Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ccs wrote:

 oni wrote:


Let's say, by chance, you and I meet at a convention at an open table for a game of W40K. Who's community rules do we use? Yours? Mine? Do we ask what the locals do? Or do we simply play by the games rules; GW's rules?

There is only one reasonable answer and that is to play by the games rules; GW's rules.

Or you could try that age old thing where you talk to each other. Afterall, you're already going to have to discuss what the terrain features are, what mission to play, wether or not we're using one of the GT packs, etc...
And there's NO guarantee that whoever you meet will even be familiar with current update x/GT pack whatever-it-is-this-month, etc.

But none of these things modify game rules, so I don't see how it applies.

ccs wrote:

 oni wrote:
So why then should anyone play using 'community rules'? Seems a lot like being told "conform to the group think or be excluded".

Do you play in tourneys? Have any of them ever had terrain placement/type rules? Restricted what units/sources could be used? Scoring rules?
If so you've already accepted playing by community rules.

I think tournaments are a poor comparison. There's almost always a tournament pack or similar document that lays out everything so players local and nonlocal will know exactly what to expect; there shouldn't be any surprises.

Unless you and your opponent are part of the same community and play each other often, it's reasonable to expect the game will be played using GW's rules. It's also reasonable to expect that an outside player will reject 'community rules' and 'house rules' if only to keep things simple and un-bias.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The era was never here, certain people just delusionally tried to twist the game to fit their own vision rather than accept and embrace the vision as presented. GW always said that the rules were for you to adjust as you see fit, not this "official" crap. Here's a quote from May 1999 in regards to people questioning if the Citadel Journal was "official":

The worst thing in the world for our hobby would be a drift towards 'rules lawyers' and 'officialdom' - we get enough of that from the tax office and traffic police.

this too, a direct quote from Rick Priestly himself:

Rick Priestly, Warhammer rulebook wrote:I'd like to make a plea about queries, questions, and 'officialdom' in the hobby. Warhammer is inherently adaptable, the rules and ideas in the game are a springboard to better and greater things. I encourage players to develop the game to suit themselves, to invent and change rules to their own taste and explore their own ideas about rules, modeling, scenery and backgrounds.

People corrupted the game to be way more serious than it ever was meant to be and everything has suffered as a result. Sadly that mindset seems to have completely polluted the game. I have never seen anyone willing to really house rule anything, just like most people it seems anything that's not the latest GT pack might as well not even exist and it's unfathomable to imagine anyone saying to use something else. It's a bit ridiculous.

AKA that's Preistly blaming his shoddy rules writing on the players

If you don't like his rules modify them to suit them. That's literally the point being made here.

No, the point being made is that he's a shoddy rules writer and says to fix it yourself. Amazing he gets the support he does.

But Priestly had nothing to do with modern 40k. Robin Cruddace is the lead designer on nu-40k.

And if Cruddace said the same thing I'd be ripping on him for it, too.

Ah, this subject again. How long it took, a month? "Everything happened before, everything will happen again."

This time I'm not going to get involved in-depth in this, but just a few words.

First, in defence of Rick. Those were the times, when "wargaming" meant "historicals", which were, and still are, deeply cooperative in preparation and only adversarial, not competitive in gameplay. And from that perspective, wargaming never changed. It is only in this century, when "competitive" became so loud part of the hobby.

Now about this whole "blame the players for shoddy rules" crap. It has been discussed before, that competitive players are very prone to conflate two separate things: "clear rules" with "competitive oriented rules". Those are not the same. The easiest example: a clearly written game, that is designed for 7hrs gameplay is completely unsuited for blind pickup and tournaments. Another area where "competitive rules" directly hamper non-competitive game uses is terrain. As long as you only play with flat table and isolated terrain pieces, "quantified" terrain rules and removing TLOS can be made to work ok. But when you play on unquantifiable dioramas? TLOS is the only way to write terrain rules that will be usable anyhow, because you simply cannot write quantified rules that will account for naturally looking terrain. Another one - templates. I get why those were unwieldy in tournament setting, but removal of those directly took away a significant portion of wargames nature out of 40k. Throughout all those years of posting here, I can say with 100% certainty, that many competitive players can neither fathom or even imagine how non-competitive, historical wargaming works like. So they will endlessly argue, that their way is the only way that is happening IRL due to lack of any other personal experience and very narrow perspective on the whole hobby.

