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.

Bharring wrote:
I came from WMH actually. It was too crunch-before-feel for me. I liked the more narrative approach that 40k offered.

Although one of the big motivators was I was sick of superheavies in every single game...

This is kinda sad :( Since WMH is a lot of feels to the narrative when you get stuck into there rules, and i do not feel its really any less crunch than 40k is.
RIght now i think 40k is a way bloated mess, that is not even left fit for its casual use.

We use a lot of rules for narrative, and used to use 40k a lot, but not really anymore.

Apple fox wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I came from WMH actually. It was too crunch-before-feel for me. I liked the more narrative approach that 40k offered.

Although one of the big motivators was I was sick of superheavies in every single game...

This is kinda sad :( Since WMH is a lot of feels to the narrative when you get stuck into there rules, and i do not feel its really any less crunch than 40k is.
RIght now i think 40k is a way bloated mess, that is not even left fit for its casual use.

We use a lot of rules for narrative, and used to use 40k a lot, but not really anymore.

No, unfortunately i'm with him on this. I left WMH for about the same reason. Too much crunch, not enough fluff.
Rules on units didn't make much sense, they had the "tacked on" feel of MtG cards. In 40k rules at least try to represent something that the model should be able to do in the fluff.
Also, the game was "balanced" in the sense that every faction had something equally broken. People here complain about 8th where 2 reasonably put together tac armies can have unbalanced results depending on the faction, but in WMH if you brought a tac list you had already forfeited the game. You selected the 1 or 2 casters competitive in your faction and then the list would write itself out of autoincludes for about 70% of the list.
External balance was somehow present, but the internal balance was nowhere to be seen, and that was what killed it for me.
When internal balance is THAT bad, you have no chance to make "your" list. The grand majority of 40k players plays good and optimized lists, but always founded on concepts like "I like that model" "I like this playstyle "I like this theme", and you can put together a reasonably good list usually, while following your taste. In WMH you couldn't, so in the end it lost interest to me, even if i seriously liked its fluff.

Spoletta wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I came from WMH actually. It was too crunch-before-feel for me. I liked the more narrative approach that 40k offered.

Although one of the big motivators was I was sick of superheavies in every single game...

This is kinda sad :( Since WMH is a lot of feels to the narrative when you get stuck into there rules, and i do not feel its really any less crunch than 40k is.
RIght now i think 40k is a way bloated mess, that is not even left fit for its casual use.

We use a lot of rules for narrative, and used to use 40k a lot, but not really anymore.

No, unfortunately i'm with him on this. I left WMH for about the same reason. Too much crunch, not enough fluff.
Rules on units didn't make much sense, they had the "tacked on" feel of MtG cards. In 40k rules at least try to represent something that the model should be able to do in the fluff.
Also, the game was "balanced" in the sense that every faction had something equally broken. People here complain about 8th where 2 reasonably put together tac armies can have unbalanced results depending on the faction, but in WMH if you brought a tac list you had already forfeited the game. You selected the 1 or 2 casters competitive in your faction and then the list would write itself out of autoincludes for about 70% of the list.
External balance was somehow present, but the internal balance was nowhere to be seen, and that was what killed it for me.
When internal balance is THAT bad, you have no chance to make "your" list. The grand majority of 40k players plays good and optimized lists, but always founded on concepts like "I like that model" "I like this playstyle "I like this theme", and you can put together a reasonably good list usually, while following your taste. In WMH you couldn't, so in the end it lost interest to me, even if i seriously liked its fluff.

Warmachine is full of fluff and abilitys that make sense, Not liking it is fine. And i was saying its sad that they could not get into it. Its a great system for narrative games, since it has a great balance. And it was importent to think about what you bring, your meta and how things function together.

Its funny to see things like swamp gobbers being the unit i lend out the most as when used well, they where a fantastic unit. Despite really only doing one little thing.
"Your" list is great, if you have an army that even supports that in 40k, but even then that tends to fail a lot in practice in 40k :( with the right thing being the only realistic choice.
I see way more variety to WMH list than 40k, Even watching batreps i find they are all blending into each other with a bland as anything ruleset that barely holds up as a narrative set.


Also, a funny thing i always find. Since discussions come up often enough to 40k like this.
Its just funny that 40k is always far less complicated, and then when it comes to why people have trouble with the rules and getting things wrong. Suddenly its since 40k is such a more complicated game.
Only last week i had watch something about how 40k was such a expancive game, and there was no way to balance it like other games. Even specified war machine.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The thing is until you play other games and get a feel for what other games can do in terms of balance, and just rely on 40k and say 40k is just fine balance wise, you don't have a real argument to stand by because 40k is far down the balanced fun ladder in the hierarchy.

