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.
Blacksails wrote: 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.
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.
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.
The problem is that not everyone has the luxury of having a close knit group of people to play with so sometimes you end up playing with some random people. I can discuss what type of game I want to play but its not exactly easy to express "fun but semi competitive" to somebody and get the same mutual understanding. To some that means maybe not bringing their recreation of their 1st company Blood Angels and mix in a bit more cost effective things while to others it means they will only bring 2 wraithknights and maybe some fire dragons instead of more warp spiders. Everybody has their own experience and interpretation of what is fair or fun in the game and its challenging enough to try and understand enough of the boat load of armies, units, formations, etc in the game. The reason for needing to understand all this stuff is to be able to relatively understand what sort of power level things sit at so I can try my best to match that for a fun game. Last thing I want to do is bring a fully kitted out Tau list to end up blowing away some fluffy Blood Angel formation or waste a few hours playing with a casual Ork list against something that is 90% the same as a winning tournament list somebody copied off the net. Social skills are often something people lack and its not always laziness, often times it a learned behavior due to negative reinforcement from past social experiences or anxiety.
Bad rules by GW is a negative no matter how you spin it. Its bad for new players trying to get their feet in the water. It is bad for trying to find pickup games that don't turn into a complete landslide. It is bad for people who want to play a close game and yet have to launch an investigation in order to figure out if 30 warp spiders, a Wraithknight, and Scatter Laser Jetbikes is playing for fun or to kick in people's teeth. Maybe one day my preferred Killa Kans, Flash Gitz, Battlewagons, and Dakkajets will be the stuff of TFG lists and makes me a power gamer for playing the models I love but today its just the stuff of casual play. Due to poor rules no amount of community goodwill, social contracting, and playing for fun is going to make Tau vs Dark Eldar an enjoyable experience for the Dark Eldar player unless they are a bit of a masochist. GW's incompetence with rules writing is not the communities fault (although we tend to try and abuse the rules) and the disparity between the weak and strong codexes is massive. It became the community's task to Band-Aid the rules and play experience as best as we can because GW is too isolated, lazy, incompetent, and/or delusional sitting in their rules tower (or more likely dungeon) to comprehend the results of their "work" on the 40k community.
"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise"
I fully agree that many editions of 40K have been poorly written rules-wise and from a game balance standpoint. I agree that a nicely balanced game should be a goal when designing/play-testing.
The biggest issue with fixing this is that it runs contrary to the real goal of GW (i.e. selling lots of plastic models). I don't think anyone would have an issue if the rules said that for every 1000 or 1500 points you run, you can field one large beastie (Knight, Wraithknight, bla bla). This would solve a load of issue with that stuff.
That, however, doesn't sell 5-10 Imperial Knights to a single player. That sells one, maybe two.
As such, we're likely to never see a reversal in strategy by GW. You might see more Killteam esque projects etc., but there won't be a renaissance of common sense or more logical army lists/balance. This would have to come from the gaming community.
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.
Human beings have a thing where they take disagreement with their position as a personal attack, get defensive, and escalate. You may have noticed this on the Internet.
I agree with Blacksails. I don't think its fair to blame the customer for GW's bad rules.
I've been doing my own work to create a ruleset that I feel works. The biggest hurdle to using it is a) it hasn't been playtested (and no one I play with wants to be a guinea pig to find out if I'm off the mark) and b) people have their own ideas about what to fix and how in the game, and it does not necessarily match with my ideas.
If GW had written good rules from the start, I wouldn't have to negotiate with my friends for a game and I could worry about the scenario instead of fearing I'll get my face whomped in because I chose "wrong" before the first model hit the board.
Blacksails wrote: 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.
So sending a text the day before a game, or face booking isn't common or practical? Or even having a chat about what you want to do the next time you meet up?clets not kid outselves here. You're talking about people being too lazy to communicate and looking for someone else to blame.
There is also the argument that gsming groups or whatever are hostile to the approach I talk about, and that gsmes should be,perfectly provided for them, because they shouldn't have to do anything. I always remember the old phrase 'if the mountain won't come to you, maybe you have to come to the mountain'. It's true to say that game companies shouod adapt to nature of their gamers. It's just as true to say that gamers should adapt to suit the nature of their games. Sometimes it's not that the games need to change, it's the communities themselves that need to.
And I don't blame the players for wanting to play x. You know me blacksails - I see the value in all gaming styles, whether casual, competitive, narrative, or whatever. There is a place for it all. However, while I wont 'blame' them, I will hold them to account, and point out the consequences of their actions. If you want to play one of the handful of top builds in the gsme, you are not wrong. But you need to realise there are maybe half a dozen other builds thst can play at thst level. It's like the champions league in football. However, when you are insisting on your right to be playing that list into a player/army that is far further down the ladder, then depending on circumstances, you could very well be becoming the villain in the story, especially when you doing what you want to do (your 'fun', as it were) is coming at the expense of the other player. You are not wrong for playing that top level army. He isn't wrong for wanting to play a lower/mid tier army. Gw could make better rules that would negative this whole discussion, but the cold hard reality on the ground is that won't happen, so sometimes you just need to step up, talk about it and make it work.
And you are wrong. There is a third choice outside of play a crap game or not plat at all. But like I said, it involves a bit of co-operative gsme building to make it work. Like I said, it's not the players fault that gw write terrible rules.it is the players fault when they insist on using said broken rules in a manner that isn't fit for purpose, when they complain about problems but yet do absolutely nothing to help themselves, even when possible solutions are presented.
Blacksails wrote: Not
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.
Like I said, three solutions. You don't need a perfect gaming group. You need a bit of cop on, maturity and a will to engage in cooperative game building. It is entirely possible to smooth out the edges of issues amongst your group.
Balanced rules set would obviously be my clear favourite as well, don't get me wrong. But I have learned I can have fun with a bad rules set with good people. It's plenty realistic is ask for friends to be reasonable and work together. Regsrding excluding people - I find that the co-operative, chat about what you want approach is actually inclusive, rather than exlusive for the most part.
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.
And I can just as easily turn this on its head:
'Blame the self righteous players. If we had a more cooperative, proactive community willing to step up and help each other, we wouldn't be having this discussion either, not to the degree and extend we are having. People would just sort out their issues amongst themselves and move on.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not disagreeing with you. I'll make it clear: you are right in what you say.but so am I. The developers role in designing a gsme, and the players role in playing said gsme are both sides of the exact same coin.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/18 21:37:22
Any argument involving "b-but you can just adjust the rules and set the limits" falls flat on its dirty face just widening a bit the perspective.
Currently, I am more than capable to wing a decent game, imbalances notwithstanding, because my friend and I are veterans.
But when we were just naive beginners, any imbalance led to frustration and several people quitting, at least temporarily, the hobby. If you want fresh blood, you need the game working and you need it now.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/18 22:51:38
Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis!
There is a way of getting around GWs great ideas but lack of playtesting.
Try to make Community Comp a thing in your area.
I doubt play testing will ever be a high priority in GWs books. The shop where I play has two Apoc games every year where two days and 5000 points of the cheesiest filth you can think of is the standard but otherwise tournaments are community comp and even though it's not enforced the players practicing for tournaments kind of make it the standard, new players are given free reign to play whatever they have but find it harder and harder to find opponents the longer it takes them to fall in with the Community Comp standard.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
Elbows wrote: I fully agree that many editions of 40K have been poorly written rules-wise and from a game balance standpoint. I agree that a nicely balanced game should be a goal when designing/play-testing.
The biggest issue with fixing this is that it runs contrary to the real goal of GW (i.e. selling lots of plastic models). I don't think anyone would have an issue if the rules said that for every 1000 or 1500 points you run, you can field one large beastie (Knight, Wraithknight, bla bla). This would solve a load of issue with that stuff.
That, however, doesn't sell 5-10 Imperial Knights to a single player. That sells one, maybe two.
As such, we're likely to never see a reversal in strategy by GW. You might see more Killteam esque projects etc., but there won't be a renaissance of common sense or more logical army lists/balance. This would have to come from the gaming community.
I would have a problem with this. My lists are all 2000-3000 points in size and include at least 3 superheavies except on rare occasions.
Elbows wrote: I fully agree that many editions of 40K have been poorly written rules-wise and from a game balance standpoint. I agree that a nicely balanced game should be a goal when designing/play-testing.
The biggest issue with fixing this is that it runs contrary to the real goal of GW (i.e. selling lots of plastic models). I don't think anyone would have an issue if the rules said that for every 1000 or 1500 points you run, you can field one large beastie (Knight, Wraithknight, bla bla). This would solve a load of issue with that stuff.
That, however, doesn't sell 5-10 Imperial Knights to a single player. That sells one, maybe two.
As such, we're likely to never see a reversal in strategy by GW. You might see more Killteam esque projects etc., but there won't be a renaissance of common sense or more logical army lists/balance. This would have to come from the gaming community.
I would have a problem with this. My lists are all 2000-3000 points in size and include at least 3 superheavies except on rare occasions.
This is a type of army however that 40k really doesn't do all that well, and one that historically would be an "Apocalypse" level or really a small Epic army. As much as I love tanks, and have my own gaggle of superheavies, I'd be more than fine seeing this sort of scale relegated to a separate system (where we don't have to keep track of which individual sergeants have meltaboms or Power Axes instead of Power Swords in a game dictated by superheavy battle tanks).
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Elbows wrote: I fully agree that many editions of 40K have been poorly written rules-wise and from a game balance standpoint. I agree that a nicely balanced game should be a goal when designing/play-testing.
