Competitive players to warhammer 40k are toxic to the overall game...

[Xaric]

Ok so I hear a lot of debate that competitive players demand balance to this game that the book MUST provide balance or its just trash after all they have stated in the book under "Forging the narrative" multiple times that the book is more a set of guidelines then a dedicated rule listing here's a message at the end of the game space marines (don't watch if you don't like spoilers) now replace some of the words they say in a gamer perceptive.

Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNtsu5lCD6s) watch at 2.40 and refer the codex astarts as the rule book

Here is a idea for Competitive players when you make a competitive game you add rules to the game just like how i made a rule for the psyker phase here (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45488-Easy-way-to-fix-the-psyker-phase-for-now&p=425045#post425045)

[daboarder]

After 140 bucks I expect a workable product

[Xaric]

Ok so i am getting this right YOU had the choice to buy somthing and EXPECT it to work to how you EXPECT it would?

First of the game is not broken i see people winning loosing and drawing in my local GW shop for the last couple of days with the new book and most importantly having fun.

Secondly they did not force you to buy the book or play with the book you can still use 1st - 6th edition but its up to the player you are agienst who wishis to play with you. So please stop with the assurtion that because you buyed somthing the company should agree with your wishis because your a paying customer thats as silly as the rule the customer is always right if that was the case GW would have gone broke years ago.

Now i dont expect people to follow what i put on this page because this is my own opional but like damn i am going to sit here and let people with competitive mindsets corrupt the game by pushing people who could be new to the game away because they had a hissy fit on some new rules and have disagreements with them.

The game is forever changing i have played a player with 6 Impiral knights it was so much fun even if i lost i still had fun killing 3 of them with plaguebearers (touch of rust).

[Gotthammer]

I'm a super background driven fan of 40k and I stopped playing because with half the armies if you try to make lists that match the background you just auto-lose *cougheldarcough* also I like to be able to play for fun, not to be confused about contradictory or poorly written rules. Yes I can just roll-off for it or whatever, but I still like to be able to go into a game with a firm understanding of what footing my army sits on, and not have to think "will I be able to deploy x & y together or will my opponent interpret that rule differently today" or the like.

A better ruleset benefits everybody.

[Xaric]

I agree a better ruleset would beneifit but people must understand the diffrence between a broken rule (a rule that just makes the game unplayable) and a rule you just dont agree on (a rule that cost you the game but you just dislike it similer to people who play nurgle daemons with everyone being slow but have to accept this because there like zombies in some caseis of there discription)

[DrBored]

After 140 bucks I expect a workable product

Its a wonderfully workable product. Its a high quality book filled with full color pictures and more guidelines than most other tabletop rpgs.

If you dont like it, I'm sure you could return it and buy a rulebook for chess instead.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I think we could all do without insinuating one playstyle or another were somehow "toxic to the game", guys. It's not true and it doesn't endear you to anyone.

[Xaric]

Now this is just a speculation of the play testing maybe they had the rule of 6th edition when manifesting powers with that mindset that if you are a mastery lv 1 psyker you can't roll from powers that cost 2 or 3 warp chargis but neglected to add it to the rule book after all this is not the first time this has happened look at the flaming chariot of tzeentch in both daemon books for fantasy and 40k and also the WD play report by looking at that they must have been thinking that it was the fantasy rules for 40k because in the fantasy rules it states a personal designer rule that it can move and fire wile in 40k this was never added stuff like this for wrighters come up all the time even after proof reading it

Lets look at all the ability's they are mostly warp charge 1 and 2 for the basic and more stronger ability's but the ability's that are warp charge 3 are insanely powerful from casting a strength D AP 1 Vortex type power to strength 10 AP 1 large Blast barrage type powers that or just summoning minions of the warp these powers when I look at them should be used by a psyker that has a lot of skill in the art not by a random novice.

[Charon]

Actually this blind fanboyism and lack of critic is bad for the game. Which company would ever give a **** about improving their product when there are people who blindly adore everything no matter how questionabe that decision was? Surely not GW.

[Xaric]

Wait if that's true then why did a person who buyed the 200 pound box for 7th edition not receive his box due to royal mail issues but was given a rule book and £50 to spend on products in GW shop from GW if they did not care about him after all it was royal mails fault they did not have to do anything but they did anyway. Ok school in session what is a business motives to make money from products they produce if a business makes a + to the profits that tells them they are going the right way now if they fall into - that means they are going to change things.

So people who keep asking GW to lower price's yet they are still getting sales lowering price's just because someone asked is a very VERY BAD way to do business its counter productive to how a business works if you don't like something don't buy it its called voting with your money.

[Mr Mystery]

I've always found arrogant people to be toxic to the overall game.

For instance - people don't like the rules. No issue there. Personal taste is personal taste.

People don't like the rules, and insist that therefore nobody should every enjoy their hobby, and start throwing out bizarre titles like 'white knight' or 'apologist' - Arseholes the lot of them. Toxic to the community, as they don't engender healthy discussion.

People who aren't fussed that much about the rules (hello!). No issue there. Personal taste is personal taste.

People who aren't fussed that much about the rules, and insist therefore nobody should be fussed about their rules? Just as toxic an arsehole as a hateboy.

Takes all sorts to have a healthy community.

[daboarder]

I've always found arrogant people to be toxic to the overall game.

For instance - people don't like the rules. No issue there. Personal taste is personal taste.

People don't like the rules, and insist that therefore nobody should every enjoy their hobby, and start throwing out bizarre titles like 'white knight' or 'apologist' - Arseholes the lot of them. Toxic to the community, as they don't engender healthy discussion.

People who aren't fussed that much about the rules (hello!). No issue there. Personal taste is personal taste.

People who aren't fussed that much about the rules, and insist therefore nobody should be fussed about their rules? Just as toxic as a hateboy.

Takes all sorts to have a healthy community.

Mostly this. But honestly you use very agressive language for one side but not the other. The masses that throw around terms such as "whiner" etc whenever anyone offers an opinion that isnt a golden review are just as septic. Often times more so as they usually start calling people out well before anyone has actually said anything or often in spite of what a poster is stating. They also often dismiss all question of ballance as the rekit of tournament players as if tournament players are WAAC players. Often doing all this despite loudly proffessing that they would not "lower" themselves to attend tournaments

[Mr Mystery]

Fix'd

[-Tom-]

I can't really understand why anyone wouldn't be a 'competitive' player. I don't mean taking part in tournaments, but surely everyone (or at least the majority) plays with the aim of getting a win?

Not just 40k, but other things too... like Monopoly, or Chess, or Pool, or Badminton.

Sure, if I go to play Badminton and I lose, it's not the end of the world. I don't put in hours of practice with a specific weight of shuttlecock and then make everyone play with mine so I have an advantage. I don't throw a hissy fit that the windows at one end of the gym are a nightmare when you're on one side of the net (as it'll affect my friends/opponents* just the same in the next game, or already did in the previous and we'll both just laugh it off). But, I still want to make the effort to win the game. I don't just stand there drinking a beer in the middle of the court.

I've got a few grazes from diving for shots that I was damned if I was going to let drop at the end of a long, pleasing rally. Maybe I shouldn't be taking it seriously enough to risk breaking skin over. But, really, it's just a fun game with friends - and that * on opponents above, is because I feel that is worth commenting on. The term seems correct... they're my friends that I'm playing 'with'... but, they're on the other side of the net and I am playing 'against' them.

When I play 40k I also play with/against friends, although I did play in a tournament once (and wrote a thread about it on the forum somewhere). But, I'm still aiming to play well, and to get enjoyment from multiple things - planning an effective list is part of it. Making effective use of that list, vs whatever they decide to make use of, is then another part of it, and then there's just having a laugh and being social while playing. Importantly though, I'm still aiming to 'win' the game at the end of it if I can. So, I'm still being 'competitive'.

I can't see how having clear, fair, balanced rules would be a downside for anyone as a core rule set. I don't want to play against invisible deathstars, or never ending summoned demon waves. To some extent I also don't want to be given the option to make those things myself. I'm an Eldar player, and I don't view myself as a '40k player' so I won't be rushing out to get a load of demons, but I will pop off my Serpent shield at every chance I get. Would I agree to house rule it if it was overpowered? Yes, sure. But, I'm not going to just not do something that is completely allowable in the rules, because I would like to win. And, that becomes a grey area. Where does 'using the tools you have available' become 'being a dick and using loopholes and exploits to win at all costs'? I'd rather the rules stopped me (or others) from being a dick in the first place. Why not just self-regulate? Because I think it's better to ask your opponent for permission if you are going to be doing something that will be in that grey area, than going in with a sense of self-entitlement that you're 'totally within your rights within the rules to do so'.