It survives because everyone plays it, and because everyone plays it it survives. It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People like to play games that everyone else plays, rules quality be damned.

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Nice assption of how my FLGS operates. They try to branch out a fair bit but my local area has two pillars: Mtg and Warhammer. Everything else, even WHM is more like dust in the wind.

We have one guy trying to get Flames of War started but it doesn't seem like it's catching on.

We have a playerbase of maybe 15-20 people of various levels of competetiveness and actually showing up.

EDIT: Basically stop telling me to blow my money on IPs I don't even care about to try and get other people hooked on them.

The point isn't to say you should spend your money on other stuff. The point I think was just some game systems are cheaper, more fun and just over all better than GW systems. Now, don't get me wrong I love Warhammer, despite the things they do amazingly wrong imo. It's a shame others don't expand out a bit more there. Flamers of war is pretty nice, but then I've played a ton of different games so I've seen the good and the bad with all of them. I would say unless you spread your gaming wings though, you won't ever fly and settling down with just one system does tend to have someone overlook the errors and accept far more than they should from that one company.

No judgement from me on that, as I said I still have enjoyed every game of warhammer I played, and I hated they got rid of fantasy as I enjoyed it and even enjoyed my games in the dark days of 7th ed. I just won't keep my peace if they are doing things I dislike.

I have something I enjoy playing and am already spending money on, so I should stop playing it and take the money I'm setting aside for those hobby purchases just to go play something else? Not a friggin chance. I get -why- people are arguing this, but I don't think I'm the only one who is resistant to blowing my hobby budget on something I don't care about just to see how other games work.

Yeah thats just what I said, but for I didn't say that at all. I said, very clearly, don't spend money on it I'm sure other people out there have things from these systems to try for FREE in fact. I never said stop playing warhammer, I play warhammer and all these other games too. Variety, is a good thing and often experience with many systems can help critical analysis of even a beloved game system. I've played 40k since 3rd ed, and no amount of my issues has made me stop playing it. Just you know expand your horizons some, then if you just love warhammer that much, stay there but at least you experienced the other offerings more fully. That is all and not only is that a reasonable thing for any of us to do, it's something that enriches your gaming experiences all around. Even if it makes you appreciate warhammer all the more at the end of it.


Life, for instance, I played and most of these I have things for Malifaux, Attack wing, X wing, Armada, 40k, WH Fantasy , Bolt Action, Infinity. I've played many more, like Flames of war, some historicals, many many board games. I'd like to try but don't have Wild west exodus and a few other mini games, like Legion. I just personally think variety is good even when I'm so invested into 40k.

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.

Nope not asking that at all. However you have chimed in quite a bit about how 40k is just fine balance wise with no context to any other games beside it for any basis of comparison and have alluded that it is unrealistic to want better balance when in fact better balance exists in other places.

I think its fine for you to say "look everyone in my area really only plays 40k, I don't know how other games operate or how they are balanced, but I really don't care about wonky balance so much as long as I have people to play against." Because thats pretty much the default stance for most 40k players that I know personally.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The thing is until you play other games and get a feel for what other games can do in terms of balance, and just rely on 40k and say 40k is just fine balance wise, you don't have a real argument to stand by because 40k is far down the balanced fun ladder in the hierarchy.

It survives because everyone plays it, and because everyone plays it it survives. It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People like to play games that everyone else plays, rules quality be damned.

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

You could always bring stuff into the store, or invite buddies over, and introduce people to a new game. People won't necessarily pick it up, but not trying guarantees Warhammer will remain the only game in town.

Nice assption of how my FLGS operates. They try to branch out a fair bit but my local area has two pillars: Mtg and Warhammer. Everything else, even WHM is more like dust in the wind.

We have one guy trying to get Flames of War started but it doesn't seem like it's catching on.

We have a playerbase of maybe 15-20 people of various levels of competetiveness and actually showing up.

EDIT: Basically stop telling me to blow my money on IPs I don't even care about to try and get other people hooked on them.

The point isn't to say you should spend your money on other stuff. The point I think was just some game systems are cheaper, more fun and just over all better than GW systems. Now, don't get me wrong I love Warhammer, despite the things they do amazingly wrong imo. It's a shame others don't expand out a bit more there. Flamers of war is pretty nice, but then I've played a ton of different games so I've seen the good and the bad with all of them. I would say unless you spread your gaming wings though, you won't ever fly and settling down with just one system does tend to have someone overlook the errors and accept far more than they should from that one company.

No judgement from me on that, as I said I still have enjoyed every game of warhammer I played, and I hated they got rid of fantasy as I enjoyed it and even enjoyed my games in the dark days of 7th ed. I just won't keep my peace if they are doing things I dislike.

