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.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
ClockworkZion... what the designers try to do could be very different from what they ultimately accomplish, and at what cost.
And yes, 30 boyz is very orky, I have 90 and I built with care every single one of them to make them unique. Going for 150 asap.
But this has nothing to do with the fact that you are deflecting again. Ork boyz in groups of 30 is orky, but are not Trukk Boyz so the fact that is "Orky" has nothing to do with my point. Absolutely nothing.
It's an answer GW's FB team would write. We can do better, can't we?

Forgive my lack of nuance as I type with one hand and fill coin towers with the other. I am quite literally phonepostinf from work this evening.

At the end of the day I see a lot of accusations on how GW operates (which flies in the fa e of how they and their pmaytesters say it operates) while people insist every error ever made is obvious as they flaunt their 20/20 hindsight like they're some how on a moral highground when we have statements from playtesters saying that plenty of stuff the community finds on day 1 are things they didn't even see or notice.

GW is not a monolithic entity, it's a company made of people who run dozens of eyes over everything before the playtesters see it and run countless more eyes over the rules. If stuff gets through it has gone through at least two layers of screenjng and rewriting before we ever see it. The stuff complained about now is the stuff that fell through the cracks and is not as monumental as claimed.

nou wrote:
Despite my previous post I simply have to - 90% of one time purchases leave you with those ITCx10 crowd spending £270 a year responsible for the entirety of the rest of GWs 216 mil revenue, with no room for repeated purchases for AOS, Necromunda, Middle Earth or BSF whatsoever.

Well that's certainly some circular reasoning, come to the £270 number by insisting that the competitive players provide all of GW's revenue and then complain that the £270 number doesn't leave room for other spending. Do you honestly not see how this is an argument in my favor? If you want to make room for spending money on those non-40k games you can very easily find it by reducing the spending of the competitive players to an even lower level.

Also, it is about 3 milion people a year buying nothing else but Start Collecting box and some paints or equivalent. And because those are one time only customers, in ten years that is one in thirty citizens of NA+Europe having owned at least one box of GWs product, in 30 years of GWs existence it is one in ten. Yes, you are that bad at this estimates game...

You do know that GW's products are well known for a reason, right? One in ten having at least some involvement over 30 years is not an unreasonable assumption, especially when you're talking about the UK where GW is the local toy store that everyone walks past while doing their other shopping.

Not that your numbers make much sense, in any case. You seem to be assuming a ~£65 purchase for each of those 3 million people, pretty wildly optimistic given the price of the hobby. The starter set alone is ~£100, and that doesn't include the army rules or any building or painting supplies. Realistically you're talking about spending at least £150-200 on a starter purchase for 40k. That cuts your supposed customer base to about a third of what you claim, down to ~3% of people having made a 40k purchase at some point over the past 30 years. That's 1 in 30, and the average class size in school is about 20-30 kids. Think back to when you were a kid, is it really that hard to imagine that one of your peers got a 40k starter bundle for a holiday gift?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
ClockworkZion... what the designers try to do could be very different from what they ultimately accomplish, and at what cost.
And yes, 30 boyz is very orky, I have 90 and I built with care every single one of them to make them unique. Going for 150 asap.
But this has nothing to do with the fact that you are deflecting again. Ork boyz in groups of 30 is orky, but are not Trukk Boyz so the fact that is "Orky" has nothing to do with my point. Absolutely nothing.
It's an answer GW's FB team would write. We can do better, can't we?

Forgive my lack of nuance as I type with one hand and fill coin towers with the other. I am quite literally phonepostinf from work this evening.

At the end of the day I see a lot of accusations on how GW operates (which flies in the fa e of how they and their pmaytesters say it operates) while people insist every error ever made is obvious as they flaunt their 20/20 hindsight like they're some how on a moral highground when we have statements from playtesters saying that plenty of stuff the community finds on day 1 are things they didn't even see or notice.

GW is not a monolithic entity, it's a company made of people who run dozens of eyes over everything before the playtesters see it and run countless more eyes over the rules. If stuff gets through it has gone through at least two layers of screenjng and rewriting before we ever see it. The stuff complained about now is the stuff that fell through the cracks and is not as monumental as claimed.

