# 40K needs to be rewritten, BADLY!!!!



## RexTalon (Apr 1, 2008)

There needs to be AT LEAST two different versions of this game!

I've stopped playing because people are all about competition and the people who would rather just convert some awesome models and play scenario games are getting screwed by the new rules systems. There's a butt load of special rules and counter rules and meta-gaming that have ruined the game for me. I have almost no interest in playing it, but I still feel the burning need to cleanse, purge, and kill the unclean.

I propose there be a competition set of rules with a rule book and codecies (as it is now) and a lighter version that isn't completely compatible but comes as a single book full of all the rules needed to play all the major armies in a fun and fast way. 

This faster version would have all the cool rules we love as scenario players, such as VDR(vehicle design rules) and MDR (monster design rules). The scenario book would be thicker and cost more than the competition core rule book but it would have more in it and be thicker. I realize this sounds like a contradiction (simplify the rules but make more of them), but the little special character rules are a lot harder to keep track of, than a rule that is universal for both armies playing.

The competition core rule book could cut out a lot of the fluff to make it thinner and easier to carry to tournaments.

I think these changes are LONG overdue. But if it were up to me, I would produce THREE versions of the rule book. I would also post a digital copy of a more realistic rule book online. The 40K "Realism" rules would expand weapon ranges and make bombardment pieces, such as the Basilisk and Deathstrike unusable on anything but massive tables (more than 10 feet).

Discuss.


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

Well their isn't anything stopping you and your mates having a friendly game.

You don't have to follow the rulebook 100%, you can have house rules, create your own scenarios etc.

As you said, the majority of players are competitive. Now, as a business, GW want to appeal to them, as they are the main consumers. Why would they produce lots of books like what you suggested for the minority?

And at the end of the day, like I just said, you can create your own stuff based around what you want.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

My friends and i had just this discussion, we fixed it by allowing units form 3rd ed codexes onwards in apocalypse games, as well as vdr, mdr rules. This allows over the top fluffy characters from say the 3.5 edition chaos codex as well as special rules armies like the legion of the damned list etc. It just means you have to play in private clubs instead of in gw stores.


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

I disagree.
It needs to be rewritten WELL and PROPERLY. 

It is already written badly. To re-write it badly doesn't change that.
They already grammar english fail, and math fail.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

RexTalon said:


> There needs to be AT LEAST two different versions of this game!


That's all we need, yet another way to divide the hobby into secular groups.



> I've stopped playing because people are all about competition and the people who would rather just convert some awesome models and play scenario games are getting screwed by the new rules systems.


What game are you playing? :shok: Seriously, what? You're going to have to expand on this because I have no idea how hobbyists are getting screwed by the new rules.



> There's a butt load of special rules and counter rules and meta-gaming that have ruined the game for me. I have almost no interest in playing it, but I still feel the burning need to cleanse, purge, and kill the unclean.


Dude, suck it up. Meta-gaming is part of how these things work. Any game that is constantly changing and evolving has a meta - it's just the way of things.

The rest of your post is pretty much one giant contradiction. You're saying you want a game that plays faster and simpler, yet has complex rules like designing your own vehicles and monsters (and probably characters too)? It doesn't work like that. If you want the game to play fast and smooth, you want to minimize the number of rules there are to remember and write them in an extremely clear fashion, not add more and more to bog the game down.

"Little special character rules" are not hard to keep track of. To use an example that almost everyone can relate to, how hard is it to remember that all your melta and flamer weapons are twin-linked and that all your thunder hammers are master-crafted if Vulkan is in the army?

Answer: Not very hard.

All in all, I'd have to say that I'm really not at all a fan of the proposed ideas.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

The idea of a "Competition" version and a "casual" version of the games has come up before. It isn't a bad idea, per se, but it won't ever happen really. It would split GWs IP, make the game more complex for beginners (as you have 2 versions to choose between! Two lots of rules to learn.), and they'd have to put out two complete versions of the rules for not much gain. Lots of downsides really.