I have something I enjoy playing and am already spending money on, so I should stop playing it and take the money I'm setting aside for those hobby purchases just to go play something else? Not a friggin chance. I get -why- people are arguing this, but I don't think I'm the only one who is resistant to blowing my hobby budget on something I don't care about just to see how other games work.

Are you opposed to trying another game if someone can provide enough stuff for two players?

An anecdote I've noticed with the general issues of GW rules is that people will come to other games with the "apply intent" attitude from GW, and then end up missing rule interactions or playing them wrong since the rules are clear but a long history of GW games means that you try to read into every rule because in Warhammer you have to.

I've seen that happen (and been guilty of it myself) in various other games I've played just because of my experience with Warhammer. It will come up as the rules say X but do they really mean X, because in Warhammer X doesn't always mean X.

That's a huge problem, and probably the most egregious since GW can't seem to write clear rules to save their life.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The thing is until you play other games and get a feel for what other games can do in terms of balance, and just rely on 40k and say 40k is just fine balance wise, you don't have a real argument to stand by because 40k is far down the balanced fun ladder in the hierarchy.

It survives because everyone plays it, and because everyone plays it it survives. It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People like to play games that everyone else plays, rules quality be damned.

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.

Seriously? Nobody's telling you what to buy. They're saying if you've never played a game outside of GW, you lack the perspective of seeing what is attainable by a capable writing team.

You're saying that people have unreasonable expectations for balance, when all most of us are expecting is the kind of balance and writing quality we can readily get outside the GW sphere. If you have no familiarity with what we're talking about, you're not in a position to comment, let alone defend GW on this.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Andy, I admit my comparison was quite daring, but the point is that one can appreciate some nice work only if some the most essential elements are well done.
I cannot appreciate my clean pores if i am dying of melanoma. I cannot appreciate many design choices if some unit is cannot been deployed or terrain rules are a joke. I just cannot enjoy that part of the game.
And no. My friend could not enjoy the orks because they were unplayable in that period. The system made them non enjoyable for him.
"If you don’t like the game don’t play it." It's exactly what happened with him. When I go back to the old country I always talk with him, have a beer or go and listen him playing. But for sure we never played Warhammer anymore, he occasionally built and painted what he already had.
We were all very casual players in that group, but there should be a minimum of playability. Such playability should allow you to field a decent list without forcing other players to cripple themselves or to make too many sacrifices about which models could be fielded in order to win. To have an interesting game.
And that did not happen, especially when other players had 7th edition tau to field.

You cannot just dismiss other people's claim about balance and rule writing outright. There is no way is all "baseless" if this is a returning topic, am I right?

I put things so bluntly as that is what is done by those overly vocal advocates for a more competitive ruleset. They just assume that everyone feels the game lacks in the respect as they do. That is not the case. The things they and you are calling for would make the game worse for me. The loose open nature of the rules at present work brilliantly for me and my group. So I use their style and yours to demonstrate how disingenuous it is to demand more balance because it’s better for everyone.

Your comparison wasn’t daring, it was silly. (And I’m being polite). As I said, I played ORKS that entire period and loved them as much as I do now, a lot. But then again I’m playing against like minded people who want to have fun telling stories with their games not trying to best one and other to prove how awesome we are. So this is your hyperbole again. ORKS were unplayable. Not true. Maybe the issues is his opponents not the rules. The sooner all you lot accept that the game is designed to be fun and relaxed not competitive the better. Play it competitively fine be realise what you are doing is imperfect.

 catbarf wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The thing is until you play other games and get a feel for what other games can do in terms of balance, and just rely on 40k and say 40k is just fine balance wise, you don't have a real argument to stand by because 40k is far down the balanced fun ladder in the hierarchy.

It survives because everyone plays it, and because everyone plays it it survives. It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People like to play games that everyone else plays, rules quality be damned.

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.

Seriously? Nobody's telling you what to buy. They're saying if you've never played a game outside of GW, you lack the perspective of seeing what is attainable by a capable writing team.

You're saying that people have unreasonable expectations for balance, when all most of us are expecting is the kind of balance and writing quality we can readily get outside the GW sphere. If you have no familiarity with what we're talking about, you're not in a position to comment, let alone defend GW on this.

Yep. I always find it funny to have people whose only experience has been GW games come out and say how it's balanced or hey cut GW some slack they're trying, etc. etc. when GW is seemingly the only company to have problems on this scale (not to say other games are perfect, they aren't, but they have nowhere near the issues GW constantly has). The point remains if you've only been a part of the GW ecosystem, you haven't seem what a GOOD game (by which I mean clear and consise rules at least legitimate attempts at balance) looks like to properly compare why what GW is doing isn't considered good.

 auticus wrote:

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.