Next up: official vs houseruled approach to 40k and which is "natural". I have easily converted a few "official only" players into "houserules all the way" players, because they were only sticking to official rules due to obnoxious character of their local FLGS "community", closed to any kind of sandboxing. Not because they wanted to play that way. "Your dudes" very easily expands to "your game" once you step outside of blind pickup and make actual friends in this hobby. And the "clear rules" argument has nothing to do with that, people with certain mentality will always expand/tweak the ruleset to better fit their desires, even if it worked ok out of the box. That is because, again, many aspects of historical wargaming are unquantifiable and not codifiable into unexploitable rules.

Lastly, some people seem to not realise - majority of people playing this game do not travel around the world on regular basis, so the universal nature of the ruleset has significantly less value to them than a tailored experience.

40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?

"Historicals" is a word encompassing a specific approach to wargaming and should not be read literally. There are many, many fictional and yet historical wargames. Just google VSF for example.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?

He's referring to historicals, not actual history or science fiction/fantasy. Games like hail caesar, pike and shot, saga and dozens more. The gaming ecosphere is much more than gw or other sci fi/fantasy games

And amongst historicals, and historical focused groups this diy/home brew thing I'd quite the norm has has been for decades before gw was even a thing.

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?

He's referring to historicals, not actual history or science fiction/fantasy. Games like hail caesar, pike and shot, saga and dozens more. The gaming ecosphere is much more than gw or other sci fi/fantasy games

And amongst historicals, and historical focused groups this diy/home brew thing I'd quite the norm has has been for decades before gw was even a thing.

This

Exactly this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More and more, I am enjoying the ignore button, as I would expect its use in general is increasing as the GW centered hobby is bifurcating in much the same way as academic philosphy split between so called analytic and traditional aka continental philosophy. One expected that everything in the world might be made clear with clear language, much like so called competitive 40K. Inthe end, for all the blustery arrogance and doctorates granted on e.g. possible worlds, the entire program after 50 years is clearly a sham... history will repeat.

Its just not the same game/hobby as when we were young dude. There are options out there but the likes of us are just seen as old men yelling at cloud by many in the GW scene now.

Dai wrote:
Its just not the same game/hobby as when we were young dude. There are options out there but the likes of us are just seen as old men yelling at cloud by many in the GW scene now.

That's fine. We're old & set in our ways - wich are oddly more flexible than the new kids ways.

 jeff white wrote:
More and more, I am enjoying the ignore button, as I would expect its use in general is increasing as the GW centered hobby is bifurcating in much the same way as academic philosphy split between so called analytic and traditional aka continental philosophy. One expected that everything in the world might be made clear with clear language, much like so called competitive 40K. Inthe end, for all the blustery arrogance and doctorates granted on e.g. possible worlds, the entire program after 50 years is clearly a sham... history will repeat.

Using bifurcating instead of divided is positively sesquipedalian. 9th is way more clear than 7th, that clarity has improved my gameplay experience because I don't have to look up core rules as often and I basically never have to look for FAQ or Errata. I am not a competitive 9th edition player and I don't see how a casual player could enjoy bickering or 4+ing rules constantly. Adversarial games have to have rules, otherwise, you are just playing pretend and if that is what you want then why do you need a 100-page rulebook? How does doctorates on possible worlds relate to the thread?

The game should allow you to play a game with your miniatures and when GW makes decisions like not including options for Chosen to ride to ride discs or Chaos Lords not being able to take jump packs then that makes some of those people unable to use those miniatures. Handwaving it away by invoking house rules as an option is not a defense of GW, it is acknowledging GW's failure. GW could just stop providing codexes and just give the basic profile of each faction's basic trooper and basic gun and let people figure the rest out themselves, but people should not have to write their own codex to play the game. Drawing the line arbitrarily exactly at wherever GW is at and saying "this amount of rules is good, we'll handle the rest ourselves" is blatant white knighting, why shouldn't you have to invent the stats for lascannons and why don't we have a cost for Chaos Lords on bikes?