The biggest issue with fixing this is that it runs contrary to the real goal of GW (i.e. selling lots of plastic models). I don't think anyone would have an issue if the rules said that for every 1000 or 1500 points you run, you can field one large beastie (Knight, Wraithknight, bla bla). This would solve a load of issue with that stuff.
That, however, doesn't sell 5-10 Imperial Knights to a single player. That sells one, maybe two.
As such, we're likely to never see a reversal in strategy by GW. You might see more Killteam esque projects etc., but there won't be a renaissance of common sense or more logical army lists/balance. This would have to come from the gaming community.
I would have a problem with this. My lists are all 2000-3000 points in size and include at least 3 superheavies except on rare occasions.
This is a type of army however that 40k really doesn't do all that well, and one that historically would be an "Apocalypse" level or really a small Epic army. As much as I love tanks, and have my own gaggle of superheavies, I'd be more than fine seeing this sort of scale relegated to a separate system (where we don't have to keep track of which individual sergeants have meltaboms or Power Axes instead of Power Swords in a game dictated by superheavy battle tanks).
Well, at this point they're Heresy armies. But why should they be separate? I don't mind keeping track of which sergeants have meltabombs and which don't... in fact, I base some of my maneuvering decisions on it. And it's not like whether or not a model has a power axe or power sword is hard to tell ... I do, in fact, have functioning eyeballs.
And as far as relegating it to another scale... why? Superheavies can be deployed by the Imperium or Mechanicum against regular enemy armies. They shouldn't be just restricted to fighting other Superheavies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 02:52:12
So sending a text the day before a game, or face booking isn't common or practical? Or even having a chat about what you want to do the next time you meet up?clets not kid outselves here. You're talking about people being too lazy to communicate and looking for someone else to blame.
Texting or facebooking someone I hardly know that I may or may not have even theoretically met yet if I wander to my local GW is not practical. Having a chat once I'm there just leads to one of the scenarios I outlined assuming each player has brought roughly enough models for one pre-designed army with some wiggle room. In a club, sure, but the issue specifically here is for people who do pick-up games at a store with people they may not know well or at all. No one is really arguing that within a group of friends communication is important and likely the standard, which alleviates some issues.
There is also the argument that gsming groups or whatever are hostile to the approach I talk about, and that gsmes should be,perfectly provided for them, because they shouldn't have to do anything. I always remember the old phrase 'if the mountain won't come to you, maybe you have to come to the mountain'. It's true to say that game companies shouod adapt to nature of their gamers. It's just as true to say that gamers should adapt to suit the nature of their games. Sometimes it's not that the games need to change, it's the communities themselves that need to.
Most players are happy to work with the rules to tweak and adjust, but again, it depends on the group and having people come to agree on certain aspects. That may or may not be practical, and for pick-up players, it is most likely not practical. Really though, its far from unreasonable to expext a game to be perfectly playable out of the box, so player attitudes need not necessarily change if they can easily jump ship to a competitor who provides that.
And I don't blame the players for wanting to play x. You know me blacksails - I see the value in all gaming styles, whether casual, competitive, narrative, or whatever. There is a place for it all. However, while I wont 'blame' them, I will hold them to account, and point out the consequences of their actions. If you want to play one of the handful of top builds in the gsme, you are not wrong. But you need to realise there are maybe half a dozen other builds thst can play at thst level. It's like the champions league in football. However, when you are insisting on your right to be playing that list into a player/army that is far further down the ladder, then depending on circumstances, you could very well be becoming the villain in the story, especially when you doing what you want to do (your 'fun', as it were) is coming at the expense of the other player. You are not wrong for playing that top level army. He isn't wrong for wanting to play a lower/mid tier army. Gw could make better rules that would negative this whole discussion, but the cold hard reality on the ground is that won't happen, so sometimes you just need to step up, talk about it and make it work.
People try to make it work, and there's obviously large amount of players who are tired with making it work and the potential fallout between players who enjoy differing ideals of what constitutes a 'normal' game of 40k. I agree GW likely won't make a serious attempt to fix that, which ultimately drives people from the game. Which of course is bad for everyone, as then your gaming group moves away from 40k and towards other better written games.
And you are wrong. There is a third choice outside of play a crap game or not plat at all. But like I said, it involves a bit of co-operative gsme building to make it work. Like I said, it's not the players fault that gw write terrible rules.it is the players fault when they insist on using said broken rules in a manner that isn't fit for purpose, when they complain about problems but yet do absolutely nothing to help themselves, even when possible solutions are presented.
Well I'm not wrong, because that third solution is based on players bringing enough models to make a significantly different army on the fly, which is far from a guarantee due to either not owning enough models, or simply not bringing more, expecting that your club standard points value is all you need to grab a game.
Plus, this brings back the issue about what 40k is particularly fit for. Its not a good narrative game, nor is it a good casual game, and it makes for a pretty poor competitive game. Players are using it for what its fit for, which frankly is anything and nothing simultaneously because its simply not a good game.
Like I said, three solutions. You don't need a perfect gaming group. You need a bit of cop on, maturity and a will to engage in cooperative game building. It is entirely possible to smooth out the edges of issues amongst your group.
As stated before, a wonderful pipe dream for many, but far from reality for most. Sure, you can attempt to be the change you want, but you'd need a good club to begin with.
Balanced rules set would obviously be my clear favourite as well, don't get me wrong. But I have learned I can have fun with a bad rules set with good people. It's plenty realistic is ask for friends to be reasonable and work together. Regsrding excluding people - I find that the co-operative, chat about what you want approach is actually inclusive, rather than exlusive for the most part.
As above, a luxury clearly many don't have. Great idea in theory, hard in practice for many, many reasons.
And I can just as easily turn this on its head:
'Blame the self righteous players. If we had a more cooperative, proactive community willing to step up and help each other, we wouldn't be having this discussion either, not to the degree and extend we are having. People would just sort out their issues amongst themselves and move on.
The issue here is defining the self righteous player. People will play what they like within the rules. Sometimes those visions among players don't match up, and no one is wrong is they can't agree or compromise. One of the possible solutions of sorting out these issues is to simply not play or agree to disagree, which I'm sure you can agree is not a positive solution.
Ultimately, the problem stems from the rules, so the rules are the issue to be addressed. It'd be great if everyone could magically hold hands and sing Hakuna Matata together, but its just not going to happen.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not disagreeing with you. I'll make it clear: you are right in what you say.but so am I. The developers role in designing a gsme, and the players role in playing said gsme are both sides of the exact same coin.
Sure, but if the game is written well enough, you don't need to worry about the players. Your only concern at that point is just how much of a personal donkey-cave your opponent may be, or how much he smells, not what his idea of an acceptable force is.
To make it clear where I'm coming from, I have a small gaming group of people who didn't know eachother, but all worked for the same orginaztion, so we have a common background. The 40k games are organized ahead of time and stated what kind of game it will be (tournament prep, casual, warning of large models, so on) and generally have similar power levels. I've personally been pushing BFG (a dead game at the moment) which is slowly picking up, and because I dislike some of the balance issues in the base game, I explained to the group I intended to use a fan modified version that tweaks, clarifies, and fixes balance issues. They all agreed and that's what we do. I personally understand all that it takes to create, build, and nurture an excellent gaming group. I'm also very aware of the challenges some people face who either don't have a FLGS or club and look for pick up games elsewhere. I've been in both scenarios for years on end at times. I know that in both scenarios, a well written ruleset would fix any problem that would have or did arise.
In short, while it'd be great if people were generally friendlier, more open to compromise, understood game design and balance better, and had universally larger and wider variety of models on hand at all times, its likely not going to happen in the grand scheme which is why a game company needs to produce a well written game so we don't have to worry about people sharing the same vision of an ideal match. Its a matter of universality in application for the solution. So while people could work with GW's rules and try and make a go of it, you'll find most people are going to either stop playing, or find greener pastures where they don't have to put in the extra effort just to get a mediocre experience anyways.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
[quote=Unit1126PLL 702240 8910476 [c9a48eea3a19d5ac01c579465c0b4bd1.jpg]
Well, at this point they're Heresy armies. But why should they be separate? I don't mind keeping track of which sergeants have meltabombs and which don't... in fact, I base some of my maneuvering decisions on it. And it's not like whether or not a model has a power axe or power sword is hard to tell ... I do, in fact, have functioning eyeballs.
Dont understand how or why you think it's reasonable or realistic to think your superheavy tank commanders could or should know platoon sgt Bubba is the guy carrying a meltabomb so that you might kill him or avoid it, tbh...but thats what the rules currently allow (open information) so that's another kettle of fish. The problem is how wildly that becomes exacerbated when said chump carrying a melta grenade is literally the only thing your opponent's list has that has a prayer against your superheavy. Of which you apparently bring multiples? Yeah...
And as far as relegating it to another scale... why? Superheavies can be deployed by the Imperium or Mechanicum against regular enemy armies. They shouldn't be just restricted to fighting other Superheavies.
That's the problem. Lots of things CAN be deployed against regular armies. Are we going to start making room for orbital vehicles next? Where does it stop? The is the slippery slope GW put us on when they decided flyers werent going to be fast attack/skimmers anymore, that they were going to be their own vehicle type. FASA was smart enough to make Aerotech and Battletech two separate games, back in the day...hell, Fantasy Flight knew enough to say "this scale is for small ship combat (X-Wing) and this scale is for large ship combat (Armada)". Why does the 40k community continue to stick it's head in the sand?
