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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or it's broken but not broken enough to stand up to Imperial Castellans.

So it is broken in chaos, but not enough to showup on the table, so your basing brokenness off what again?

I'm not making an argument, I'm rebutting your rebuttal.

A rebuttal is in itself an argument.

@Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?

Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.

A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".

Bharring wrote:
@Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?

Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.

A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".

To be fair though, a tabletop RPG is not a good analogy for a wargame because by its nature a wargame is Player vs. Player, not Players vs. DM (not that an RPG should *really* be antagonistic like that). The mere fact of it being one person playing against another means that there is an intrinsic "winning the game" attached.

Certainly. But if someone is having trouble getting the non-competitive side of the hobby at all, showing them people getting into d&d might help show them that side of this hobby, too.

Bharring wrote:
@Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?

Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.

A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".

Tabletop RPGs have a very weak playerbase in Poland - RPG is a synonym of pen&paper here, with some dungeon crawlers being played by board gamers, not miniature gamers (generally speaking). Just to put things in scale: in a month we have our biggest con (Pyrkon) and there is a crapload of RPG/LARP talks/panels/events there (more than 200 combined, with an entire section of programme dedicated to this kind of entertainment), but only a single talk about D&D among about 900 events that will be held on Pyrkon.

 Stux wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or it's broken but not broken enough to stand up to Imperial Castellans.

So it is broken in chaos, but not enough to showup on the table, so your basing brokenness off what again?

I'm not making an argument, I'm rebutting your rebuttal.

A rebuttal is in itself an argument.

True, let me rephrase:

I'm not making an argument about the brokenness, or lack thereof, of Chaos Castellans, I'm pointing out a flaw in Reemule's reasoning.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or it's broken but not broken enough to stand up to Imperial Castellans.

So it is broken in chaos, but not enough to showup on the table, so your basing brokenness off what again?

I'm not making an argument, I'm rebutting your rebuttal.

A rebuttal is in itself an argument.

True, let me rephrase:

I'm not making an argument about the brokenness, or lack thereof, of Chaos Castellans, I'm pointing out a flaw in Reemule's reasoning.

Fair.

I've not really seen any reasoned argument for naked Castellans being broken. Just people stating they are.

This, coupled with the fact that Chaos basically never runs them, leads me firmly to the conclusion that Castellans as is are most likely totally fine, and that it's their Ion Bulwark, Cawl's Wrath, and the Strats that are the problem.

The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.

No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.

Wayniac wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?

Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.

A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".

To be fair though, a tabletop RPG is not a good analogy for a wargame because by its nature a wargame is Player vs. Player, not Players vs. DM (not that an RPG should *really* be antagonistic like that). The mere fact of it being one person playing against another means that there is an intrinsic "winning the game" attached.

Exactly. The intended experience of an RPG is one of cooperation, exploration, adventure, and some acting and general goofing off. Tweaking the rules to suit the world and the characters the players want to create is fine, because RPGs are played within a consistent group of people- not between various parties and their DMs.. The intention of a war-game is two or more players engaging in a battle to determine the victor. Whether it is a war-game or an RPG, there is a reasonable expectation that said game will function correctly (and well) in the state in which it was sold.

If I buy a new car, and the brakes aren't working properly, I then return it to the dealer and demand that they repair it, or return my money. But when the product in question is a game made by Games Workshop Plc, somehow the double-standards and excuses come pouring forth, as it is apparently the player and customer's responsibility to fix a product that is defective.

The inevitable discussions on pre-game talk are just distractions. No one thinks that they should be able to walk into a store, lock eyes with an opponent, and know exactly what format, points level, or mission they will be playing. The expectation is that asking your opponent (or being asked) how "competitive" or "casual" the game will be to compensate for the failures of the people who are paid to write these rules is entirely unnecessary to have an enjoyable game.

 Marmatag wrote:
The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.

No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.

I'd argue that Ion Bulwark and Cawl's Wrath alone make the Castellan significantly more scary though. And that's just 2CP. In fact, get rid of those two and everything would probably be fairly manageable.

No flaw shown. No corollary between them. Whataboutism at its best.

I'd say the real issue is that the House Raven-Ion bulwork-Cawl's-Castellan has become so ubiquitous that people aren't even looking at its separate elements. The wargaming equivalent of people calling generic face tissue Kleenex.