Riding a Helldrake as a surfboard? House rule and there is nothing wrong with that house rule, but there is a time and a place for that. Picking up a bike that has been available to Chaos Lords for over a decade? That should go in the codex. Profile of a lascannon that is an option in the box for Havocs? Needs to go in the codex.

 vict0988 wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
More and more, I am enjoying the ignore button, as I would expect its use in general is increasing as the GW centered hobby is bifurcating in much the same way as academic philosphy split between so called analytic and traditional aka continental philosophy. One expected that everything in the world might be made clear with clear language, much like so called competitive 40K. Inthe end, for all the blustery arrogance and doctorates granted on e.g. possible worlds, the entire program after 50 years is clearly a sham... history will repeat.

Using bifurcating instead of divided is positively sesquipedalian. 9th is way more clear than 7th, that clarity has improved my gameplay experience because I don't have to look up core rules as often and I basically never have to look for FAQ or Errata. I am not a competitive 9th edition player and I don't see how a casual player could enjoy bickering or 4+ing rules constantly. Adversarial games have to have rules, otherwise, you are just playing pretend and if that is what you want then why do you need a 100-page rulebook? How does doctorates on possible worlds relate to the thread?

The game should allow you to play a game with your miniatures and when GW makes decisions like not including options for Chosen to ride to ride discs or Chaos Lords not being able to take jump packs then that makes some of those people unable to use those miniatures. Handwaving it away by invoking house rules as an option is not a defense of GW, it is acknowledging GW's failure. GW could just stop providing codexes and just give the basic profile of each faction's basic trooper and basic gun and let people figure the rest out themselves, but people should not have to write their own codex to play the game. Drawing the line arbitrarily exactly at wherever GW is at and saying "this amount of rules is good, we'll handle the rest ourselves" is blatant white knighting, why shouldn't you have to invent the stats for lascannons and why don't we have a cost for Chaos Lords on bikes?

You DO have a cost for a Chaos Lord on a bike. Provided by GW! You're just choosing not to use it...
https://wahapedia.ru/wh40k9ed/factions/chaos-space-marines/Chaos-Lord-on-Bike

The stats, abilities and cost are all out of wack. An outdated legends datasheet is not good enough.

Use whatever let’s you get a game in.

Broadly I’ve no problem with home brew or community rules. I do remain skeptical they necessarily fix anything (a lot of home brew rules tend to favour the writer), but if it gets a game in it gets a game in.

However. As with any deviation from Bog Standard Rulebook rules? Don’t spring it on your opponent without discussing it beforehand. Ever. That is a Richard Move.

And yes, that absolutely extends to “I need this game to be tournament practice for me so we’re using the additional rules from that tournament”. Let your opponent know that request in advance, and be gracious if they refuse.

Example. WHFB 8th Edition. I favoured Big Monsters. I had not exactly sneaky but lesser seen tactics to get the most of out them. For instance, Large Targets could see over intervening terrain, provided the model could. Models with Fly could Charge over intervening terrain. Thus Dragons, Manticores et al could declare and complete a charge over intervening terrain.

Was on turn two of a game, ready to do my charges. My opponent had left some juicy and worthwhile flanks exposed, and yes I fully intended to capitalise on that. Chariots we’re split up (I usually ran four, because I loved Impact Hits), but with two flying flank charges lined up, I split them up. Two went for a central unit (they typically hit hard enough to win and break in a single round) . The other two charged one of the units about to get Flank Charged (one by a Black Dragon, the other by a Manticore), in the hope their impact hits would bring weight of kills, and in the certain knowledge the Flank charges would strip out enemy rank bonus.

The two flanked combats were therefore about as sure a thing as you could get in WHFB, with only Rubber Lance Syndrome to spanner things.

I declared the Chariots first, liking to keep my opponent guessing. Then it was Dragon O’Clock. “Black Dragon is going to charge Unit A in the flank”

Oh apparently I couldn’t do that. Being well versed, I politely referred my opponent to the relevant rules which showed I could see, and could charge.

Oh no. Oh no no no no Dear Reader. This was a Tournament Rules Game (never mentioned before). And of course, that meant the Woods my big beasties were lurking behind were infinitely tall. So ashkerly I couldn’t see and couldn’t charge….