They should try to balance the rules between armies and between units a bit more though. If there were less comparitively bad choices, then it would be easier to just play what you like the look of, without reference to how well it performs on the battlefield. If only they would...

Personally, if they rewrote the rules, I wish they'd make special rules for units easier to reference. There are some units where you have to go though 4 pages of a codex to actually find out their full rules (Psychic power rules, special rules page, equipment page, their own page, and maybe a the equipment page will reference another units page for it's rules!). Now, I know the rules extremely well, but I've seen this bog down newer players quite a lot before. Privateer press does well with including it's Stat cards with every model/unit sold, which gives all the stats and special rules for that model, and which you can easily keep with you at all times. GWs system is far more customisable, so that probably wouldn't work, but you could still put a rules summary sheet in with all the relevant special rules for the unit in one place in the codex. It would be handy.

So yeah, 40k doesn't need to be rewritten badly, but some streamlining, and some balancing between forces, would help when they do.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> That's all we need, yet another way to divide the hobby into secular groups.


 Gotta say it always has been. There are always gamers more focussed on winning then having a laugh, just like there are always people who want to paint a model over spending hours on their army list. i've never been a seriously competative player but i still came up with tounament builds for 3rd and 4th ed. I wouldn't even try to build a competative army now, i feel it would just be one of the cut outs that seem to be run in this edition. 



Katie Drake said:


> What game are you playing? :shok: Seriously, what? You're going to have to expand on this because I have no idea how hobbyists are getting screwed by the new rules.


I'm assuming this relates to the nerfing of a lot of the old special rules. The imperial guard traits, the chaos deamonic gifts, the index astartes specialist chapter rules. All of these added layers to the game which made each encounter interesting. It was never enough to know you were fighting marines cause they could be anything fromflesh tearers to imperial fists and all had their own special niches. I still feel that the 5th ed rules have taken a big chunk of this flavour which is why my group still plays a big chunk of the old rules.



Katie Drake said:


> Dude, suck it up. Meta-gaming is part of how these things work. Any game that is constantly changing and evolving has a meta - it's just the way of things.


 Harsh much?




Katie Drake said:


> The rest of your post is pretty much one giant contradiction. You're saying you want a game that plays faster and simpler, yet has complex rules like designing your own vehicles and monsters (and probably characters too)? It doesn't work like that. If you want the game to play fast and smooth, you want to minimize the number of rules there are to remember and write them in an extremely clear fashion, not add more and more to bog the game down.
> 
> "Little special character rules" are not hard to keep track of. To use an example that almost everyone can relate to, how hard is it to remember that all your melta and flamer weapons are twin-linked and that all your thunder hammers are master-crafted if Vulkan is in the army?
> 
> ...


I'll agree that the new rules streamline things pretty well but can't help but feel we're approaching the limit of streamlining without compromising creativity. 
I believe that what the op was trying to suggest was not to get rid of the current ed of rules, but to republish or rewrite the older edition rules which had so much extra toppings on that you couldn't fit the whole thing in your mouth without cutting it into potions. 
this way fans of the 5th ed rules could happily carry on playing as they are now and tournies etc could be played with the 5th ed rules. Us storyline gamers who miss playing with the crazy overbalanced armies would have a 5th ed S-type (storyline edition) that was horribley broken but in which a squad of space marines could have any number of rules depending on their chapter. 

Clearly you are a fan of the new rules or you wouldn't have argued so angri...passionately against the idea. The point remains that there are still oldschool gamers who strongly dislike the new rules. I for one could be happy playing version 4 rules but as all of the new codexes are produced in the 5th ed format and are less and less compatible with the old stuff it makes it increasingly difficult incorperate new and old together.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Sorry to double post but what if these overpowered rules were marketed in a similar way to apocalypse and planetfall. An expansion rather then a full rules set, including a lot of older rules that were phased out this edition and relevent modifications to make them more balanced. Call it warhammer 40k veteran units. Include rules which can be added to existing codexes to change how they play, include the vdr rules etc. Effectively you wouldn't need a whole new rulebook and codex, just a list of things you could add by using this expansion.