I am talking about specific trends (especially in rule "hotfixing"), math etc not really about what slipped through the cracks. In this specific regard, if the company has many employee, maybe a lead designer with a vision or an editor could go a long way.
Said this, since I care about your well being, if you are phoneposting from work, better to continue tomorrow or when is convenient!
I want you to keep your job! See you around

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
ClockworkZion... what the designers try to do could be very different from what they ultimately accomplish, and at what cost.
And yes, 30 boyz is very orky, I have 90 and I built with care every single one of them to make them unique. Going for 150 asap.
But this has nothing to do with the fact that you are deflecting again. Ork boyz in groups of 30 is orky, but are not Trukk Boyz so the fact that is "Orky" has nothing to do with my point. Absolutely nothing.
It's an answer GW's FB team would write. We can do better, can't we?

Forgive my lack of nuance as I type with one hand and fill coin towers with the other. I am quite literally phonepostinf from work this evening.

At the end of the day I see a lot of accusations on how GW operates (which flies in the fa e of how they and their pmaytesters say it operates) while people insist every error ever made is obvious as they flaunt their 20/20 hindsight like they're some how on a moral highground when we have statements from playtesters saying that plenty of stuff the community finds on day 1 are things they didn't even see or notice.

GW is not a monolithic entity, it's a company made of people who run dozens of eyes over everything before the playtesters see it and run countless more eyes over the rules. If stuff gets through it has gone through at least two layers of screenjng and rewriting before we ever see it. The stuff complained about now is the stuff that fell through the cracks and is not as monumental as claimed.

I am talking about specific trends (especially in rule "hotfixing"), math etc not really about what slipped through the cracks. In this specific regard, if the company has many employee, maybe a lead designer with a vision or an editor could go a long way.
Said this, since I care about your well being, if you are phoneposting from work, better to continue tomorrow or when is convenient!
I want you to keep your job! See you around

In the past every dev was potentially taskedneith a project in Aid, 40k, a specialist game or who knows what else. Now they have distinct teams and we've seen an uptick in quality since they did that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not factual errors on the level of GW's problems. You don't have a legitimate biology textbook accidentally devoting a whole chapter to how young-earth creationism is the only valid theory, or a legitimate math textbook carefully and elaborately explaining that 1+1=3. And yet somehow GW continues to publish games that use the IGOUGO mechanic.

Erm. . . design choice =/= factual error.

No, IGOUGO is genuinely that broken. It's about as much of a "design choice" as adding a special rule that space marines always win because space marines are better than whatever trash army the other player has.

Uhhhh. Nope. Just nope.

Like, you can have a strong opinion about it, but IGOUGO clearly works and thousands of players don't have any problem with it. If it "didn't work", the game wouldn't be enjoyed by as many people that enjoy it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Balance isn't hard to define. One TAC army should be able to go toe-to-toe with another TAC army. The moment one army is completely better at that aspect, there's imbalance.
Of course there's the question of what's considered "TAC", which is slightly more holistic and prompts more discussion, but we can think of the basic definition for now as you bringing something to handle every reasonable threat.

A reasonable start, but how do you account for terrain or missions?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also you've always been saying that about Marines and don't have the statistics to back it up. YEAH they got better after the new Codex, but just wait for everyone else to get a rework.

Hate to break it to you, but you don't have the statistics on it either.

You'd have a point if the terrain rules commonly used actually mattered. It only matters for the dudes automatically getting it (ala army bonus) and when you pop the strat T1. The City Fight terrain rules go a longer way to make terrain matter more, BUT nobody plays "narrative" and, because it not being part of the official rule set, nobody cares. When it comes to stopping LoS it sometimes helps, but it doesn't actually make Assault Marines better at their job. It just means they love longer before I laugh at the pitiful attempt they make at their job.

Missions are kinda fine but definitely favor certain armies rather than certain compositions for those various armies, and I wouldn't say ITC or ETC completely fix this either. That's both an internal and external issue for the codices.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not factual errors on the level of GW's problems. You don't have a legitimate biology textbook accidentally devoting a whole chapter to how young-earth creationism is the only valid theory, or a legitimate math textbook carefully and elaborately explaining that 1+1=3. And yet somehow GW continues to publish games that use the IGOUGO mechanic.

Erm. . . design choice =/= factual error.

No, IGOUGO is genuinely that broken. It's about as much of a "design choice" as adding a special rule that space marines always win because space marines are better than whatever trash army the other player has.

Uhhhh. Nope. Just nope.

Like, you can have a strong opinion about it, but IGOUGO clearly works and thousands of players don't have any problem with it. If it "didn't work", the game wouldn't be enjoyed by as many people that enjoy it.

