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.

ccs wrote:

 Horst wrote:

Karol wrote:

The good news is that Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place at the moment, so there won’t be any seismic changes, just a handful of balancing tweaks.

I don't know what to think about it. But this looks like GW will never fix GK :(
Well I guess they can't get feedback from tournaments and playtesters, when no one plays GK.

To be entirely fair to GW, GK cannot be fixed by an FAQ.

Oh bs. If you can make an army worse with a FAQ etc you can also make it better.

Indeed. Surely an FAQ can go something like.


-Following Beta changes to the Grey Knight Code rules and entries.-

1. All Grey Knight infantry have -Aegis Shrouding-. All ranged attacks targeting Grey Knight models/Units outside X distance are subject to a -1 to hit modifier.

2. The following Grey Knight characters (list here.) additionally have access to the Space marine codex psychic power list.

3. etc etc

It's not hard, especially when the changes don't involve major changes to stat entries.

Wayniac wrote:
My main point is when people try to say 40k is this insanely complex game, because it's 100% false. I stopped playing Warmahordes because quite frankly the level of minutiae in that game was too much; it hurt my brain. But that doesn't magically mean 40k is a complex game. It's incredibly shallow. It's still fun, but I don't try to delude myself into thinking it has meaningful depth and choices.

I can agree there, it does not have as many complex modifiers. though I kind of like the simplicity of equipment rather than just guns being very similar but having a few inches shorter or longer range and str etc. In 40k a lot of units even across ranges sharing profiles is a plus imo as a auto cannon is an autocannon across all armies. plasma is plasma etc. Complexity does not equate to fun and I genuinely have a blast in 40k too which is why i stick with it (also like the Citadel models better and painting is a big part of the hobby to me)

Wayniac wrote:
My main point is when people try to say 40k is this insanely complex game, because it's 100% false. I stopped playing Warmahordes because quite frankly the level of minutiae in that game was too much; it hurt my brain. But that doesn't magically mean 40k is a complex game. It's incredibly shallow. It's still fun, but I don't try to delude myself into thinking it has meaningful depth and choices.

You had a very different experience from mine.
I left warmahordes because it was too plain, all the games played in the same identical way
The lists wrote themselves after you selected between the one or two decent casters in your faction, 90% of the units could easily not exist and no one would notice.
A faction was fine as long as it had one broken combo...
Maybe that the game is better now compared to when i left, but from what i remember 8th is in a much better position compared to it, both in balance and in depth.

Spoletta wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
My main point is when people try to say 40k is this insanely complex game, because it's 100% false. I stopped playing Warmahordes because quite frankly the level of minutiae in that game was too much; it hurt my brain. But that doesn't magically mean 40k is a complex game. It's incredibly shallow. It's still fun, but I don't try to delude myself into thinking it has meaningful depth and choices.

You had a very different experience from mine.
I left warmahordes because it was too plain, all the games played in the same identical way
The lists wrote themselves after you selected between the one or two decent casters in your faction, 90% of the units could easily not exist and no one would notice.
A faction was fine as long as it had one broken combo...
Maybe that the game is better now compared to when i left, but from what i remember 8th is in a much better position compared to it, both in balance and in depth.

To each their own. I found that in WMH you had to like plan everything out to the tiniest detail because if you moved a single model a fraction of an inch too far, depending on what your opponent had they could chain react off of it and win the game just because you messed up that 0.5". So you ended up constantly having to think if I do X, could my opponent do Y and win.

I will say 40k is way more straightforward. I just think it's lacking in actual tactical depth. You don't really do much beyond target priority.

"Complex" might not be the right word. 40K is quite simple to understand. Both the basic concepts and the levels of Faction specific add-ons.

Too "Diverse" is probably the better word. There are just too many factions and special snowflake rules that make the game hard to balance. Index 40K was fairly balanced, if a bit over-costed in some areas.
But once all the Codices started dropping adding Faction abilities, Stratagems, WL traits and Relics, all that "Diversity" instantly threw out any hope of having an ideal balance for competitive play.
There will ALWAYS be rules/abilities that are just plain better than others when you add on that much extra stuff.

I truly think GW is making a honest effort to slowly tweak things that are over/under powered (even if there are some glaringly obvious things that they haven't done that most of us agree should be done).
I've played since 4E and 8E is by far my favorite edition so far.

-

The prison yard is a pretty good place after 3 years in solitary.
8th is a massive improvement to the previous edition but that doesn't mean it is good as is.