----------



## Amoeba Bait (May 31, 2010)

That would be something I would like to see; something that allows you to create imensly characterful units. Sure Imperial Guard veteran squads are cool, but I want a sniper that can no-scope baddies on the run; relentless please. I want a guy duel weilding bolt pistols! 

I think having something like this, allowing you to create eilite squads would be a great expansion, and I'm not talking about Kill Team; I'm talking about an Army of Veterans; survivors of a decade long siege, feral worlders on a post apocolyptic wasteland. stuff like that.


----------



## ArchangelPaladin (Jul 7, 2010)

Like the others have said play with your friends, that way you can do what ever you want, and thousands of people play 40k with homebrew rules.

If you want anything more than that then you’re being delusional that ranting about it here @ heresy will change anything. GW does not really care what we say here, and so any discussion along the lines of "40k should be like *insert dumb idea *" is a waste of time and breath.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> Gotta say it always has been. There are always gamers more focussed on winning then having a laugh, just like there are always people who want to paint a model over spending hours on their army list. i've never been a seriously competative player but i still came up with tounament builds for 3rd and 4th ed. I wouldn't even try to build a competative army now, i feel it would just be one of the cut outs that seem to be run in this edition.


It's always been secular yes, but it shouldn't be. I don't think one big happy family is something that could ever be achieved, nor do I think it would even be any good if it did happen, but more people seeing eye to eye would be nice.

I'm sorry that you feel that building a competitive army in 5th edition would be so unsatisfying. All I can say is that in my experience, the really good lists aren't cookie-cutter, though there is a lot of redundancy (by that I mean multiples of the same units).




> I'm assuming this relates to the nerfing of a lot of the old special rules. The imperial guard traits, the chaos deamonic gifts, the index astartes specialist chapter rules. All of these added layers to the game which made each encounter interesting. It was never enough to know you were fighting marines cause they could be anything fromflesh tearers to imperial fists and all had their own special niches. I still feel that the 5th ed rules have taken a big chunk of this flavour which is why my group still plays a big chunk of the old rules.


Ah, that. Yeah, I wouldn't call that nerfing so much as outright removing and for good reason - it was way too complex, with too much bookkeeping and so on. Also, it made any sort of tournament a complete farce as the number of imbalanced Space Marine Chapters alone numbered what, a dozen? More? Add in variant lists for the non-power armored races and you have a mess. I had fun in 3rd and 4th edition with the very rules that you're referencing - in fact, I started my Flesh Tearers army in early 4th, just before the Index Astartes article that was published about the Tearers was declared tournament illegal, so I can relate to what you're saying as far as enjoying the crazier elements of the game is concerned.



> Harsh much?


Yup and necessarily so, in my opinion. He's railing against something that's about as given as the sun rising every morning. Sometimes there are things that just can't be helped or changed. This is one of them.




> Clearly you are a fan of the new rules or you wouldn't have argued so angri...passionately against the idea. The point remains that there are still oldschool gamers who strongly dislike the new rules. I for one could be happy playing version 4 rules but as all of the new codexes are produced in the 5th ed format and are less and less compatible with the old stuff it makes it increasingly difficult incorperate new and old together.


Yeah, you're not the only person to have described this to me (that is, the being unsatisfied with the new rules). All I can do is express my sympathies - it's not fun essentially being left behind when GW decides to head in a different direction. I can only suggest to maybe give 5E a fair try (if you haven't already) before dismissing it outright.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> Gotta say it always has been. There are always gamers more focussed on winning then having a laugh, just like there are always people who want to paint a model over spending hours on their army list. i've never been a seriously competative player but i still came up with tounament builds for 3rd and 4th ed. I wouldn't even try to build a competative army now, i feel it would just be one of the cut outs that seem to be run in this edition.


