aren't present in any rules?). So yes, GW is to blame for poor rules but the players know GW's rules are poor and still refuse to do anything to fix it. That's on them. Not the most responsibility because yes we pay a lot for shoddy rules, but the players aren't innocent either because they actively seem to want an "out of the box" experience that will never happen.

In some cases that is true, but the playerbase has also been conditioned that way in many respects. Look at the 5E Battle Missions and Planetstrke supplements, these ostensibly were there to support new styles of play with story components and whatnot, and they turned out to largely be utter garbage that usually just resulted in one side getting huge bonuses to curbstomp the other, or just addint lots of extra table rolls that didnt really change the experience except to add additional.hassle to the game.

A game I think that gets both competitive and narrative play right is Dropzone Commander. They do regular errata and FAQ, they offer tournament scenarios and rules, but also have very thoughtfully laid out narrative scenarios with meaningful environmental conditions and things like native hostile wildlife, something thats more than just an arbitrary objective token with a random table to determine what it is.

Ill post an example later after work if anyone is interested.

Regardless, I think the issue is that most 40k players don't want to bother. I get it's hard, but the base stuff is pretty garbage and most of us know it, so I feel the onus gets put on the players somewhat to at least some up with things. But instead, at least here in the US, it's like nobody wants to bother beyond asking for a point size for a game. I far too frequently see posts on social media that run like "Looking for a game of 40k on Saturday afternoon; 1850 points, I play competitively" and that's about the extent of it. It's almost like, to use a pretty bad analogy but still somewhat apt, using Tinder or similar for a fling. Don't really care who you get, as long as you get some.

On the contrary I'd much rather have a regular game day, and spin things into a narrative approach and actually discuss with my opponent about oh I don't know why don't we come up with a custom scenario or something like that so we aren't just playing a random game that means nothing. My viewpoint is that becomes so much better because then it has the possibility of branching out. Maybe I have a regular opponent that shows up every week, so boom right there we can develop a sort of ongoing narrative campaign as we play our games, and it's not just me facing Bob's Marines week in or week out, we're stringing together a narrative of my warband invading an Imperial world and Bob's chapter has been sent to deal with it, and each week we can sort of theme stuff or tweak our lists to better represent the ongoing campaign and at the end, we are both satisfied that we've had a great game series.

Sadly though that does not seem to happen :( I would 100% say that is the fault of the players. It's not that hard to take what would be pickup games and add some one-off narrative flavor to them, even if they aren't strung out as part of a series.

I agree with Wayne, and I don't "blame" players. I get it. A lot of players are younger males who share a number of other hobbies.

I bet there is a large cross-over between say, 40K gamers and Call of Duty/Battlefield players. I do think that mindset carries over. A quick, relatively simple, organized game where your goal is to defeat your opponent with the best "unlocked" weapons you have etc. Rinse, repeat.

Whereas, say a long term MMO gamer from a guild (?) etc. might be more prone to wanting to enjoy a 6 hour quest with friends...speaking in character, etc. etc. They're two totally different mindsets. Sadly they don't mingle that well when put on the table opposite each other.

I'm not pretending their is a violent schism between types of 40K players, but the rulebooks etc. are not overly kind to either set of players. This makes the entire thing awfully confusing, particularly for new players. I doubt most new players are joining the game with a half dozen of their friends at the same time. It's normally somebody trying it out first and maybe they've never even gamed anything beyond a board game with another person.

I can see where the rulebook/forums/meta/discussion would be hugely confusing. If the new player is taken under the wing of a veteran player there is a darn good chance that the mentality of that veteran gamer and his group will influence the style of game the new player will become accustomed to, etc.

I design games for fun, and as a solo outfit it's pretty difficult. My current game is very open to player's decisions and I encourage house rules in the rulebook. I still get questions from people which seem overly concerned with "well, what happens in this instance!?". I give them a few ideas and suggest they do what they believe is the most cool/interesting - and then I remind them the rule set is not for competition or tournaments, it's for fun! Some people have a hard time even understanding that!

Part of the thing is there are much better games that cater better to that CoD/Battlefield approach. Warmachine, for example, lends to that "I want a hard, grueling game where we both bring our best" mentality (not saying that's a bad thing). Virtually every other game does that. The problem is 40k tries to appeal to everyone, to the narrative fluffbunny, the WAAC powergaming TFG, the guy who loves big stompy robots and wants to field as man as he can, the guy who is anti-social and just goes to the shop every week, says barely anything while playing and then leaves without a word, everyone. And fails at everything because it does nothing to help any of those people.

The fluff gamer gets curbstomped because they want to play a fluffy Ork army or play Eldar and not spam jetbikes, or on the flip side they steamroll everyone because they play Saim-Hann Eldar and field a horde of Jetbikes (which is fluffy for them) through no fault of their own.

The powergamer throws down a Gladius with a ton of free stuff, plus LIbrarian Conclave, and for good measure Coteaz and a Knight without regard to the fluff or anything else, as long as they win, and how dare you suggest they do anything less.

The stompy robot guy fields an army of Knights because he likes them, and maybe some Riptides or Wraithknight allies because again he wants a Pacific Rim or Gundam type of force, and inadvertently crushes anyone who isn't prepared.

The pickup gamer plays without any thought at all to why they're playing or what they field, so long as they get their one game a week in.

None of these people end up happy.

40k actively punishes the narrative gamers by having such a wide disparity in army power. A fluffy Saim-Hann Eldar player is automatically better than a fluffy Ork player, because reasons. This is not good game design.

Just Tony wrote:For those who argue that the overly competitive nature is the issue: how many of you think that the MLB teams playing the All-Stars should include the worst players that year in the spirit of fair play? A competition is a competition whether it is a ball and bat or it's little plastic statues. OR cards, or whatever. Anybody not bringing their A game to anything other than specific scenarios that sound fun is an insult, and even then I would expect the player in the scenario play to do his absolute best as well.

Thankfully, not every game is, nor needs to be the all stars. A competitition might be a competitition, competitive isn't the only way, or the only proper way to play. There is every league and match up from uefa cup finals to non league and grassroots to kicking the ball around in the park with your mates, and it's all good. Take it from me, you don't need to bring your a game to every game, all the time. Life's too short. Your nerd weiner isn't so small that you need to feel like youve got something to prove, or take on the whole world all the time. This is a hobby, and for many, it's to unwind and chill out, not take the ante up to 11 and aim to crush everyone in the room. You're not wrong for wanting this, but this isn't the only way to play. And If that sounds like an insult to you, then you need to grow up.

Vaktathi wrote:
I guess my go to response here would be that we're talking about an expensive leisure hobby we pay someone else a whole lot of money to develop a whole lot rules for, and not geopolitics or the depths of human depravity.