Yeah that game was abandoned rapidly.

If my opponent had a) told me of their intent to use that rules subset and b) had, I dunno, actually furnished me with a copy of the damned thing? I could’ve run things differently. Like….very differently. All four Chariots into the middle unit, or two and two perhaps. But as it stood, I was screwed. Because my opponent just decided Extra Secret Special Rules should always apply.

Don’t be That Guy. Just discuss it, and FFS be prepared and more than willing to hand over a copy of those additional or alternative rules. Your preference, your responsibility.

I believe that one of the strengths of 40K is functioning as a lingua franca among tabletop wargamers. I started in historicals, and one problem there was the specificity of the models and time periods. So I might be fascinated by Alexander the Great and have collected a 15mm army but my opponent is a fan of the War of the Roses and therefore we couldn't have a game without prior coordination and sharing of models. It worked even in those pre-email days, but it made getting a game hard. Gaming conventions and game clubs with leaders and schedules of games where we would volunteer to GM and bring all the models etc was one way to get games in, but it could be rather difficult to get started. Those groups can also collapse due to any number of reasons - I find that there is often a leader who can also be rather autocratic. Groups splinter.

Then I came to 40K circa 2nd Ed and suddenly I could just collect and paint up a 1000 point army, go to the store on 40K night and have a game. I have found that more or less true of the many places I have been posted or visited over the following 25 years or so. I packed a small 1500 point army in my gear for long course down south and I could rock up to any game store around the base and get a 40K game in. I moved from town to town and could count on playing 40K wherever I ended up. House rules, though, restrict that. It can be quite off-putting to play someone that uses "house rules" that alter rather important aspects of the game rules - our lingua franca is no longer common. I see house rules with smaller, fairly closed gaming groups that play on a given night each week but play a different game system each week. I've been part of such groups and they are fun while they last.

Still, I think that house/community rules are a barrier to new players. That doesn't make them bad, but they can restrict the health of the gaming community.

Well yes, house rules tend to work better with thkse who play with friends, not "opponents".

 vict0988 wrote:
The stats, abilities and cost are all out of wack. An outdated legends datasheet is not good enough.

You don't get it. If you want them to be updated or at least okay for their cost, you're just a WAAC power gamer

nou wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?

"Historicals" is a word encompassing a specific approach to wargaming and should not be read literally. There are many, many fictional and yet historical wargames. Just google VSF for example.

Okey, but expecting regular people to play the way games were played in prior century is like expect someone to wear stuff people wore in the 1980s or play games under the rules people used in the 60s. Games are played to be efficient, fast and compatitive. And the RPG or cooperative elements aren't a real thing in regular games. It is not even that people always don't have time to talk to others, they just don't want to go over lenghty set of rules and identifires for specific rules etc. That is why end of 8th people would rather play with L shaped ugly looking , but perfect for gaming, walls covering entire tables.

If anything, for no skimirhs games like infinity, TLOS is a huge hinderance and problem. Half the problems with have with Out of LoS shoting, cliping wierd movment and catapulting of models through walls etc are because GW tries to make people play a non skirmish table top game with skirmish LoS rules.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The stats, abilities and cost are all out of wack. An outdated legends datasheet is not good enough.

You don't get it. If you want them to be updated or at least okay for their cost, you're just a WAAC power gamer

And a lazy one at that.
So you want the thing costed correctly? Well;
1) What's the current cost of a Chaos Lord?
2) What's the current cost of a bike?
3) What's the current cost of the gear the WLs sporting?
Just add those things together....

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The stats, abilities and cost are all out of wack. An outdated legends datasheet is not good enough.

You don't get it. If you want them to be updated or at least okay for their cost, you're just a WAAC power gamer

Ah yes. The chaos lord playing wanting to play with a jump pack lord or a bike sorc is such a WAAC, because both options would litteraly blow up the game balance. Or a dreadnought with two auto canons or a razorback with a top mounted psycanon. The game would be dead if orks had an actual set of characters on bikes etc.