Nope not asking that at all. However you have chimed in quite a bit about how 40k is just fine balance wise with no context to any other games beside it for any basis of comparison and have alluded that it is unrealistic to want better balance when in fact better balance exists in other places.

I think its fine for you to say "look everyone in my area really only plays 40k, I don't know how other games operate or how they are balanced, but I really don't care about wonky balance so much as long as I have people to play against." Because thats pretty much the default stance for most 40k players that I know personally.

agreed that whole 'only game in town' thing 40k has going is a major hurdle in getting other stuff off the ground, and being a fat lazy hobbit I've long stopped trying, I can get games of wmh, guildball or gaslands with a little advance planning so dont feel the urge to convert the GW heathens

Andykp wrote:

Your comparison wasn’t daring, it was silly. (And I’m being polite). As I said, I played ORKS that entire period and loved them as much as I do now, a lot. But then again I’m playing against like minded people who want to have fun telling stories with their games not trying to best one and other to prove how awesome we are. So this is your hyperbole again. ORKS were unplayable. Not true. Maybe the issues is his opponents not the rules. The sooner all you lot accept that the game is designed to be fun and relaxed not competitive the better. Play it competitively fine be realise what you are doing is imperfect.

I am quite confident of the fact that the experience of my friend is far from being unique. I would just repeat myself quoting people ITT again, as an example.
My hyperbole stands on its basis: the framework was not solid enough. It's useless to have bells and whistles if the basic engine is faulty. There are bugs that simply CANNOT be ignored by professionals.
Human errors exists, but when it happens consistently we are just facing incompetence.
Now it improved from 6th-7th I think, but GW's attitude is still quite worrying. I really struggle to understand your attitude frankly. If the game is a challenge between 2 players in order to win the battle, there will ALWAYS be competition. There should also always be sportmanship, but this has nothing to do with how well the rules help the players set up an interesting match.

Wayniac wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The thing is until you play other games and get a feel for what other games can do in terms of balance, and just rely on 40k and say 40k is just fine balance wise, you don't have a real argument to stand by because 40k is far down the balanced fun ladder in the hierarchy.

It survives because everyone plays it, and because everyone plays it it survives. It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People like to play games that everyone else plays, rules quality be damned.

Again, you're asking me to take -my- money to go buy a game I've never even played for just to what? Try out games with IPs that don't interest me just so I can learn about how other games play so I can argue about them on the internet?

No thanks.

Seriously? Nobody's telling you what to buy. They're saying if you've never played a game outside of GW, you lack the perspective of seeing what is attainable by a capable writing team.

You're saying that people have unreasonable expectations for balance, when all most of us are expecting is the kind of balance and writing quality we can readily get outside the GW sphere. If you have no familiarity with what we're talking about, you're not in a position to comment, let alone defend GW on this.

Yep. I always find it funny to have people whose only experience has been GW games come out and say how it's balanced or hey cut GW some slack they're trying, etc. etc. when GW is seemingly the only company to have problems on this scale (not to say other games are perfect, they aren't, but they have nowhere near the issues GW constantly has). The point remains if you've only been a part of the GW ecosystem, you haven't seem what a GOOD game (by which I mean clear and consise rules at least legitimate attempts at balance) looks like to properly compare why what GW is doing isn't considered good.

That kind of attitude is a direct result from GW's sloppy writing. Compare it to MTG which has an incredibly tight ruleset. You can play it competitively or casually and the main difference between the two is strength of the deck. Formats can change the decks, but there are competitive and casual forms of legacy, standard, edh, etc etc. You are still a jerk if you play an optimized competitive deck against a casual "kitchen magic" style deck regardless of format. 40k on the other hand also has a "try to figure out what GW meant and don't be a jerk about it" aspect to the rules which is entirely arbitrary.

GW has consistently shown that they don't use consistent language across multiple books. GW has shown that they don't playtest worth anything if things like a non-functional gun on the Tigershark can make it to print or an errata will make exploding 6s go infinite. Until GW tightens up the language so the RAI vs RAW debate is no longer a thing, BCB is the hero that 40k deserves even if Dakka doesn't think its one it needs.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I just observe a false dichotomy at work here when you claim I'm demanding an unachievable level of perfection from GW when all I'm doing is demanding it reach the level of any other miniatures wargame I've played (Warmachine, Infinity, X-Wing) in terms of not casually rendering peoples' armies invalid. You lose games of 40k because you bought the wrong models; you don't lose games in any other system I've ever played just because you bought the wrong models, there's always something you can do other than switch sub-factions and get the OP special characters/switch factions/throw everything out and start over because all the stuff you had is unplayable sh**.