One example similar to this is when Lords of War came out. I went to have a game with a friend, and he asked if I'd mind if he stuck a superheavy in to try out the rules. I was only going to be having 'normal' units available. It was a 1500pt game, and he had some giant Ork stompa filled with meks that could repair it. I had a load of Rangers and Guardians, that couldn't get through its armour, 2 Wave Serpents and a Wraithknight I think. I didn't fancy my chances, but thought it'd be interesting to see how it went, and would let him see about the new rules. It was good that he said "Do you mind if..." though, rather than "The rules let me do this, so suck it up loser!" At some point I want to try out a game with some Bonesinger, or Eldar Pegasus, or Eldar Eagle, Storm Serpent, etc, home-brew rules. But I will always go in with the view that it's up to my opponent as to whether they mind or not, because, y'know, the home-brew rules I have might be horribly unreasonable.

As far as the new rules go, I've not bought them. I don't know if I will. (Currently I'm stuck onboard a ship miles away from land anyway, so I get the benefit of seeing how everyone here feels about them before I commit either way). It seems like there are some improvements. It also sounds like there are a lot of things that weren't improved that could have been. I think a lot of the arguments on the forums may stem from a "The glass is half full!" "No it isn't you fool, it's half empty" "You sir are the fool, and blind too, any idiot can see it is half full"... and so on perspective. To some extent both sides are even saying the same thing about the amount of liquid in the glass, or about how much has changed in the rules. I guess at the end of the day everyone has to ask themselves "Is it better *enough*, to warrant spending that much money on?"

[daboarder]

Just want to clarify something about my own stance on this.

Im not a tournamnet player. Ive been to maybe a handful of them and my lists are far to themed to have an edge (check the lists forum for anything iv e suggested) now that being said. I prefer to play with competative gamers.

Why? Simple. They are usually better people who care enough to know the rules. Thus preventing the game from getting bogged down in arguments. Furthermore they are often far more sporting than casual gamers willing to grant the benefit of the doubt. And finally the lists they run are THEIR lists not some repetitive slop from the internet

[Cap'nSmurfs]

First off: this is a thread that so easily could've become a really poisonous argument, so thanks to everyone taking the time to express their views in a calm and friendly manner.

I think it's just as wrong to assume that people who aren't competitive gamers are somehow not concerned with winning or how the rules work as it is to assume that competitive gamers only care about rules and winning. Obviously I'm trying to win my battles, I spend hours poring over rulebooks trying to work out combinations and tactics. But I don't mind not winning, and although I'm always trying to improve, I know I'm not the best player and I'm probably not going to be. I don't like losing; but if I've played a game in a good spirit, both of us have had fun, we've created a spectacle and - yes! - an amusing narrative, then I've got what I wanted out of the game.

That's what separates this sort of game from monopoly or chess: you've got all sorts of other angles around the game. Nobody's roleplaying a top hat or a car in monopoly. Chess pieces aren't clambering over barricades or storming buildings. It's those moments, that atmosphere, the spectacle and the stories we can tell (both in terms of game-narrative and our own experience playing the game), win or lose, that keep me playing the game.

But then, I'd say my priorities are collecting and painting over gaming as such (as much as I enjoy the game and try to play as much as I can).

[ElectricPaladin]

We need to define our terms better.

I feel that most people would say something like "the goal in a friendly game is to enjoy the game. The goal of a competitive game is to see who is the better player." Of course, it's not that simple, because in a friendly game, you're still competing; and presumably, people play competitive games because it's fun for them.

So what is the real difference?

For me, it's this - it's ok in a friendly game to ask your opponent to do or not do something just to enhance your fun. For example, "oh, jeez, I really screwed up this movement phase - would you mind if I fudge this model over a bit?" Sometimes the player that has the advantage will offer to change things up for the benefit of the game. "Oh, man, that was some bad luck. The game's basically over now. Do you want to reroll that random GW thing that just turned half your army into red paste?"

It's not a matter of competitive games being all about competition and friendly games being all loosey-goosey and not at all about the rules. It's a matter of priorities. In a competitive game, I have to trust the rules and the nature of the experience to be fun for all people present. I'm sure as heck not going to fudge anything, or play anything less than the most powerful list I can field (in the faction I enjoy aesthetically and narratively - because like I said, it's not that simple at all). If the game goes against you, well... better luck next round, brother, you were a good sportsman, you took it on the chin, and hey your army is gorgeous. See you later.

In a friendly game, it's not that easy. The guy I'm playing against is my buddy, and I want him to have a good time. I don't want to just trust that he enjoys the game, win or lose. He's my buddy! The game is friendly. In my personal experience, I have switched armies, changed my purchasing decisions, and intentionally handicapped myself to ensure that my opponent has a reasonably fun experience.

But one thing I have not done is just throw the game... because like I said. It's not simple. It's complicated. I still want to play to win, even as I'm making that harder for myself in order to put my opponent and myself on a similar level.

Now, I happen to be sympathetic to both sides in this rules debate.

On the one hand, it's true that there is a level of balance that is not required in a friendly "beer and pretzels" game. If your opponent is willing to have a conversation about how hard to play, or entertain the possibility of certain formats that give a mechanically disadvantaged player a bit of a boost, then the game doesn't have to be quite as perfectly balanced. You and your opponent can work together to fudge it a little to ensure a mutually enjoyable experience.

On the other hand, it's also possible for a game to be so badly balanced that "fudging" turns into "re-writing the whole damn game." There's a point where "mild mechanical disadvantage" turns into "my army literally cannot win most matchups." At that point, the game is so broken that with the amount of "fixing," "fudging," and "conversation" it would take to make it a fun game, you may as well just learn to play a new one. I hear that Dropzone Commander is nice this time of year, and Firestorm Armada is a brilliant spiritual successor to Battlefleet Gothic.

Anyway, I don't really know where 40k falls in this. I mean, I keep coming back, so obviously it's balanced enough for me. But it's certainly a headache, and sometimes deeply frustrating. And I can see it getting bad enough that I'll stop playing, because what's the fun in getting pasted - or doing the pasting - if the game is so deeply for or against you that all hope was lost from the moment you put your models on the table?

[Erik Setzer]

Its a wonderfully workable product. Its a high quality book filled with full color pictures and more guidelines than most other tabletop rpgs.

If you dont like it, I'm sure you could return it and buy a rulebook for chess instead.

Except it's not meant to be a tabletop RPG and they need to stop treating it as such. The biggest knock on Rogue Trader was that it started as such and was a complete mess. So after moving away from that because it was easy to spot how much of a mess it was, we're right back to the point where there's no need for a rulebook, we can put our toy soldiers on a table and say "my bazooka guy shot your squad over there and blew them up, put them off the table!" Yep, totally worth it.

Seriously, people, stop with that lame argument already. It's stupid. You can't suddenly redefine what 40K is to try to defend poorly written (and in some case missing) rules. And people who are telling others "Don't play this game, go play something else, I don't care if you like the 40K universe or have dropped thousands of dollars on the game, the game needs to get rid of all of you!" are FAR more "toxic" to the game than "competitive" players (which is apparently the label we now apply to anyone who wants to play a clearly written game rather than just make up a story).

[clively]

I play 1, maybe 2, local tournaments a year and around 1 pickup game a week at my FLGS and 1 or 2 games a week at my house with my kids. What goes on at the national tournaments doesn't really concern me too much although I do like seeing the various armies that show up and knowing how well they did. I don't run net lists. I do constantly experiment with different strategies and units; after 3+ years playing Dark Eldar I'm still coming up with various ways of approaching the game.

When I play at the FLGS I have every reason to expect to have very few differences of opinion on how the core mechanics work. We should both know how the various saves work, movement restrictions, shooting, etc. That said, I don't mind having to reference the BRB to figure out things like if you're pinned when a vehicle is wrecked.

My problem comes in when the language used has so much wiggle room that a person may have built their list around one interpretation of a rule only to be in the middle of a game with someone that truly believes it says something completely different. For example: Void shields being hit by a blast. Under 6e it was completely unclear as to what to do which is a side effect of sloppy rule writing. By "sloppy" I mean that the rule author failed to take the time and consider the various implications of the text.

Before anyone says "there are so many interactions its impossible to know them all", I'd agree HOWEVER, numerous problems exist with very common items, such as blasts above. (I know, this particular item was actually corrected in 7e)

That said, it shouldn't be too hard to have a check list of things to test against in order to see if a new rule passes the smell test. We have only a handful of ways to shoot something, surely the rules author could have run through those different ways to see if the rule made sense. More to the point, it shouldn't be too hard for that rule author to FAQ or Errata the rule to correct it once it has been repeatedly pointed out.

I do enjoy playing this game and I play to win. However, I don't want that win or loss to be due to how various rules are interpreted by two reasonable people. I won't rage quit or anything like that. I'll certainly play 7e as well as I can based on my, and other peoples, understanding of various mechanics. At the same time I'll keep sending GW rules queries even though I know they'll never answer them. I'll also keep posting on various boards about how much I'd love to have a clear and balanced core rule set in the hopes that at least someone over their bothers to take this to heart. Heck, I'll even continue poking fun at the editors for having errors in the BRB index (e.g. Vector Strike wasn't in the 6e index, and has an incorrect page number in the 7e index.. lol).