Too "Diverse" is probably the better word. There are just too many factions and special snowflake rules that make the game hard to balance. Index 40K was fairly balanced, if a bit over-costed in some areas.
But once all the Codices started dropping adding Faction abilities, Stratagems, WL traits and Relics, all that "Diversity" instantly threw out any hope of having an ideal balance for competitive play.
There will ALWAYS be rules/abilities that are just plain better than others when you add on that much extra stuff.

I agree with this. A lot of faction traits with wildly differing benefits that do not cost anything has made it much more annoying to balance things. You can't really balance Aeldari when one rule gives everything a -1 to hit and the other gives jetbikes the chance to shoot heavy weapons. The utility of both faction traits are just so different that pointing units accordingly will just never end well.

Any time I see someone whine about "special snowflake" I immediately roll my eyes. I'm glad every faction is getting unique rules and units. Way better htan sitting around with the same damn rules and minis for two fething decades.

It's definitely also bloated. What, half the factions in the game are Imperium? There's too much for them to properly balance even if they were capable of balancing.

GW is like a restaurant that thinks having 100 items on the menu that are all sort of done mediocre is better than having 20 items on the menu that are all done amazing.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
I can agree there, it does not have as many complex modifiers. though I kind of like the simplicity of equipment rather than just guns being very similar but having a few inches shorter or longer range and str etc. In 40k a lot of units even across ranges sharing profiles is a plus imo as a auto cannon is an autocannon across all armies. plasma is plasma etc. Complexity does not equate to fun and I genuinely have a blast in 40k too which is why i stick with it (also like the Citadel models better and painting is a big part of the hobby to me)

Seconded, to some degree- I do believe there's a fine time and place for complex skirmish/wargames. Infinity was a game I struggled with for a while, and I still end up asking questions to veteran players and looking up rules and then getting clarification on those rules- seriously, I actually have a notebook that I call "Infinity for Dummies" where I write how things work in the simplest way possible, but there are SO MANY outliers and factors that make even the simplest fundamental mechanic is something that needs a caveat. Because of that, I just play that game for a little while and then set it aside to go back to 40k.

40k, Kill-Team, and Necromunda all have an advantage- I can teach someone how to play in one afternoon. I just do a "hold your hand" game for about 3 turns, with nothing fancy on the table- and then "let you off the leash" game where I pull my punches and see what the player does and let him ask questions rather than telling him what to do. And then I throw a few more games with them and gradually step it up a notch each time, and eventually I've got a guy who's flying solo on the next weekend.

As I've said elsewhere- the beauty of 40k's system is that once you realize how simple it is, you can modify it, tweak it, and add to it in order to represent the kind of game you want to play.

Want a small-scale skirmish with elements like hacking terminals, jumping over broken walkways, and customizing your gear? Modify Necromunda and merge it with 40k, if you want to use your 40k stuff.

Dungeon Crawler? Just beef up the players' "heroes" and you run a random selection of various enemy mobs that you can spawn at random- hell, use a scatter die to plot their location, and pick out a boss.

Want a co-op game? Go grab the sentries rules from Necromunda and modify the behavior table, tweak it to get what you want.

Want to turn it into even more of an RPG? Grab some D10's and adjust the stats in a stat block, roll for some modifiers, take some ideas from Inquisitor, and go nuts.

Gladiator-style combat melee brawl? Oh, that's TOO easy- you could even make 'critical hits' and have a table for injuries to various parts of the body.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is I like 40k, because you don't have to actually play 40k the way a book says- it's a toolkit.

That its a toolkit is its biggest positive, and also its biggest drawback at the same time due to houserule rage that a lot of people have.

"If it aint the official version of the game then its an abomination."

Wayniac wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Then why is it all of a sudden "popular"? Good is subjective. I would say 8th is actually good, it's just not great, which I think many wish it were.

Because Shiny Marketing to a young male demographic is more important than quality.

Yeah but they have been doing that for a lot of time, they surely didn't start with 8th. So, why did the big sales come only now?
All signs point to the game being simply better than in it was in previous editions, and my personal experience confirms it.

Ummm proper marketing actually did start with the new CEO. They have invested in PR a lot and it shows. Before that it was no communication, no marketing research(they literally said they don't need market research as their customers buy anything they put out anyway).

Yeah... But GW being delusional for years doesn't mean they should get praise for pulling their heads out of their assess and doing what every other company realized years ago. I think people give "new" GW way too much credit for just doing what any serious business does in the 21st century.