Oddly enough, I thought I paid them to produce pretty models that I paint up. How I choose to play with them is up to me. As to geopolitics, for me, enjoying my time with my mates and having a good game whilst scratching that creative itch by making a cool homebrew is what I'm after.

Vaktathi wrote:
Likewise, why does this seemingly apply mostly to 40k while most other wargames, even narrative focused wargames, not seem to have these same issues, at least not to anything near the same degree?

Biggest game, biggest community, by several orders of magnitude is a factor. It's also partly the fact that it tries (or tried, historically) to cater to everyone, hence the schitzofrenic approaches at times.

And if you think these issues don't occur in other games, you're very uninformed - look at all the WMH mk3 or infinity n3 chat at the moment. theyre the most broken. Unprofessional, unworkable, haphazard, terrible designed crapfests ever in the history of gaming, according to those doing the complaining.

Ever think gamers are like Icarus. And just get to close to the sun for comfort?

Vaktathi wrote:
GW makes every opportunity available for abuse, seemingly intentionally pushing rules and abilities tailor made to be broken in fact, then makes noises about deploring it but does nothing to actually curb or stop it. No errata, late and incomolete FAQ (that often reinforces/confirms abusable mechanisms), armies that go multiple editions without updates (or updates that reapond to issues from an older edition than the current one just before we get a new edition), and few to zero rules for supporting alternative and narrative play that is something more than a slight "reskin" of existing pickup options and almost always some sort of random table of often wildly different but ultimately usually irrelevant results.

GW certainly do not help themselves, but what there couldn't, in theory be solved with a pre game discussion with your mate? Furthermore, GW might make every opportunity available for abuse, but the players also lap it all up and and for seconds, whilst still complaining about it. Both sides of the same coin.

Vaktathi wrote:
People's idea of fun varies wildly and if you give people the freedom to do anything then they will, and we are not so large a community that most people can freely pick and choose specific opponents who share similiar mindsets, particularly if we want to play regularly and not just half a dozen games a year against the same couple armies.

Then plan better. And make better friends. To be honest, You only need a few people to make this work. My narrative group is four core people, with a few occasionals. In terms of stuff, We can put together a lot of flames of war stuff, infinity, dropzone, firestorm and various historicals. And we play every Friday. We're all quite happy to put the effort it. If all you are seeing is the same couple of armies, you need to bite the bullet and expand your collection a bit. Narrative gaming does expand the pool of what's worth playing enormously.

And for what it's worth, I will pick and choose, even from a small community. I don't owe you just because you play the same game as me. I'll happily refuse games, and thankfully, I don't have to do it very often. Because for me at least, no gsme beats a bad game against an opponent I don't enjoy playing (yes, we have Waac WMH players here that poison the community that I refuse to play).

Vaktathi wrote:
The parameters the game provides simply do not mesh with the vision, and thats not the fault of the players for getting it "wrong". Yes there is some responsibility not to being the ultra OP list to everything, but its GW's fault that stuff is Ultra OP to begin with and perceptions of where that line is varies wildly, particularly as the game offers no guidance. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the responsibility is on GW, not the playerbase in this case.

No.

The parameters of the gsme do not mesh because it is a clunky, unwieldy mess of a game. But it can be said that players are wrong for insisting on playing 40k in a game mode thst isn't fit for purpose and then doing absolutely Bugger all to make things better, even though they know there's a problem. Like I said, inertia.

The responsibility is an even split between gw and the players. I will agree - gw could make a far better game. But the players could also be better and show a lot more cop on and empathy to their fellows. Gw's imbalances wouldn't be an issue if players didn't just pick them up, roll with them, and happily inflict thrm on their fellows with no shame, remorse and just shrug off any sense of self responsibility or community.

Regarding guidance, i think the whole point is that the gsme is in your hands. Make of it what you will. Gw have always encouraged a more player driven approach - whether to chop, change or alter things and to make it up as you go along. Them providing 'Guidance' and holding your hand kind of defeats the purpose of the players themselves organising and building their own games. Gw washed their hands of organised play a long time ago. They left it up to the players (because it was cheaper for them/kirby) to self regulate. This isn't a bad thing, since everyone wants something different out of their gsme, some people make it work. Some people walk. Others complain. Gw make money.

The problem is they left it up to the players, but the players aren't willing to do it. Most people I know of don't want to "whether to chop, change or alter things and to make it up as you go along", they want to just follow the most basic guidelines in the book and that's that.

In short: The playerbase does not want to self-regulate that i can see, because they have the chances to do it, hell are even basically encouraged to do so by glaring inconsistencies in the rules or just things not being covered, and still refuse to do it.

Deadnight wrote:


Oddly enough, I thought I paid them to produce pretty models that I paint up. How I choose to play with them is up to me.

Are you buying their rulebooks just for pretty pictures? Those books arent cheap, and unless you're just pirating everything, you're paying GW lots of money for game rules.

If you are pirating, well, great, but then you're operating outside the bounds of the intended market.

Biggest game, biggest community, by several orders of magnitude is a factor. It's also partly the fact that it tries (or tried, historically) to cater to everyone, hence the schitzofrenic approaches at times.

right, it tries to do everything, and ends up doing nothing well, 40k has no idea what it really wants to be.

And if you think these issues don't occur in other games, you're very uninformed - look at all the WMH mk3 or infinity n3 chat at the moment. theyre the most broken. Unprofessional, unworkable, haphazard, terrible designed crapfests ever in the history of gaming, according to those doing the complaining.

You'll aways get some level of discomfort and dissatisfaction in any game, but with GW there's a clear loss of market position across multiple systems and a universal acknowledgement of the lack of functionality of the rules. I cannot confess to know the issues with Warmachine Mk3, but I didnt see anything near what we currently have with GW back when I played, or with games like Dropzone Commander, Infinity, Flames of War, etc.

Ever think gamers are like Icarus. And just get to close to the sun for comfort?

theres always that factor, but I think theres a lot of clear evidence that something is just not working with GW.

GW certainly do not help themselves, but what there couldn't, in theory be solved with a pre game discussion with your mate? Furthermore, GW might make every opportunity available for abuse, but the players also lap it all up and and for seconds, whilst still complaining about it. Both sides of the same coin.

The issue here is that people have different ideas of where that line lies, what models they have available on hand, and any number of other factors. If Mike shows up with his Knight army for a game and Zack brought a Genestealer Cult list that has no way of harming the Knights, well, unless someone goes home and brings back an entirely different army (which assumes Mike and Zack have other armies they can bring), either no game will be played or its going a one sided slaughter unless they spend more than just a couple minutes brainstorming some sort of alternate mission or mechanics.

Ultimately Mike and Zack wouldnt have this quandry in the first place if GW's rules didnt allow such a matchup with vast differences in the intended scale of each army.