As has been repeatedly said by far more than me, a clear and balanced core rule set benefits everyone for the simple reason that even strangers could easily and without misgivings play a game. Social interactions shouldn't start with possible angst. They should start with a well known and common foundation.

[egorene]

Just my humble opinion , aren´t we all competive gamers ?

Everbody tries to win . In whatever form the gamer chooses is fitting for his code of conduct .
Or someone tries a new toy or 3 in case of heldrakes .

But it is still a game , funny , silly and in no way ever is or was it balanced .

If you want to win , you can .
As always its all about the money .
Someone will always buy the best and meanest combos .
You dont need to play with them .

I like the new edition , altough i know its not perfect .
Well personaly i find it far from it . But thats another story .

But unbound is cool .

1 Company Ultramarines check works
Ork Boss Horde check works
and the list goes on

Or a friend of mine who just buys cool minis and never plays , because they never were an army he is happy

Its for beginners and the hey that army looks cool guys .

[Cap'nSmurfs]

"Except it's not meant to be a tabletop RPG and they need to stop treating it as such."

Yes it is, and no they don't. Read what they say about their own game; see how they define it, especially in the 7th edition book. You disagree, which is fine, but it's their game. It is, and it does, what they say and what they want.

[Eldar_Atog]

Speaking as a casual player, I don't understand other casual player's aversion to well balanced rule sets. A well balanced, tight rule set for 40K sounds like a dream come true to me. It stops so much confusion and arguing over rules.

With a good rule set, I can show up at the store on a saturday afternoon and have a fun game. I won't spend 30 minutes looking through the rulebook because GW was too damn lazy to write the rules in a coherent fashion. The only players that benefit from incoherent rules are the rules lawyers. Both casual and competitive players benefit from well written rules.

At present, I have not bought the new rulebook and I see no need to. I can always borrow a book.

[Charon]

I agree that it still tries to be a tabletop rpg. Thats not bad. Just think about the so called "adults" not only building up a relationship with their army but also make funny noise when they do chainsword impersonations or "pew pew lazor" sounds.
But every good rpg evolves around a tight ruleset that makes sure that everyone feels useful and everyone can contribute. You can always opt out of certain rules (most often recovery rules as it is unfun to spend a week recovering from a minor fight, although it would be more "realistic") and the game master is the final judge over the rules.
40k lacks a gamemaster. We have to rely on GW to provide rules that are entertaining for both sides. They fail to do so.

From 2nd until end of 3rd edition I was what I would call a fluff bunny.
I read about my armies (Chaos and Eldar), made up my own rules (in agreement of course - Ahra for example... Scorpion phoenix lord in service of Slaanesh... until they retconned it) and tried best to fit my army in the picture that was drawn by the fluff.
That worked fine in 2nd. As it was not perfectly balamced and you could end up in a game of herohammer vortexing and virusing your army. But we did not care. Not because we liked the rules but because we could state a specific and just opt out. No vortex, no virus, equipment limited to 150 Points for the big ones 100 for heroes and 50 for champs. Easy.
Then came 3rd. The game was dumbed down so much that 3 of my buddies instantly quit. I remained and played on.
Until I discovered that some armies just have way better "fluff" than others. In 3rd any fluffy space marine army would just obliterate a fluffy chaos army. No fun at all. All options gone. ruleset dull, codex even more so.
And from there it went downhill.
It was no longer possible to field a fluff army because the armies where so unbalanced to each other that you would just auto-lose to some.
The ruleset actually got better, closer back to 2nd edition but it lacks ths spirit and soul of 2nd. You can literally FEEL that there was no fun invested in producing this books. Just profit.
And that hurts me most.
I turned competitive because there is no way to enjoy a fluffbattle anymore. The army with the better rule just wins. Or with the better fluff allowing better units.
Playing a IG gunline feels totally narrative and fluffy. Playing against a gunline feels punishing and removing one or 2 units a turn without even drawing a line of sight is just verry dull.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm not adverse to a tighter rules set. But then, I'm not exactly unhappy with the rules as they stand.

For me, GW games hold an appeal other manufacturer's can't match. Not only have I been playing GW games (counting Heroquest!) for very nearly 25 years to the day (Saturday is mah birfday!), but I've grown up with the background. Almost literally. And it's the setting and models I really love. That's what keeps me coming back, and keeps me spending obscene amounts of money on my plastic crack. Warmachine? I just don't find it engaging enough. Odd really nice model, background isn't bad per se, and the rules are pretty well written, even if the mechanics don't really appeal to me (rolling 2D6 prevents batch rolling. And I do love having my cupped hands runneth over with dicicles!). Other games? Too small. Mayhap I'm GW Brainwashed, but I really like my big scale games. Warhammer? 3,000 points is ideal for me. 40k? 2,000 points please Waiter :)

And come what may of the rules, I will keep playing GW games for those reasons. Indeed, for me 7th Ed looks really good fun. Not because of the mechanics of the game so much, but because with Unbound and Allies, I can now assemble a force of whatever I feel matches the background. For instance, giving decent thought to an amalgamation army to represent Pirates. Couldn't do that before and just rock up. Rules now say it's ok, which opens up fun for me! :)

[deguello]

This is a choice every player has to make.
Do I buy into this game? Can i do what I want to do be it a tourny player a casual player a painter or whatever.
Those that have fun.. stay in the game those that dont find something else to do with thier time.
i personally dont want or need MORE rules.. but hey they gave them to us so there it is..
I would call it rule set bloat just as it is with every codex..
Dont blame GW, Its your life do what you want with it. Just as it is your money..

1) Units have never been balanced as far as cost.
2) Rules Everyone plays with the same rules. but see #1

[Charon]

For instance, giving decent thought to an amalgamation army to represent Pirates. Couldn't do that before and just rock up. Rules now say it's ok, which opens up fun for me!

I really dont understand this stance. One one hand we are told to "just change rules we dont like or create own rulesets". And on the other hand the very same people state that they could not change a rule as simple as a FOC to play what they wanted? Seems strange.
On the same issue... unbounds still needs consent. This is in fact the same consent needed in 6th to agree on "Well just screw the FoC. Look at my pirates... wanna play?"
Cant see much difference here tbh.

[Mr Mystery]

Headology, oddly enough.

If the rules don't say you can, people feel you shouldn't.

If the rules say 'you can, but check with your opponent', people feel you could.

Daft I know, but hey, that's Headology for you!

[Deadlift]

To be honest the title of the thread I feel is a little combative and dismissive of a 40k fanbase that has as much right to voice their concerns on a hobby they have as much vested interested in as anyone else. I've not even looked at the 7th edition rules and likely won't. I'm still a little blown away at how quickly this release has come after only 2 years of 6th.
I'm not tournament player but I am competitive at any game or sport I partake in. I don't like ambiguity of the rules to get in the way of me competing on a even keel with anyone and unfortunately 40k doesn't fit that bill. Those that are happy to house rule, good for you. But I would take exception to rewriting rules I've paid a lot of money for. Especially now after trying a few other games with much clearer rules which are far easier to understand and free.
I don't know about you guys but 7th seems to me to a cash pump and dump after their stock losses.

[Lord Asterion]

I really dont understand this stance. One one hand we are told to "just change rules we dont like or create own rulesets". And on the other hand the very same people state that they could not change a rule as simple as a FOC to play what they wanted? Seems strange.
On the same issue... unbounds still needs consent. This is in fact the same consent needed in 6th to agree on "Well just screw the FoC. Look at my pirates... wanna play?"
Cant see much difference here tbh.

So, when people who don't care so much about competitiveness, GWs target market for this game, want to play the game as they enjoy it, they have to make up the rules to suit them? But the people who care about rules and want to make the game competitive, they can't make up their own rules, because that would be bad?

[Charon]

Works the other way round just better thats all. If you wanna something outside the box (which would be ANY narrative campain) you always create your own ruleset.
You dont do masses and masses of changes. You just say "This mission is on a planet ravaged by firestorms. Every Round roll a D6. On the roll of 1 a firestorm rages over the battlefield roll again for every unit. For any 6 rolled the unit takes D6 hits with S4 Ap-" This is your private gaming group. Basically anything goes and you develop these things together or designate a gamemaster who does this for your group.

It is always easier to say "this is the FOC, you pick your army according to it."
Now you have a CHOICE. And having a CHOICE is always good.
You can either opt in and accept it or opt out and go unbound. Its way easier when meeting up with strangers to agree to opt out of certain rules (which has happened with FW, Escalation and Stronghold for example). You can just say: "lets exclude this and that" or "lets include this and that". But to do so there have to be rules which you can include or exclude. This is a CHOICE.

The way you propose (and which obviously only feels right to you because you can rub it in peoples faces) is extremely complicated and PREVENTS gaming.
Having "unbound" as standart "rule" ist a tiresome and boring task to negotiate any kind of framework around it. Imagine someone saying "Lets go unbound but without lords of war no more than 3 heavy support, no allies, 2 standard minimum, just 1 fortification from the list I have here, 1 Hq minumum and maximum 3 elite and 3 fast attack"
This is very clumsy and unelegant.
Again having a CHOICE is always a good thing. But this above is no choice, its making up your own ruleset and explaining that to a stranger.
The big difference you seem to not understand is: You never needed to make up rules. You just needed to ignore restrictions. But you seem to confuse ignoring restrictions with creating a new ruleset which it is not.
If ignoring the FOC is as tiresome for you than create and explain a new one, then congratulations... you are either a genius or the exact opposite.