Imagine playing a game of chess where the player playing white could move all of their pieces before black got to move. That is what IGOUGO does, it exponentially increases the first turn advantage, even in games where both sides have identical forces.

Now imagine that the white player also has 3 queens, 3 rooks, 3 bishops and 3 knights instead of some pawns whilst the black player has no queen, one rook, one bishop and no knights but these missing pieces aren't even replaced by pawns. Think how ridiculous it is that the white player gets to move every one of their pieces before the black player, who was already at a massive disadvantage due to their lack of pieces, can move a single one. That is how imbalanced some match ups can be in 40k and demonstrates how first turn advantage, coupled with ability to use your entire army on the first turn before your opponent can react and the potentially ludicrous imbalance between armies all build off of each other.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Now imagine that the white player also has 3 queens, 3 rooks, 3 bishops and 3 knights instead of some pawns whilst the black player has no queen, one rook, one bishop and no knights but these missing pieces aren't even replaced by pawns. Think how ridiculous it is that the white player gets to move every one of their pieces before the black player, who was already at a massive disadvantage due to their lack of pieces, can move a single one. That is how imbalanced some match ups can be in 40k and demonstrates how first turn advantage, coupled with ability to use your entire army on the first turn before your opponent can react and the potentially ludicrous imbalance between armies all build off of each other.

All of this was less striking when there wad no need for the firepower good to kill a knight. The game scaled BADLY during the years.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Not factual errors on the level of GW's problems. You don't have a legitimate biology textbook accidentally devoting a whole chapter to how young-earth creationism is the only valid theory, or a legitimate math textbook carefully and elaborately explaining that 1+1=3. And yet somehow GW continues to publish games that use the IGOUGO mechanic.

Erm. . . design choice =/= factual error.

No, IGOUGO is genuinely that broken. It's about as much of a "design choice" as adding a special rule that space marines always win because space marines are better than whatever trash army the other player has.

Uhhhh. Nope. Just nope.

Like, you can have a strong opinion about it, but IGOUGO clearly works and thousands of players don't have any problem with it. If it "didn't work", the game wouldn't be enjoyed by as many people that enjoy it.

Imagine playing a game of chess where the player playing white could move all of their pieces before black got to move. That is what IGOUGO does, it exponentially increases the first turn advantage, even in games where both sides have identical forces.

Now imagine that the white player also has 3 queens, 3 rooks, 3 bishops and 3 knights instead of some pawns whilst the black player has no queen, one rook, one bishop and no knights but these missing pieces aren't even replaced by pawns. Think how ridiculous it is that the white player gets to move every one of their pieces before the black player, who was already at a massive disadvantage due to their lack of pieces, can move a single one. That is how imbalanced some match ups can be in 40k and demonstrates how first turn advantage, coupled with ability to use your entire army on the first turn before your opponent can react and the potentially ludicrous imbalance between armies all build off of each other.

Okay, but now imagine parts of the board only allowed certain models to have access, Queens cost 200 points each.... Ect ECT.

The chess metaphor falls apart because we're working with more variables than chess does.

I agree I would like something more like how Apoc works in 40k (I actually feel Apoc captures the game better but that's just me) I don't think turn order is the part of the game that breaks the game.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
First of all way more than 10% of people play "matched play" rules. Literally 100% of the people I know play match play rules in most of their games. Narrative is a side gig for some players I know.

Second. If you have a rules set that is intended for match play - but then it's not intended for matched play...Is it or isn't it?

Matched Play =/= Tournament Play.

I use matched play rules generally, but I do not do tournaments

but here's the 1000000$ question.
DO you use Ro3?

Nope. Because I'm not in a tournament/"Organized Play" environment.
My friend Dave & I saying "2pm sat? Yeah. My place or the shop? Shop, that way Mike can play if he wants. Ok. Hey, don't forget to text John." =/= the Organized Play GWs talking about.

Nor will we even need a discussion about Legends. You got it? It has rules in this edition? Great, then use whatever the most current rule for it is & game on.

Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Templates were a problem in their own right. Nothing like arguements if a template is clipping an extra model or people skewing the scatter.

You're missing the point there. It's not that templates were a good mechanic (they weren't), it's that the random shot mechanic GW replaced them with has been an utter failure because GW doesn't seem to understand math. It's how you get stuff like frag missiles and the missile launchers that use them being worthless 95% of the time, LRBTs that were so hilariously terrible that GW had to literally double their firepower to get them to a reasonable level, etc.