And yes, some do lap it up. Thats a fundamental facet of human natue that a core part of professional game design is supposedly intended to keep to a minimum, which GW refuses to do.

Then plan better. And make better friends. To be honest, You only need a few people to make this work. My narrative group is four core people, with a few occasionals. In terms of stuff, We can put together a lot of flames of war stuff, infinity, dropzone, firestorm and various historicals. And we play every Friday. We're all quite happy to put the effort it. If all you are seeing is the same couple of armies, you need to bite the bullet and expand your collection a bit. Narrative gaming does expand the pool of what's worth playing enormously.

If the answer fixing a broken game is "magically find more friends that are into this game and think like you do and spend more money on more armies", thats not going to be terribly compelling, particularly when there's ample opportunity for thr developer to fix those issues in accordance with their vision and they choose not to.

And for what it's worth, I will pick and choose, even from a small community. I don't owe you just because you play the same game as me. I'll happily refuse games, and thankfully, I don't have to do it very often. Because for me at least, no gsme beats a bad game against an opponent I don't enjoy playing (yes, we have Waac WMH players here that poison the community that I refuse to play).

I've refused my share of games as well, quite a few these days actually, but that does limit the number of games I can get in and the number of people I can play against, and if your local playgroup isnt huge, it may mean you dont get to play at all sometimes, which doesnt help engagement with the hobby. In fact, I haven't gotten to play much at all lately precisely because I have no interest in fighting another Decurion of Superfriends list.

No.

The parameters of the gsme do not mesh because it is a clunky, unwieldy mess of a game. But it can be said that players are wrong for insisting on playing 40k in a game mode thst isn't fit for purpose and then doing absolutely Bugger all to make things better, even though they know there's a problem. Like I said, inertia.

The question I guess there is what is it fit for? As far as I can tell, it's not really fit for much of anything. When thats the case, its the fault of GW. The players will try to keep using the ruleset out of inertia because they like the background universe, but laying the blame on players for not fixing something that came broken appears to be blaming the victim, aside from perhaps not realizing that 40k doesnt actually work and getting into it anyway.

The responsibility is an even split between gw and the players. I will agree - gw could make a far better game. But the players could also be better and show a lot more cop on and empathy to their fellows.

Lets look at the target market here...generally that market is not known for its stellar social awareness and functioning. GW says they want an easygoing narrative game, but dont deliver anything of the sort and its the player's responsibility to fix? Thats fairly silly to me as a consumer.

Gw's imbalances wouldn't be an issue if players didn't just pick them up, roll with them, and happily inflict thrm on their fellows with no shame, remorse and just shrug off any sense of self responsibility or community.

Ok, but thats like saying crime wouldnt be an issue if people just didnt do bad things. Yes, there should be some social awareness on what is going to make for a fun game, but if we all shared a common universal sense of what that entailed we wouldn't need GW to make rules for us. It would also help if GW stopped introducing plainly overpowered and broken rules for what ostensibly is supposed to be a game where such shouldn't have any place.

Ultimately the rules are there to tell people how to play, why is it their fault for playing how GW tells them to play with the rules they paid good money for. Having to feel out a whole additional set of highly variable subrules that can change frequently on top of the normal rules leads to all sorts of heartburn.

That line between rules exploitation is different for almost everyone, it is up to the developers to show where that line for their game is, and correct issues as required. Other games manage this just fine through Errata, something GW refuses to do. Thus the fault lies with GW. They have all the tools necessary to fix this, and choose not to utilize them.

Ultimately, if GW did its job in the first place, the responsibility falling onto the players wouldnt exist.

Regarding guidance, i think the whole point is that the gsme is in your hands.

GW's direction on this largely boils down to "dice it off" or "toss everything in this $75 book and do whatever you want", neither of which are terribly productive.

This isn't a bad thing, since everyone wants something different out of their gsme, some people make it work. Some people walk. Others complain. Gw make money.

Increasingly less money from increasingly fewer people according to their financial statements however...

 Vaktathi wrote:

Regarding guidance, i think the whole point is that the gsme is in your hands.

GW's direction on this largely boils down to "dice it off" or "toss everything in this $75 book and do whatever you want", neither of which are terribly productive.

Well, no, that's certainly hyperbolic. There is a structure provided. It's a structure that's negotiable, in some areas more than others, but it is a functioning framework that one can get fun games out of, especially if you're playing with like-minded people.

It's more expensive than it should be, that's for sure. It could be improved on, certainly. But I think you're overstating the anarchy of it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Oddly enough, I thought I paid them to produce pretty models that I paint up. How I choose to play with them is up to me.

Are you buying their rulebooks just for pretty pictures? Those books arent cheap, and unless you're just pirating everything, you're paying GW lots of money for game rules.

If you are pirating, well, great, but then you're operating outside the bounds of the intended market.

I don't buy the rulebooks, nor do I pirate. I use my own rules. or else I stick to forth ed, with tweaks.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Biggest game, biggest community, by several orders of magnitude is a factor. It's also partly the fact that it tries (or tried, historically) to cater to everyone, hence the schitzofrenic approaches at times.

right, it tries to do everything, and ends up doing nothing well, 40k has no idea what it really wants to be.

Never disputed this. Clunky, unwieldy game.

 Vaktathi wrote:

And if you think these issues don't occur in other games, you're very uninformed - look at all the WMH mk3 or infinity n3 chat at the moment. theyre the most broken. Unprofessional, unworkable, haphazard, terrible designed crapfests ever in the history of gaming, according to those doing the complaining.

You'll aways get some level of discomfort and dissatisfaction in any game, but with GW there's a clear loss of market position across multiple systems and a universal acknowledgement of the lack of functionality of the rules. I cannot confess to know the issues with Warmachine Mk3, but I didnt see anything near what we currently have with GW back when I played, or with games like Dropzone Commander, Infinity, Flames of War, etc.

Fow is a clunky, barely functional mess. Infinity, for all its brilliance was terribly cluttered, organised and far too messy in its presentation. N3 annoyed a lot of people in its implementation, Drop Zone has all of 8 players.... And jokes aside, because I quite like dzc, I've come across a few comments pointing towards balance issues, especially with shaltari.

With gw losing market share, a lot of it is to do with bloody prices as much as anything else. Rules certainly do not help, but whilst they are a clear factor in their woes, it's far from the only one.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ever think gamers are like Icarus. And just get to close to the sun for comfort?

theres always that factor, but I think theres a lot of clear evidence that something is just not working with GW.

True. Plenty things not working with the player base either. I mean, they're not stepping up to the plate either, are they?