[Lord Asterion]

Apparently you did need to make up the rules if you wanted the fun fluffy games, but you're ignoring that.

No you don't, now the people that need to make up the rules are those wanting a more competitive game, which was always the case anyway, its just more so now.

[Charon]

Ok please enlighten me. Which rules you had to make up to create a fluffy fun game from edition 2 to 6. Im really curious. And please keep in mid that I was a "fluff or die" player for 2 full editions. But you seem to know it way better, so please explain instead of tossing 2 nonsense sentences without any argument or proof.

TOURNAMENTS made their own rules. A third party provided a framework and you could either opt in (attend) or opt out (dont attend).
But turnaments are just a small part of competitive gaming. In fact most people play competitive (unless you throw a game on purpose you are playing competitive).
And also most people enjoy a rather balanced game. It does not have to be balanced like chess. No not even like a Pc game like starcraft.
But having a money advantage and choose your dice eyes rather than roll the dice in monopoly just because you happen to play horseshoe while tophat gets no money if he goes over start and gets into jail instantly if he is under 100 $ will probably make the game rather unfun for tophat. Same goes for 40k.
Playing a narrative Eldar force on foot against an Imperial guard army is so utterly doomed to fail that is is absolutely no fun at all. Zero. Your buddy doesnt need to break the game in any way. He doesnt need to spam units in any way. He just needs to play a narrative imperial guard army.
And that, my friend, is not a good design.

[Anggul]

Poorly written, unbalanced rules are bad for all kinds of player. Anyone arguing otherwise is the most blind of fanboys.

Whether you're in it for the competitive challenge or for recreating epic battles of the 41st millennium, the rules do not succeed at doing so. The rules for many units don't properly represent those units at all, and our most loved units with epic backstory often just die without accomplishing much.

Don't try to defend a pathetic attempt at a product which they actually have the nerve to charge money for.

Profile pic related. I love Mandrakes. I really, really wish I could use them in-game as they're supposed to act in the backstory, rising from the shadows of the hapless enemy to claw and tear and feast. As it is they're pathetically weak and incapable of accomplishing much of anything. That isn't a cool representation of some of the darkest fears in the galaxy, that's crap. GW suck at forging the narrative.

[Lucidum]

I wholeheartedly agree. While an optimized list for competitive play is sometimes understandable, all to often I find uber-competitive gamers spamming overpowered units or playing an army for synergy (i.e., *******izing the allies chart in 6th for the most powerful combinations) rather than playing around a narrative or theme. I mean, it’s just a game, and when it comes to building your army I tend to take a “to each their own” attitude, but there are so many power-lists out there that just aren’t fun to play against.

[Caitsidhe]

There are lots of issues tied up in one thread, and many of them have nothing to do with each other. I see it like this:

1. The OP was trolling from the start. The very "subject" title is a clear indication.
2. Competitive does not equal WAAC.
3. Competitive Players care more about fairness than anyone else. If we are measuring ourselves in battle, victories only mean something if it was fair.
4. We hear a lot about how horrible competitive players are and yet it is only the supposedly non-competitive players acting like rude gits.
5. Competitive players do not spend their time complaining about how the other half lives.
6. Most competitive players have (and do) play fluffy, theme, and tournaments and thus can speak with authority about all of it.
7. Many of the people complaining about competitive players admit they have never played in tournaments, nor do they play with those kinds of people.
8. A balanced, consistent set of rules benefits everyone and would reign in the kind of WAAC types that competitive players keep FALSELY being painted as being.
9. Games workshop claims its game isn't built for competitive play and yet many of its marketing ploys involving rules seem geared to an arms race.
10. Non-competitive players are, in my own experience, just as competitive as anyone else.
11. People who say they don't care about winning seem to constantly contradict themselves by caring about losing a LOT.
12. People who live in glass houses.... shouldn't throw stones.

[ElectricPaladin]

12. People who live in glass houses.... shouldn't throw stones.

Or walk around naked.

[The Tisroc]

Where I live (New Braunfels, Texas... just outside of San Antonio, Texas) I know plenty of players who are quite happy playing games without the 'ardest of lists. I know a whole crowd that has a great time playing beer and pretzels games, having fun as they win and having fun as they lose...

I don't think the competitive/fluffy divide is as wide as the interwebz would have us believe...

[silashand]

There are lots of issues tied up in one thread, and many of them have nothing to do with each other. I see it like this:

1. The OP was trolling from the start. The very "subject" title is a clear indication.
2. Competitive does not equal WAAC.
3. Competitive Players care more about fairness than anyone else. If we are measuring ourselves in battle, victories only mean something if it was fair.
4. We hear a lot about how horrible competitive players are and yet it is only the supposedly non-competitive players acting like rude gits.
5. Competitive players do not spend their time complaining about how the other half lives.
6. Most competitive players have (and do) play fluffy, theme, and tournaments and thus can speak with authority about all of it.
7. Many of the people complaining about competitive players admit they have never played in tournaments, nor do they play with those kinds of people.
8. A balanced, consistent set of rules benefits everyone and would reign in the kind of WAAC types that competitive players keep FALSELY being painted as being.
9. Games workshop claims its game isn't built for competitive play and yet many of its marketing ploys involving rules seem geared to an arms race.
10. Non-competitive players are, in my own experience, just as competitive as anyone else.
11. People who say they don't care about winning seem to constantly contradict themselves by caring about losing a LOT.
12. People who live in glass houses.... shouldn't throw stones.

This. IMO the toxic element in this hobby are the people who think it's okay to allow unfair situations to exist because they've bought into the GW drivel that "games not made for tournaments" means it's okay to have sloppy rules. I don't care how people play this game. I do care when one side thinks it's the only one that matters and espouses the opinion that "their" game would better if the people they disagree with would just leave.

[DarkLink]

I feel it's an appropriate time to link to one of the best blogs I've seen on competitive gaming ever: http://www.sirlin.net/

There's a lot of stuff on there, but I'll specifically mention this: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

[Thaldin]

Or walk around naked.

I dunno, some people might enjoy that

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Funny:

"5. Competitive players do not spend their time complaining about how the other half lives."

"This. IMO the toxic element in this hobby are the people who think it's okay to allow unfair situations to exist because they've bought into the GW drivel that "games not made for tournaments" means it's okay to have sloppy rules."

Do you guys read yourselves, sometimes?

Here's some truth: toxicity isn't coming from one playstyle or another (plenty of us in this thread have said, because we know, that actually they coexist not only in the playerbase but within individual players), it's coming from people who want to have an argument.

[silashand]

Funny:

"5. Competitive players do not spend their time complaining about how the other half lives."

"This. IMO the toxic element in this hobby are the people who think it's okay to allow unfair situations to exist because they've bought into the GW drivel that "games not made for tournaments" means it's okay to have sloppy rules."

Do you guys read yourselves, sometimes?

There's a difference between complaining about how one side plays the game and about their attitude toward other players. When someone says the game would be better off without such and such group then that's just plain BS regardless how you look at it. *That* is what is wrong with this hobby - one side thinks it pretty much owns the game and anyone who doesn't agree can just get out. You will note that no competitive player I have seen on this forum has made this statement, yet plenty of the other side has. As I noted (and you ignored), I don't care how anyone plays this game. I care when they try to exclude others from it because of some preconceived notion that their way is better.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Calling people a "toxic element" isn't exclusionary? Do we usually welcome toxins...?

I know it's right there in the OP, and that's why I don't like the OP or the title of this thread. All this rhetoric is overheated and overblown.

[Charon]

Calling people a "toxic element" isn't exclusionary? Do we usually welcome toxins...?

If you read carefully, he doesnt exclude players of all sorts but people who hate on players that enjoy the game in another way then them. Do you think these people are a contributing element that should be embraced rather than shunned?
And actually he is not even wrong about from which side the hate is coming. On this forum its always the same few guys who hop on any thread and hate on those who discuss rules or would like to have more consistent rules. And then talking about how they never would play against that waac competitive crowd which should leave the hobby immedeatly while refering to themselves as "decent and nice guys".

On a sidenote: yeah we welcome some toxins :D

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I don't necessarily disagree, but the tone is off if that's the point you're making. Responding to the OP with "I'm not poisonous! You're poisonous!" isn't getting us anywhere. And I'm sorry, but it isn't just one group that behaves badly on this.

[Charon]

No its no one group. Its a handful of members here that claim to belong to "that group".