Like most problematic game pieces, in general if you trace it back to the game mechanic with the flaw, and fix it there, you will see a much better return on your effort.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.

No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.

It cost 3 to play Order of Companions. So 8 total by the end of Turn1 for the Castellan player.

And I'll point out, that is why you don't see the Castellan that often in pure knight forces. When you should up with 9 CP.. spending 6 or even 8, turn 1 isn't conductive to a good game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.

No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.

I'd argue that Ion Bulwark and Cawl's Wrath alone make the Castellan significantly more scary though. And that's just 2CP. In fact, get rid of those two and everything would probably be fairly manageable.

Lets clear up a issue. Removing Ionbulwork doesn't remove 3++ against range from Knight... Your all aware of that right? These have other knights that have it built in. Ones that are better cause they RIS for one CP?

Cawl's should be nerfed.

 Marmatag wrote:
The strats and relics are strong, but without Imperial Guard producing insane CP it isn't viable to stack a Knight. It costs 3 to rotate, 2 to reroll 1s, and 2 for the strat + the relic. That's 7 CP on the knight alone in turn 1/pregame.

No one else in the Imperium can pay that bill and be effective.

Costs 3 to reroll 1's now.

Blastaar wrote:


Exactly. The intended experience of an RPG is one of cooperation, exploration, adventure, and some acting and general goofing off. Tweaking the rules to suit the world and the characters the players want to create is fine, because RPGs are played within a consistent group of people- not between various parties and their DMs.

And yet, Historically, wargames have also been played this way for decades' and outside of 40k, and especially within the sphere of historical gaming, this is still often the go-to mode of play. Heck, 40k's origins are strongly rooted in this sphere - rogue trader had a third party umpire involved.

Tweaking the rules to suit the world/game/opposing forces is fine, because often wargames are also played within a consistent group of people. A lot of the things you state as the 'intended experience' of RPGs are in many ways, equally applicable to wargames.

Also, I don't think it would take much work to google something like 'rpg tfg' and find examples of people trying to 'win' an rpg and/or 'beat/abuse the system'.

Blastaar wrote:

The intention of a war-game is two or more players engaging in a battle to determine the victor. Whether it is a war-game or an RPG, there is a reasonable expectation that said game will function correctly (and well) in the state in which it was sold.
If I buy a new car, and the brakes aren't working properly, I then return it to the dealer and demand that they repair it, or return my money. But when the product in question is a game made by Games Workshop Plc, somehow the double-standards and excuses come pouring forth, as it is apparently the player and customer's responsibility to fix a product that is defective.

Your analogy also refuses the existence of things like kit cars, games/products that are intended more as an open ended sandbox than something pre-built out of the box, or else things with an 'assembly required'. I mean, if anything comes with a tag of 'you've got work to do at your end', it's wargames- with all the modelling, painting and assembling my we do, is it too much is it too much of a stretch to argue what you do with them also requires a bit of work at your end too?
RPGs are extremely modular and open ended, and let's be fair, most of them, technically, are terribly written and extremely easy (probably even easier than 40k) to abuse. If we were to rate RPGs technically, and hold them to the same standards that we do for wargames, then there is no way they would be regarded as anything other than terribly written, utterly broken and easy to abuse trash designed by barely literate incompetents. the In so many cases, they rely on the gm and the group co-ordinating what they all want and compromising to make any sense of headway. Such is their nature, so much of an rpg relies on a good games master, and their ability to 'match' the players appropriately because they're all but unplayably broken otherwise.

If you buy a new car, and the brakes aren't working properly, of course you'll bring it back. If half the pages out of my rulebook, or a sprue from a box of intercessors is missing, I'll bring it back and get it replaced as well. The rules themselves are functional, the game both modular and open ended. And if it's not the product you want, go play More competitively oriented game like warmachine.

Blastaar wrote:

The inevitable discussions on pre-game talk are just distractions. No one thinks that they should be able to walk into a store, lock eyes with an opponent, and know exactly what format, points level, or mission they will be playing. The expectation is that asking your opponent (or being asked) how "competitive" or "casual" the game will be to compensate for the failures of the people who are paid to write these rules is entirely unnecessary to have an enjoyable game.

You might be surprised. In my experience, plenty people do think that though. I've seen, and heard a lot of folks insisting that there is, or should be some kind of 'default' from which there is no deviation. To be fair, from a pick-up-play and tournament POV, I can see some merit in that stance. From a casual/narrative one, it's a nightmare.