I said "some" not all. Nice job building a strawman out of my point that we have a vocal minority that drowns put real shortcomings the game has with hyperbole and unreasonable demands. Is that everyone with a complaint? Of course not. But we have a few of them on this board and they've hijacked threads to slay on GW with made up nonsense and hyperbole while acting like they're the a martyr just because people call them out for their nonsense.

"True competitive" players will cry and moan when their OP units get nerfed. Then they will go on to find the next broken unit comp to play with.

"Competitive" casual players will jump for joy when TFGs army get nerfed at their FLGS, then cry and moan when the same TFG comes along with the next broken comp.

Casual players will continue to tailor their list for maximum funness amongst the group he/she plays with.

The fact of the matter is, as everyone here agrees, there is no such thing as a "perfect" balance. As long as there is even the slightest room for exploit, people who make it their job to exploit such exploit will exploit it anyways.

As for the inconsistencies, typos, and awkward usage of language, yes it can be done better, but it's not something two sensible players can't work around.

 auticus wrote:

Nope not asking that at all. However you have chimed in quite a bit about how 40k is just fine balance wise with no context to any other games beside it for any basis of comparison and have alluded that it is unrealistic to want better balance when in fact better balance exists in other places.

I think its fine for you to say "look everyone in my area really only plays 40k, I don't know how other games operate or how they are balanced, but I really don't care about wonky balance so much as long as I have people to play against." Because thats pretty much the default stance for most 40k players that I know personally.

It serves its purpose for the most part in more casual games despite some hyperbole about it being utterly broken. That isn't to say I don't have opinions on how I'd change the game if given a chance, but I have fun in most of my games so it works for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

Are you opposed to trying another game if someone can provide enough stuff for two players?

If the game isn't a histotical, probably. I'm not a big fan of historical games so I'll sit those out regardless.

Magic also generally doesn't allow one to take anything in whatever combination or quantity one wants. There are various formats with relatively strict rules on what can be included in a deck, and in what numbers, Wizards actively and intentionally shapes their metagame. 40k does almost none of this.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Your comparison wasn’t daring, it was silly. (And I’m being polite). As I said, I played ORKS that entire period and loved them as much as I do now, a lot. But then again I’m playing against like minded people who want to have fun telling stories with their games not trying to best one and other to prove how awesome we are. So this is your hyperbole again. ORKS were unplayable. Not true. Maybe the issues is his opponents not the rules. The sooner all you lot accept that the game is designed to be fun and relaxed not competitive the better. Play it competitively fine be realise what you are doing is imperfect.

I am quite confident of the fact that the experience of my friend is far from being unique. I would just repeat myself quoting people ITT again, as an example.
My hyperbole stands on its basis: the framework was not solid enough. It's useless to have bells and whistles if the basic engine is faulty. There are bugs that simply CANNOT be ignored by professionals.
Human errors exists, but when it happens consistently we are just facing incompetence.
Now it improved from 6th-7th I think, but GW's attitude is still quite worrying. I really struggle to understand your attitude frankly. If the game is a challenge between 2 players in order to win the battle, there will ALWAYS be competition. There should also always be sportmanship, but this has nothing to do with how well the rules help the players set up an interesting match.

This here is the difference. I understand your attitude but disagree with it strongly. It isn’t how I approach it. But can appreciate that you see a game as a competitive thing. I, and many others don’t view the game as competitive, it genuinely doesn’t matter at all to me who wins or loses. Its about the experience. Players like yourself seem to struggle to even accept that that can be the case. Peregrine has even called me a liar for saying it, like somehow I’m covering up for being a mad payer and losing by saying I don’t care. It’s bonkers. And in the respect of playing the game the way I do the engine runs just perfectly.

So in answer, their will not ALWAYS be competition. The out come of games is about the overall story and fantastic narrative moments that come from them. I have enjoyed games where I have been slaughtered as much as ones where I have been doing the slaughtering. It’s about the one guy who holds out against all odds or the desperate charge to try and turn the tide. I enjoy seeing units perform the way they do in the fluff, be they mine or my opponents. If we keep track of who wins it’s for narrative purposes only. You might not agree with my attitude but as long as you stay ignorant of it you will always be part of the problem. It does seem to be a cultural issue as much as anything, most going on the way you do about ALWAYS being competition tend to have Stars and Stripes next to their names. To me and many others, and the designers, the game is a large scale role playing game. It even used to be in the rules that the warlord you chose represented you on the battlefield.

So with the designers saying the game is supposed to be the way it is, you can keep playing it which ever way you want but don’t expect it to become something else.

To use your analogy before, it’s like you have gone to a beauty therapist for skin cancer treatment. Enjoy your open pores and go see a doctor for the cancer.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Magic also generally doesn't allow one to take anything in whatever combination or quantity one wants. There are various formats with relatively strict rules on what can be included in a deck, and in what numbers, Wizards actively and intentionally shapes their metagame. 40k does almost none of this.