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I think we agree that making people feel unwelcome should itself be unwelcome. :)

[Stone Edwards]

I feel it's an appropriate time to link to one of the best blogs I've seen on competitive gaming ever: http://www.sirlin.net/

There's a lot of stuff on there, but I'll specifically mention this: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

He makes good points, but (especially in the comments) he also reinforces many of the stereotypes of WAAC players. Spamming the same move over and over is a lot like spamming the same unit, and honestly neither is very fun for most people. Sure it helps new tactics evolve to counter the spamming but this is only fun for that very small amount of players that have put in the time to get that skilled.

This is part of the problem when we talk about casual vs competitive. Competitive mind sets, such as described in the article, tend to focus on refining the game. Where as playing a game more casually tends to open it up more. Catering towards competitive players would limit the game quite a bit, which could ruin the casual gamers' fun, and catering to the casual crowd leads to something like what we have now which obviously upsets competitive players. Of course, as stated in the linked article, competitive players are the vast minority compared to play to have fun players. It seems GW is very aware of this has has acted accordingly.

[Caitsidhe]

I don't necessarily disagree, but the tone is off if that's the point you're making. Responding to the OP with "I'm not poisonous! You're poisonous!" isn't getting us anywhere. And I'm sorry, but it isn't just one group that behaves badly on this.

The problem is I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out the OP was trolling right for the get go with his subject title, and then I moved on to talk about the issues in general. I don't personally care what people play in the privacy of their own home. I don't care if people love the rules or hate them. I prefer to talk about the rules, however, and not the players. In general, the more competitive crowd are often baffled by the venom and bile directed at them by players who claim they don't go to tournaments, don't play against us, and think we are pond scum. It sounds crazy bigoted when you think about it that way. Why should they care about what we do, like or don't like about the rules, or whatever restrictions we decide to impose on ourselves collectively? We certainly don't care what they do, nor do we spend our time bashing them for doing it.

Competitive players want the game to be fair and consistent to involve more people. Competitive players are inclusive by nature. We are all for growing the community. There seems to be a faction that thinks this game should never be played except in a private garage or club and only with your close friends. I find that odd myself, but hey it is your garage and your private club. The weird factor is their outrage that we aren't doing the same. Earlier in the week some kind soul decides to tear into Goatboy with a venom I would associate with the KKK upon finding out minorities were moving into the neighborhood. The guy admitted he doesn't play at tournaments. He said he doesn't play with people like us. Even so, he apparently felt he knew Goatboy well enough to tear into him. I, on the other hand, have met Goatboy and watched him play. I have also watched and played with non-competitive types on a regular basis. I'd say about half of my games are with said people. Which of us is qualified to make remarks?

My own opinion, having played with all the supposed "sub-groups" is that they don't exist. There are just gamers. They are all competitive. Every now and then you run into that weird Saint (like spotting a unicorn) that really doesn't care if he wins or loses. Every now and then you run into an actual cheat. For the most part, gamers are the SAME at the table. They care about winning. They tend to have average to good manners. Away from the table, in these little make-believe cliques, people are often jerks attempting to make themselves feel more important by tearing others down. Most of the quacking voices on the internet exist merely because said individuals like the sound of their own voice. They like to see the color of their own thoughts and inflict them on you. Am I any different? You hear me talk about competitive gamers all the time and this supposed other series of groups. Yes, I'm different because I think you are full of it. You are all just as competitive as anyone else. The most obnoxious win at all costs players I have run into proclaimed themselves non-competitive, stated how they didn't care about winning, and disdained the tournament scene. That didn't prevent them from making the games with them miserable as they indulged in stretching the rules, sullen behavior when they were losing, and gloating when they were winning. Jerks are just jerks. It has nothing to do with any mythical grouping.

[Charon]

Catering towards competitive players would limit the game quite a bit, which could ruin the casual gamers' fun, and catering to the casual crowd leads to something like what we have now which obviously upsets competitive players.

This is the point I disagree on. For one the proclaimed "casual fun gamer" doesnt exist. Yes there are players that play for fun tossing their dice having a good time. Yes there are players that do that casually. Yes there are players that do both.
But they still play to win the game. And thus act competitive. They are not jerking around rules or write any hardcore list, but in the end they try to secure the mission objectives, they try to kill enemy units and try to keep their army alive. They dont do that out of coincidence, they try to win the game. Not at all costs. Maybe they allow you to reconsider a move or let you do your shooting again after you where eager to charge a unit and forgot about shooting (I know people who actually forget quite often)... but they still try to win.
If they throw a game on purpose and let you win it wont be fun. And it usually leaves bad feelings.
Also a thight ruleset does not mean a casual player must obey all rules at any cost. Ther could be basic rules, advanced rules and specialist rules covering more and more stuff. Also casual players tend to ignore rules anyways. Not because they agree on doing so, but because they forget about them. Its not bad to have a tight ruleset. You pick the ones you like and agree to ignore the ones you dont like (think about agreeing to ban SC, Allies, escalation, stronghold, forge world,...) thats catering to both "groups".
The reason we have sloppy rules is not because they want to cater to casual fun gamers (as even friendly built armies can be so horrendous unbalanced to eachother that the game ends on turn 2 and is no fun at all) but because they want to crank out as much stuff as possible at low development costs. Playtesting takes a termendous amount of time. Finetuning is a horrid never ending task.
Look at the patchnotes to any multifaction pc game which can be played competitive such as LoL, SC2, Dota,... they never stop to balance stuff.
Some companies also do that for tabletop. GW doesnt. It generates no additional profit and you actually have to invest money. Thats the sad truth.

[Stone Edwards]

This is the point I disagree on. For one the proclaimed "casual fun gamer" doesnt exist. Yes there are players that play for fun tossing their dice having a good time. Yes there are players that do that casually. Yes there are players that do both.
But they still play to win the game. And thus act competitive. They are not jerking around rules or write any hardcore list, but in the end they try to secure the mission objectives, they try to kill enemy units and try to keep their army alive. They dont do that out of coincidence, they try to win the game. Not at all costs. Maybe they allow you to reconsider a move or let you do your shooting again after you where eager to charge a unit and forgot about shooting (I know people who actually forget quite often)... but they still try to win.
If they throw a game on purpose and let you win it wont be fun. And it usually leaves bad feelings.
Also a thight ruleset does not mean a casual player must obey all rules at any cost. Ther could be basic rules, advanced rules and specialist rules covering more and more stuff. Also casual players tend to ignore rules anyways. Not because they agree on doing so, but because they forget about them. Its not bad to have a tight ruleset. You pick the ones you like and agree to ignore the ones you dont like (think about agreeing to ban SC, Allies, escalation, stronghold, forge world,...) thats catering to both "groups".
The reason we have sloppy rules is not because they want to cater to casual fun gamers (as even friendly built armies can be so horrendous unbalanced to eachother that the game ends on turn 2 and is no fun at all) but because they want to crank out as much stuff as possible at low development costs. Playtesting takes a termendous amount of time. Finetuning is a horrid never ending task.
Look at the patchnotes to any multifaction pc game which can be played competitive such as LoL, SC2, Dota,... they never stop to balance stuff.
Some companies also do that for tabletop. GW doesnt. It generates no additional profit and you actually have to invest money. Thats the sad truth.

Ok, when I say competitive players I'm mostly talking about players who do things like take spammy net lists or won't let you shoot after you forgot, obviously I don't think that casual players don't care about winning (and I think hardly anyone else would either). Arguing about semantics like this doesn't really advance the debate at all.

As you said earlier in the thread having the rule there already makes it easier. Sure casual players could just ignore rules that ruin what they want to do or come up with new ones, but the exact same thing can be said of competitive players. As has been made clear GW doesn't want to deal with writing for real competitive players so it makes perfect sense that the rules reflect that.

As far as comparing this to games like LoL and SC2. Not only is there MUCH less to balance in those games compared to 40k (just think of all the different factions, units, and variations on those units), but 40k is also a physical game. Think of how mad some people get when a new codex every couple years can make their favorite models "useless", think about how awful that would be if it happened monthly. Sure other miniature games be this as well but they typically have smaller buy ins and/or smaller model counts. Having to replace one warjack is much easier to take than replacing 10 man units.

[Charon]

Ok, when I say competitive players I'm mostly talking about players who do things like take spammy net lists or won't let you shoot after you forgot, obviously I don't think that casual players don't care about winning (and I think hardly anyone else would either). Arguing about semantics like this doesn't really advance the debate at all.

There is already an issue because for you "competitive" is synonym with "jerk" they way you describe it.


As you said earlier in the thread having the rule there already makes it easier. Sure casual players could just ignore rules that ruin what they want to do or come up with new ones, but the exact same thing can be said of competitive players. As has been made clear GW doesn't want to deal with writing for real competitive players so it makes perfect sense that the rules reflect that.

No, there is a difference. I never said create new ones (this option ALWAYS exists if your gaming group agrees - much more difficult to negotiate that with a stranger). I said feel free to ignore rules. I cant ignore what is not there. Sloppy rules mean that if I ignore the little rest which is presented, I can quit the game and make one up myself. I dont need a rulebook for that and GW loses another customer.
Many rules allow you to ignore some. Few rules dont allow you to ignore some to make the game better, it just gets worse.