I'm not really one to defend GW, but the praise for that alone should be done. For a company to not have done anything for YEARS on end, and to actually get it implemented in a somewhat decent manner...I dunno if you've actually helped run a business or even been on the administrative side of one, but it isn't as easy as you make it to be.

auticus wrote:
That its a toolkit is its biggest positive, and also its biggest drawback at the same time due to houserule rage that a lot of people have.

"If it aint the official version of the game then its an abomination."

I understand that, but that's the thing- you gotta form your own community, within your local community.

When you're playing with your friend at the FLGS, and playing the game your way- you're gonna have that kid from Polar Express trying to 'correct' your agreed-upon rules and modifications to the game all the time. Even if you've told him "we've altered the rules for a reason, it's our way doing something different". And then when he persists, you can be a jerk.

YOU: "Well, do you want to play a game?"

HIM: "Well I will if-"

YOU: "Well good luck, I hope you find someone."

And then keep playing. For some reason, that always works and makes them get really quiet.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

auticus wrote:
That its a toolkit is its biggest positive, and also its biggest drawback at the same time due to houserule rage that a lot of people have.

"If it aint the official version of the game then its an abomination."

I understand that, but that's the thing- you gotta form your own community, within your local community.

When you're playing with your friend at the FLGS, and playing the game your way- you're gonna have that kid from Polar Express trying to 'correct' your agreed-upon rules and modifications to the game all the time. Even if you've told him "we've altered the rules for a reason, it's our way doing something different". And then when he persists, you can be a jerk.

YOU: "Well, do you want to play a game?"

HIM: "Well I will if-"

YOU: "Well good luck, I hope you find someone."

And then keep playing. For some reason, that always works and makes them get really quiet.

This brings up a point though.

Why SHOULD I have to have any discussion besides point level and missions?

Thats precisely my issue with AOS and 40k, and why I haven't played 40k in years and will not play 40k again until they have addressed both external faction balance and internal balance so that I don't have to collect and paint models I can't stand just to have a good game.

I play AOS but its heavily houseruled and does require an inner community within the community and is also pretty much a daily struggle because so many hate houserules regardless of if they help or hinder. People buy models based on how viable a list it makes them and they get very cranky when your houserule abomination (as they call it) makes their investment less viable.

Its amazing that one can play other games and not have this much of an issue as 40k and AOS but here we are and have been... pretty much for decades.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

auticus wrote:
That its a toolkit is its biggest positive, and also its biggest drawback at the same time due to houserule rage that a lot of people have.

"If it aint the official version of the game then its an abomination."

I understand that, but that's the thing- you gotta form your own community, within your local community.

When you're playing with your friend at the FLGS, and playing the game your way- you're gonna have that kid from Polar Express trying to 'correct' your agreed-upon rules and modifications to the game all the time. Even if you've told him "we've altered the rules for a reason, it's our way doing something different". And then when he persists, you can be a jerk.

YOU: "Well, do you want to play a game?"

HIM: "Well I will if-"

YOU: "Well good luck, I hope you find someone."

And then keep playing. For some reason, that always works and makes them get really quiet.

This brings up a point though.

Why SHOULD I have to have any discussion besides point level and missions?

I would ask why shouldn't you? It's a social game after all? This might be better suited to a topic all of its own. I mean, I understand the reason at face value but 40k has always seemed to make a big deal out of the "social contract" and setting expectations with your opponent, perhaps more than any other game I've ever seen in 20+ years. Especially with the rules in general, if you don't have a social agreement you can end up with lopsided games that nobody is happy with; you as the competitive player don't get a challenge, and your opponent as a non-competitive player gets steamrolled and feels like they wasted 3 hours.

You dont have to do it. Thats the point. Is an option

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

auticus wrote:
That its a toolkit is its biggest positive, and also its biggest drawback at the same time due to houserule rage that a lot of people have.

"If it aint the official version of the game then its an abomination."

I understand that, but that's the thing- you gotta form your own community, within your local community.

When you're playing with your friend at the FLGS, and playing the game your way- you're gonna have that kid from Polar Express trying to 'correct' your agreed-upon rules and modifications to the game all the time. Even if you've told him "we've altered the rules for a reason, it's our way doing something different". And then when he persists, you can be a jerk.

YOU: "Well, do you want to play a game?"

HIM: "Well I will if-"

YOU: "Well good luck, I hope you find someone."