EDIT - I know why, actually...for having played multiple systems over the years, for all the whinging the 40k community puts out about Warmahordes being the WAAC "page 5 play like you got a pair" toolbags, the 40k community has the largest per capita volume of powergaming d-bags in the entire mini-gaming hobby. As soon as GW said you could put 4 Wraithknights in a list, 40k players were more than happy to oblige. And that's on the community, not on GW. If that bald-faced negative play experience escalation doesnt single-handedly choke game groups, I cant imagine what would.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 03:28:41
Well, at this point they're Heresy armies. But why should they be separate? I don't mind keeping track of which sergeants have meltabombs and which don't... in fact, I base some of my maneuvering decisions on it. And it's not like whether or not a model has a power axe or power sword is hard to tell ... I do, in fact, have functioning eyeballs.
Dont understand how or why you think it's reasonable or realistic to think your superheavy tank commanders could or should know platoon sgt Bubba is the guy carrying a meltabomb so that you might kill him or avoid it, tbh...but thats what the rules currently allow (open information) so that's another kettle of fish. The problem is how wildly that becomes exacerbated when said chump carrying a melta grenade is literally the only thing your opponent's list has that has a prayer against your superheavy. Of which you apparently bring multiples? Yeah...
Scanners, man. Meltabombs are weapons that utilize fusion hydrogen... they ought to be comparatively easy to detect even when not detonating. It's science fiction! XD. I mean, realistically, how would anyone's weapons know where any enemy troops are when they're out of LOS? Did their artillery just happen to shoot at exactly the right spot behind the building? Out of all the other buildings in the area?
And most people bring more than one meltabomb to fight me, considering I tell them my list in advance.
And as far as relegating it to another scale... why? Superheavies can be deployed by the Imperium or Mechanicum against regular enemy armies. They shouldn't be just restricted to fighting other Superheavies.
That's the problem. Lots of things CAN be deployed against regular armies. Are we going to start making room for orbital vehicles next? Where does it stop? The is the slippery slope GW put us on when they decided flyers werent going to be fast attack/skimmers anymore, that they were going to be their own vehicle type. FASA was smart enough to make Aerotech and Battletech two separate games, back in the day...hell, Fantasy Flight knew enough to say "this scale is for small ship combat (X-Wing) and this scale is for large ship combat (Armada)". Why does the 40k community continue to stick it's head in the sand?
*shrugs* It stops when the players stop it. There are already rules for orbital strikes in both the Heresy and regular 40k, as well as rules for surface-to-orbit battle vessels such as the Manta and the Sokar Stormbird. So... never? Hopefully? I'd love it if the scale kept increasing. Next year my enemy can bring a cruiser but my deep-striking troops can board it, and the year later, he'll bring a battleship, but my superheavies will be landed straight into the cargo hold after some defensive fire rolls. Honestly I think that'd be a fun scenario.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 03:30:33
Unit1126PLL wrote: *shrugs* It stops when the players stop it. There are already rules for orbital strikes in both the Heresy and regular 40k, as well as rules for surface-to-orbit battle vessels such as the Manta and the Sokar Stormbird. So... never? Hopefully? I'd love it if the scale kept increasing. Next year my enemy can bring a cruiser but my deep-striking troops can board it, and the year later, he'll bring a battleship, but my superheavies will be landed straight into the cargo hold after some defensive fire rolls. Honestly I think that'd be a fun scenario.
Or, y'know, they could make a game for that and you could actually play it instead? Because meanwhile the people that want to play a skirmish level game with impactful squad and platoon sized units are wondering why they have to give up their game so you can have yours...
Unit1126PLL wrote: *shrugs* It stops when the players stop it. There are already rules for orbital strikes in both the Heresy and regular 40k, as well as rules for surface-to-orbit battle vessels such as the Manta and the Sokar Stormbird. So... never? Hopefully? I'd love it if the scale kept increasing. Next year my enemy can bring a cruiser but my deep-striking troops can board it, and the year later, he'll bring a battleship, but my superheavies will be landed straight into the cargo hold after some defensive fire rolls. Honestly I think that'd be a fun scenario.
Or, y'know, they could make a game for that and you could actually play it instead? Because meanwhile the people that want to play a skirmish level game with impactful squad and platoon sized units are wondering why they have to give up their game so you can have yours...
Do they have to give it up? I have two friends that play 1000 points constantly. I cannot participate, for obvious reasons, but that's okay - no one is forcing me to.
Just like how you could play 1000 points, or 500, or 400 Combat Patrol, and aren't forced to play at my size.
That's literally the point of 40k and its points limits.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/19 03:37:09
Unit1126PLL wrote: *shrugs* It stops when the players stop it. There are already rules for orbital strikes in both the Heresy and regular 40k, as well as rules for surface-to-orbit battle vessels such as the Manta and the Sokar Stormbird. So... never? Hopefully? I'd love it if the scale kept increasing. Next year my enemy can bring a cruiser but my deep-striking troops can board it, and the year later, he'll bring a battleship, but my superheavies will be landed straight into the cargo hold after some defensive fire rolls. Honestly I think that'd be a fun scenario.
Or, y'know, they could make a game for that and you could actually play it instead? Because meanwhile the people that want to play a skirmish level game with impactful squad and platoon sized units are wondering why they have to give up their game so you can have yours...
Do they have to give it up? I have two friends that play 1000 points constantly. I cannot participate, for obvious reasons, but that's okay - no one is forcing me to.
Just like how you could play 1000 points, or 500, or 400 Combat Patrol, and aren't forced to play at my size.
That's literally the point of 40k and its points limits.
Yeah, apparently they do. Because if they are playing 1000 points, they arent playing the same game the rest of the 40k community has accepted as a "standard game" (1500-2000 pts, typically 1750 or 1850). So you've successfully warped your game group by essentially forcing them to adopt a game scale half the size of the rest of the community, in order to avoid having to play against your overpowered/underpointed filth. Congrats, I guess? I mean, you've clearly indicated you're just in this for yourself and dont care what negative play experience you inflict on the rest of the community. As you say, we can "just go play killteam"...right?
Unit1126PLL wrote: *shrugs* It stops when the players stop it. There are already rules for orbital strikes in both the Heresy and regular 40k, as well as rules for surface-to-orbit battle vessels such as the Manta and the Sokar Stormbird. So... never? Hopefully? I'd love it if the scale kept increasing. Next year my enemy can bring a cruiser but my deep-striking troops can board it, and the year later, he'll bring a battleship, but my superheavies will be landed straight into the cargo hold after some defensive fire rolls. Honestly I think that'd be a fun scenario.
Or, y'know, they could make a game for that and you could actually play it instead? Because meanwhile the people that want to play a skirmish level game with impactful squad and platoon sized units are wondering why they have to give up their game so you can have yours...
Do they have to give it up? I have two friends that play 1000 points constantly. I cannot participate, for obvious reasons, but that's okay - no one is forcing me to.
Just like how you could play 1000 points, or 500, or 400 Combat Patrol, and aren't forced to play at my size.
That's literally the point of 40k and its points limits.
Yeah, apparently they do. Because if they are playing 1000 points, they arent playing the same game the rest of the 40k community has accepted as a "standard game" (1500-2000 pts, typically 1750 or 1850). So you've successfully warped your game group by essentially forcing them to adopt a game scale half the size of the rest of the community, in order to avoid having to play against your overpowered/underpointed filth. Congrats, I guess? I mean, you've clearly indicated you're just in this for yourself and dont care what negative play experience you inflict on the rest of the community. As you say, we can "just go play killteam"...right?
I didn't inflict it upon them, actually. They play 1000 points and have only played 1000 points long before I moved to Swansea and they will continue long after I leave. Why would you suspect I forced them to play 1000?
And who cares what the 'standard game' is according to the 'rest of the 40k community'? Some people like 400 points. Just last week there were six people at the FLGS playing combat patrol, not because I (or anyone else) forced them to but because they love it. Then there was me and my 4 buddies playing 3000 point Heresy games, and the remaining eight or ten players played various things, including my two buddies and a friend playing a 3-way 1000 point game, and a team game going on that I think was 1500 per person.
Whatever 'community' you're talking about obviously doesn't exist here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I will note that I, too, play outside of the 'Standard Range' that you assert in all but my smallest games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I think the Baneblade is universally regarded as one of the least overpowered, certainly not undercosted, units in the game. So please don't be so impolite as to accuse me of using 'overpowered undercosted filth.' That's just unnecessary!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/09/19 04:26:14
So sending a text the day before a game, or face booking isn't common or practical? Or even having a chat about what you want to do the next time you meet up?clets not kid outselves here. You're talking about people being too lazy to communicate and looking for someone else to blame.
Texting or facebooking someone I hardly know that I may or may not have even theoretically met yet if I wander to my local GW is not practical. Having a chat once I'm there just leads to one of the scenarios I outlined assuming each player has brought roughly enough models for one pre-designed army with some wiggle room. In a club, sure, but the issue specifically here is for people who do pick-up games at a store with people they may not know well or at all. No one is really arguing that within a group of friends communication is important and likely the standard, which alleviates some issues.