As far as comparing this to games like LoL and SC2. Not only is there MUCH less to balance in those games compared to 40k (just think of all the different factions, units, and variations on those units), but 40k is also a physical game. Think of how mad some people get when a new codex every couple years can make their favorite models "useless", think about how awful that would be if it happened monthly. Sure other miniature games be this as well but they typically have smaller buy ins and/or smaller model counts. Having to replace one warjack is much easier to take than replacing 10 man units.


Nobody expects chess balance. But some things are just broken to a point that the game tends to get boring if you even think about taking them in your list. No spamming needed. Some armies are just bland unfun to play against. Imperial guard is my prime example of this. I had not a single fun game vs imperial guard since 5th edition. Thats not because all IG players are jerks but the way the faction is designed.
You dont even need to completely change rules each month. But to actually crank out FAQs every 2 months and take care of broken mechanics like rerollable 2++ or summon spamming. I dont think thats too much to ask for.

[chicop76]

I'll just go into this without read the first 4 pages and give my opinion about this matter.

The actual toxicity I've seen comes from the Elitist mind set. Here is a few examples I've seen with this.

1. Player A brings a solid list of shooty nids, not awesome, but by it being unusual throws off most players. Player B brings a list that is his opinion what he got from reading a book. Player A just wants to play a game. While player B is using an anti nid army that is similar to what was used in the battle of Maccagre.

Now the problem comes from player A don't really care if he win or lose, just that he wants to play a good game. Player B have the mind set he should win, because that is what happens in the books. When player B losses he gets upset and no longer wants to play player A and label them a power gamer.

This is a problem I see happen a lot. People assume x army should win over y army. Not saying all fluffy players tailor list according to narrative to beat competitive players, heck competitive players do the same thing. The problem is I see fluffy players get upset at losing more than a competitive player does.

2. Think 40k as a sport. You have Tiger Woods who is really good at golf and the casual golfer. There problem is instead of having an elite place for the pro golfer and a casual place for the casual golfer. You wind up playing tiger woods when you want to just play a casual game. No one likes to be curbed stomped. Do we ask Tiger Woods to play worst or do the casual player step up his game? Their is no real answer for that since people have their opinions. The problem with Tiger Woods in playing down his game he actually gets worst and have a harder time winning against people at his level. While the casual player simply gets frustrated that he have to log in the same hours.

I have so called switched armies with people the following game and still curb stomp the guy just to show it's not the list that sucks. However a gamer you have logged lots of gaming hours and played since 3rd is going to be better than a person who have played months and just started in 6th. The only problem older players really have is adjusting to the new rule set. Once they do than look out.

3. I seen people trying to learn the game, out of towners, etc. Have a hard time playing a game simply either the other Ayer want an easy victory, mainly due to that, or the other players do not have a fluffy army.

4. The biggest thing is stereotype as well. For example I'll take Grey knights. They wasn't the most open army, but they did get a lot of deals and low costing gear, and army wide force weapons, and higher strength assault cannons that anyone in the army can use, while some can take up to 4 assault cannons, and the list goes on. Where they unbeatable, no. Was it a pain to deal with, yes. Was it cheesy, that's up for debate. It's not rerollable 2+ invulnerable saves with it will not die, invisibility, and +4 feel no pain, which in my opinion is cheesy and not fun to play against.

The problem with 7th is people are scared of really silly things like an army of nurgle chaos marine bikes on the board for example with invisibility galore casted upon them. However lack of troops will hurt in this edition more since you simply can't contest anymore. You will need a good amount of troops to win games. What good are the nurgle bikes if they can't get rid of 30 men guard squads sitting on objectives causing the guard player to score while those bikes get crap. If anything I think you'll see more balanced list in the long run when people start losing games due to lack of troops that are durable and can move.

Besides daemons, more specifically certain psychic powers I think 7th is more balancing than people realize. The more I read and find out the more I realized I have more flexibility, but I need the troop basics to win games.

Also another note. I want to address accepted power gamers which blows my mind. What I call accepted is when you see crazy looking armies that are fluffy. If said power gamer have a fluffy list it's excepted. When said gamer have said list and it's not fluffy than it's a power gamer.

I think if you get rid of the Elitist attitudes, and people just play the game than it will help the game a lot. For example people refusing to play non painted armies for example. It's just a game people. Although heavy proxies do have it's limits. For the most part it's not that the so call player don't want his army painted. It's the Elitist that don't help the player figure out how to paint his army. I seen unpainted armies simply due to people tried to paint them, but given a hard time on how bad they painted. To be honest competitive players can care less if he plays against an unpainted army or not.

I think that's it. I wouldn't say it's the competitive players mucking up the game solely. If you lose learn from it and try to figure out how to counter what was done. If you lost cause you suck than practice, practice, practice. If you lost due to model choice. Than look within fluff to swap out units. If you lost due to poor army matches. Like nid zilla vs dark eldar it's an uphill battle with little you can do against it, unless you don't nid zilla, balance your list, or simply play something else.

Another thing is list balancing. Fluff players have a hard time doing that to competitive players. Competitive players typically have the most balanced list since they can pretty much face anything. Flying Circus for example is a pain, but against Tau for example it can get shut down, especially if the Tau player is familiar with Daemons. Flying Circus is a one trick pony that works well against low unit count armies with lack of anti air. If faced against a lot of units and lots of anti air and lots of high strength ap 3 shooting than it have a hard time. The difference is you kill those 5 units it's game over for the daemon player, vs if you have to kill 20 units on the other side that are problem units.

Anyway I would say it's both sides. I mean is it realistic to ask Tiger Woods to stop playing the way he does. Get a different job and just play goof casual for fun. If someone wrote that a person should beat him than Tiger Woods should let them win due to the article that was written.

[-Tom-]

1. Player A brings a solid list of shooty nids, not awesome, but by it being unusual throws off most players. Player B brings a list that is his opinion what he got from reading a book. Player A just wants to play a game. While player B is using an anti nid army that is similar to what was used in the battle of Maccagre.

Now the problem comes from player A don't really care if he win or lose, just that he wants to play a good game. Player B have the mind set he should win, because that is what happens in the books. When player B losses he gets upset and no longer wants to play player A and label them a power gamer.

This is a problem I see happen a lot. People assume x army should win over y army. Not saying all fluffy players tailor list according to narrative to beat competitive players, heck competitive players do the same thing. The problem is I see fluffy players get upset at losing more than a competitive player does.


This got me thinking... extending this argument out to Eldar, basing our army choices on fluff from the literature we should expect to lose anyway :D Most likely we should have our own mission cards released so that, in fact, we still get to think of it as a 'sort of win'. We should rock up to the table and get curb stomped by making some stupid heroic sacrifices. We reach across the table and congratulate you on your win, and then reveal our mission card that says something like "Throw away thousands of lives pointlessly as a cover for some sneaky other secret mission. Roll a D6, on a 4+ you have rescued a lost phoenix lord or something and you may count it is a win". ;)

[chicop76]

This got me thinking... extending this argument out to Eldar, basing our army choices on fluff from the literature we should expect to lose anyway :D Most likely we should have our own mission cards released so that, in fact, we still get to think of it as a 'sort of win'. We should rock up to the table and get curb stomped by making some stupid heroic sacrifices. We reach across the table and congratulate you on your win, and then reveal our mission card that says something like "Throw away thousands of lives pointlessly as a cover for some sneaky other secret mission. Roll a D6, on a 4+ you have rescued a lost phoenix lord or something and you may count it is a win". ;)

Lol. Personally I liked the game more in 3rd and 4th. Mainly due to how terrain and los worked out. Now hiding behind trees my whole unit gets wiped out. The problem with terrain it is hard to really have a proper battle field. Also lack of terrain sucks. Than throw in tlos., sigh. Anyway hoping in 8th they abandon tlos. Personally I think GW likes tlos since it forces you to actually buy terrain, heaven forbid the terrain is 2 dimensional. Also it messes up vassal games since tlos is really impossible. However I enjoy vassal games more since it brings the game back to 3rd and 4th edition since it is 2 dimensional terrain.

After reading the first four pages it really didn't change what I wrote. However I was surprised about the support that competitive players recievd than anything else.

On of my favorite games is chess and especially Axis and Allies. Personally I think the units shoukd be more customizable, make hem more unique. My hope for 7th is that it will bring more uniqueness to armies out there. If anything 7th brings a lot of ambiguity to competitive players since it's harder to counter with all the different crap out there, not to mention the potential endless combos out there. It's akin to magic forcing players to play white only, or one color decks and than coming out and saying you can mix colors and give out mana with the ability to do so. Now it will be hard to counter armies.

For example if it's mono Tau you pretty know what you have to deal with. When you throw in tAu, guard. Marines, daemons in the mix it kinda mess up your strategy to deal with that player.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, I call bull**** on the idea that the game can't be good both casually and competitively. And if you're dismissing some of the stuff sirlin says as just waac nonsense, you missed some pretty fundamental concepts in his articles. He might not address it in that particular article, but he does discuss that sort of thing elsewhere.