 Vaktathi wrote:

The issue here is that people have different ideas of where that line lies, what models they have available on hand, and any number of other factors. If Mike shows up with his Knight army for a game and Zack brought a Genestealer Cult list that has no way of harming the Knights, well, unless someone goes home and brings back an entirely different army (which assumes Mike and Zack have other armies they can bring), either no game will be played or its going a one sided slaughter unless they spend more than just a couple minutes brainstorming some sort of alternate mission or mechanics.

Ultimately Mike and Zack wouldnt have this quandry in the first place if GW's rules didnt allow such a matchup with vast differences in the intended scale of each army.

Mike and zach aren't helping themselves either. It's not,like I've not pointed out before how blind pick up gsmes tend to be hazardous. (And it's not just GW gsmes - despite its balance, WMH suffers from hard match ups too. Wrong caster, gg. Shake. Beer.)

I mean. they never thought to speak to each other before the game and say what they were thinking of bringing? Hmm, it's not like we have things like phones, and text messages or even Facebook? Pre game organisation goes a long way.

It's just as true to point out that Mike and zach wouldn't be in a quandary if they had spoken to each other before hand and organised ahead of time.

 Vaktathi wrote:

If the answer fixing a broken game is "magically find more friends that are into this game and think like you do and spend more money on more armies", thats not going to be terribly compelling, particularly when there's ample opportunity for thr developer to fix those issues in accordance with their vision and they choose not to.

nothing magic about finding/making friends. I mean, if anything, it could be fun to suggest a new approach to gaming to your older mates, and try get everyone excited in some new projects. If they don't think like you, try and sell them on the idea. Make it exciting and worth their time, a bit of salesmanship, basically. And anyway, If you consider that making friends to be not terribly compelling,byouve got issues mate (not a genuine comment meant for you for what it's worth!) and in my experience, a few minutes of chat and 'social shock absorber' is enough to mitigate the shock and revulsion of fixing some issues in the gsme that might come up. I'm capable of this. Who knew?
As to spending stuff on armies - surely that is part of the hobby? I mean, none of us buy a single squad of tactical marines and just stop. There is always scope for a new unit, project, game etc and expanding your collectiona. I'm just giving you a suggestion on how to be proactive in terms of using it all, rather than just dismissing 90% of a codex and everything other than a power build as not worth it,

 Vaktathi wrote:

The question I guess there is what is it fit for? As far as I can tell, it's not really fit for much of anything. When thats the case, its the fault of GW. The players will try to keep using the ruleset out of inertia because they like the background universe, but laying the blame on players for not fixing something that came broken appears to be blaming the victim, aside from perhaps not realizing that 40k doesnt actually work and getting into it anyway.

As I said in my original point, GW do themselves no favours with a clunky and unwieldy game system. I don't actually disagree with you here. They'd be far better off,trying to come up with a more elegant one. It's not like they can't - various specialist gsmes like epic were ace, and lotr is actually a pretty fantastic set of rules thst ticks the vast majority of my boxes.

But I will blame the players when thry knew there is something wrong, when it is entirely within their power to do something about it, and yet they don't. It's quite a bit different to victim blaming. I liken it more to the kid who complains about never being picked for the track team, but yet never goes training or trying to improve himself either.

 Vaktathi wrote:

The responsibility is an even split between gw and the players. I will agree - gw could make a far better game. But the players could also be better and show a lot more cop on and empathy to their fellows.

Lets look at the target market here...generally that market is not known for its stellar social awareness and functioning. GW says they want an easygoing narrative game, but dont deliver anything of the sort and its the player's responsibility to fix? Thats fairly silly to me as a consumer.

Thry don't deliver it because like I said earlier, this is an attitude/approach thing that really cannot be codified by rules. All you can do are suggestions.

And yes - some gsmers are not known for social graces - But chances are, even with iron clad rules, these are the same people that make competitive gsmes awkward and unenjoyable too.

Plenty people who play wargames are pretty normal, everyday folks. I am. You are. I do this kind of stuff fairly naturally now. No reason you or plenty others couldn't either.

Is it players responsibility to fix? Partly. Like I said earlier, it's up to you to make it the kind of game that you want, since every group wants something different. And if a five minute conversation, and a bit of reasonableness and maturity can overcome a problem, that's a pretty small price to pay if you ask me - we do this all the time.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Gw's imbalances wouldn't be an issue if players didn't just pick them up, roll with them, and happily inflict thrm on their fellows with no shame, remorse and just shrug off any sense of self responsibility or community.

Ok, but thats like saying crime wouldnt be an issue if people just didnt do bad things. Yes, there should be some social awareness on what is going to make for a fun game, but if we all shared a common universal sense of what that entailed we wouldn't need GW to make rules for us. It would also help if GW stopped introducing plainly overpowered and broken rules for what ostensibly is supposed to be a game where such shouldn't have any place.
Ultimately the rules are there to tell people how to play, why is it their fault for playing how GW tells them to play with the rules they paid good money for. Having to feel out a whole additional set of highly variable subrules that can change frequently on top of the normal rules leads to all sorts of heartburn.

Crime wouldn't be an issue if people didn't do bad things. Doesn't refute my point. I'm not wrong. Gamers embrace the very things they complain about. Or are you saying they should embrace these things and inlict them on their opponents a. There are a lot of things gamers can do to make their hobby more enjoyable and welcoming - this is a fact.

And yes, It's the fault of us gamers when the way we insist on playing a gsme isn't fit for purpose, but then we do nothing about it to help ourselves or try to resolve the situation.

And when gw suggest to chop, change or alter things to suit you and your game, as they do, then the rules stop being about 'telling people how to play'. I don't necessarily disagree with you when you say that there are things get shouldn't be doing - clearly, there are plenty of these. They do not help the situation. My only point is they are not the only ones dragging the whole cart off the track.

 Vaktathi wrote:

That line between rules exploitation is different for almost everyone, it is up to the developers to show where that line for their game is, and correct issues as required. Other games manage this just fine through Errata, something GW refuses to do. Thus the fault lies with GW. They have all the tools necessary to fix this, and choose not to utilize them.

No. It's,up to developers and players. If you and your group want to play something a bit different to how it's described or handled in the rulebook, ye should do it. If it works for you, it's fine. Different players and different groups want different things. ThAt 'line' is a gradient. Marked,with an airbrush, not a scalpel. The developers can only do so much, and see so much. Issues for one group are not necessarily issues for another. The community has a responsibility to itself, and to ensure a healthy environment.

Erratas are all well and good, but won't necessarily solve everything. Look st WMH. Plenty erratas in mk2, and it still had issues and howlers got through the gate. Look at the errata chat for mk3. Issues galore, and they haven't even issues the first one.

Regarding having the tools to fix issues and choosing not to use them - again, the exact same thing can be said about the player base. Equally culpable. Equally guilty. Equally capable.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ultimately, if GW did its job in the first place, the responsibility falling onto the players wouldnt exist.