How is texting/fb'ing someone 'not practical'? That's you being lazy, nothing more. If you don't know them, then get to know them. Get over yourself (not you, I'm talking in general). Bloody hel, our WMH group exploded with mk3, and some guys started up a Fb chat group for us all to organise games. There's names I don't know, and it doesn't matter - i just natter away until I meet them in person. Then I shake hands and it's all good
And I'm not talking about having a chat pre-game. Or after your first gsme after you've done what you've done and you're talking about what you like and what you'd like to do next time. I'm talking about having a chat at the store, hanging out. Getting to know them. You know. Putting in some effort, socially. Goes a long way in a social hobby, surprisingly enough...
There is also the argument that gsming groups or whatever are hostile to the approach I talk about, and that gsmes should be,perfectly provided for them, because they shouldn't have to do anything. I always remember the old phrase 'if the mountain won't come to you, maybe you have to come to the mountain'. It's true to say that game companies shouod adapt to nature of their gamers. It's just as true to say that gamers should adapt to suit the nature of their games. Sometimes it's not that the games need to change, it's the communities themselves that need to.
Most players are happy to work with the rules to tweak and adjust, but again, it depends on the group and having people come to agree on certain aspects. That may or may not be practical, and for pick-up players, it is most likely not practical. Really though, its far from unreasonable to expext a game to be perfectly playable out of the box, so player attitudes need not necessarily change if they can easily jump ship to a competitor who provides that.
Like I said. Pick up players are playing a game mode not fit for purpose. If the gsmes you choose to play for your pick up games are ultimately not fit for purpose, then you need to play games that are more suitable for pick up games. Or you need to adjust the approach you bring to your games and not 'pick up game'. Here's the thing - the former I would recommend. Go play WMH. But it will cost you. New armies. New rules. New investment in terms of time, models to paint, money to spent etc. The latter I would also recommend. What will it cost you? A change of perspective. Maybe a conversation. At worst, swallow your pride a bit in terms of matching up what you are bringing to the table to allow for the other guy (and that goes both ways).
People try to make it work, and there's obviously large amount of players who are tired with making it work and the potential fallout between players who enjoy differing ideals of what constitutes a 'normal' game of 40k. I agree GW likely won't make a serious attempt to fix that, which ultimately drives people from the game. Which of course is bad for everyone, as then your gaming group moves away from 40k and towards other better written games
I agree with you entirely here.
That said. If my mate likes something a bit different to you in gaming, will you go there? Chances are he'll do the same for you. You don't necessarily need to be perfectly in line in your wishes. You just need to be wiling to be accommodating. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't care about sportsball, but I bought a season ticket for my missus' team and I go to all the games for her. To me, if you want to do something a bit different for 40k, but ultimately you're a mate then yeah, why not.
And you are wrong. There is a third choice outside of play a crap game or not plat at all. But like I said, it involves a bit of co-operative gsme building to make it work. Like I said, it's not the players fault that gw write terrible rules.it is the players fault when they insist on using said broken rules in a manner that isn't fit for purpose, when they complain about problems but yet do absolutely nothing to help themselves, even when possible solutions are presented.
Well I'm not wrong, because that third solution is based on players bringing enough models to make a significantly different army on the fly, which is far from a guarantee due to either not owning enough models, or simply not bringing more, expecting that your club standard points value is all you need to grab a game.
Third solution is based on talking and communicating to each other. No need to bring 5000pts of stuff to your games.
Now it's not a guarantee, but being brutally honest, neither of the other two options are 'guarantees' either. Gaming is 'soft' in a lot of ways, hard lines are not helpful.
Plus, this brings back the issue about what 40k is particularly fit for. Its not a good narrative game, nor is it a good casual game, and it makes for a pretty poor competitive game. Players are using it for what its fit for, which frankly is anything and nothing simultaneously because its simply not a good game.
Oh I agree! It's a clunky unwieldy mess, but it still has a degree of universality about it. And to be fair to it, it has everything in it from Titans to guys with chain swords. It has 'scope'. There are lots of things to do.
Like I said, three solutions. You don't need a perfect gaming group. You need a bit of cop on, maturity and a will to engage in cooperative game building. It is entirely possible to smooth out the edges of issues amongst your group.
As stated before, a wonderful pipe dream for many, but far from reality for most. Sure, you can attempt to be the change you want, but you'd need a good club to begin with.
So like I said. It's on the players. Lazy gamers. Come to the mountain instead. The gsme will only ever be what you are willing to put into it. And having cop on, maturity and cooperative gsme building is not a pipe dream. That's lazy gamer talk. Man up!
Balanced rules set would obviously be my clear favourite as well, don't get me wrong. But I have learned I can have fun with a bad rules set with good people. It's plenty realistic is ask for friends to be reasonable and work together. Regsrding excluding people - I find that the co-operative, chat about what you want approach is actually inclusive, rather than exlusive for the most part.
As above, a luxury clearly many don't have. Great idea in theory, hard in practice for many, many reasons.
You say a luxury many people don't have, I say effort people can't be arsed making. Or they've never actually tried. It's on them.
And I can just as easily turn this on its head:
'Blame the self righteous players. If we had a more cooperative, proactive community willing to step up and help each other, we wouldn't be having this discussion either, not to the degree and extend we are having. People would just sort out their issues amongst themselves and move on.
The issue here is defining the self righteous player. People will play what they like within the rules. Sometimes those visions among players don't match up, and no one is wrong is they can't agree or compromise. One of the possible solutions of sorting out these issues is to simply not play or agree to disagree, which I'm sure you can agree is not a positive solution.
Ultimately, the problem stems from the rules, so the rules are the issue to be addressed. It'd be great if everyone could magically hold hands and sing Hakuna Matata together, but its just not going to happen.
Easy. They're the people thst do nothing for themselves or their community, and want the perfect experience handed to them on a plate whilst not having to lift a finger on their part. Lazy gamers.
Not playing people is not playing people. I don't see it as positive or negative. If you're visions for what you want are so different that there is no common ground, then don't play. No reason you can't be mates outside of the 6 by 4. You don't owe ever one a gsme. Geek social fallacies 101.
The rules don't help. NeYou her does the playerbase. The problems stem from where the rules and the players interact. Both are woven into each other like a tapestry. Either one can fail and destroy the experience. And if the rules need to be addressed, then surely the players are just as capable of addressing them amongst themselves?
Please don't get me wrong. I am not disagreeing with you. I'll make it clear: you are right in what you say.but so am I. The developers role in designing a gsme, and the players role in playing said gsme are both sides of the exact same coin.
Sure, but if the game is written well enough, you don't need to worry about the players. Your only concern at that point is just how much of a personal donkey-cave your opponent may be, or how much he smells, not what his idea of an acceptable force is.
So you don't need to worry about the players but you do still need to worry about the players? Ultimately I play people. Not games.
I always worry about the players. Doesn't matter if I'm playing the perfect game, or a monstrosity. If the other guy isn't someone I can work with, the game doesn't happen.
To make it clear where I'm coming from, I have a small gaming group of people who didn't know eachother, but all worked for the same orginaztion, so we have a common background. The 40k games are organized ahead of time and stated what kind of game it will be (tournament prep, casual, warning of large models, so on) and generally have similar power levels. I've personally been pushing BFG (a dead game at the moment) which is slowly picking up, and because I dislike some of the balance issues in the base game, I explained to the group I intended to use a fan modified version that tweaks, clarifies, and fixes balance issues. They all agreed and that's what we do. I personally understand all that it takes to create, build, and nurture an excellent gaming group. I'm also very aware of the challenges some people face who either don't have a FLGS or club and look for pick up games elsewhere. I've been in both scenarios for years on end at times. I know that in both scenarios, a well written ruleset would fix any problem that would have or did arise.
In short, while it'd be great if people were generally friendlier, more open to compromise, understood game design and balance better, and had universally larger and wider variety of models on hand at all times, its likely not going to happen in the grand scheme which is why a game company needs to produce a well written game so we don't have to worry about people sharing the same vision of an ideal match. Its a matter of universality in application for the solution. So while people could work with GW's rules and try and make a go of it, you'll find most people are going to either stop playing, or find greener pastures where they don't have to put in the extra effort just to get a mediocre experience anyways.
Then more,people need to act like you.
Is it more likely that a game company will come along an produce that perfect gsme for everyone so you don't have to worry about people wanting the same thing? That's as much of a pipe dream.
Universality is all well and good, but you aren't talking about universality - you are talking about 'imposed universality'. Imposed universal doesn't always work. Imposed Universal doesn't always fit. All it can do really is filter, and anything that doesn't fit is chucked. Including players wanting something different. Everyone wants something different. Things that work for x won't work for y, and if you insist that that isn't the case, thst that shouldn't be the case, that everyone needs to adhere to 'the one true way of playing', whatever that is. you are simply guilty of enormous hubris and arrogance. And you would be wrong. Ultimately, to use a soccer analogy, you play what's in from of you, not what you'd like to imagine is in front of you.