When/if GW ever phases out classic marines characters, I guess marine players are going to be WAAC for wanting jump pack/bike characters, up until GW brings them back to join the outridder chaplain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs 805972 11406135 wrote:
And a lazy one at that.
So you want the thing costed correctly? Well;
1) What's the current cost of a Chaos Lord?
2) What's the current cost of a bike?
3) What's the current cost of the gear the WLs sporting?
Just add those things together....

There is no bike cost for character to compare. With primaris one can compare the cost of a mounted and not mounted chaplain, and have an extremly weak narrative games only claim to use something like an outridder captin or librarian. Chaos doesn't have such stuff, because the only character with a pack is a special character and those are always costed oddly.

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The stats, abilities and cost are all out of wack. An outdated legends datasheet is not good enough.

You don't get it. If you want them to be updated or at least okay for their cost, you're just a WAAC power gamer

2) What's the current cost of a bike?

Good question, you should answer that one.

Dread these topics.

Good question to ask yourself: when was the last time you played a game of 40k strictly according to the rules as stated in the BRB? This means no house rules, no convention scenarios, no ITC objectives, terrain / deployment rules followed to the letter, etc.

Up until 8th edition, that seemed exceptionally hard to do. Many rules contradicted one another, or it was impossible to figure out which was applied first, or there was not common agreement on how to interpret what was stated on the page. I've spent weeks of my life rules lawyering at the table just getting past turn 2.

A universal set of rules, a tournament set of rules, I'm not sure this actually matters. For the most part, people stick with the rules as stated in the BRB. When they can't, they wing it in whatever makes most sense. It has always been that way.

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
The stats, abilities and cost are all out of wack. An outdated legends datasheet is not good enough.

You don't get it. If you want them to be updated or at least okay for their cost, you're just a WAAC power gamer

And a lazy one at that.
So you want the thing costed correctly? Well;
1) What's the current cost of a Chaos Lord?
2) What's the current cost of a bike?
3) What's the current cost of the gear the WLs sporting?
Just add those things together....

Why do lascannons need a S value? Can't you just decide in your gaming club what S it has? What is the difference? Is the S value of a lascannon more important than rules for a Chaos Lord on bike? Why does Thousand Sons need rules for mounting discs? Waste of paper when you can just house rule is it not? House rules should be for exceptional things, like surfing on a Helldrake or Chaos Orks. I want rules that are very permissive, like allowing armies of vehicles or monsters and then I want pts and missions to make reasonable lists to be better than weird or niche stuff so people don't have to buy FW or convert models to get a huge power boost.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Dread these topics.

Good question to ask yourself: when was the last time you played a game of 40k strictly according to the rules as stated in the BRB? This means no house rules, no convention scenarios, no ITC objectives, terrain / deployment rules followed to the letter, etc.

Up until 8th edition, that seemed exceptionally hard to do. Many rules contradicted one another, or it was impossible to figure out which was applied first, or there was not common agreement on how to interpret what was stated on the page. I've spent weeks of my life rules lawyering at the table just getting past turn 2.

A universal set of rules, a tournament set of rules, I'm not sure this actually matters. For the most part, people stick with the rules as stated in the BRB. When they can't, they wing it in whatever makes most sense. It has always been that way.

You're a nerd if you don't fast roll your saving throws, technically they aren't listed along with hits and wounds as something you are meant to fast roll. Other than that? I have played dozens of 9th games following GW rules.

Karol wrote:

nou wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?

"Historicals" is a word encompassing a specific approach to wargaming and should not be read literally. There are many, many fictional and yet historical wargames. Just google VSF for example.

Okey, but expecting regular people to play the way games were played in prior century is like expect someone to wear stuff people wore in the 1980s or play games under the rules people used in the 60s. Games are played to be efficient, fast and compatitive. And the RPG or cooperative elements aren't a real thing in regular games. It is not even that people always don't have time to talk to others, they just don't want to go over lenghty set of rules and identifires for specific rules etc. That is why end of 8th people would rather play with L shaped ugly looking , but perfect for gaming, walls covering entire tables.

If anything, for no skimirhs games like infinity, TLOS is a huge hinderance and problem. Half the problems with have with Out of LoS shoting, cliping wierd movment and catapulting of models through walls etc are because GW tries to make people play a non skirmish table top game with skirmish LoS rules.