And then keep playing. For some reason, that always works and makes them get really quiet.

This brings up a point though.

Why SHOULD I have to have any discussion besides point level and missions?

I would ask why shouldn't you? It's a social game after all? This might be better suited to a topic all of its own. I mean, I understand the reason at face value but 40k has always seemed to make a big deal out of the "social contract" and setting expectations with your opponent, perhaps more than any other game I've ever seen in 20+ years. Especially with the rules in general, if you don't have a social agreement you can end up with lopsided games that nobody is happy with; you as the competitive player don't get a challenge, and your opponent as a non-competitive player gets steamrolled and feels like they wasted 3 hours.

Which means the social contract only exists because of poor balance.

Talking to your opponent usually has little to do with balance but more with which kind of mission would you like, what's the story behind the battle, which scenario rules are in play, which terrain rules do you use and so on.
If you don't want to do that, just play an eternal war or ITC game.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Talking to your opponent usually has little to do with balance but more with which kind of mission would you like, what's the story behind the battle, which scenario rules are in play, which terrain rules do you use and so on.
If you don't want to do that, just play an eternal war or ITC game.

Right, so I should only need to discuss points and mission as long as everything is balanced. Making up a story is an excuse for poorly done armies.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Talking to your opponent usually has little to do with balance but more with which kind of mission would you like, what's the story behind the battle, which scenario rules are in play, which terrain rules do you use and so on.
If you don't want to do that, just play an eternal war or ITC game.

Some people want a relationship, some want a one night stand. Slayer-Fan wants a gloryhole.

 Galef wrote:
"Complex" might not be the right word. 40K is quite simple to understand. Both the basic concepts and the levels of Faction specific add-ons.

Too "Diverse" is probably the better word. There are just too many factions and special snowflake rules that make the game hard to balance. Index 40K was fairly balanced, if a bit over-costed in some areas.
But once all the Codices started dropping adding Faction abilities, Stratagems, WL traits and Relics, all that "Diversity" instantly threw out any hope of having an ideal balance for competitive play.
There will ALWAYS be rules/abilities that are just plain better than others when you add on that much extra stuff.


-

Too diverse, bloated, or cluttered is an apt way to describe 40k at present. There are few unique mechanics- in the name of "simplicity" "ease" or whatever the rationale is in the design studio- we have a plethora of variations on the same half dozen or so rules. There are too many factions, as well. DW, Inqusition, Custodes, Assassins and (sorry) GK don't quite belong on the large-scale battlefield according to their own fluff, and I think could be better executed in something like KT.

I truly think GW is making a honest effort to slowly tweak things that are over/under powered (even if there are some glaringly obvious things that they haven't done that most of us agree should be done).
I've played since 4E and 8E is by far my favorite edition so far.

That approach is problematic. 40k cannot be improved by small changes made at a snail's pace. The game needs to be examined holistically, and rewritten in its entirety to provide a fun, engaging, tactical and balanced experience. GW has existed for 30+ years and despite their many shortcomings, are a leader in their industry. Why do we, the players, continue to accept and excuse their ineptitude and poor choices instead of expecting better? If any other company behaved as GW does, if they repeatedly lied to us, disappointed us, overcharged us, would we be so forgiving as to praise them for every small step?

Spoletta wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Or, crazy thought I know, they could split their resources more evenly so all factions get a decently sized release every year?! Instead of releasing 50 lieutenants with Primaris coming out the wazoo already.

I don't think it's unreasonable and I have this opinion and I don't think there are only 2 options as you claim.

Do you understand that the design time required to make 5 different lieutenants is probably much less than it takes to make a single unit of another faction right?

Marines not only sell extremely well, but they are also made to be easy to design. They are very modular.

Key word there is 'probably'. Surely it takes the exact same amount of time to produce a character from one faction as it does another? The Space Wolf lieutenant is significantly different compared to the generic and the BA and the DA versions.

I dare say it takes time to make a new unit, but you're cpsring apples and oranges. Any kit for any faction can be designed to be modular. Look at the Ork Boyz kit for reference.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

auticus wrote:
That its a toolkit is its biggest positive, and also its biggest drawback at the same time due to houserule rage that a lot of people have.

"If it aint the official version of the game then its an abomination."

I understand that, but that's the thing- you gotta form your own community, within your local community.