Mist of GW's rules problems come down to unexpected rules interactions followed by a lack of more in-depth terrain and movement mechanics.

IOW, "most of GW's rules problems come down to rules bloat causing too many interactions for comprehensive playtesting and a failure to create reasonable mechanics for the key feature that defines a miniatures game". I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a compelling defense of GW, and that's not even considering the continued existence of IGOUGO, the absence of any kind of pinning/morale/etc system, etc. None of these things are accidental typos that slipped through because GW's employees are only human, they're fundamental design problems caused by systematic flaws in GW's approach to the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
What I'm talking about is a stand-alone ruleset (no 40k rules crossover)that doesnt cater to any singular faction(read: balance). If the rules dont have to worry about non-optimal builds and you limited the number of strats(everyone gets same, no faction special) & unit values/quantity, a strictly defined ruleset is feasible at least. add in a map/deployment set and specific rules for how to implement them in play. Kinda like a video game in that the maps are specifically balanced between each other and then specific missions to go along w them.

But why does this need to be a separate expansion instead of the normal game? Because it sure seems like you're arguing that GW should fix the game and make it enjoyable for everyone, and then tell all of the non-tournament players to keep suffering through the broken mess of "normal" 40k.

I have no idea how what I've proposed would negatively effect Narrative play, since it (narrative)works in it's current form?

Also, I did not mention an expansion since that would entail being based (ruleswise) on the horribly written unbalanced shitshow that is 8th.

Why would you want to be tainted by a clearly inferior ruleset?

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Elegantly? Perhaps not. Functional with no actual breaks on the mechanics of how it works? Very much so. A rule that lacks elegance is not broken if it still works as the devsloper intented.

Intent is not an excuse if the author deliberatelywrites a broken mechanic. And, again, if it isn't broken then why did GW need to literally double the firepower of certain units to get them anywhere near a playable state?

If the mechanic works it isn't broken. You're using your opinion on how the mechanic should work as a measuring stick on if it works which is not the basis on how we measure if a mechanic functions correctly or not.

That's how Pere functions(at least by their RAW), it's like their subjective/objective recognition program has the wrong user definitions. As has been the pattern, maybe they're deliberately doing it.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why would you want to be tainted by a clearly inferior ruleset?

My point exactly! The whole idea of a separate tournament ruleset is nonsense because once you fix the things that make 40k a poor tournament game you have a much stronger core ruleset that you can use for everything else. And once you have a strong foundation for the game in general you can make a tournament "expansion" in half a page or less. You certainly don't need anything even remotely close to the level of word count that justifies creating a separate product.

That's how Pere functions(at least by their RAW), it's like their subjective/objective recognition program has the wrong user definitions. As has been the pattern, maybe they're deliberately doing it.

Once again, it's not my opinion. It's GW's opinion. GW, by making massive changes to how those units worked, admitted that their original rule was broken. I honestly don't understand why this is in any way controversial, when you add a rule to an underperforming unit that literally says "double your firepower" you are making a very direct statement that the unit in its previous state was broken and needed to be fixed. Units that aren't broken don't receive buffs like that because they'd become blatantly overpowered and break the game in the opposite direction.

Lots of games seems to make IGOUGO work. Chess, Panzer General, Civilization, to name but a few. 40k's problem is that GW isn't attempting to define scenarios, shape forces, or provide any more context to battles than "line up in a pitched battle about 2 feet apart on a space visually representing about a football field's worth of terrain, and go bonkers with whatever you want to bring that exists in this entire game universe and we'll make it fit and have rules for it, from personal sidearms to strategic bombers", and the propensity for using power bloat to express faction traits.

Prove GW has actually presented it as their opinion in video or a quote or in writing or feck off with this nonsense Peregrine.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Lots of games seems to make IGOUGO work.

Got to disagree here, at least in the context of a game like 40k. IGOUGO is a fundamentally broken mechanic and any game that has it would almost certainly be improved by using something else instead. At best those games are able to be ok because IGOUGO is the only flaw and the rest of the game makes up for it. But it's still a significant liability that should be avoided at all costs.

Also, chess is not an IGOUGO game at all. It's an alternating activation system with no limit on activating the same "unit" again and again each time it's your turn. Chess with IGOUGO would have one player make a move with all of their pieces, followed by their opponent doing the same. And I think it's pretty obvious why nobody actually plays chess like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Prove GW has actually presented it as their opinion in video or a quote or in writing or feck off with this nonsense Peregrine.