I disagree. Like I said, every group wants something different. There will always be a need/desire for players to tweak. And even if gw turned around and produced the best game ever, like every other gsme it would have flaws,simply due to the nature of the medium. No game captures everything in s way perfectly suitable for everyone. There will always be a need for someone somewhere to say 'hold on a second... Should we be doing this? Wouldn't it be fun to do it this way instead'?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Regarding guidance, i think the whole point is that the gsme is in your hands.

GW's direction on this largely boils down to "dice it off" or "toss everything in this $75 book and do whatever you want", neither of which are terribly productive.

It's more than just 'roll a 4+' vak. Nor do you have to toss everything in the $75 book. Sometimes it's just 'can we leave the Knights at home for once and do a tac squad only zone mortalis game instead?' It's only as productive as you make it. Zero effort, zero results. That's on you.

[This isn't a bad thing, since everyone wants something different out of their gsme, some people make it work. Some people walk. Others complain. Gw make money.

Deadnight wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Oddly enough, I thought I paid them to produce pretty models that I paint up. How I choose to play with them is up to me.

Are you buying their rulebooks just for pretty pictures? Those books arent cheap, and unless you're just pirating everything, you're paying GW lots of money for game rules.

If you are pirating, well, great, but then you're operating outside the bounds of the intended market.

I don't buy the rulebooks, nor do I pirate. I use my own rules. or else I stick to forth ed, with tweaks.

Because I don't have the time to respond to the whole post currently, I would posit that herein lies the difference between our trains of thought. To boil it down, I think what your point is basically that people just want to play with toy soldiers and should have a responsibility in coming up with their own fun with said toy soldiers. Ok, from that perspective, I get that. I'm coming it at from the perspective of the whole system, the totality of the "Games Workshop Hobby" as it were, a game and not primarily just cool models. From my perspective, I don't see the mini's as being a distinct and separate product from the rules, and with a very large investment (emotional, intellectual, social, financial, recreational, etc) in that system, and think that the issues are with the designers abandoning their responsibilities in creating that system and that it's not the fault of the players for the flaws in the total game.

If all I cared about was doing stuff with toy soldiers, sure, I get where you're coming from. That said, while I'm hardly averse to heavily modifying the rules or trying out new things and having people try out all sorts of stuff that the rules don't cover or don't do well, I bought into a game and a hobby, not just the toy soldiers. As such, the functionality of the rules, their interoperability with people in a wide array of places with a variety of different people, and their commonality matter significantly. I bought into the experience of being able to take a ruleset from the market leader that everyone was familiar with and go play at almost any gaming store or club anywhere and be on largely common ground, even if we then choose to depart radically from that. 40k as it currently functions does none of this, meaning to engage in that hobby I have hammer it all out myself with almost every new encounter and scrutinize every event and the people and factions that may be attending to see if it will be any fun, and that detracts greatly from the value of the hobby that I got into where previously, even if it wasn't perfect, it functioned ok most of the time.

I've got a huge collection of 40k models and enjoy modeling and painting, but having a functional ruleset that didn't require planning out almost every detail in advance (even if we played games that radically departed from said rules) to ensure that the game wouldn't just be a one-sided curbstomping (granted, previous editions had their issues for sure) was a huge part of what drove that collecting and modelling, and without such rules those activities have dramatically curtailed.

If I effectively *have* to run my own niche club and extensively restrict and rewrite the rules to play (as opposed to having the option of being able to choose to do so when it suits me), that's beyond what I consider reasonable effort for a hobby like this, and as such derive just as much pleasure viewing my models sitting on display on shelves, and that is something I see as the fault of the game developers at Games Workshop, and not the players.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Regarding guidance, i think the whole point is that the gsme is in your hands.

GW's direction on this largely boils down to "dice it off" or "toss everything in this $75 book and do whatever you want", neither of which are terribly productive.

Well, no, that's certainly hyperbolic. There is a structure provided. It's a structure that's negotiable, in some areas more than others, but it is a functioning framework that one can get fun games out of, especially if you're playing with like-minded people.

It's more expensive than it should be, that's for sure. It could be improved on, certainly. But I think you're overstating the anarchy of it.

My statement above was in regards to guidance for narrative play options and mechanics, not the game as a whole. There's really no structure the rules provide for narrative play being "go make it all up yourself" or "roll a bunch on these random tables" or "here's a variant of a pickup mission with a big random effect or a huge arbitrary bonus to one side".


EDIT: With regards to my reference to Dropzone Commander's narrative play earlier, here's some examples of scenarios.

In the Reconquest Phase 2 book it has a number of scenarios and rules for battles on jungle worlds, void platforms, space stations, urban centers, low/high gravity, hostile atmospheres, subzero temperatures, subterrainian caverns, multiple types of potentially hostile wildlife, placement of objectives, recommended levels and types of terrain and in some cases actual placement of terrain for each mission, the types of forces involved and their organization, links to further missions in a linked story chain (e.g. Attacking the Olympus Shipyards, Beachead - Clear the Cargo Bays- Secure Targeting Data - Hull Breach), designers notes and suggestions, and optional rules for interaction with the soon to be released Dropfleet Commander game. Random events are logical in presentation and function (e.g. you're not going to have to roll for every piece of terrain or objective to see if it does something on a chart, instead you might be playing in a Snowstorm and a blizzard may kick up for a turn on a D6 roll and then it'll make aircraft operation a bit more dangerous that turn, and that's about the extent of it). The book then has additional rules and missions specifically for tournament play and organization separately.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Regarding guidance, i think the whole point is that the gsme is in your hands.

GW's direction on this largely boils down to "dice it off" or "toss everything in this $75 book and do whatever you want", neither of which are terribly productive.

Well, no, that's certainly hyperbolic. There is a structure provided. It's a structure that's negotiable, in some areas more than others, but it is a functioning framework that one can get fun games out of, especially if you're playing with like-minded people.

It's more expensive than it should be, that's for sure. It could be improved on, certainly. But I think you're overstating the anarchy of it.

My statement above was in regards to guidance for narrative play options and mechanics, not the game as a whole. There's really no structure the rules provide for narrative play being "go make it all up yourself" or "roll a bunch on these random tables" or "here's a variant of a pickup mission with a big random effect or a huge arbitrary bonus to one side".

Ahh, I think I see what you're saying then? To paraphrase: The given structure for more narrative games doesn't exist. (?)

I can see where that's coming from, although this is fairly recent to GW. As late as the 6th Edition book, the rulebooks have provided for more specifically structured mission and scenario options. I admit I haven't looked at them in detail though. Despite 7th Ed. being released as a pack of three books, the fact that neither of the "auxiliary" books includes more scenarios or game options is really disappointing.