When you're playing with your friend at the FLGS, and playing the game your way- you're gonna have that kid from Polar Express trying to 'correct' your agreed-upon rules and modifications to the game all the time. Even if you've told him "we've altered the rules for a reason, it's our way doing something different". And then when he persists, you can be a jerk.

YOU: "Well, do you want to play a game?"

HIM: "Well I will if-"

YOU: "Well good luck, I hope you find someone."

And then keep playing. For some reason, that always works and makes them get really quiet.

This brings up a point though.

Why SHOULD I have to have any discussion besides point level and missions?

I would ask why shouldn't you? It's a social game after all? This might be better suited to a topic all of its own. I mean, I understand the reason at face value but 40k has always seemed to make a big deal out of the "social contract" and setting expectations with your opponent, perhaps more than any other game I've ever seen in 20+ years. Especially with the rules in general, if you don't have a social agreement you can end up with lopsided games that nobody is happy with; you as the competitive player don't get a challenge, and your opponent as a non-competitive player gets steamrolled and feels like they wasted 3 hours.

Which means the social contract only exists because of poor balance.

While on the right track, I think this is backwards. GW designs their game with a social contract in mind first.

Warhammer 40,000 is not, despite what many of us (including myself) have mistaken it for at times, a game designed around competitive pickup play, and never has been. It has always been a game more about providing a framework to play with toys with pals than about playing a balanced challenge of generalship as a tactical combat sim. The very first versions of the game required a 3rd player GM. The game has had many longstanding "opponent's permission" rules. Much of the content GW releases hs 0% relevance for competitive play.

Ultimately, a competitive and tightly balanced wargame is not what GW offers. They're giving us Garry's Mod and half of us have been using it to play a hamfisted version of Counterstrike. It can do that to some extent, but not really as well, and was never intended to be the perfect system for such.

It would be nice if they put more effort into that area, but from.GW's perspective, the social contract is the starting point of the game, not an afterthought balance mechanism.

New Chaos models have been trickling in through alternate game systems like Blackstone and none of them have really moved the needle. Regardless, compared to the release of the Codex it's practically a flood, SM Codex had all the Primaris stuff (opinions on the efficacy of these models notwithstanding), CSM Codex had an Exalted Champion for which I didn't even need to buy a model. I am cautiously optimistic about the new models and units, honestly it was about time, CSM has been using the same stable of units for a really long time.

The state of the game is evolving, and honestly, as much as I bitch, at least they're slowly tweaking it, which is more than they've ever done before, so that's something, even if they still have some fairly obvious problem units.

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

auticus wrote:
That its a toolkit is its biggest positive, and also its biggest drawback at the same time due to houserule rage that a lot of people have.

"If it aint the official version of the game then its an abomination."

I understand that, but that's the thing- you gotta form your own community, within your local community.

When you're playing with your friend at the FLGS, and playing the game your way- you're gonna have that kid from Polar Express trying to 'correct' your agreed-upon rules and modifications to the game all the time. Even if you've told him "we've altered the rules for a reason, it's our way doing something different". And then when he persists, you can be a jerk.

YOU: "Well, do you want to play a game?"

HIM: "Well I will if-"

YOU: "Well good luck, I hope you find someone."

And then keep playing. For some reason, that always works and makes them get really quiet.

This brings up a point though.

Why SHOULD I have to have any discussion besides point level and missions?

I would ask why shouldn't you? It's a social game after all? This might be better suited to a topic all of its own. I mean, I understand the reason at face value but 40k has always seemed to make a big deal out of the "social contract" and setting expectations with your opponent, perhaps more than any other game I've ever seen in 20+ years. Especially with the rules in general, if you don't have a social agreement you can end up with lopsided games that nobody is happy with; you as the competitive player don't get a challenge, and your opponent as a non-competitive player gets steamrolled and feels like they wasted 3 hours.

I don't play games to entertain my opponent, I play them for my own enjoyment. Claiming gaming is a "social contract" is a way of attempting to exert control over your opponent and prevent them from using units, cards, or tactics that one personally dislikes playing against, limiting their fun. Pre-game negotiating, outside of my or a buddy's home, too easily becomes an exercise in who can limit their opponent's enjoyment of the game before it even starts. I'm happy to socialize during games, but pre-game has no business going through committee.

Blastaar wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

auticus wrote:
That its a toolkit is its biggest positive, and also its biggest drawback at the same time due to houserule rage that a lot of people have.

"If it aint the official version of the game then its an abomination."

I understand that, but that's the thing- you gotta form your own community, within your local community.