I don't know where did you get this "prior century" from. "Historicals" does not mean playing antiquated rulesets, "playing the same way your grand dad did". There are great many modern "historicals" rulesets out there. Just visit wargamevault.com.

The main problem here is that so many "wargamers" nurtured by 40k communities are completely incompatible with the mindset required to play the "historicals" ways of wargaming. They expect "NPC culture of single-serving opponents" otherwise known as pick-up games, with some players getting infuriated by the very idea of having any sort of pre-game chat beyond "2000pts matched, current GT". This seems to be especially true in US. A lot of 40k players are also obsessively focussed on list building as the core aspect of the "skill" and this focus alone makes it hard or straight up impossible for them to understand why "historicals" are still very much adversarial games that test generalship skills.

Pssst....


The rules are a lingua franca. That very fact makes it much easier to explain house rules with folks you've never met. You don't need to explain the whole ruleset first. As for new folks, it's probably best to limit the house rules to those that remove aspects of the game, imho, but *shrug*

(Edit: of course, you have to be prepared for no one to be interested in your house rule as well be open to your opponent suggesting house rules as well)

Karol wrote:
Ah yes. The chaos lord playing wanting to play with a jump pack lord or a bike sorc is such a WAAC, because both options would litteraly blow up the game balance.

You either have memory of mayfly, or are just parroting excuses of that extremely toxic and waaac game club of yours, because that's exactly what happened in both 7th and 8th editions. Hello? Herohammer rings a bell? Superfriends? 3 BA/SW captains that for some reason dumped their chapters and were playing Doom on their lonesome? Cherrypicked CSM crap that somehow always amounted to sticking wings or disc or bike or palanquin or whatever on most broken neckbeardy melee weapon/trait combo and Leeroiying it into enemy army to delete it on rerollable 2+ roll?

Gee, I have no idea why people might dislike that. Sure, it only sunk both editions, but anyone who calls out anti-fun netlisters on that gak somehow is the one at fault, not dudes actually doing so, eh?

 vict0988 wrote:
people should not have to write their own codex to play the game

Yeah, adding one line of wargear to CSM lord entry is 'writing your own codex'. Nice hysteric hyperbole.

why don't we have a cost for Chaos Lords on bikes?

Gee, maybe, just maybe, because the option was broken in past editions? Funny how people point out the rules for bike lord still exist, but people who do it 'totally for the fluff, honest guv' always whine these aren't OP so you can't waaac these and they pretend said rules don't exist just proving the point of opposing side.

Even from fluff perspective, why should CSM have bikes and/or jump packs? They lost their industry, have no spare parts, no traitor legions used them extensively before - GW should just delete the option altogether, CSM are not loyalists, they shouldn't be mirror copies of them. They should get daemonic mounts like juggernauts or whatever discordant is riding, priced appropriately, none of that '+10 pts upgrade makes CSM lord utterly broken' waaac gak.

Picking up a bike that has been available to Chaos Lords for over a decade? That should go in the codex.

Space marines used to use eldar guns. Orks could use bolters. You could virus bomb enemy army and delete it on 4+ before game even started. Etc, etc. Funny how no one whines about all the other gak GW removed because it was broken and/or didn't fit the setting anymore, it's always the players of the same entitled 2-3 armies.

Deathwatch players have much better cause for protests because inept hack who wrote their book ruined 2/3 of the army options with SIA restrictions. Primaris ones, ditto, with idiotic power weapon rules. Ynnari with again, utterly inept handling of the faction. There is good 10+ factions that have far better claim to being shafted by GW, yet somehow, you almost never see these players complaining - and certainly not to the point of making dozens of salty posts crying someone dared to call out their netlist wombo combo mini once. Go figure

 Irbis wrote:

Karol wrote:
Ah yes. The chaos lord playing wanting to play with a jump pack lord or a bike sorc is such a WAAC, because both options would litteraly blow up the game balance.