Fun discussion to read through: let me offer a view from a newcomer to 40K who has done a pretty good share of narrative gaming and "competitive" gaming in other systems.

The most popular RPG system right now is Pathfinder, which is based off of DnD 3.5. Pathfinder "fixed" a lot of problems with 3.5, but the problem is that the system itself is inherently broken. Casters just have so much inherent potential that even the very best physical attackers can't keep up if both sides play to "win" the game (it was also possible in 3.5 to pick the "wrong" class; certain classes were nonfunctional or just objectively worse than others). There have been supplements (codexes) that have addressed this issue a bit, but for the most part, if all parties understand the game in depth, you need some form of gentleman's agreement to avoid overshadowing other players (A Druid, for example, was a better tank than a Fighter by level 1, and the gap only got worse as they leveled). Thus the infamous Tier Lists come into play. If you are going for the nuclear arms race, you pick Tier 1 characters and play them intelligently. If you were going for a balanced game but still wanted players to have a good amount of options (or be really good at a specific niche), you pick Tier 3 characters. In other words, experienced 3.5/Pathfinder players have taken a system that has some glaring flaws and made it the most popular, enduring form of Dungeons and Dragons, simply through informal gentleman's agreements.

So I get the mindset that players should be responsible for their own fun. House rulings are part of what keeps a game running smoothly, which is why Wizards of the Coast made the latest iteration of DnD very much based on in game rulings, as opposed to a strict set of rules; it is impossible for a developer to plan for all contingencies, and the rules become unnecessarily cumbersome if they try to do so.

That being said, GW has a criminally shoddy set of rules and supplements. The primary rulebook is equal parts overwritten, redundant, and poorly organized. The base rules are unintuitive and needlessly complicated. From a balance perspective, while there are a LOT of units and unit interactions for GW to balance, the discrepancies between army and unit power smack of laziness more than anything else, as well as a lack of understanding of their own product. In other words, they're shoveling out pages of for more cash. It is possible to feel this way while still understanding that players are ultimately responsible for their own fun and health of the system. Learning that GW is pushing their super expensive, overpowered super-models as the optimal ways to play is even more damning.

Virtually every other company out there, including ones who have designed narrative games, have a functional system with rules. FATE is an example of a system where you can literally make up situations on the go, and yet, it still follows a clear set of rules. 40K is a game where you are expected to research, physically prepare, and affix the exact weapons every single one of your miniatures is wielding, a game where you are expected to invest in terrain, specialized dice, and blast markers in order to be able to even use the system, a game where every unit has its own stat block and an entire list of optional add ons, a game where you need two rulebooks at minimum to even be able to participate (and realistically, at least 4-5). This is an incredibly painstaking, high investment game to play produced by a company that should be an industry leader; it absolutely cannot and should be be viewed as a potentially "rules light" game. Giving GW a free pass and claiming the rules don't matter in a more narrative 40k game is ignoring the standards of the industry as a whole.

And you shouldn't be afraid to call a spade a spade: when the ruleset is changed to strongly favor big ticket items mechanically, power gamers who play to win aren't breaking the system, the company is. A player who plays to win at any cost will ruin games whether the cheaper or more expensive options are favored. The difference is, the former gives power gamers and narrative players a chance at parity. The latter is what has happened.

TLDR: Holding a broken system to an adequate standard does not preclude understanding the importance of being a responsible player.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Because I don't have the time to respond to the whole post currently, I would posit that herein lies the difference between our trains of thought. To boil it down, I think what your point is basically that people just want to play with toy soldiers and should have a responsibility in coming up with their own fun with said toy soldiers. Ok, from that perspective, I get that. I'm coming it at from the perspective of the whole system, the totality of the "Games Workshop Hobby" as it were, a game and not primarily just cool models. From my perspective, I don't see the mini's as being a distinct and separate product from the rules, and with a very large investment (emotional, intellectual, social, financial, recreational, etc) in that system, and think that the issues are with the designers abandoning their responsibilities in creating that system and that it's not the fault of the players for the flaws in the total game.

So you are saying that, for example, the rules are intertwined with the models to the extent that you can't/shouldn't deviate from said rules and 'official dictates'? So, no third party rules sets, no use of older rules etc? I can't get behind that. Rules are abstract changeable, malleable systems. I see 'playing games' as what isn't a distinct/separate entity. Rules are just things that get used, and things, frankly, that can be changed to suit the circumstances in front of you.

You're just being a prisoner of officialdom.

It's certainly not the fault of the players for the problems in the game itself- thst is squarely on the shoulders of the developers. However, it is the fault of the players for embracing said faults, wallowing in inertia and down damn all to help themselves when it is entirely within their own power.

You spoke to me earlier of 'victim playing'. It's the opposite. I speak of player empowerment. You are the one treating gamers as innocent victims of these terrible faults who can't and shouldn't do anything about it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

If all I cared about was doing stuff with toy soldiers, sure, I get where you're coming from. That said, while I'm hardly averse to heavily modifying the rules or trying out new things and having people try out all sorts of stuff that the rules don't cover or don't do well, I bought into a game and a hobby, not just the toy soldiers. As such, the functionality of the rules, their interoperability with people in a wide array of places with a variety of different people, and their commonality matter significantly. I bought into the experience of being able to take a ruleset from the market leader that everyone was familiar with and go play at almost any gaming store or club anywhere and be on largely common ground, even if we then choose to depart radically from that. 40k as it currently functions does none of this, meaning to engage in that hobby I have hammer it all out myself with almost every new encounter and scrutinize every event and the people and factions that may be attending to see if it will be any fun, and that detracts greatly from the value of the hobby that I got into where previously, even if it wasn't perfect, it functioned ok most of the time.

I do get the desire to have a universality to the rules - I do, I've played with various groups in various countries, and it's great to have a universal lingua Franca to 'speak'/use. However, 40k is not that game any more. As the tau say, the one constant in the universe is change. The wise adapt. I guess I just acknowledge the physical reality on the ground and have adapted.

The funny thing is, having to hammer out a game is not a bad thing. It's just a different thing, a different way of playing, and a different perspective Since I've been exposed to the whole narrative gaming thing. I've really learned to embrace and enjoy the diy approach that this entails and happily enjoy this alongside the whole universal/pick up play. WMH is that game. Various others do the diy.

 Vaktathi wrote:

I've got a huge collection of 40k models and enjoy modeling and painting, but having a functional ruleset that didn't require planning out almost every detail in advance (even if we played games that radically departed from said rules) to ensure that the game wouldn't just be a one-sided curbstomping (granted, previous editions had their issues for sure) was a huge part of what drove that collecting and modelling, and without such rules those activities have dramatically curtailed.