Yes they do.It's called undercosting their new OP unit.

 catbarf wrote:

Seriously? Nobody's telling you what to buy. They're saying if you've never played a game outside of GW, you lack the perspective of seeing what is attainable by a capable writing team.

You're saying that people have unreasonable expectations for balance, when all most of us are expecting is the kind of balance and writing quality we can readily get outside the GW sphere. If you have no familiarity with what we're talking about, you're not in a position to comment, let alone defend GW on this.

Nice strawman. To play those games I'd need to special order them in because no one plays them and the FLGS doesn't sell them I am quite literally being told to go spend money to try games that never got my interest in the first place.

And quit trying to take my criticism of a minority of playser (ones like Catbug and Peregrine) and applying it to every complaint ever. Even I, as someome who generally likes 40k, has feelings and opinions regarding things that fall short. Acting like I'm talking about every complaint is hyperbole at best and slander at worst.

Spoletta wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I came from WMH actually. It was too crunch-before-feel for me. I liked the more narrative approach that 40k offered.

Although one of the big motivators was I was sick of superheavies in every single game...

This is kinda sad :( Since WMH is a lot of feels to the narrative when you get stuck into there rules, and i do not feel its really any less crunch than 40k is.
RIght now i think 40k is a way bloated mess, that is not even left fit for its casual use.

We use a lot of rules for narrative, and used to use 40k a lot, but not really anymore.

No, unfortunately i'm with him on this. I left WMH for about the same reason. Too much crunch, not enough fluff.
Rules on units didn't make much sense, they had the "tacked on" feel of MtG cards. In 40k rules at least try to represent something that the model should be able to do in the fluff.
Also, the game was "balanced" in the sense that every faction had something equally broken. People here complain about 8th where 2 reasonably put together tac armies can have unbalanced results depending on the faction, but in WMH if you brought a tac list you had already forfeited the game. You selected the 1 or 2 casters competitive in your faction and then the list would write itself out of autoincludes for about 70% of the list.
External balance was somehow present, but the internal balance was nowhere to be seen, and that was what killed it for me.
When internal balance is THAT bad, you have no chance to make "your" list. The grand majority of 40k players plays good and optimized lists, but always founded on concepts like "I like that model" "I like this playstyle "I like this theme", and you can put together a reasonably good list usually, while following your taste. In WMH you couldn't, so in the end it lost interest to me, even if i seriously liked its fluff.

PP has a tendency to do that in general I've found.

One of my favorite games was Monsterpocalypse, when it came out, which had a very cool core concept and some very awesome mechanics to it, but at the end of the day everything could just do too much stuff. Everything had too many abilities, and not all the abilities made sense thematically. It was nigh-on impossible to explain the rules to someone, which for a setting that naturally attracted younger people - giant monster godzilla fights - was definitely bad.

Same deal with WMH, in my opinion. i turned up at my local group ready to play after building and painting my basic list, which was 5 big dragon monsters and a few support characters, and I found every other person was just playing with unpainted, unassembled lower halves of models with flat felt terrain.

Didn't go back many times after that.

 catbarf wrote:

Seriously? Nobody's telling you what to buy. They're saying if you've never played a game outside of GW, you lack the perspective of seeing what is attainable by a capable writing team.

You're saying that people have unreasonable expectations for balance, when all most of us are expecting is the kind of balance and writing quality we can readily get outside the GW sphere. If you have no familiarity with what we're talking about, you're not in a position to comment, let alone defend GW on this.

Which is what I said earlier. But apparent such a thing is not a "problem".

Now, full disclosure- I often say "You don't need to eat dog gak to know it is going to taste bad.". There's the caveat. Anyone can see real bad stinkers of things, anywhere, without needing the relevant qualifications. However, it's the idea of "good enough" that trips a lot of people up. OP needs to have that universal perspective to see why GW's rules are unnecessarily complex in places for no reason.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...unreasonable demands. Is that everyone with a complaint? Of course not. But we have a few of them on this board and they've hijacked threads to slay on GW with made up nonsense and hyperbole while acting like they're the a martyr just because people call them out for their nonsense.

Back up a step.

I'm asking GW to stop printing shibboleth options that exist solely so people who know how the game works can laugh at people who bought them.

What about that is unreasonable?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Magic also generally doesn't allow one to take anything in whatever combination or quantity one wants. There are various formats with relatively strict rules on what can be included in a deck, and in what numbers, Wizards actively and intentionally shapes their metagame. 40k does almost none of this.

I think your framng here is rather misleading. Magic does, generally, "allow" pretty much "any" combination but indeed, does, intrinsically, restrict "quantity" either to 4-of or 1-of, depending on the format in question.