The issue that I see here I see that your expectation is that everyone should want to play the same game. I don't see anything wrong with there being an expectation to ask the other person what they want to do. I ask my wife and my friends this every day. There will always be competitive, and casual people. There will always be better and worse options in any wargame. This is not a 'failure' of writers. This is simply a consequence of Table top Wargames being an extremely limited medium - there is only so much they can do, only so much 'weight' that they can carry.
There is no table top wargame that has ever been made that has somehow negated this. And I would confidently put money on there never will be one either. There is no magic solution of points ratios that will ever entirely solve this. Anything that can help, comes with a cost. and a little bit of interpersonal communication goes a long way towards resolving any potential issues. Kind of like real life, really.

I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).

Warhammer's root is in historical gaming, not Magic. In the historical setting it is commonplace to discuss what you want to do, and how you want to do it (force dispositions, period, etc.) and it's just accepted as part of the game. Warhammer took this and it's only relatively recently (relatively speaking) that it attracted people who came from magic and other competitive games and want to minimize interaction other than playing the game, and be able to turn up anywhere for a game against strangers and not have to talk to them about the sort of game they want to have.

Even when you do this, you have to set down some basics. Perhaps in some locales the basics are unquestioned and unstated, but you have to ask stuff like "Matched play? Two thousand points? Use the most up to date errata? Use Forgeworld and other supplements? How should we set up terrain?" and so on.

If you start putting down 2k of force but your opponent only brought 1k because they haven't finished assembling the rest of their force for example, you might have problems.

Wayniac wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?

Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.

A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".

To be fair though, a tabletop RPG is not a good analogy for a wargame because by its nature a wargame is Player vs. Player, not Players vs. DM (not that an RPG should *really* be antagonistic like that). The mere fact of it being one person playing against another means that there is an intrinsic "winning the game" attached.

I actually think it is for Narrative play. For instance myself and a friend are currently playing a homebrew campaign in 40k, that is representing a deathguard/nurgle daemons invasion of a forgeworld and Grey Knights defending it. So we played our very first game as a planetstrike game. Then after the game we discussed what would make sense for the next scenario given the results of the first game. For instance my GMDK died in the game, but I had a Brother Captain go on a killing spree and survive the game. So we decided that the Deathguard got a foothold, and the GK nights were on the back foot. So now the next scenario was a Stealth scenario to try and send a distress call to get more troops to the planet.

After the battle we each right up fluff reports from each armies perspective. So winning isn't so much the goal (however in game we play as normal and try to win) but setting up cool scenarios to allow the story to progress. We evens et up an obsidian portal (which hasn't been updated in a few months due to life getting in the way but we are planning on starting it up again.)

https://invasionofistaniii.obsidianportal.com/dashboard#_=_

Wayniac wrote:
I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).

Warhammer's root is in historical gaming, not Magic. In the historical setting it is commonplace to discuss what you want to do, and how you want to do it (force dispositions, period, etc.) and it's just accepted as part of the game. Warhammer took this and it's only relatively recently (relatively speaking) that it attracted people who came from magic and other competitive games and want to minimize interaction other than playing the game, and be able to turn up anywhere for a game against strangers and not have to talk to them about the sort of game they want to have.

Or, perhaps it is that only recently, in the age of the internet and generations of people who have been playing a wide variety of games since they were little, the flaws in warhammer have become more apparent. I understand the roots of the game and the culture of historicals. If the parties involved enjoy that approach that's fine; I would think we all play that way from time to time. Gaming is best when you have a gaming community, whether your friends, a club, an LGS, a guild - whatever. But I do not want to need to ask my opponent to adjust their list because mine is too weak or too strong, or vice versa. This applies to when I play Magic as well, which is horribly balanced by design. (and is deteriorating in quality with every release, so I do not play too often anymore) This is not a concern we should have in the first place, because it gets in the way of enjoying the game.

Magic does not have the same hobby component a game like 40k does. It takes hours of assembling and painting my game pieces before they are ready to be used. Yes, I enjoy those things very much, but If I am going to make that kind of investment in a game, I want more out of it than "discuss it with your opponent and hope you can agree." I want to be able to create a list, play, and have a good time without worrying about "bad units" and "good units" because they all serve a purpose other than making money for GW. There are many minis, like terminators, that look cool and have cool lore, but suck in games, and instead of expecting or demanding better we accept our choices of:

A: Don't use terminators.