Do you need to plan out 'every detail' in advance, and even if you have to do, is it the burden you imagine? Theme a battle. Cast the characters. Off you go. We find to be a pretty straight forward endeavour to be perfectly honest. The problem is you are still adhering to officialdom. You are not embracing the diy approach, you are not 'letting go' and for that reason, I'm afraid you are never going to 'get it'.

 Vaktathi wrote:

If I effectively *have* to run my own niche club and extensively restrict and rewrite the rules to play (as opposed to having the option of being able to choose to do so when it suits me), that's beyond what I consider reasonable effort for a hobby like this, and as such derive just as much pleasure viewing my models sitting on display on shelves, and that is something I see as the fault of the game developers at Games Workshop, and not the players.

When you talks bout running a niche club like a bad thing, I talk about meeting up with some good friends over an evening and a cup of tea, hanging out and playing wargames. In terms of restricting and rewriting the rules, sometimes it's as straight forward as 'I have a cool scenario in mind. But we will need to leave airpower and artillery at home for this game'. Shrug. It's not hard. Not really. You are zeroing in too much on the importance of minutiae. Personally, I've never found what we've done to amount to any kind of 'effort' beyond having a chat, with all the physical effort being putting stuff on the board.

 Vaktathi wrote:

EDIT: With regards to my reference to Dropzone Commander's narrative play earlier, here's some examples of scenarios.

In the Reconquest Phase 2 book it has a number of scenarios and rules for battles on jungle worlds, void platforms, space stations, urban centers, low/high gravity, hostile atmospheres, subzero temperatures, subterrainian caverns, multiple types of potentially hostile wildlife, placement of objectives, recommended levels and types of terrain and in some cases actual placement of terrain for each mission, the types of forces involved and their organization, links to further missions in a linked story chain (e.g. Attacking the Olympus Shipyards, Beachead - Clear the Cargo Bays- Secure Targeting Data - Hull Breach), designers notes and suggestions, and optional rules for interaction with the soon to be released Dropfleet Commander game. Random events are logical in presentation and function (e.g. you're not going to have to roll for every piece of terrain or objective to see if it does something on a chart, instead you might be playing in a Snowstorm and a blizzard may kick up for a turn on a D6 roll and then it'll make aircraft operation a bit more dangerous that turn, and that's about the extent of it). The book then has additional rules and missions specifically for tournament play and organization separately.

Aside: really need to read the recon quest books!

But what you have here is hawk wargamers telling people how to play, and gw offering suggestions and essentially leaving it in the hands of the players. One is not necessarily more 'narrative', but as helpful as the hawk approach is (and it's quite useful, so thanks for describing it), it does also feel a little bit 'railroaded'. Diy gaming needs to be a bit more free form.

Well the problem with saying it's the players fault is, it's kind of like saying it's the hostages fault in a hostage situation not to take down the guy with the gun.

Sure if everyone ran at him at once, they'd overwhelm him and win. But no one is sure that others will follow and try to take him down. So everyone sits to scared to do anything.

Similarly, people want more fun, narrative games. But no one knows if anyone else would want to do the same. As well as most tournaments inviting a lot of power gamers who thwart the system and prevent players who want fun games from bringing their fun lists, forcing them to make more competitive lists over the years to even have a hope in enjoying a tournament. Not everyone has a plethora of friends who they can play at home with either and can only play at events

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Regarding guidance, i think the whole point is that the gsme is in your hands.

GW's direction on this largely boils down to "dice it off" or "toss everything in this $75 book and do whatever you want", neither of which are terribly productive.

Well, no, that's certainly hyperbolic. There is a structure provided. It's a structure that's negotiable, in some areas more than others, but it is a functioning framework that one can get fun games out of, especially if you're playing with like-minded people.

It's more expensive than it should be, that's for sure. It could be improved on, certainly. But I think you're overstating the anarchy of it.

There is a structure provided, I will agree to this. The problem is that it's basically provide an extremely barebones framework with the expectation that all their players are going to build onto it, when at least from my experience the impression is that people think it's the full, out of the box system and don't want to do that. I think there's a big disconnect between GW trying to be as flexible and open as possible with their rules, but at the same time not making it abundantly clear that you are intended/expected to be modifying it to suit your needs (that they charge so much money for such a thing is another store entirely). In fact that's one thing I wish GW did more; provide actual supplements and guidelines for doing just that. They tend to constantly talk about changing things and "forging the narrative" and then provide little or no guidelines on actually doing it, so is it any wonder that people don't want to bother? It's like they are giving you a hammer, some nails, and some pre-cut wooden boards, telling you what nails go with which boards but then not providing any instructions while telling you that now you can build a house.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberius501 wrote:
Well the problem with saying it's the players fault is, it's kind of like saying it's the hostages fault in a hostage situation not to take down the guy with the gun.

Sure if everyone ran at him at once, they'd overwhelm him and win. But no one is sure that others will follow and try to take him down. So everyone sits to scared to do anything.

Similarly, people want more fun, narrative games. But no one knows if anyone else would want to do the same. As well as most tournaments inviting a lot of power gamers who thwart the system and prevent players who want fun games from bringing their fun lists, forcing them to make more competitive lists over the years to even have a hope in enjoying a tournament. Not everyone has a plethora of friends who they can play at home with either and can only play at events

I get your point, but I don't quite agree if only because I see too often that people play the same opponent/opponent week in or week out and do nothing to actually make the game meaningful. I get that approach if you're playing a tournament practice game (although for some reason the term "competitive 40k list" makes me throw up in my mouth a little), but there is't that much to taking a random game and asking to add some spice to it by coming up with a custom mission or little story blurb about the battle; it doesn't have to be a novella, even a sentence or two about just why your two armies are fighting each other can, in my experience, make a game a lot more enjoyable than just two random forces fighting because reasons.

People seem unwilling to even put in an an iota of effort, that's the issue as I see it.

WayneTheGame wrote:

I get your point, but I don't quite agree if only because I see too often that people play the same opponent/opponent week in or week out and do nothing to actually make the game meaningful. I get that approach if you're playing a tournament practice game (although for some reason the term "competitive 40k list" makes me throw up in my mouth a little), but there is't that much to taking a random game and asking to add some spice to it by coming up with a custom mission or little story blurb about the battle; it doesn't have to be a novella, even a sentence or two about just why your two armies are fighting each other can, in my experience, make a game a lot more enjoyable than just two random forces fighting because reasons.

People seem unwilling to even put in an an iota of effort, that's the issue as I see it.

Yeah that's very true. I wish people were more into narrative play. Me and my bro at home often come up with some kind of narrative. It makes the game a game, as opposed to stats on a sheet and statical dice rolls.