JFC why are you so stubborn about this? It doesn't matter if GW hasn't explicitly said that 1+1=2 and that water is in fact wet, their actions confirm that they hold that opinion whether or not they hand you a written statement of it. You do not give LRBTs double the firepower unless they are a completely broken unit because that is a massive buff that will break the game when applied to anything but a broken unit. It is very obvious to everyone but you that GW looked at the state of LRBTs and how poorly they were performing with D6 shots, acknowledged their mistake in translating the LRBT weapons to D6 shots, and gave them 2D6 shots to correct the mistake. Do you actually have a plausible chain of events that does not involve GW holding this opinion, or is all you have repetition after repetition of "you can't prove it"?

If you make a claim that GW has taken a stance but can't back it up then they haven't actually taken said stance. Instead we see evidence of you climbing up on your cross to claim GW is persecuting you because you want the game to work a way they don't dorectly design for.

Get over yourself Pere.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you make a claim that GW has taken a stance but can't back it up then they haven't actually taken said stance. Instead we see evidence of you climbing up on your cross to claim GW is persecuting you because you want the game to work a way they don't dorectly design for.

Get over yourself Pere.

I have backed it up over and over again with evidence that is overwhelming proof to everyone except you. It does not matter if GW has not personally handed you a signed and notarized statement explaining their reasons for making the change, their actions make it perfectly clear what their position was.

 Peregrine wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why would you want to be tainted by a clearly inferior ruleset?

My point exactly! The whole idea of a separate tournament ruleset is nonsense because once you fix the things that make 40k a poor tournament game you have a much stronger core ruleset that you can use for everything else. And once you have a strong foundation for the game in general you can make a tournament "expansion" in half a page or less. You certainly don't need anything even remotely close to the level of word count that justifies creating a separate product.

I think you missed my point.

If the game functions with its ruleset as intended & it's a terrible tournament game, then by logic, it isnt one and shouldnt be treated like one.

So that would then mean....an entirely different ruleset is required. Kinda like I've stated before.

Why on earth would you not be in favor of this? It would seem to hit all of your points, balance, rules that are clear(by your own "definition") & no over/under costing.

If your tzeentchs' gift to rules design maybe you should go work for GW? No, better yet, create your own game system and manage it the "best" you can. Cuz you'll go far kiddo.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why on earth would you not be in favor of this?

I am in favor of it. I just reject this idea of it being in the form of a separate tournament ruleset instead of putting all of those changes into 9th edition and using the new rules for all games. This conversation started with the idea of making separate rules because they wouldn't be appropriate for non-tournament games, when in reality what is needed is a comprehensive overhaul of the entire game where at the end of it there is no further need for separate tournament/narrative/etc rules.

If your tzeentchs' gift to rules design maybe you should go work for GW? No, better yet, create your own game system and manage it the "best" you can. Cuz you'll go far kiddo.

No thanks, I'm pretty happy with where I am and I'd rather not take a pay cut to change careers.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you make a claim that GW has taken a stance but can't back it up then they haven't actually taken said stance. Instead we see evidence of you climbing up on your cross to claim GW is persecuting you because you want the game to work a way they don't dorectly design for.

Get over yourself Pere.

I have backed it up over and over again with evidence that is overwhelming proof to everyone except you. It does not matter if GW has not personally handed you a signed and notarized statement explaining their reasons for making the change, their actions make it perfectly clear what their position was.

You make a lot of claims about the studio not listening to playtesters, to relegating tournament play to the woodshed put back and other gak. The only thing you might have proof of is the LRBT thing, and even then they still corrected what the realised wasn't operating as intended instead of leaving it alone and telling people to just deal with it.

Basically the more GW comes ouy of their shell and tries to take steps to engage the community, demystify the design process and even open up playtesting the more I see you and a few others climbing up on these crosses to martyr yourself over how bad you claim the company is despite them making a heel turn on the behavior you accuse them of when Kirby got the boot.

It's like people can't accept things are progressively improving or something.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's like people can't accept things are progressively improving or something.