B: Accept terminators suck and use them anyway.

C: Ask your opponent to use an equally weak list and hope they will oblige.

This state of affairs simply is not fun. And games should be fun, for everyone involved.

I know I'm gonna be excoriated for this, buuuut... terminators are not as bad as the memes claim they are.

Wayniac wrote:
I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).

But why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW? If, by some miracle, GW produced a well balanced game with no rules ambiguity such that you could just show up for a pickup game against a random stranger and start playing would you want GW to deliberately errata some stuff to be less balanced so that you have to have pre-game negotiation again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
Your analogy also refuses the existence of things like kit cars, games/products that are intended more as an open ended sandbox than something pre-built out of the box, or else things with an 'assembly required'. I mean, if anything comes with a tag of 'you've got work to do at your end', it's wargames- with all the modelling, painting and assembling my we do, is it too much is it too much of a stretch to argue what you do with them also requires a bit of work at your end too?
RPGs are extremely modular and open ended, and let's be fair, most of them, technically, are terribly written and extremely easy (probably even easier than 40k) to abuse. If we were to rate RPGs technically, and hold them to the same standards that we do for wargames, then there is no way they would be regarded as anything other than terribly written, utterly broken and easy to abuse trash designed by barely literate incompetents. the In so many cases, they rely on the gm and the group co-ordinating what they all want and compromising to make any sense of headway. Such is their nature, so much of an rpg relies on a good games master, and their ability to 'match' the players appropriately because they're all but unplayably broken otherwise.

If you buy a new car, and the brakes aren't working properly, of course you'll bring it back. If half the pages out of my rulebook, or a sprue from a box of intercessors is missing, I'll bring it back and get it replaced as well. The rules themselves are functional, the game both modular and open ended. And if it's not the product you want, go play More competitively oriented game like warmachine.

The flaw in your argument is that 40k's problems are not an inevitable result of having customization, like a kit car where selling in pieces is necessary to allow the owner to make individual choices about its design that could not happen with a standard production model. Things like "castellans are broken as hell" are purely failures of game design with nothing positive to justify them. You could have all of the unit's fluff and aesthetics while also assigning a balanced point cost and the game would be better for everyone. And TBH, 40k's open-endedness is severely overstated. You can choose your units, sure, but in the end you're still dealing with armies that share very similar structures and units that have fairly narrow limits on how they can be equipped. This isn't an RPG where virtually anything you can think of your character doing or any setting/NPC/etc you can imagine can be turned into rules. That sort of limited customization should be much easier to balance than any RPG, and we shouldn't excuse GW's persistent failures to do so.

And yes, a great many RPGs are badly written and it would be good for the industry if the customers would demand better quality instead of excusing half-finished garbage with "the DM will fix it". Far too often the rules flaws in RPGs are the result of authors who don't bother to playtest or proofread or generally put out a polished work because spending 15 minutes throwing together some half-finished garbage means better profit margins. RPGs as a whole could be much better without sacrificing any of the story or customization that makes them fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).

But why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW? If, by some miracle, GW produced a well balanced game with no rules ambiguity such that you could just show up for a pickup game against a random stranger and start playing would you want GW to deliberately errata some stuff to be less balanced so that you have to have pre-game negotiation again?

That's a bizarre criterion for determining failure. How would that even be possible without standardizing both the number of points required for each game and reducing the number of available missions to one? As others have said, there's no rational way to completely eliminate all forms of pre-game negotiation, and what kind of sane person would even want that?

I really Don't like the fact that GW will only make rules for things that have models, it really stifles customization and greatly limits modeling. Strangely, i don't see many people bothered by this or ever even bring it up. I really hate the whole chapter house fiasco it ruined so much, I mean what the hell is an "orruck" or an "ogor"? Dose the extreme copy writing and other post chapter house BS really benefit GW in anyway?

Yeah these names suck a whole bunch. I hate the guard being Astra Miliarum or Tempestus Scions, or etc, etc, etc. Makes me feel like I'm talking of some crazy ass madness in passing conversation. Kinda feel like my army lives in the universe of Flash Gordon..battling the chaos forces of Ming.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I honestly feel that part of the charm of 40k (Warhammer in general) is the fact it enforces/encourages the social contract. You can't just roll up to a complete stranger, grunt out "Hey want to play 40k?" and then start unpacking (people do this, but I find it wrong).