And than the problem with people who don´t even touch stuff, that isn´t made by GW(Rules).
Even it is waaay better. Thats why I stick mostly with 30k this days and don´t even think to write rules myself.....because nobody would care.

Tiberius501 wrote:
Well the problem with saying it's the players fault is, it's kind of like saying it's the hostages fault in a hostage situation not to take down the guy with the gun.

Sure if everyone ran at him at once, they'd overwhelm him and win. But no one is sure that others will follow and try to take him down. So everyone sits to scared to do anything.

No.

The problem is there is a disconnect between your scenario and the reality. This isn't a hostage situation. There are no hostages - the players are willing participants.There isn't a guy with a gun. No one is going to shoot you. You will not die if you try and things won't work out - worst case scenarios is you won't have a good game, which is the probably outcome of a gsme of 40k anyway, so what the heck do you have to lose?

Gamers are lazy. The simple truth is they don't want to do any actual work, and would rather sit there and complain and blame 'somebody' rather than take it on themselves to better themselves. Because that validates their lack of effort.

Ultimately This is about doing stuff on a 6 by 4 with your friends for an enjoyable evening. This isn't a life changing event. This isn't rocket surgery. This isn't saving the world. This isn't hard. Nor is This isn't beyond the abilities of average gamer. Christ, I don't care about football. But I bought a season ticket for my missus' team and I go to their home games to support her. If I'll make the effort for her, I'll make the same efforts for my friends when it comes to wargames. I'll make more of an effort for me. What benefit is there for me to be lazy and do nothing?

It is the players fault when there is a problem, When they are aware of said problem, when they are aware of various solutions to said problems, and when they do nothing to help themselves. They are not 'victims'. Get that crap out of your head. All you are doing is validating, and enabling apalling, negative and self destructive behaviours - they are participants. And even if you consider yourself a pawn amongst kings in a game of chess,remember thst pawns ultimately have all the power, because nothing happens until the pawns move forward.

Tiberius501 wrote:

Similarly, people want more fun, narrative games. But no one knows if anyone else would want to do the same. As well as most tournaments inviting a lot of power gamers who thwart the system and prevent players who want fun games from bringing their fun lists, forcing them to make more competitive lists over the years to even have a hope in enjoying a tournament. Not everyone has a plethora of friends who they can play at home with either and can only play at events

Then thry should ask! They should talk. Thry should make the goddamn effort. More people than you realise would like this stuff if they only gave a god damn and actually bloody well tried and put some effort into it beyond token lip service. Damn it, things have never been so easy! Texts, phone calls, Facebook. All you have to do is talk, and step forward. Bloody well man up! Stop being a coward, Put your money where your mouth is, step forward, stop complaining and actually do something about it. make the effort. and make the damned community as good as you wish it to be.

Jesus Christ, half the bloody problems this community faces are because no one talks to each other, and would rather talk past each other!

Talk to each other! Go to events. Meet people. Communicate. Organise. Expand. We have done it. Bloody hell, you are not the only horse in ton that wants this. Scottish masters 3 years ago for warmachine. Got to know a couple of opponents, and a couple of folks that were playing on boards beside me. Got talking. Realised we were all old enough to be on the same page. Realised we wanted the same thing. WMH is a great, competitive game, but all of us had life commitments that meant we couldn't WMH 24/7. I'm lucky if I get a game in twice a month! We looked at the 'Sharks' in our pond and realises that we simply could not, or would not play at that level. Or than intensity. Fair play to them! I, and we have far more going on. So we traded numbers and addresses and got together for more casual 'game days' rather than proper,tournaments. And because of our focus, and our reaching out to other people with this approach, the community has exploded in size.

All because we talked, and put some effort into our community.

And what's stopping you either making new friends, or evolving, and learning new things as friends, or doing things as a group? I play narrative games amongst a group of four people, with a few others popping In On occasion. I don't have a 'plethora of friends'. I have four friends in one group(one of whom was a guy from work who I caught 'liking' a 40k thing on Facebook. So I asked him if he wanted to come join us. He did. Within one game with us,che turned his back on 40k and what he styled as the 'play to win' pick up gsmes he had, up to that point, played his 40k games as) and about a dozen in the other. And we make it work. I don't play with everyone who plays the games I play. I play the people I enjoy playing against. And yet, I enjoy gsming, and despite not having a 'plethora' of friends, My gaming experiences over the last three years playing a handful of people with an open mind have been a magnitude greater that i ever Had playing the tournament circuits for 40k. Which goes to show that all you need so is open your mind,chit some effort in. And the rest will follow.

+1 Deadnight. I don't get how people can play a social game but not want to talk to their opponent to make the game better.

WayneTheGame wrote:
+1 Deadnight. I don't get how people can play a social game but not want to talk to their opponent to make the game better.

Because people don't play WK/scatbike/warp spider wanting to discuss anything.

Martel732 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
+1 Deadnight. I don't get how people can play a social game but not want to talk to their opponent to make the game better.

Because people don't play WK/scatbike/warp spider wanting to discuss anything.

I can't parse this post, but if it means what I think it means, you need new friends.

WayneTheGame wrote:
+1 Deadnight. I don't get how people can play a social game but not want to talk to their opponent to make the game better.

Because people have different ideas about what 'better' is and enjoy being judgmental about people who disagree with them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
+1 Deadnight. I don't get how people can play a social game but not want to talk to their opponent to make the game better.

Because people have different ideas about what 'better' is and enjoy being judgmental about people who disagree with them.

The only problem I see here is people being judgmental gits. Is that the only reason to not talk? Because people can't overcome their nastiness? That's a very dim view of gamers.

Not everyone plays in an environment where pre-planning games is common or practical. For people in clubs that know each other, or come from common backgrounds, then sure. But don't blame the players for wanting to play 'X' well within the rules, even if 'X' is a dramatically superior to option to a number of other players' choices. There are multiple reasons to use any given unit or army combination, and if the the forces don't match up in power levels, the options are to play a dramatically one sided game or not play at all, neither of which are acceptable and neither are the player's fault.

Think of it this way. There are two solutions to the balance issue, when speaking broadly. The first is to offer a balanced ruleset that has been professionally written and tested. The second is to enforce or stumble into a perfect gaming group where everyone agrees on a particular standard of army construction and general playstyle.

One of these solutions is universal and a hallmark of a quality product. The other is a hallmark of a poor product and generally not realistic and potentially exclusive to people looking for differing types of gameplay.

Blame the company, because if we had better rules, we wouldn't be having this discussion, or at least not to the degree and extent we're having.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I suppose this is a bad time to say that I love the current scale of 40k.

My armies are: Superheavy tanks and... superheavy tanks which are even bigger. I've sold everything else; my sisters army went on ebay a month ago.

....selling sisters?
HERETIC! BURN!