Because the steps are laughably tiny and well short of what is needed. IGOUGO still exists, the rules are still a bloated mess and getting worse with every new release, LOS is still unplayable without house rules, morale/pinning/etc are still irrelevant, movement is still barely relevant, the game is full of pointless RNG and CCG mechanics that take away from the core concept of a wargame, and it's still a game with the strategic depth of a puddle where the winner is almost entirely decided by who optimized their dice math better. 40k in its current state is like a restaurant served you a plate of rotting food and then "improved" it by scraping off a bit of the mold from one corner. It's technically a step in the right direction, but so pathetic that zero credit is deserved. And at GW's current rate of improvement none of us will live to see a good 40k ruleset.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
It's like people can't accept things are progressively improving or something.

Because the steps are laughably tiny and well short of what is needed. IGOUGO still exists, the rules are still a bloated mess and getting worse with every new release, LOS is still unplayable without house rules, morale/pinning/etc are still irrelevant, movement is still barely relevant, the game is full of pointless RNG and CCG mechanics that take away from the core concept of a wargame, and it's still a game with the strategic depth of a puddle where the winner is almost entirely decided by who optimized their dice math better. 40k in its current state is like a restaurant served you a plate of rotting food and then "improved" it by scraping off a bit of the mold from one corner. It's technically a step in the right direction, but so pathetic that zero credit is deserved. And at GW's current rate of improvement none of us will live to see a good 40k ruleset.

The rules for 40k could be handed down from the heavens from actual gods and you'd complain about something. Don't mistake your personal bias for the feelings most of us have towards how far 8th edition has improved over 7th.

Basically, stop acting like GW stole your lunch money and find something that makes you happy instead of wizzing in everyone's breakfast cereal because they're not catering to your personal definition of what makes a game good or not.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The rules for 40k could be handed down from the heavens from actual gods and you'd complain about something. Don't mistake your personal bias for the feelings most of us have towards how far 8th edition has improved over 7th.

That's an awfully nice straw man you've built there. Perhaps you shouldn't mistake your personal biases for facts or confuse "it's a bit better than the raging dumpster fire of 7th" with "it's a good game"?

Basically, stop acting like GW stole your lunch money and find something that makes you happy instead of wizzing in everyone's breakfast cereal because they're not catering to your personal definition of what makes a game good or not.

WEEEEOOOOOOO WEEEEEEEOOOOOO THE POSITIVITY POLICE ARE HERE, PUT YOUR HANDS ABOVE YOUR HEAD AND STEP AWAY FROM THE CRITICISM.

If you don't like seeing criticism of 40k you're free to leave dakka. But I have zero obligation to care about your enjoyment and refrain from expressing my honest opinion of the game and how it should be fixed. Nor do I have any obligation to pretend that GW's failures to understand good game design are anything but failures just because some people here don't understand enough about what makes a good game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The rules for 40k could be handed down from the heavens from actual gods and you'd complain about something. Don't mistake your personal bias for the feelings most of us have towards how far 8th edition has improved over 7th.

That's an awfully nice straw man you've built there. Perhaps you shouldn't mistake your personal biases for facts or confuse "it's a bit better than the raging dumpster fire of 7th" with "it's a good game"?

Basically, stop acting like GW stole your lunch money and find something that makes you happy instead of wizzing in everyone's breakfast cereal because they're not catering to your personal definition of what makes a game good or not.

WEEEEOOOOOOO WEEEEEEEOOOOOO THE POSITIVITY POLICE ARE HERE, PUT YOUR HANDS ABOVE YOUR HEAD AND STEP AWAY FROM THE CRITICISM.

If you don't like seeing criticism of 40k you're free to leave dakka. But I have zero obligation to care about your enjoyment and refrain from expressing my honest opinion of the game and how it should be fixed. Nor do I have any obligation to pretend that GW's failures to understand good game design are anything but failures just because some people here don't understand enough about what makes a good game.

I love how you hide from my points about you making gak up only to pretend you have a moral highground when I get tired of your games.

I have posted criticisms on Dakka, I just find you to be completely incapable of accepting that you're in a (vocal) minority group in this hobby on where you want the game to go and how "broken" it actuslly is.

Basically you're a toxic member of the communuty incapable of accepting different opinions or even admitting you've been caught making things up about what the company is and is actually doing. I'm not against the idea that the game has areas that need improvement (I posted earlier that I feel Apoc is a better core rulset for 40k due to the change in turn krder and casualties), I don't feel the game is so fundamentally broken that people can"t, or shouldn't, have fun with it.

But sure, paint me as the bad guy because I'm telling you to quit trying to wear your butt as a hat.