People could move on to other gsmes. Fair play to them. And I never suggested otherwise. They could stop. Again. Fair play. I just think it's a shame to do either, especially when you have invested so much in terms of money, effort and time into putting models together, painting them, devouring the lore, table time etc.i think putting in the effort to make the game yours is a perfectly valid way of enjoying your hobby and keeping it alive for you and your mates.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/20 08:52:15
As much as I think Deadnight makes a great argument all by himself, I like to add one thing:
a lot of pick-up players complaints and demands here on dakka give me an impression, that a lot of gamers (curiously - mostly with north american flags beside their avatars) treat wargaming as a SERVICE provided by a company that made rules and models for it. With absolutely no regard to a simple fact, that EVERY SINGLE GAME of WH40k is a two-way social contract made by two equally important parties. No one but yourself is responsible for you to have an enjoyable time playing whatever game there is... What tight rulesets designed for a single dominant application (Warmahordes for example) are doing is basically filtering the playerbase, so more players have a similiar mindsets, because it is so "hardwired" into the game. WH40k, except for maybe 3rd and 4th ed, was never a single-focus game. And this is most true when looking at RT, 2nd and 7th ed. People often (even earlier in this very thread) seek a "universal fix" in splitting current ruleset into different army sizes, but fail to realise, that this would result ONLY in giving "named shortcuts" for what is basically doable in one sentence of pre-game chat. Seriously, is it so difficult to say "I seek an infantry oriented, 1500pt game with no deathstars or superheavies, are you interested?"? Or to say "I want a game of Warhammer themed Pacific Rim, are you in for a challenge?". And is it so hard to just put your minis back into your case when you see during deployment, that you are beeing tricked into playing a game you didn't agree to play and go seek another game? If your local players all want to play competetive bull gak and enjoy it and you are the only one who don't like it, then how on earth is it justified to expect GW to FORCE them to play your way by adjusting the official rules to suit your needs, not theirs? And if your (in general meaning) answer is "Yes, it is impossible to pre-arrange games on even such basic level." then how on earth you think, that after splittin the ruleset into smaller, better defined games in this universum you'll have more occasions to play it in your preffered scale WITH THOSE VERY SAME people in your area? They won't suddenly and magically change their taste. Recently people are so hyped with Kill Team release and expect it to shift the landscape of community, but those are THE SAME kill team rules as in 6th ed. And that died out - people complained that they could no more get Kill Team games they wanted, despite the rules being there...
To reiterate - no single point of view on "proper" or "standard" 40K is "right" - it is only "popular" in any given area. WH40k is to big for one golden standard to exist. Even ITC or ETC 1850 pt tournaments are only that - artificial (even if popular) sub variant of 40K, so you simply have to communicate your needs and preferences to your opponents, especially when picking up random strangers...
One more thing: it is completely wrong to assume, that any given stranger even got into the hobby for the same reasons you did. I see a lot of arguments like "warhammer will die out because game X has better rules" or "everyone will eventually realise, that game X is so much better/cheaper/faster/whatever", but there will always be players that got into WH40K because of setting/faction/models aesthetics or feel and other games simply do not appeal to them. I would never even look at Bolt Action or Flames of War, I will certainly not play Drop Zone, Infinity, X-wing, Warmahordes or Age of Sigmar and there is only small chance that I'll ever own a single faction from Maulifaux or Wolsung - not because they are or aren't great or crappy games, but because they simply do not fit my taste of scale/look/feel, or their setting is not interesting to me. And because this "reason to hobby" can be so different for any of us here, it is childish to think, that there will ever be a common agreement on how WH40k should work like. It is trivial to agree on "WH40k is a crap ruleset" as everyone would like at least one important rule changed, but other than that there are endless debates started almost every week on "what does exactly 'crap' mean to begin with"! And other than trivial "ballance sucks" I cannot see even a "significant minority" to definately agree on even a single factor - and that is perfectly understandable, given that 40k is not only a tabletop game, but a 30 year old phenomenon and realy a separate genre of entertainment...
On the subject of talk, I don't know about a lot of you but I'm in like at least 1-2 facebook groups (one dedicated to a store, one not) where people can easily post to discuss things about games. Problem is nobody does it beyond just saying "Anyone up for a game of 40k this weekend? 1500 points", it's like they still want to put in a minimum of effort to get a game; these same people tend to be the ones who laugh and are dismissive when even considering 40k as a narrative game (I honestly do not know why they even play 40k as opposed to the myriad of other games that are much better suited to the style of game they want; the old saw of "but [other game] doesn't have Space Marines!" kind of thing is my guess).
Still the player's fault for not doing that, and not caring about people who do. There are basically an entire subset of 40k gamer who have zero interest in anything other than competitive gaming, despite the fact 40k is probably the worst set of rules out there for competitive focused gaming. Maybe it's because 40k tends to be more of a "pay to win" and "bring the biggest guns to win" game that's why they stick with it; a lot easier to plop some cash on like 3x Wraithknights and a horde of Jetbikes and win without much thought than actually have to think in games like Warmachine or Infinity.
WayneTheGame wrote: On the subject of talk, I don't know about a lot of you but I'm in like at least 1-2 facebook groups (one dedicated to a store, one not) where people can easily post to discuss things about games. Problem is nobody does it beyond just saying "Anyone up for a game of 40k this weekend? 1500 points", it's like they still want to put in a minimum of effort to get a game; these same people tend to be the ones who laugh and are dismissive when even considering 40k as a narrative game (I honestly do not know why they even play 40k as opposed to the myriad of other games that are much better suited to the style of game they want; the old saw of "but [other game] doesn't have Space Marines!" kind of thing is my guess).
Still the player's fault for not doing that, and not caring about people who do. There are basically an entire subset of 40k gamer who have zero interest in anything other than competitive gaming, despite the fact 40k is probably the worst set of rules out there for competitive focused gaming. Maybe it's because 40k tends to be more of a "pay to win" and "bring the biggest guns to win" game that's why they stick with it; a lot easier to plop some cash on like 3x Wraithknights and a horde of Jetbikes and win without much thought than actually have to think in games like Warmachine or Infinity.
Or Starcraft, where I can react to your build. If 40K were like that, I'd rush Eldar everytime I saw heavy gas. Just like I do Protoss. Advanced units having a temporal cost is game-changing. Would the WK be so great if it didn't show up until turn 4?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 16:09:51
I believe that 40k is a game where a lot of the money spent is by people who stick around with the game, versus players who just stick their toe in. That is, there are new players, but they fall into the category of people who leave, and people who become heavily invested.
I think the biggest spenders are the people who stick around for years, and sometimes, decades -- and over that period of time, their tendency is to build up their favorite armies, instead of build new armies. In order to sell them more stuff, GW needed to make the game accommodate more models and models of different types -- hence the move from infantry and very small vehicles (like bikes) to light tanks to flyers to walkers to heavy tanks to flyers to large stompies to giant stompies.
It basically boils down to -- if you have people who what to keep spending money on Eldar or Space Marines or Orks for years and years, how do you make that possible?
Flip side: I don't think 40k is a good choice for people who want to a casual hobby, unless all they have a like-minded group, or they just mostly want to build models at their own pace. The scale and scope and game length of typical groups other than kill team is just not ideal for anyone who wants a game to goof around on every now and then. If you ARE looking at kill team groups (there are a couple in my area), a majority of GW's catalog is irrelevant.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/19 18:24:19
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.
Not every game is the all-stars simply because there's no real way to ensure adequate match up of player skill level without having an intimate club (which doesn't help someone randomly walking into a FLGS or GW looking for a pick up game) or comp scoring that used to be used in tournaments (This one is doable at least, if everyone agreed on the same comp. GW used to put out a comp that they used for Games Day or GT's, and our club used that comp to gauge damn near every match up unless we were running something fluffy. New gamer "This is 40K night, right? I'm looking for a game. 1,500 pts is what I brought." Store runner "Okay, welcome to the store. Fill this out if you would, please." New gamer looks at comp sheet ".. the hell is this?" Store runner "Oh, that's comp scoring. We use it so that people don't get roflstomped. Usually we'll throw the two lowest scores against each other and the two highest scores against each other. We also use that ranking in single elimination tourneys. Keeps the same dudes from racing to 1st and 2nd." New player "Coo."). However, a game should be designed from the start to be playable from both ends of the spectrum. The trick is figuring out the best starting point. AOS showed us that casual narrative easy going is the worst starting point.
Also, as far as the bolded: how is accusing me of overcompensation not an insult? And I need to grow up if I find that insulting? That's hilarious. Maybe in your country the terms "insult" and "grow up" mean drastically different things than they do in the US, but I'm going to guess they don't.
Here's the thing, everybody competes in this game. It's the nature of the game. Blanking on who said it originally, but "the objective of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun." Now I realize that nobody likes to lose when it comes down to it, but we can't all get participation trophies. If you want the kind of experience where there's not a decisive winner, you need to role play.
Deadnight wrote: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.
And more insults and condescending attitude. Always plan for both sides of the spectrum. I work 2nd shift, and have a small window of time when the stores are open to get a game in. I don't bother anymore since I will have no time to play after spending far too long simply negotiating the type of game I WANT to play. THAT is the inherent problem with 40K currently (and AOS for those keeping track), and one that the rules SHOULD accommodate for. They actually did a few editions ago, and I guess that's the rub on my part. I can't understand how a balanced springboard was possible 19 years ago, AND for a decade at least, that is suddenly not possible now without a Geneva convention amongst the players themselves.
As for the bolded: what about Knights?
Deadnight wrote: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.
Broken record time regarding the sheer wall of insults here. This still ignores the fact that pick up games exist, and that some gamers don't have time to organize a social contract in advance. What if I am on a training mission with the Army, have some free time, and don't really know the local scene since this is my first time ever being in that town? Yeah, the whole texting theory falls flat there. And I doubt that sort of scenario is as rare as you'd think. Also, you remind me a lot of a poster over at warseer who insinuated that any gamers that were not explicitly the narrative type simply didn't want to even talk to their opponents. This is a funny image to me, an image that is as far from the truth as possible. What we want is to not have to micromanage every aspect of the game before we GET TO THE GAME. It's really simple when you think about it. You have a baseline that you can drop models and play to at any time. The current 40K doesn't allow that in the same way as previous editions. Now you have to basically plan for Apocalypse type games at all times, and that should never have happened. It also shouldn't be on the gamers to fix that, but unfortunately nobody will stop playing 40K long enough to send that message back to GW, so we get to wallow in the mire or play something different. Which is what I do.