Yes your right, There are ALWAYS gamers that are more focused on winning. Who cares? if they want to play you and thats not how you roll then say no thanks... Pretty simple. But I mean what ever happened to enjoy a challenge. On the same note people that don't want to play people that only want to win is because that means they can't win or don't want to have to try hard to do so. So in actuality are you really any better?




GrimzagGorwazza said:


> I'm assuming this relates to the nerfing of a lot of the old special rules. The imperial guard traits, the chaos deamonic gifts, the index astartes specialist chapter rules. All of these added layers to the game which made each encounter interesting. It was never enough to know you were fighting marines cause they could be anything fromflesh tearers to imperial fists and all had their own special niches. I still feel that the 5th ed rules have taken a big chunk of this flavour which is why my group still plays a big chunk of the old rules.


They did not remove them completely they just dumbed things down. I personally don't think it was needed but hey at the end of the day they are a business. They need to do what can sell more to a larger audience.



GrimzagGorwazza said:


> Harsh much?


If your going to make a huge complaint like that prepare to ether be agreed with or be torn apart. If you can't handle it, go hide under a rock and complain on your own k:k:k:



GrimzagGorwazza said:


> I'll agree that the new rules streamline things pretty well but can't help but feel we're approaching the limit of streamlining without compromising creativity.
> I believe that what the op was trying to suggest was not to get rid of the current ed of rules, but to republish or rewrite the older edition rules which had so much extra toppings on that you couldn't fit the whole thing in your mouth without cutting it into potions.
> this way fans of the 5th ed rules could happily carry on playing as they are now and tournies etc could be played with the 5th ed rules. Us storyline gamers who miss playing with the crazy overbalanced armies would have a 5th ed S-type (storyline edition) that was horribley broken but in which a squad of space marines could have any number of rules depending on their chapter.


If anything that just makes things more confusing. People would start mixing the two versions together and more headaches begin. Instead of speeding the game you will now slow it down with more debates and disputes.


Its just like sports or anything else in life. Things change for what ever reasons, you don't always like everything but it doe snot mean you stop watching those sports, or stop going to work because of some rule changes, etc. You just learn to live with them and make the best out of what you got.

I dont agree with 5th completely but I don't hate it. Im really not fond of planet strike and all the "expansion" books but again, just gotta life with it and make due.

Cheers,
Chaosftw


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

then dont play


----------



## Unforgiven302 (Oct 20, 2008)

I don't see a reason for people to get all chaffed in the crack over a game. 

If you don't like the complexity of the rules as written, write your own set of rules or delete/ignore the points in the main rules or in the codices you do not like. 
40K, since its inception back in the mid 1980's, has always had the integrated ability for the gamer to change, delete, modify or outright ignore the rules as written and take the game in any direction conceivable. It even says, in black and white print in the rule book that the rules do not matter all that much, and that enjoying the experience is what is most important. There is only one good option to exercise, and that is to be proactive and change it to suite you and your gaming friends abilities and tastes, because complaining about it fixes nothing.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

Fallen said:


> then dont play


I think your very educated statement can be summed up by one simple yet very powerful word. That word is !!!!FAIL!!!! 

Who is that directed to? its the equivalent of somebody typing POO in caps and hitting "Submit Reply"




Unforgiven302 said:


> I don't see a reason for people to get all chaffed in the crack over a game.
> 
> If you don't like the complexity of the rules as written, write your own set of rules or delete/ignore the points in the main rules or in the codices you do not like.
> 40K, since its inception back in the mid 1980's, has always had the integrated ability for the gamer to change, delete, modify or outright ignore the rules as written and take the game in any direction conceivable. It even says, in black and white print in the rule book that the rules do not matter all that much, and that enjoying the experience is what is most important. There is only one good option to exercise, and that is to be proactive and change it to suite you and your gaming friends abilities and tastes, because complaining about it fixes nothing.