Can I possibly suggest a compromise? Namely, a pox on both your houses. Past a certain point, it doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong, and this topic certainly qualifies.

Both of you calm down and be polite. You're both probably in violation of rule 1 and I'll be going through the posts to see. But until then you can both shape up

I am pretty surprised the OP placed a video that basically says " Forget the narrative " then gets surprised people jump all over it.

Speaking on why GW won't support kit bashing and customizing, well if they just stopped making primaris Lts maybe they would be able to make some of these kits.

That still doesn't explain why they can't fully support old models they made, and models that are made from their own kits. Like why did they ever decide to remove looted wagons ? Every kit is looted wagons for Orks. Why remove options for bikes, packs, etc, etc from characters ? They have those kits, everywhere. I made those models and I'm not an amazingly good modeler and I can do it anyone can do it.

The only reason they have to be as they are, is funneling you to new kits they want to sell. Then, say how they make the rules to torge the narrative to hand wave away poor balance, then make old kits Legendary because they make it too hard balance, because they care so much about balance that they themselves claim doesn't really matter and we shouldn't care about.

What a load poop, big ol poop. Makes the design team sound a bit daft and makes me wonder if they even know what they are saying anymore.

All this talk of defending their IP, they'll never do so. As long as other companies make models they just refuse to give enough of or another person can make nicer versions of, third parties will live on. They shoot themselves in the foot thinking every customer will buy enough kits to equip all the chain cannons they want, or Frag cannons, etc, etc

I do remember back when you could bitz order from GW, and it felt pretty good. Until they decided they'd rather me get them from other sources of course and stopped the practice.

This went into a bit of a rant, sorry about that but my mind is a little warped from trying to digest all the narrative they forged on me.

As long as people will swallow their tripe, they'll keep spoon feeding it. They know competitive rules sell their books, hence the power creep we are living in now. They can talk all about forging the narrative all they want, when they want to sell stuff they go right to breaking the game apart, just wait till the free models start to show up from the new formations. That narrative will feel so strong that day.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

That still doesn't explain why they can't fully support old models they made, and models that are made from their own kits. Like why did they ever decide to remove looted wagons ? Every kit is looted wagons for Orks. Why remove options for bikes, packs, etc, etc from characters ? They have those kits, everywhere. I made those models and I'm not an amazingly good modeler and I can do it anyone can do it.

Very true. One of the first conversions I ever made was of a metal Chaplain model that I decided I'd ruined, so I sawed his head off with a blunt hobby saw and plopped it on a biker torso. I had no pin vice to attach him properly, or green stuff to cover up the damage. Instead of a Crozius, he's wielding a morningstar taken from the old skeleton warriors box. Given how crappy everything was, it's amazing that he turned out as well as he did, and I would never want to repaint him, or consign him to oblivion as a pile of disarticulated body parts in my bitz box. Wherever my hobby fortunes go, Timeon the Biker Chaplain will remain as he is, to commemorate where I was 22 years ago.

I think really, intent only really matter a bit. if they are not doing a good job at that, i think intent or not. They should be working towards improving rather than talking about it.

And i do not think it is even the rules writers, I think 40k is failing at a design point. Before it comes to rules being written.
I would hope the rules team are in the whole design but i wonder if they are at this stage, or if they just get bad design dumped down on there table.
Weapons, units, and even what is planned for the future should all be layed out in design with the rules team.
Flyers and knights come off as bad design, Half done and with little care for the rules or the game. And they should have catch both way before any rules where written for them.

There narrative rules have been mostly very weak, and there terrain rules feel like afterthoughts.
When both should be strong if the company is looking towards its own intent it seems. These are things that have been done better in the passed, and i can think are only a rules failure though a general design failure.
Since some of the terrain they sell is effectively useless, and only finds its place on a table though rules being worth the time and purchase to put it there.

If the base game was good, both of these aspects would be far more easy to expand. And would ad more to the game when they are expanded on.
Instead we get rules that seem like quick hackjobs into the rules rather than well thought out extensions.

And honestly i just do not understand how the company can produce such low quality for such a high price.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I do remember back when you could bitz order from GW, and it felt pretty good. Until they decided they'd rather me get them from other sources of course and stopped the practice.

Devils advocate here - but that was a legacy of metal models. You can always run out a batch and melt down what doesn't get sold, whereas someone ordering a hundred crusader helms off the plastic templar sprue would have been a bit of a problem.