Also, I really need to shoot a short video of the whole non-speaking gamer thing. It'd play out like a Sergio Leone western, it'd be fabulous.
So sending a text the day before a game, or face booking isn't common or practical? Or even having a chat about what you want to do the next time you meet up?clets not kid outselves here. You're talking about people being too lazy to communicate and looking for someone else to blame.
Texting or facebooking someone I hardly know that I may or may not have even theoretically met yet if I wander to my local GW is not practical. Having a chat once I'm there just leads to one of the scenarios I outlined assuming each player has brought roughly enough models for one pre-designed army with some wiggle room. In a club, sure, but the issue specifically here is for people who do pick-up games at a store with people they may not know well or at all. No one is really arguing that within a group of friends communication is important and likely the standard, which alleviates some issues.
How is texting/fb'ing someone 'not practical'? That's you being lazy, nothing more. If you don't know them, then get to know them. Get over yourself (not you, I'm talking in general). Bloody hel, our WMH group exploded with mk3, and some guys started up a Fb chat group for us all to organise games. There's names I don't know, and it doesn't matter - i just natter away until I meet them in person. Then I shake hands and it's all good
And I'm not talking about having a chat pre-game. Or after your first gsme after you've done what you've done and you're talking about what you like and what you'd like to do next time. I'm talking about having a chat at the store, hanging out. Getting to know them. You know. Putting in some effort, socially. Goes a long way in a social hobby, surprisingly enough...
I'm really starting to see a trend here. And also, I will reiterate that not every gamer walking into a store will game in that store forever. See my above examples to see why this attitude is irrelevant and the standard is what needs corrected, not the gamer.
There is also the argument that gsming groups or whatever are hostile to the approach I talk about, and that gsmes should be,perfectly provided for them, because they shouldn't have to do anything. I always remember the old phrase 'if the mountain won't come to you, maybe you have to come to the mountain'. It's true to say that game companies shouod adapt to nature of their gamers. It's just as true to say that gamers should adapt to suit the nature of their games. Sometimes it's not that the games need to change, it's the communities themselves that need to.
Most players are happy to work with the rules to tweak and adjust, but again, it depends on the group and having people come to agree on certain aspects. That may or may not be practical, and for pick-up players, it is most likely not practical. Really though, its far from unreasonable to expext a game to be perfectly playable out of the box, so player attitudes need not necessarily change if they can easily jump ship to a competitor who provides that.
Like I said. Pick up players are playing a game mode not fit for purpose. If the gsmes you choose to play for your pick up games are ultimately not fit for purpose, then you need to play games that are more suitable for pick up games. Or you need to adjust the approach you bring to your games and not 'pick up game'. Here's the thing - the former I would recommend. Go play WMH. But it will cost you. New armies. New rules. New investment in terms of time, models to paint, money to spent etc. The latter I would also recommend. What will it cost you? A change of perspective. Maybe a conversation. At worst, swallow your pride a bit in terms of matching up what you are bringing to the table to allow for the other guy (and that goes both ways).
The game should indeed be fit for that purpose, and until the last two editions WAS fit for that purpose. So the gist of what you are saying is we either need to adopt your view of negotiating games or move on to other games? Got it.
Like I said, three solutions. You don't need a perfect gaming group. You need a bit of cop on, maturity and a will to engage in cooperative game building. It is entirely possible to smooth out the edges of issues amongst your group.
As stated before, a wonderful pipe dream for many, but far from reality for most. Sure, you can attempt to be the change you want, but you'd need a good club to begin with.
So like I said. It's on the players. Lazy gamers. Come to the mountain instead. The gsme will only ever be what you are willing to put into it. And having cop on, maturity and cooperative gsme building is not a pipe dream. That's lazy gamer talk. Man up!
I just need a condescending insult flag, this is getting a bit tedious to type.
Balanced rules set would obviously be my clear favourite as well, don't get me wrong. But I have learned I can have fun with a bad rules set with good people. It's plenty realistic is ask for friends to be reasonable and work together. Regsrding excluding people - I find that the co-operative, chat about what you want approach is actually inclusive, rather than exlusive for the most part.
As above, a luxury clearly many don't have. Great idea in theory, hard in practice for many, many reasons.
You say a luxury many people don't have, I say effort people can't be arsed making. Or they've never actually tried. It's on them.
And I can just as easily turn this on its head:
'Blame the self righteous players. If we had a more cooperative, proactive community willing to step up and help each other, we wouldn't be having this discussion either, not to the degree and extend we are having. People would just sort out their issues amongst themselves and move on.
The issue here is defining the self righteous player. People will play what they like within the rules. Sometimes those visions among players don't match up, and no one is wrong is they can't agree or compromise. One of the possible solutions of sorting out these issues is to simply not play or agree to disagree, which I'm sure you can agree is not a positive solution.
Ultimately, the problem stems from the rules, so the rules are the issue to be addressed. It'd be great if everyone could magically hold hands and sing Hakuna Matata together, but its just not going to happen.
Easy. They're the people thst do nothing for themselves or their community, and want the perfect experience handed to them on a plate whilst not having to lift a finger on their part. Lazy gamers.
Not playing people is not playing people. I don't see it as positive or negative. If you're visions for what you want are so different that there is no common ground, then don't play. No reason you can't be mates outside of the 6 by 4. You don't owe ever one a gsme. Geek social fallacies 101.
The rules don't help. NeYou her does the playerbase. The problems stem from where the rules and the players interact. Both are woven into each other like a tapestry. Either one can fail and destroy the experience. And if the rules need to be addressed, then surely the players are just as capable of addressing them amongst themselves?
And then you get to the part where every single player would want something different. In 2 decades of gaming I've yet to find someone whose expectations/wants match mine 100%, or even 75%. Hell, my own brother and I butt heads over elements we love/hate about the game. It doesn't matter how two people agree to ride a tandem bike if it has no tires.
To make it clear where I'm coming from, I have a small gaming group of people who didn't know eachother, but all worked for the same orginaztion, so we have a common background. The 40k games are organized ahead of time and stated what kind of game it will be (tournament prep, casual, warning of large models, so on) and generally have similar power levels. I've personally been pushing BFG (a dead game at the moment) which is slowly picking up, and because I dislike some of the balance issues in the base game, I explained to the group I intended to use a fan modified version that tweaks, clarifies, and fixes balance issues. They all agreed and that's what we do. I personally understand all that it takes to create, build, and nurture an excellent gaming group. I'm also very aware of the challenges some people face who either don't have a FLGS or club and look for pick up games elsewhere. I've been in both scenarios for years on end at times. I know that in both scenarios, a well written ruleset would fix any problem that would have or did arise.
In short, while it'd be great if people were generally friendlier, more open to compromise, understood game design and balance better, and had universally larger and wider variety of models on hand at all times, its likely not going to happen in the grand scheme which is why a game company needs to produce a well written game so we don't have to worry about people sharing the same vision of an ideal match. Its a matter of universality in application for the solution. So while people could work with GW's rules and try and make a go of it, you'll find most people are going to either stop playing, or find greener pastures where they don't have to put in the extra effort just to get a mediocre experience anyways.
Then more,people need to act like you.
Is it more likely that a game company will come along an produce that perfect gsme for everyone so you don't have to worry about people wanting the same thing? That's as much of a pipe dream.
Universality is all well and good, but you aren't talking about universality - you are talking about 'imposed universality'. Imposed universal doesn't always work. Imposed Universal doesn't always fit. All it can do really is filter, and anything that doesn't fit is chucked. Including players wanting something different. Everyone wants something different. Things that work for x won't work for y, and if you insist that that isn't the case, thst that shouldn't be the case, that everyone needs to adhere to 'the one true way of playing', whatever that is. you are simply guilty of enormous hubris and arrogance. And you would be wrong. Ultimately, to use a soccer analogy, you play what's in from of you, not what you'd like to imagine is in front of you.
People could move on to other gsmes. Fair play to them. And I never suggested otherwise. They could stop. Again. Fair play. I just think it's a shame to do either, especially when you have invested so much in terms of money, effort and time into putting models together, painting them, devouring the lore, table time etc.i think putting in the effort to make the game yours is a perfectly valid way of enjoying your hobby and keeping it alive for you and your mates.
He's not talking about imposed universality, he's talking about a standard to launch from. Once again I default back to 3rd since I feel they had the right mix. The rule set fostered to casual play and narrative play without compromising pick up play. THAT is what Blacksails is lamenting the loss of more than anything, and he feels it's an indictment of the rules system and not the players that this is no longer the case. And he's right.
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.
Also, as far as the bolded: how is accusing me of overcompensation not an insult? And I need to grow up if I find that insulting? That's hilarious. Maybe in your country the terms "insult" and "grow up" mean drastically different things than they do in the US, but I'm going to guess they don't.
Here's the thing, everybody competes in this game. It's the nature of the game. Blanking on who said it originally, but "the objective of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun." Now I realize that nobody likes to lose when it comes down to it, but we can't all get participation trophies. If you want the kind of experience where there's not a decisive winner, you need to role play.
I didn't accuse you of anything. I was trying to illustrate a point with harsh language. If it came across that way I'll apologise. Sharp elbows and all that, and the Internet not conveying tone.