[Lord Asterion]

This is the point I disagree on. For one the proclaimed "casual fun gamer" doesnt exist. Yes there are players that play for fun tossing their dice having a good time. Yes there are players that do that casually. Yes there are players that do both.
But they still play to win the game. And thus act competitive. They are not jerking around rules or write any hardcore list, but in the end they try to secure the mission objectives, they try to kill enemy units and try to keep their army alive. They dont do that out of coincidence, they try to win the game. Not at all costs. Maybe they allow you to reconsider a move or let you do your shooting again after you where eager to charge a unit and forgot about shooting (I know people who actually forget quite often)... but they still try to win.
If they throw a game on purpose and let you win it wont be fun. And it usually leaves bad feelings.
Also a thight ruleset does not mean a casual player must obey all rules at any cost. Ther could be basic rules, advanced rules and specialist rules covering more and more stuff. Also casual players tend to ignore rules anyways. Not because they agree on doing so, but because they forget about them. Its not bad to have a tight ruleset. You pick the ones you like and agree to ignore the ones you dont like (think about agreeing to ban SC, Allies, escalation, stronghold, forge world,...) thats catering to both "groups".
The reason we have sloppy rules is not because they want to cater to casual fun gamers (as even friendly built armies can be so horrendous unbalanced to eachother that the game ends on turn 2 and is no fun at all) but because they want to crank out as much stuff as possible at low development costs. Playtesting takes a termendous amount of time. Finetuning is a horrid never ending task.
Look at the patchnotes to any multifaction pc game which can be played competitive such as LoL, SC2, Dota,... they never stop to balance stuff.
Some companies also do that for tabletop. GW doesnt. It generates no additional profit and you actually have to invest money. Thats the sad truth.

I think reading this gave me an insight into your life, I'm very very sorry, but "casual fun gamers" most certainly go exist, they play, they don't play to win, they play because the joy of being with friends and playing games with their models gives them pleasure, winning isn't even a consideration. I really do feel bad for you if you can't accept this as a reality, because it means you're missing something I and my friends find fundemental to the hobby.

[chicop76]

I think reading this gave me an insight into your life, I'm very very sorry, but "casual fun gamers" most certainly go exist, they play, they don't play to win, they play because the joy of being with friends and playing games with their models gives them pleasure, winning isn't even a consideration. I really do feel bad for you if you can't accept this as a reality, because it means you're missing something I and my friends find fundemental to the hobby.


Basically he's a casual basketball player who gets upset when Michael Jordan owns him.

[ElectricPaladin]

Basically he's a casual basketball player who gets upset when Michael Jordan owns him.

No. He's a casual basketball player who gets upset when Michael Jordan comes into his local gym, insists on playing by NBA rules, owns everyone, and then tells them that they're playing the game wrong.

[40kGamer]

I'm glad competitive gamers exist. I love a fun fluffy game with friends where who wins isn't really a big deal but I also enjoy going toe to toe with someone desperately trying to win. Our hobby takes all kinds. Put an end to gamer discrimination.

[chicop76]

No. He's a casual basketball player who gets upset when Michael Jordan comes into his local gym, insists on playing by NBA rules, owns everyone, and then tells them that they're playing the game wrong.

This is my favourite quote this year !

[Caitsidhe]

No. He's a casual basketball player who gets upset when Michael Jordan comes into his local gym, insists on playing by NBA rules, owns everyone, and then tells them that they're playing the game wrong.

<chuckles> The only problem with this retort is that MJ wouldn't insist on playing by NBA rules, and he would STILL own them. That is what I see happening all the time when people define themselves as competitive versus those that do not. People who don't, as a rule, play against a wide variety of opponents tend to suck. I wish there was a nicer way of saying it. Inclusive, competitive types of gamers play more often than you. They do more pick up games as well as tournaments. So they get more practice, see a wider variety of lists, and learn to adjust their battlefield tactics better. I"m not trying to be self-serving. It is only commonsense that people who play more often and against a wider field will develop a more finely honed skill set.

When I go to someone's house or garage and have been warned that they aren't "competitive" players, I tend to take things down a notch. Let's tell the truth and shame the devil, I usually have to take a handicap. I will purposely build my list to be inefficient. This is to offset the absolutely awful tactics I see employed. You don't play a list. You play an opponent, and when they don't have their act together, you are going to own them. It will be unsatisfying to me and miserable for them. That isn't to say that all self-styled non-competitive types are behind the curve. There are always exceptions, and some of them do play a lot and against a wider field. They are, sadly, more an exception though. For my own part, as my buddy Kerstan could tell you if he was around, I always want to take on the best I can find and the hardest lists that people tell me can't be beaten. That is how you get good fast. It is a difference of mindset. When I get a new video game I set it on the hardest level and start to play. I don't see the point in playing it novice mode.

[40kGamer]

<chuckles> When I go to someone's house or garage and have been warned that they aren't "competitive" players, I tend to take things down a notch. Let's tell the truth and shame the devil, I usually have to take a handicap. I will purposely build my list to be inefficient. This is to offset the absolutely awful tactics I see employed. You don't play a list. You play an opponent, and when they don't have their act together, you are going to own them. It will be unsatisfying to me and miserable for them.

A tactic I have employed as well. I know that some people I play are very casual and if I bring what I consider a well rounded list it will be a boring game for both of us. So in an effort to make the game more fun for everyone I handicap my own build. Still doesn't make a real difference in the end but it keeps the game from being completely one sided.

[Charon]

I think reading this gave me an insight into your life, I'm very very sorry, but "casual fun gamers" most certainly go exist, they play, they don't play to win, they play because the joy of being with friends and playing games with their models gives them pleasure, winning isn't even a consideration. I really do feel bad for you if you can't accept this as a reality, because it means you're missing something I and my friends find fundemental to the hobby.

Ah I see. You dont count victory points, and dont paly any missions you just place models on the table roll a dice and decide they all die at the same time because its more fun if you let your buddies win on purpose. Interesting concept but not my piece of the cake. But maybe one day you will learn to accept that not everyone shares your attitude.


The problem with 7th is people are scared of really silly things like an army of nurgle chaos marine bikes on the board for example with invisibility galore casted upon them. However lack of troops will hurt in this edition more since you simply can't contest anymore. You will need a good amount of troops to win games. What good are the nurgle bikes if they can't get rid of 30 men guard squads sitting on objectives causing the guard player to score while those bikes get crap. If anything I think you'll see more balanced list in the long run when people start losing games due to lack of troops that are durable and can move.

There already is a fundamental issue. If your army cant provide his (your army. not your list) you are screwed. Now lets go away from the nurgle bikers and choose iron hand space marine bikers with invisibility. They are standard when the captain gets a bike too. They may have 1T less but come with FnP instead. Now let them fight the nurgle biler army. They are basically exactly the same. The only difference is that the Nurgle bikers will lose hard. Thats balance.

[ElectricPaladin]

One thing I would like to disagree with is this "you play the opponent, not the list" idea. This may be true in better wargames, but it's not true in Warhammer 40k. 40k just isn't that good or balanced a game. I guarantee you that a veteran with Sisters of Battle will lose to a newbie with the new hotness - what is it now? Daemons summoning Daemons? - far more often than anyone wants to admit. How many competitive veterans play Sisters of Battle or Blood Angels these days?

If both players are representing armies that are roughly equivalent in power, perhaps you get to play the opponent. But let's see how much a Sisters player feels like he's playing you with your Tau army. Chances are, not a lot.

[Charon]

I would change that a little. "You play not only the list but the army".
It is a fact that a more experienced player will get away with having more non optimal stuff in the list. An experienced player can afford to play a unit of swooping hawks vs T5 plaquemarines.
He still wont get away with a random list of nonsense.

Your list can vary from broken OP to broken UP. Its hard to find the same level her as the ARMY contributes heavily to this.

There are armies that are just plain better than others. Having better standards, more and cheaper options or outright unfair/broken units.
That beeing said: A hard SoB list is still worse tha a toned down IG list. A good player can make up for this a bit but only if you are really that much better than your opponent.

[Stone Edwards]

There is already an issue because for you "competitive" is synonym with "jerk" they way you describe it.

The not letting someone shoot after the forgot is I suppose a jerk move, but are you say taking a spammy list is a jerk move as well? Again nitpicking what I (or anyone else) say(s) doesn't really contribute to the discussion.



No, there is a difference. I never said create new ones (this option ALWAYS exists if your gaming group agrees - much more difficult to negotiate that with a stranger). I said feel free to ignore rules. I cant ignore what is not there. Sloppy rules mean that if I ignore the little rest which is presented, I can quit the game and make one up myself. I dont need a rulebook for that and GW loses another customer.
Many rules allow you to ignore some. Few rules dont allow you to ignore some to make the game better, it just gets worse.

Honestly this seems pretty hypocritical to me. Either way we are adjusting the rule set and either way requires agreeing with a stranger. In fact from my experience it is much harder to get someone to ignore a written rule than to make one up.