But many combinations would be purely nonsensical. Mostly because the formal structure of resources in the game dictate, in some way, what could be achieved in game terms. A pile of Red cards with nothing but Green-producing lands is as legal as a deck can get and, at the same time, non-sensical to play, since you could not take any meaningful, in the long run, game actions.

40k is not really much different though. While the old FOC was more "explicitly formal" in detailing what could be taken and what could not, the new system of detachments functions much the same way. While "quantity" is less bounded, you are still, in terms of making "sensible game decisions" to adhere to some formal structure. This is exactly what the detachment structure is seemingly there to do, bound one to some structure to access the benefits of CP. So, while the formal restriction on "quantity" is lessened, comparatively, it is just "enforced" at a different level, the level of a sort of rewarding an adherence to a given formal structure. That is, increased access to "meaningful game actions."

But all of this is kind of a total aside, because MTG was brought up more in the context of the "tightness" of it's core rule set, not really it's formal deckbuilding structure. That structure is the realm of each format and each one, while usually similar, is seeking a different sort of aim, to some degree or other. I don't think the point of contrasting 40k and MTG is to highlight the relative benefit of list/deck building structure vis-a-vis balance, but rather the "tightness" or "looseness" of the games core rules with respect to "general playability."

 Grimtuff wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Seriously? Nobody's telling you what to buy. They're saying if you've never played a game outside of GW, you lack the perspective of seeing what is attainable by a capable writing team.

You're saying that people have unreasonable expectations for balance, when all most of us are expecting is the kind of balance and writing quality we can readily get outside the GW sphere. If you have no familiarity with what we're talking about, you're not in a position to comment, let alone defend GW on this.

Which is what I said earlier. But apparent such a thing is not a "problem".

Now, full disclosure- I often say "You don't need to eat dog gak to know it is going to taste bad.". There's the caveat. Anyone can see real bad stinkers of things, anywhere, without needing the relevant qualifications. However, it's the idea of "good enough" that trips a lot of people up. OP needs to have that universal perspective to see why GW's rules are unnecessarily complex in places for no reason.

Also, many games out there have free rules. You could download the rules for infinity, grab a load of household items of varying sizes (cereal boxes, tissue boxes, shoes, etc.) and your existing 40K model collection and play a game of infinity with absolutely no need to spend a single penny.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Seriously? Nobody's telling you what to buy. They're saying if you've never played a game outside of GW, you lack the perspective of seeing what is attainable by a capable writing team.

You're saying that people have unreasonable expectations for balance, when all most of us are expecting is the kind of balance and writing quality we can readily get outside the GW sphere. If you have no familiarity with what we're talking about, you're not in a position to comment, let alone defend GW on this.

Which is what I said earlier. But apparent such a thing is not a "problem".

Now, full disclosure- I often say "You don't need to eat dog gak to know it is going to taste bad.". There's the caveat. Anyone can see real bad stinkers of things, anywhere, without needing the relevant qualifications. However, it's the idea of "good enough" that trips a lot of people up. OP needs to have that universal perspective to see why GW's rules are unnecessarily complex in places for no reason.

Do I need to keep amlist of complaints in my signature to make it clear that I also have things I feel the game falls short on?

Let me run down a few before someone else tries to claim I don't understand the rules have short comings:
Core terrain rules are lacking, wrecked vehicles should remain on the table like they did in old editions instead of magically vanishong into the warp, cover should provide a variety of BS modifiers instead of inproving armour saves (especially since most 40k weapons laugh at things like concrete), AP 0/- weapons in older editions should have been AP+1, Leadership should be more important, with the reintroduction of movement trays relative position behind a unit should be more important, the ability to go to ground should come back, the statline needs to be broken up further, saves for wounds should be taken at the end of the turn like they are in Apoc, there should be ways to boost BS (say by not moving, or spending CP), turn priority should be rolled for, CP should generate in the game and not when you build your list, invulnerable saves should be replaced by extra wounds or toughness on more models.

I can probably dig into it more, but that's just -some- of the things I feel like the game could change to make it better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
...unreasonable demands. Is that everyone with a complaint? Of course not. But we have a few of them on this board and they've hijacked threads to slay on GW with made up nonsense and hyperbole while acting like they're the a martyr just because people call them out for their nonsense.

Back up a step.

I'm asking GW to stop printing shibboleth options that exist solely so people who know how the game works can laugh at people who bought them.

What about that is unreasonable?

If it isn't aimed at you why are you taking offense? I said people like Catbug and Peregrine. If you don't fall into that level of vitriolic hyperbole then I'm not saying you're the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Seriously? Nobody's telling you what to buy. They're saying if you've never played a game outside of GW, you lack the perspective of seeing what is attainable by a capable writing team.