But bear in mind, I found you equally insulting and just as condascending in what you said In how every one not giving a hundred percent in a game is an 'insult'. You just had a go at everyone that plays a Wargame to relax and let go and doesn't turn it up to 11. And bear in mind the context in which I referred to the need to grow up - '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, you need to grow up'. So is the thought of people enjoying using wargaming to chill out and relax and not give 100% insulting to you? Or just another way to play, that even if it's not for you, it's an approach you can understand and acknowledge?
Here's the thing, everybody competes in this game. It's the nature of the game. Blanking on who said it originally, but "the objective of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun." Now I realize that nobody likes to lose when it comes down to it, but we can't all get participation trophies. If you want the kind of experience where there's not a decisive winner, you need to role play.
And you can get off the soapbox. If I want that kind of experience, I will look for that kind of experience. RPGs are not the only way to doing it,cdespite what you think. You can 'role-play' outside of rpg's, because all role playing is is fundamentally story telling. And bringing a narrative to life. And you can do that anywhere. just don't have to approach wargames like a competitive event, shockingly. Winners and losers happen, but the approach/perspective doesn't see the win or the loss as 'the point' or 'the objective'; it's about playing through a story/scenario/hook and having fun with friends. Like watching a movie play out. Gw games used to have gms, as do a lot of historical games and there is nothing at all wrong in still approaching games in this manner.
And more insults and condescending attitude. Always plan for both sides of the spectrum. I work 2nd shift, and have a small window of time when the stores are open to get a game in. I don't bother anymore since I will have no time to play after spending far too long simply negotiating the type of game I WANT to play. THAT is the inherent problem with 40K currently (and AOS for those keeping track), and one that the rules SHOULD accommodate for. They actually did a few editions ago, and I guess that's the rub on my part. I can't understand how a balanced springboard was possible 19 years ago, AND for a decade at least, that is suddenly not possible now without a Geneva convention amongst the players themselves.
You are not the only person out there with not a hell of a lot of times on your hands. I work/travel fifty hours a week, and have various other commitments at home, and training (gym, running-training for marathons etc) that mean I'm often not 'free' until after 8 or 9 at night. I can't game 24/7. Or even plan for gaming 24/7. Like I said, I'm lucky if I get one or two games in a month sometimes. My window is just as small as yours. We manage by playing at a friends house, usually after work on a Friday. And we are happy to carry on games over succeeding weeks as well if they're 'big' games. We work around our time constraints. Negotiating how we are going to build our games is just something we do now - the more you get into it I've found, the more natural it becomes.
40k is not a pick up game. Nor is it balanced. And if you think it was a 'balanced springboard' 19 years ago, you'd be hopelessly wrong. 3rd edition was a monstrosity in terms of balance. Anyway, whatever 40k was 19 or 20 years ago is irrelevant. A lot of things were a lot different twenty years ago. I was different. You were different. Things change. I changed. You changed. Things evolve. The game grew. The game expanded. The game changed. As the tau say - 'the one constant in the universe is change. The wise adapt'.
What the game 'should be' is irrelevant outside of theorising and 'what ifs'. What the game 'is' and how we work with it is the actual practical reality in the ground and what needs done. Too many people get all flustered and bogged down with the former, and never realise that it's the latter that is actually important. I just propose dealing with the reality, rather than get muddled down in wish listing or constantly complaining about problems whilst not doing anything about it.
Broken record time regarding the sheer wall of insults here. This still ignores the fact that pick up games exist, and that some gamers don't have time to organize a social contract in advance. What if I am on a training mission with the Army, have some free time, and don't really know the local scene since this is my first time ever being in that town? Yeah, the whole texting theory falls flat there. And I doubt that sort of scenario is as rare as you'd think. Also, you remind me a lot of a poster over at warseer who insinuated that any gamers that were not explicitly the narrative type simply didn't want to even talk to their opponents. This is a funny image to me, an image that is as far from the truth as possible. What we want is to not have to micromanage every aspect of the game before we GET TO THE GAME. It's really simple when you think about it. You have a baseline that you can drop models and play to at any time. The current 40K doesn't allow that in the same way as previous editions. Now you have to basically plan for Apocalypse type games at all times, and that should never have happened. It also shouldn't be on the gamers to fix that, but unfortunately nobody will stop playing 40K long enough to send that message back to GW, so we get to wallow in the mire or play something different. Which is what I do.
What if you are? Again, I've moved cities and I've moved countries, and I've never had an issue finding out what was played where and getting involved. If you don't have time to organise that social contract, either don't play a once off gsme in a random store in a random town you'll never be in again, or organise/play a different game there. I'd personally be in two minds about it - seems like a lot of work for a 'random one off game'. Ultimately, for me it's about community. I play people first and foremost, games second.
And trust me, I'm a lot different to that warseer poster, and I think that description rings a bell, but the name eludes me right now. I play narrative. And I play competitive. I play pick up games too. I enjoy all three. All three have value. All have their place. 40k is simply not a pick up gsme any more. If you want to enjoy it, you need to approach it in another direction. Personally, I think it's worth it. Feel free to disagree. I don't mind the 'negotiation phase' at all. I'm happy to work around it, even with my time limitations. I enjoy the tinkering and the 'game building'. I find its as much fun as rolling dice. it just frustrates me that so many people are so unwilling to step out of their bubble, and expand their gaming horizons. Pick up gsmes are fine for what they are, but they don't define gaming, nor it's baseline. It's nothing more that one approach to take, and one amongst many.
And for what it's worth, I've been equally harsh to those who see 'narrative gaming' as the one true way, the end all and be all, and who end up being disparaging and nasty towards the idea of pick up games and tournaments.
I'm really starting to see a trend here. And also, I will reiterate that not every gamer walking into a store will game in that store forever. See my above examples to see why this attitude is irrelevant and the standard is what needs corrected, not the gamer.
I disagree. The community is the heart and soul of what still amounts to a social hobby. Without gamers making the effort towards each other, there is no community. With no community, there is no point.
The game should indeed be fit for that purpose, and until the last two editions WAS fit for that purpose.
Lol no. 40k was always a wreck of a game. Drop the rose tinted glasses. Its a cluttered, clunky mess and always has been. The fact that you could jury rig it as a pick up gsme twenty years ago with it doesn't necessarily mean it was designed, or even fully suitable as a pick up game, or for tournaments. Warmachine/hordes are designed from the get-go as pick up/tournament games and they do them extremely well. Even back in third or fourth, 40k was never anything even remotely close to what WMH is.
So the gist of what you are saying is we either need to adopt your view of negotiating games or move on to other games? Got it
Well, yes.
I mean, it's kind of obvious if you ask me.
If you have issues with 40k, you either continue playing, and swallow your frustrations and keep dealing with all the crap, you walk away and play different games, or you try and sort it out amongst yourselves and make it work for you. It's not rocket surgery.
And then you get to the part where every single player would want something different. In 2 decades of gaming I've yet to find someone whose expectations/wants match mine 100%, or even 75%. Hell, my own brother and I butt heads over elements we love/hate about the game. It doesn't matter how two people agree to ride a tandem bike if it has no tires.
Then get tyres and put them on. Me and Mrs deadnight got into cycling recently, and the first thing you do if you're doing it properly is learn how bikes work, so you can swap out And change things like tires to suit different terrain types and so you can do basic bike repair and maintenance.
Gaming isn't much different. You want a tandem bike, then get it sorted. Or get your own bikes but cycle on the same road with one following the other or cycling side by side and try and make sure you keep pace with each other. If you're cycling together and going somewhere the point is not to leave your mate miles and miles behind in the process. Or to just choose your own routes regardless of what they're doing. Because neither is fun nor fair, is it?
If you share 75% or even 50% then that's a start. Be accommodating to the guy at the other end. On the understanding he'll be accommodating to you. That's how you build a community relationship that lasts long term. You play the game that he wants to play, and in return, he plays the game/match up you want to play for the following game. Doesn't seem hard. I mean. We do it all the time. Of the three guys I play with mostly,ci am by far the most 'competitive', as that was my gaming upbringing for about ten years prior to meeting them. The others are more laid back, and each has different likes, dislikes, tastes and approaches. I like the sci fi approach, M likes his tanks a bit too much, P will always homebrew even if the system is perfect and R likes to charge across the field like an ork. And we often play 2 on 2, and make our gsmes work with a bit of negotiation, a bit of give and take, and you know what? It all works out in the end.
He's not talking about imposed universality, he's talking about a standard to launch from. Once again I default back to 3rd since I feel they had the right mix. The rule set fostered to casual play and narrative play without compromising pick up play. THAT is what Blacksails is lamenting the loss of more than anything, and he feels it's an indictment of the rules system and not the players that this is no longer the case. And he's right.
Thst 'standard', depending on how you do it can very well end up being imposed universality. And that's not always a good thing. For me, the standard to launch from is called having a conversation, and building relationships with people. I play the long game here and don't settle for 'just a game in a store' with strangers because people and our connections are ultimately the heart of this hobby, and without them, there is no hobby.