Nobody expects chess balance. But some things are just broken to a point that the game tends to get boring if you even think about taking them in your list. No spamming needed. Some armies are just bland unfun to play against. Imperial guard is my prime example of this. I had not a single fun game vs imperial guard since 5th edition. Thats not because all IG players are jerks but the way the faction is designed.
You dont even need to completely change rules each month. But to actually crank out FAQs every 2 months and take care of broken mechanics like rerollable 2++ or summon spamming. I dont think thats too much to ask for.

The thing is though most of these "game breaking" issues don't show up that much in normal games where it would be a problem, they are more problems in tournaments or in games between super competitive players. It seems GW knows this, and since they have decided not to worry about tournaments and such they aren't devoting the resources to play testing this stuff. As far as you not enjoying playing against IC that is more of a personal issue I would say and not GW's fault. I am sure every faction is disliked by quite a few people, does that mean every faction is designed poorly?


Yeah, I call bull**** on the idea that the game can't be good both casually and competitively. And if you're dismissing some of the stuff sirlin says as just waac nonsense, you missed some pretty fundamental concepts in his articles. He might not address it in that particular article, but he does discuss that sort of thing elsewhere.

It could be good for both, kind of like Warmachine, but it probably can't be great for both. OBVIOUSLY this is opinion but 40k is the best war game available for creating awesome cinematic moments and great stories.

Pretty sure I said "he makes some good points" before I criticized him in my post. I'm not dismissing the entire article but I am perfectly capable of labeling some of what he says as "WAAC nonsense". I understand everything he is saying, but I don't agree with it.

[chicop76]

One thing I would like to disagree with is this "you play the opponent, not the list" idea. This may be true in better wargames, but it's not true in Warhammer 40k. 40k just isn't that good or balanced a game. I guarantee you that a veteran with Sisters of Battle will lose to a newbie with the new hotness - what is it now? Daemons summoning Daemons? - far more often than anyone wants to admit. How many competitive veterans play Sisters of Battle or Blood Angels these days?

If both players are representing armies that are roughly equivalent in power, perhaps you get to play the opponent. But let's see how much a Sisters player feels like he's playing you with your Tau army. Chances are, not a lot.


I want to say I disagree agree with that logic since I play sisters and have done rather well with them, keep in mind majority of the games have been when they actually had a real codex and faith made them awesome with Inquisitors squads with cheap plasma 're rolling to hit.

Anyway I have played a few games with ward sisters and have done better than expected. I want to keep in mind I did have allies namely guard support.

Anyway I am waiting for an actual book for sisters, while I did download their codex for free. Anyway thanks to 7th my sister's will hit the board. Can they take on summoned horde after summoned horde, seeing it's one of the few armies that can field a ton of flame weapons I wouldn't count them out. Only thing daemons have on them is flying MCs and +2 're rolling ;*(.

Also tau i snt Santa win vs sisters. Sisters have a tom of strength 8 ap 1 weapons which helps against riptides, and broadsides. The main problem is keeping the Exorcist alive, hopefully sisters go first, but only thing that reliably can take out the Exorcist is a hammerhead which is either never used or their is only one off. Of course enough strength 8/7 shots can take out armour 13.

Against Tau it depends on the battle field and how many Immolaters the sister's player have, why use a rhino now. The game will be basically Tau have to stop x vehicles with 5 man squads from getting across the field. If too many x units get across than it will be rapid fire contest fest. Although Tau have Ethereal's, sisters is probably the best rapid fire ranged army out their, even with nerfs, Tau in general probably is the first. The main difference is one side have heavy flamers which ignore cover and regular saves while the other side gets 2+ saves. Grant it one side have big shooty Mcs and the other side don't.

Sisters are very boring to play now, but I wouldn't say they suck. You just have to get in rapid fire range and stay out of combat. Ironically against Tau which they actually can beat in combat, It's probably best to rapid fire away, or assault depending on the situation.

I just realized something. Why bother playing with the Inquisition Codex if Grey Knights are now battle brothers with all human armies. I guess I'll be fielding a few Dreadknights with my sisters now, with a few Centurians.

[Charon]

Honestly this seems pretty hypocritical to me. Either way we are adjusting the rule set and either way requires agreeing with a stranger. In fact from my experience it is much harder to get someone to ignore a written rule than to make one up.

I dont want to argue your personal experience but... is it really harder to agree on dropping "first blood" as a victory condition than explaining and agreeing on the new rules for shooting you just made up? I really dont think so.
People ignore rules all the time. Either for narrative reasons or they just forget about them because they rarely ever occur or they ignore them because they slow down the game and interrupt gamepace. This happens all the time. Is that really harder than to come up with a new ruleset while playing?


The thing is though most of these "game breaking" issues don't show up that much in normal games where it would be a problem, they are more problems in tournaments or in games between super competitive players. It seems GW knows this, and since they have decided not to worry about tournaments and such they aren't devoting the resources to play testing this stuff. As far as you not enjoying playing against IC that is more of a personal issue I would say and not GW's fault. I am sure every faction is disliked by quite a few people, does that mean every faction is designed poorly?

Every single gunline army is designed poorly. If an army just skips 3/4 of the game, it is poorly designed. If game breaking issues dont show up, there should be no problem with spamming specific units (which you addressed as competitive). If they dont devote ressources to playtest stuff, they do a poor design job. Some things are just totally stupid and sometimes you see it as soon as you open the codex. Warpstorm Table for example. Daemon player starts the game, has to roll on his table. Greater Daemon fails his check and dies. Enemy is awarded 2 VP (First blood and slay the warlord) and daemons lose over 200 points. Game is basically over after this player turn. This is a grave design issue.

[chicop76]

I dont want to argue your personal experience but... is it really harder to agree on dropping "first blood" as a victory condition than explaining and agreeing on the new rules for shooting you just made up? I really dont think so.
People ignore rules all the time. Either for narrative reasons or they just forget about them because they rarely ever occur or they ignore them because they slow down the game and interrupt gamepace. This happens all the time. Is that really harder than to come up with a new ruleset while playing?


Every single gunline army is designed poorly. If an army just skips 3/4 of the game, it is poorly designed. If game breaking issues dont show up, there should be no problem with spamming specific units (which you addressed as competitive). If they dont devote ressources to playtest stuff, they do a poor design job. Some things are just totally stupid and sometimes you see it as soon as you open the codex. Warpstorm Table for example. Daemon player starts the game, has to roll on his table. Greater Daemon fails his check and dies. Enemy is awarded 2 VP (First blood and slay the warlord) and daemons lose over 200 points. Game is basically over after this player turn. This is a grave design issue.

That scenario.for.Daemons.failed.to.happen.for.me.so.fa r. in all honesty I've found.the.warpstorm.table.actually.favors.Daemons. more.than it.hurts them. I lost two wounds.on a prince.which.really didn't.effect the game at.all. even without fateweaver the table.isn't that bad.

Now against heavy unit armies like.20+ are more.it.is.killing more.of.them.than hurting me. With Fateweaver it's crazy since you rarely get.a.negative effect since you can 're roll one or two dice.

Ill agree that gunline armies.since 5th have been hard to.face off against. Out of any rule that benefits gun line armies is tlos. If you drop tlos and go back to 3rd/ 4th rules for terrain, not rolling leadership to.shoot. you'll see a.big difference.

For example if you're.2".in trees you could not be seen. Instead of you can be seen and you lose.cover.save and.you get.blasted.where.you stand. Also assaulting out of all.transports made a big difference as well. Loved facing that Damon rhinos rush.

Although consolidating into units.was.broken. Also.rending was.broken. to be fair melee armies.did have a day in the sun for a good.while, and future combat is more.ranged than anything. It's a reason why you don't see.knives on the end of guns as much in the last 100 years.

[silashand]

Sisters are very boring to play now, but I wouldn't say they suck. You just have to get in rapid fire range and stay out of combat. Ironically against Tau which they actually can beat in combat, It's probably best to rapid fire away, or assault depending on the situation.

I think they suck big time. The Shield of Faith rule is a joke as is any rule that gives a 6+ for anything. A 1/6 chance at an invul sounds nice in the fluff, but never pans out and is essentially worthless. No army should have to pay points for a 6+ anything IMO. One-use Acts are idiotic. Acts that are restricted to individual units might be fine, but the ones they got are essentially worthless. And the idea of "getting into Rapid Fire range, but staying out of combat?" That works not at all. If you are in double-tap range you will be charged the next turn period, terrain or no terrain. The list goes on...

I have played Sisters since the end of 2nd Edition. They were my first ever 40K army and short of the interim PDF they released, this Ward codex is the worst ever. It is garbage. I would say they were throwing a bone to Sisters players had it been even remotely better, but it looks more like an insult to them. It's almost like the design team had a contest on how bad they could make a list and this is what they came up with. I imagine they had a good laugh at the pub afterwards...

[DarkLink]

That they could be worse is little consolation that they aren't very good. If they were eldar, then exorcists would suddenly get 3d6 shots instead of d61, and everything in the codex would have ignores cover.