But why is this considered charm instead of failure by GW? If, by some miracle, GW produced a well balanced game with no rules ambiguity such that you could just show up for a pickup game against a random stranger and start playing would you want GW to deliberately errata some stuff to be less balanced so that you have to have pre-game negotiation again?

That's a bizarre criterion for determining failure. How would that even be possible without standardizing both the number of points required for each game and reducing the number of available missions to one? As others have said, there's no rational way to completely eliminate all forms of pre-game negotiation, and what kind of sane person would even want that?

Of course there is. Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules, and for the game to be balanced enough that players don't feel the need to do the designers' jobs for them. Attitudes like this are exactly why GW seems to be able to get away with doing barely any balancing at all.

Note that in these other games it's still possible to adapt them and play something different if you want, but they have an agreed upon standard for what a game looks like so that if you turn up at a FLGS/club and ask for a game everyone instantly knows what that means without having to negotiate anything.

GW writes chaos warbands kinda funny, now that I think about it. It's like out of about 9 different Legions- one of them is significantly under-performing compared to the others, to a pretty significant degree.

I mean, it's like they're the cast of an early 90's weekday afternoon teen comedy drama, and every cast member has their 'thing', but that one guy is a little..."special"

Donnie is the ladies' man!
Shelly is the school hottie!
Greg is the sports star!
Tina is the bookworm!
Brad is the class clown!
Omar is the musician!
Amanda is the artist!
James is the bad boy!
eLbErT dOeS aRmPiT nOiSeS

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
GW writes chaos warbands kinda funny, now that I think about it. It's like out of about 9 different Legions- one of them is significantly under-performing compared to the others, to a pretty significant degree.

I mean, it's like they're the cast of an early 90's weekday afternoon teen comedy drama, and every cast member has their 'thing', but that one guy is a little..."special"

Donnie is the ladies' man!
Shelly is the school hottie!
Greg is the sports star!
Tina is the bookworm!
Brad is the class clown!
Omar is the musician!
Amanda is the artist!
James is the bad boy!
eLbErT dOeS aRmPiT nOiSeS

Hahaha, that made me laugh out loud at work! Although I don't agree with your name-choice of the special guy

 Stux wrote:
Here's the thing Karol:

Imo you are looking at this all backwards. And maybe it's just because of a toxic environment in your local store or something like that, but what you're describing is not my experience at all of how games in non tournament settings work.

The fun itself does not come from inside the game. That is a myth. The fun comes from spending time with like-minded people in a light hearted setting. The game just facilitates that.

To enjoy the game in this way, you have to enjoy the company of the opponent. If you don't enjoy the company of your opponent, all this advice about how to approach the game is meaningless.

Never looked at this from that perspective. I like rules, and patterns, when stuff is flat and stable. It is hard for me to describe it in english. I generaly don't like social interaction, as most of the time I just don't understand why stuff is or isn't happening. It would make sense though for GW to say that w40k is doing great then. If people are buying stuff more then they did before, then they have to be happy about something. If it isn't always rules, then it has to be something else. And I kind of a have my doubts if the rise in sells is because of legions of painters. So if the people that play w40k are happy around other people playing w40k, by an large of course. Then the game could be doing good because they are happy, irrelevant of the rules. As strange as it may sound to me. Very interesting.

If you're playing against strangers who don't know you from Adam, or worse people who don't care about you having fun, you're probably playing with the wrong people and they need to learn what a social game actually means.

Where I do play against people from my school here. I was convinced to start playing by guys from my class. I wouldn't call anyone friends though, for example the guys that did convince me did it because the store gave a 25% discount to people that bring in someone new.

That is one way. Another is to find a middle ground that works for them. Army building in Warhammer has never been balanced, just some times where it is closer than others (and then the codices/army books/battletomes start rolling out). Most I have seen say, "I brought this much," the other says, "I have this much," and they say, "cool, let's find a table".