And like I said, that was 20years ago. Third edition was a clunky, unbalanced game in its own right. I still get shivers when I think of starcannon eldar, the craftworld supplement, 'on a 1 I go faster' blood Angels, and how the gsme devolved into either 'rhino rush', or 'shoot the rhino rush' types lists. Plus close combat and rolling up flanks was no end of annoying. I don't think it did any of those things you mention (casual, narrative, pick up play, tournaments etc) well, and being honest, were I to go back to it, I think 'casual, with a chat beforehand to make sure it's a decent match up' is the most workable approach. I've also said that I agree with blacksails on a lot of things - he is right a lot of the time, but there is always another perspective and 'the other side of the coin' to look at. I mean, I dislike the fact that 40k isn't a pick up game. I like pick up gsmes. I love WMH for that very reason(favourite gsme, for a lot of reasons). the reality on the ground is that 40k is a clunky, broken mess, and the only practical way to get anything out of it is to 'level up as gamers' and step in with a social shock absorber to make it work. Here's the thing - I also like narrative games, and I like this approach anyway, so for me, it's both natural and enjoyable to do this for 40k. Almost like I'd probably be doing it anyway. It's just that sadly, too many people are too blinkered to want to change their ways - gsmers are surprisingly conservative and terrified of change, often being very unwilling to step out of their comfort zone. I think it's a shame. Regarding my attitude/approach? Sometimes you need tough love and to be shocked out of it before you will react and push yourself as a result. And I like the whole 'pushing myself' thing. i believe in and encourage self improvement, and personal empowerment. That's what everything I say boils down to. Often times I've found that sharp elbows and tough talk, backed up with examples of people who have made it work goes a lot further than any amount of mollycoddling - that just enables and reinforces our apathy and intertia.
Listen, tony - I'll say it again - I'll apologise if I came across insulting towards you directly. And I mean it. That wasn't my intent. Please believe me. I'm too easy going in person so want to be seen like that here. I appreciate the feedback, and for what it's worth - happy gaming. Find yourself over here, and I'll promise you a beer in ye quaint old Scottish pub.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/09/21 10:38:57
Very interesting thread and glad I got pointed towards it.
I see a lot of "no it can't be done. its too difficult. theres too many obstacles. people won't allow it. No. no." which come across as putting obstacles in the way, rather than actually just giving it a go and taking ownership of your own hobby that you have paid good money for, but feel frustrated by..........yet aren't prepared to fix or attempt to fix.
You get more out of the game the more you put in. Open style gaming is easy once you realise that, really, its only a case of approaching the game with a different mindset.
As far as all this "oh, they might not have the models to rebuild their army" talk that's scattered throughout the thread - just use the models you have and work with them!
Example - someone said about genestealer cult and a imperial knight force and how it would never work because the cult can't damage the knight. Well, who says they have to?
1 - the cult has to slip past the knight on patrol and exit the table with as much of their forces as they can. But can they? Come up with some suitable environmental rules for maybe them choosing to wait until night before making the attempt? But what about the scanners on the knight? Perhaps its just waiting for them............
2 - as the cult has no way of directly dealing with the knight, they'll need to call in the assistance of that missile silo they took over recently*. But they need to plant a tracking device onto the knight, who is unlikely to let them near him. some will die in the attempt, but one may succeed and remove this obstacle from the cults uprising...........
That took, what, 3 mins of thought? Chuck down the toys and play. Who cares if its unbalanced or the points are different? That is not the driver of the game - the players are and the onus is on them to step up and have a mature approach with their pastime.
*hey look! another game idea!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/22 10:34:34
Unit1126PLL wrote: *shrugs* It stops when the players stop it. There are already rules for orbital strikes in both the Heresy and regular 40k, as well as rules for surface-to-orbit battle vessels such as the Manta and the Sokar Stormbird. So... never? Hopefully? I'd love it if the scale kept increasing. Next year my enemy can bring a cruiser but my deep-striking troops can board it, and the year later, he'll bring a battleship, but my superheavies will be landed straight into the cargo hold after some defensive fire rolls. Honestly I think that'd be a fun scenario.
Or, y'know, they could make a game for that and you could actually play it instead? Because meanwhile the people that want to play a skirmish level game with impactful squad and platoon sized units are wondering why they have to give up their game so you can have yours...
Do they have to give it up? I have two friends that play 1000 points constantly. I cannot participate, for obvious reasons, but that's okay - no one is forcing me to.
Just like how you could play 1000 points, or 500, or 400 Combat Patrol, and aren't forced to play at my size.
That's literally the point of 40k and its points limits.
Problem is they cannot play 1500-2000 pts game meaningfully against list that has lots of apoc stuff. It's just opponent rolling dice to see if they wipe opponent out or not. That's not fun game.
Newsflash: One ruleset cannot cover every scale sensibly. You don't make epic scaled battles with 40k models by just by cramming in more models and bigger ones to boot. Skirmish games works differently from platoon games that work differently to company games, batallion games etc.
I see a lot of "no it can't be done. its too difficult. theres too many obstacles. people won't allow it. No. no." which come across as putting obstacles in the way, rather than actually just giving it a go and taking ownership of your own hobby that you have paid good money for, but feel frustrated by..........yet aren't prepared to fix or attempt to fix.
You get more out of the game the more you put in. Open style gaming is easy once you realise that, really, its only a case of approaching the game with a different mindset.
As far as all this "oh, they might not have the models to rebuild their army" talk that's scattered throughout the thread - just use the models you have and work with them!
Example - someone said about genestealer cult and a imperial knight force and how it would never work because the cult can't damage the knight. Well, who says they have to?
1 - the cult has to slip past the knight on patrol and exit the table with as much of their forces as they can. But can they? Come up with some suitable environmental rules for maybe them choosing to wait until night before making the attempt? But what about the scanners on the knight? Perhaps its just waiting for them............
2 - as the cult has no way of directly dealing with the knight, they'll need to call in the assistance of that missile silo they took over recently*. But they need to plant a tracking device onto the knight, who is unlikely to let them near him. some will die in the attempt, but one may succeed and remove this obstacle from the cults uprising...........
That took, what, 3 mins of thought? Chuck down the toys and play. Who cares if its unbalanced or the points are different? That is not the driver of the game - the players are and the onus is on them to step up and have a mature approach with their pastime.
*hey look! another game idea!
Funny, that those examples are very close to what I had in mind when I read those complaints… One other was to give GC units some kind of "scenario" blasting charges, that could immobilize or destroy the knight etc… From narrative perspective such matchup is really a great theme for multitude of ideas...
Getting back to broader context: what I think is very clearly visible in this thread, is a problem with 40K origins vs… playerbase origins. 40K started as a freestyle RPG game with multitude of options and nobody really thought of mythical "competetive ballance" in RT and 2nd ed. One important thing that gets overlooked in such threads, is that 3rd ed "reboot" (1998) of 40K was not done because late 2nd ed ballance issues. It was made because Diablo premiere (1996) shifted computer entertainment focus from turn based games towards real time genres of computer games. And everyone had to adapt to completely new mentality of players. Before Diablo, one mission of e.g. X-COM: Enemy Unknown could take entire evening (especially with save-restore approach), and finishing some games could take weeks or months even. So there wasn't so huge disparity between miniature wargaming and computer wargaming (from hobby perspective). And miniature wargaming had added bonus of "over-the-top graphics setting" back then. But after Diablo influence (it was obviously not the first one, but with the largest impact), turn based computer games quickly collapsed to a niche genre, and this was so fast and big impact, that by the year 2000 almost all strategy titles were real-time. There was a brief period of (more or less) '96-'98, when many games were published with hybrid engines (like M.A.X. or X-COM: Apocalypse), but eventually computer gaming went "full real time". At this point, disparity between computer based entertainment and "oldschool" RPG or tabletop games became huge in terms of necessary time investment. This is the reason why 3rd ed 40k was not "tweaked and improved" 2nd ed, but vastly simplified and streamlined "quick and dirty" edition - because average new player (late '90 teenager) had entirely different focus scope than teenager from the '80 and early '90. So GW had to cut its RPG roots and try to become a "wargame", which it weren't earlier - it was really a genre of it's own: massively overgrown RPG battle resolution system without proper RPG game… And after that a global trend of "every game has to have a grand tournament with monetary prizes" kicked in and everything went nuts (from an old-school casual player perspective at least).
This is "prehistory", but understanding that period is crucial to understanding current situation: we have now a very divided community, with a huge part of it treating 40K as a typical wargame and comparing it to other wargames out there (doesn't really matter if in casual or competetive context), a large minority treating it as a narrative game (be it for legacy reasons or because they came to conclusion, that it is an unwieldy mess of rules unsuited for competitive play) and some folks treating it purely as a modelling/painting hobby with ocasional playability… And because 3rd ed "engine" was so "quick and dirty" it is really hard to "fix" it, so it could compete with modern competitively focused games written from ground up. But reverting to a "guideline for narrative reenactment" was trivial, hence 6th and 7th ed...
Hrm, I dont think one can chalk everything up to Diablo. Diablo was hardly the first big impact "real time" game, Command & Conquer, Doom, Dune II, MechWarrior II and many other games did real time gaming and multiplayer before Diablo did with great popular success. Likewise, turn based RPG's continued to be wildly popular for some time even after Diablo (see Fallout 1 & 2).
40k moved to a more "pickup" style with army lists and whatnot because thats how people were already starting to move by the end of RT (when GW first started publishing such material), and because, just like Real Time with computer games, it attracts a wider audience than the more RPG style of original RT play.
2E got a reboot because it ran into the exact same issues 7E is running into, few can keep up with all the available rules through multiple sales channels, balance became nonexistent and the rules became increasingly clunky and awkward for the kinds of things being pushed into the ruleset along with army size beginning to bloat on a ruleset that just didnt handle those sizes well.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ 
+ 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