When you're playing with your friend at the FLGS, and playing the game your way- you're gonna have that kid from Polar Express trying to 'correct' your agreed-upon rules and modifications to the game all the time. Even if you've told him "we've altered the rules for a reason, it's our way doing something different". And then when he persists, you can be a jerk.

YOU: "Well, do you want to play a game?"

HIM: "Well I will if-"

YOU: "Well good luck, I hope you find someone."

And then keep playing. For some reason, that always works and makes them get really quiet.

This brings up a point though.

Why SHOULD I have to have any discussion besides point level and missions?

I would ask why shouldn't you? It's a social game after all? This might be better suited to a topic all of its own. I mean, I understand the reason at face value but 40k has always seemed to make a big deal out of the "social contract" and setting expectations with your opponent, perhaps more than any other game I've ever seen in 20+ years. Especially with the rules in general, if you don't have a social agreement you can end up with lopsided games that nobody is happy with; you as the competitive player don't get a challenge, and your opponent as a non-competitive player gets steamrolled and feels like they wasted 3 hours.

I don't play games to entertain my opponent, I play them for my own enjoyment. Claiming gaming is a "social contract" is a way of attempting to exert control over your opponent and prevent them from using units, cards, or tactics that one personally dislikes playing against, limiting their fun. Pre-game negotiating, outside of my or a buddy's home, too easily becomes an exercise in who can limit their opponent's enjoyment of the game before it even starts. I'm happy to socialize during games, but pre-game has no business going through committee.

Bingo


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Talking to your opponent usually has little to do with balance but more with which kind of mission would you like, what's the story behind the battle, which scenario rules are in play, which terrain rules do you use and so on.
If you don't want to do that, just play an eternal war or ITC game.

Some people want a relationship, some want a one night stand. Slayer-Fan wants a gloryhole.

It's very European and progressive.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Talking to your opponent usually has little to do with balance but more with which kind of mission would you like, what's the story behind the battle, which scenario rules are in play, which terrain rules do you use and so on.
If you don't want to do that, just play an eternal war or ITC game.

Some people want a relationship, some want a one night stand. Slayer-Fan wants a gloryhole.

It's very European and progressive.

I'm dying over here.

It has always been a game more about providing a framework to play with toys with pals than about playing a balanced challenge of generalship as a tactical combat sim.

Which always astounds me how everyone flocks to 40k and AOS for tournament play, despite there being much better competitive options for that style of play.

Blastaar wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

auticus wrote:
That its a toolkit is its biggest positive, and also its biggest drawback at the same time due to houserule rage that a lot of people have.

"If it aint the official version of the game then its an abomination."

I understand that, but that's the thing- you gotta form your own community, within your local community.

When you're playing with your friend at the FLGS, and playing the game your way- you're gonna have that kid from Polar Express trying to 'correct' your agreed-upon rules and modifications to the game all the time. Even if you've told him "we've altered the rules for a reason, it's our way doing something different". And then when he persists, you can be a jerk.

YOU: "Well, do you want to play a game?"

HIM: "Well I will if-"

YOU: "Well good luck, I hope you find someone."

And then keep playing. For some reason, that always works and makes them get really quiet.

This brings up a point though.

Why SHOULD I have to have any discussion besides point level and missions?

I would ask why shouldn't you? It's a social game after all? This might be better suited to a topic all of its own. I mean, I understand the reason at face value but 40k has always seemed to make a big deal out of the "social contract" and setting expectations with your opponent, perhaps more than any other game I've ever seen in 20+ years. Especially with the rules in general, if you don't have a social agreement you can end up with lopsided games that nobody is happy with; you as the competitive player don't get a challenge, and your opponent as a non-competitive player gets steamrolled and feels like they wasted 3 hours.

I don't play games to entertain my opponent, I play them for my own enjoyment. Claiming gaming is a "social contract" is a way of attempting to exert control over your opponent and prevent them from using units, cards, or tactics that one personally dislikes playing against, limiting their fun. Pre-game negotiating, outside of my or a buddy's home, too easily becomes an exercise in who can limit their opponent's enjoyment of the game before it even starts. I'm happy to socialize during games, but pre-game has no business going through committee.

Weird, cuz I play games to have a good time with my buddies, and saying "hey man, I'd rather not play against 2000 pts of tournament prep but would rather play like, mono codex or something" shouldn't be looked down on. Your not limiting your opponents fun, your making it better for both of you. If one of you isn't having any fun, neither of you are.