You're saying that people have unreasonable expectations for balance, when all most of us are expecting is the kind of balance and writing quality we can readily get outside the GW sphere. If you have no familiarity with what we're talking about, you're not in a position to comment, let alone defend GW on this.

Which is what I said earlier. But apparent such a thing is not a "problem".

Now, full disclosure- I often say "You don't need to eat dog gak to know it is going to taste bad.". There's the caveat. Anyone can see real bad stinkers of things, anywhere, without needing the relevant qualifications. However, it's the idea of "good enough" that trips a lot of people up. OP needs to have that universal perspective to see why GW's rules are unnecessarily complex in places for no reason.

Also, many games out there have free rules. You could download the rules for infinity, grab a load of household items of varying sizes (cereal boxes, tissue boxes, shoes, etc.) and your existing 40K model collection and play a game of infinity with absolutely no need to spend a single penny.

No one was recommending Infinity earlier when they listed games I should be trying.

turn priority should be rolled for,

Wouldn't that mean double turn possibility. Am not sure I would want to do nothing turn 1, get drop pod assaulted, and shot at, and next turn my opponent going before me, droping in more stuff, and shoting and assaulting me again, giving him two turns back to back without me being able to do a thing in game.

Andykp wrote:

This here is the difference. I understand your attitude but disagree with it strongly. It isn’t how I approach it. But can appreciate that you see a game as a competitive thing. I, and many others don’t view the game as competitive, it genuinely doesn’t matter at all to me who wins or loses. Its about the experience. Players like yourself seem to struggle to even accept that that can be the case. Peregrine has even called me a liar for saying it, like somehow I’m covering up for being a mad payer and losing by saying I don’t care. It’s bonkers. And in the respect of playing the game the way I do the engine runs just perfectly.

So in answer, their will not ALWAYS be competition. The out come of games is about the overall story and fantastic narrative moments that come from them. I have enjoyed games where I have been slaughtered as much as ones where I have been doing the slaughtering. It’s about the one guy who holds out against all odds or the desperate charge to try and turn the tide. I enjoy seeing units perform the way they do in the fluff, be they mine or my opponents. If we keep track of who wins it’s for narrative purposes only. You might not agree with my attitude but as long as you stay ignorant of it you will always be part of the problem. It does seem to be a cultural issue as much as anything, most going on the way you do about ALWAYS being competition tend to have Stars and Stripes next to their names. To me and many others, and the designers, the game is a large scale role playing game. It even used to be in the rules that the warlord you chose represented you on the battlefield.

So with the designers saying the game is supposed to be the way it is, you can keep playing it which ever way you want but don’t expect it to become something else.

To use your analogy before, it’s like you have gone to a beauty therapist for skin cancer treatment. Enjoy your open pores and go see a doctor for the cancer.

I think that I appreciate where you are coming from and I am sure that I would prefer to play 100 times with you than 1 time with an obnoxious WAAC, Andy.
Nonetheless, I think that if the game is with points and objective IS competitive. There are no ways around it so a good setup is a good way to make it fun for different type of people. If GW wanted an RPG, they would have not streamlined rules, removed options and so on. Really, the reality of the ruleset does not add up with the statements from the designers.
Exciting epic moments happen all the time with well written rulesets, in no way those hamper epic scenes of battle. But a tight ruleset can avoid frustration. Seriously, is a win-win if such thing is implemented. The rest is the design team hiding behind a fig leaf.

Also, reading that from a native speaker I am very flattered by the "star and stripes" comment, because I am Italian and only in US since few years. I lived elsewhere in Europe before, included my native country. It appears that my English (not the Queen's English I suppose) improved a bit if this confusion happened, albeit I am aware of the many mistakes I still make, and I thank Dakka for bothering to read my posts... but you know, if you have to change country every 3 years it happens to every time adjust to new languages.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Just out of curiosity, have you ever played any wargames not made by GW?

I tried to get into Warmachine, but the density of stuff to memorize just to play the game was too much of a wall. I know people really loved in in 2nd, but between that and the models being metal or plastic resin just killed it for me. I don't have an interest in historicals, and the only other game I've seen make a dent here (X-wing) dried up almost as fast as it popped up, which is a shame because I did like that, though I barely managed to get any games in.

So thats a no.. He hasn't.

 skchsan wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Magic also generally doesn't allow one to take anything in whatever combination or quantity one wants. There are various formats with relatively strict rules on what can be included in a deck, and in what numbers, Wizards actively and intentionally shapes their metagame. 40k does almost none of this.

Yes they do.It's called undercosting their new OP unit.

That does not always happen to be honest. Think about the Ork Buggies. I don't know anymore.