I think that most lists are build a bit like that here. It is the buying of stuff that is different'. Sure maybe not every eldar player is going to have this super optimised 7 flyer list, only the old time players will. And those generaly don't play against new players, unless they are family of their friends. But the new players adjust very fast. For example, 5-6 months ago I had like 3 fun games, vs a guy who started a primaris army. Lost, but it was fun, his army was two starter sets mashed in to one list. But within a span of 2 weeks his list went from that, to being DW, to adding a castellan and 3 jetbike custodes and the fun was gone after that. Now he plays a DW/DA soup list of some sort, blows my dudes sky high turn one as we don't use ITC terrain rules, and GW terrain doesn't really block much LoS.

Sportsmanship is one reason that works rather well. A lot depends on the interactions they have, and some people recognize that ULTIMATE POWAH is not always the reason to play an army. Orks fill this role quite well, in fact.

See I go to a sports school, so I learned to ask this question from expiriance. By sportsman ship you mean acting like a sportsman or acting nice. Because those two are kind of a exclusive. Real sportsman only do nice stuff for show. while nice people do nice stuff, because they seem to be generally nice.

Unless this store has banned Sisters of Battle and literally every single discontinued model, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that Forge World should be banned. If people want to play Necromunda at the store, then about half of every gang's weapon lists are banned- as are the hired guns, brutes, and hangers-on. Your shop owner has very likely listened to the wrong people about Forge World or is very, very inconsistent with his rules. Maybe a personal bias.

See this is a question I can not anwser correctly as no one plays SoBs here, nor is necromunda being played by anyone. Now is this because people just don't play those armies, or because the store doesn't let them play, I don't know. Never asked. I general I stoped asking stuff at the store, after the store owner told me to stop.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
@Karol,
Have you ever played d&d (I mean a tabletop RPG, not necessarily WotC D&D)?

Take a look at the people who play it and how they play it. And not a dungeon hack, but an actual roleplaying campaign.

A lot of games are played for a variety of reasons not solely based on "winning" the "game".

I did not have the pleasure. I don't think RPGs of the non digital WoW or PoE kind are very popular around here. Hard to get the books, for it too, as stores don't sell them.
Board games seem to be popular in some cities. I was visting my aunt this christmas, and she and her husband had a load of them, but we couldn't play them since january is christmas, and grandparents were there etc.

Karol wrote:
See this is a question I can not anwser correctly as no one plays SoBs here, nor is necromunda being played by anyone. Now is this because people just don't play those armies, or because the store doesn't let them play, I don't know. Never asked. I general I stoped asking stuff at the store, after the store owner told me to stop.

... the store owner told you to stop asking questions.

You, a paying customer, he essentially told you to STFU.

...I'm not being insulting when I ask this question, please understand where I'm coming from here- but... are you very young? Like, teens, maybe? Like, early teens? Small guy?

Because if you are, I'm honestly thinking it might be a good idea to sit down and talk to your dad or an older brother, or find someone older and somewhat more aggressive and imposing to talk to this shop owner. Maybe an older 40k player from another shop or something. Because it sounds like this dude is a jerk, and I don't know what's going on over there in Poland but places like this in the US tend to end up becoming Nail Salons in a few weeks.

Slipspace wrote:

Of course there is. Plenty of games companies manage to produce a standardised set of rules which includes the standard points values and rules for mission set-up. All of FFG's games do this, for example. Whether it's the 1-mission approach of X-Wing or the more varied way missions work in Armada or Legion, there's no negotiation required at all. Other games have done the same. All it needs is the points limit to be set by the designers and the missions to be included in the rules,

That's awfully restrictive, and the reason why I find X-Wing dull. Since a major part of 40k is the narrative approach (remember, even with the "three ways to play", straight-up competitive play is only one of those ) saying you can only play these three missions at one single points limit rather defeats the point.

And really, if "fancy a game of 40k?" "sure, 1500 points? I've got Orks" "OK, cool. I'll bring Marines. Fancy trying this mission here?" "Yeah, cool" is a chore, then I worry about the future of society.

Well I do ask a lot of questions. My parents tell me to not do it, well my dad doesn't, but he lives in a differnt city, and I see him only once a month.

Karol wrote:
Well I do ask a lot of questions. My parents tell me to not do it, well my dad doesn't, but he lives in a differnt city, and I see him only once a month.

...in my store, asking questions is good. If I can answer your questions, I can probably get you more interested in the things we sell. On top of that, I want to ensure you know as much as you'd like to know before you spend money on something, that way you don't feel like you've wasted time and money on something.