You either have memory of mayfly, or are just parroting excuses of that extremely toxic and waaac game club of yours, because that's exactly what happened in both 7th and 8th editions. Hello? Herohammer rings a bell? Superfriends? 3 BA/SW captains that for some reason dumped their chapters and were playing Doom on their lonesome? Cherrypicked CSM crap that somehow always amounted to sticking wings or disc or bike or palanquin or whatever on most broken neckbeardy melee weapon/trait combo and Leeroiying it into enemy army to delete it on rerollable 2+ roll?

Gee, I have no idea why people might dislike that. Sure, it only sunk both editions, but anyone who calls out anti-fun netlisters on that gak somehow is the one at fault, not dudes actually doing so, eh?

 vict0988 wrote:
people should not have to write their own codex to play the game

Yeah, adding one line of wargear to CSM lord entry is 'writing your own codex'. Nice hysteric hyperbole.

why don't we have a cost for Chaos Lords on bikes?

Gee, maybe, just maybe, because the option was broken in past editions? Funny how people point out the rules for bike lord still exist, but people who do it 'totally for the fluff, honest guv' always whine these aren't OP so you can't waaac these and they pretend said rules don't exist just proving the point of opposing side.

Even from fluff perspective, why should CSM have bikes and/or jump packs? They lost their industry, have no spare parts, no traitor legions used them extensively before - GW should just delete the option altogether, CSM are not loyalists, they shouldn't be mirror copies of them. They should get daemonic mounts like juggernauts or whatever discordant is riding, priced appropriately, none of that '+10 pts upgrade makes CSM lord utterly broken' waaac gak.

Picking up a bike that has been available to Chaos Lords for over a decade? That should go in the codex.

Space marines used to use eldar guns. Orks could use bolters. You could virus bomb enemy army and delete it on 4+ before game even started. Etc, etc. Funny how no one whines about all the other gak GW removed because it was broken and/or didn't fit the setting anymore, it's always the players of the same entitled 2-3 armies.

Deathwatch players have much better cause for protests because inept hack who wrote their book ruined 2/3 of the army options with SIA restrictions. Primaris ones, ditto, with idiotic power weapon rules. Ynnari with again, utterly inept handling of the faction. There is good 10+ factions that have far better claim to being shafted by GW, yet somehow, you almost never see these players complaining - and certainly not to the point of making dozens of salty posts crying someone dared to call out their netlist wombo combo mini once. Go figure

Chaos Lords, with jump packs, and.......on bikes.....are "what ruined 8th and......7th edition? That's what broke 7th?

And Chaos can't build jump packs and bikes? Bikes? Really? When they've got the Dark Mechanicum cranking out Thunderhawks, tanks, and daemon engines?

Oh, Irbis, Irbis, Irbis! You're parody is to die for! You're killing me! But you're almost too good. Anyone who didn't know better might actually think that you were serious! And just constantly pushing for factions that you don't play to be as weak as possible, while at the same time pushing for factions that you do play to be as strong as possible.

Oohhhhh. This guy. Such a kidder.

Chaos "lost their industry" and have "no spare parts"?

How do people even say that seriously these days? Who, besides Lil' Irby, actually thinks that?

Karol wrote:

nou wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
40k is fiction and is not "historical", or do you think people aren't laughing at the HH players that are pissy about the Mk6 armor?

"Historicals" is a word encompassing a specific approach to wargaming and should not be read literally. There are many, many fictional and yet historical wargames. Just google VSF for example.

Okey, but expecting regular people to play the way games were played in prior century is like expect someone to wear stuff people wore in the 1980s or play games under the rules people used in the 60s. Games are played to be efficient, fast and compatitive. And the RPG or cooperative elements aren't a real thing in regular games. It is not even that people always don't have time to talk to others, they just don't want to go over lenghty set of rules and identifires for specific rules etc. That is why end of 8th people would rather play with L shaped ugly looking , but perfect for gaming, walls covering entire tables.

If anything, for no skimirhs games like infinity, TLOS is a huge hinderance and problem. Half the problems with have with Out of LoS shoting, cliping wierd movment and catapulting of models through walls etc are because GW tries to make people play a non skirmish table top game with skirmish LoS rules.

They are lots of cooperative games that aren't RPGs.
There are lots of games that have been using the same rules for decades, if not centuries, Monopoly, checkers, chess, the Royal game of Ur.