Oh thats where your wrong sir, complaining fixes EVERYTHING. But I guess your logic makes sense too... 

Chaosftw


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

RexTalon said:


> There needs to be AT LEAST two different versions of this game!


LOLS :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Yeah because that would make the game easier. Have 2 different rules for the same in game issue has always worked out well in the past.



> I've stopped playing because people are all about competition and the people who would rather just convert some awesome models and play scenario games are getting screwed by the new rules systems. There's a butt load of special rules and counter rules and meta-gaming that have ruined the game for me. I have almost no interest in playing it, but I still feel the burning need to cleanse, purge, and kill the unclean.


This, honestly, sounds like nothing but crap. You can still play scenario games, there are 3 expansions (PlanetStrike, Apoc, and CoD) and the Battle Missions books. There's even the Planetary Empires "expansion" to add flavor to any scenario type of game.

I'm not quite sure of what "special rules and counter rules" you're referring to in the main rule book so I can't comment on that, but your statement about meta-gaming shows you lack an understanding of what meta-gaming actually is.

Heres a secret, when you buy a codex and then buy the troops you think are cool in the codex, YOU'RE META-GAMING!



> I propose there be a competition set of rules with a rule book and codecies (as it is now) and a lighter version that isn't completely compatible but comes as a single book full of all the rules needed to play all the major armies in a fun and fast way.


Why would you have the "heavier" version of the game be the competition? For Competition you want the games to go faster so you can get more games in. 



> This faster version would have all the cool rules we love as scenario players, such as VDR(vehicle design rules) and MDR (monster design rules). The scenario book would be thicker and cost more than the competition core rule book but it would have more in it and be thicker. I realize this sounds like a contradiction (simplify the rules but make more of them), but the little special character rules are a lot harder to keep track of, than a rule that is universal for both armies playing.


I'm confused. You don't like all the "special rules" in the current rule book but you're encouraging creating a rule book for rules to make custom vehicle's and monsters? You're right it doesn't sound like a contradiction, it IS a contradiction.

Furious Charge is too much to know about, but being able to write up your own vehicle and monsters from scratch is easier?



> The competition core rule book could cut out a lot of the fluff to make it thinner and easier to carry to tournaments.


Just to let you know they have done this already. This book came with the AOBR set.



> I think these changes are LONG overdue. But if it were up to me, I would produce THREE versions of the rule book. I would also post a digital copy of a more realistic rule book online. The 40K "Realism" rules would expand weapon ranges and make bombardment pieces, such as the Basilisk and Deathstrike unusable on anything but massive tables (more than 10 feet).
> 
> Discuss.


3 versions? 3? For what, expanding weapon range? Would you extend movement range too? I'm not sure how that would add to realism, as it's just increasing the measurement scale.

I gotta say that Unforgiven302 had the best idea for dealing with rules issues that you have. You playing a game with your buddies, you throw out the rules you don't like.

Just don't expect to walk into a FLGS and get a pick up game where you're picking and choosing which rules are ok.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Summing up this thread:

OP is whinging because he doesn't like the competitive nature of the game, and wants a 'casual-gamer' version.
House rules exist for a reason.
Lots of people saying things, mostly disagreeing with OP.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

I still cant figure out why he is so bitter... I mean I know 3 gents that have extremely competitive guard lists. Like disgustingly competitive. I envy the fire power they bring to the table.. I mean I think guard can triple the amount of heavy weapon power that anyone else can in the same point size army... thats good enough in my books lol 

good sum up Winterous >.>

Chaosftw


----------



## Deathscythe4722 (Jul 18, 2010)

I don't really get the problem. I find that making fluffy fun lists is fairly easy, and i can still consistently get at least get a Draw against most armies with BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD HURHIHFIHGAAAAR! type lists (well, except against IG).

Between Platetstrike/Cities/Apoc/BMissions there are more than enough non-standard scenarios to keep most people happy, and you can house-rule to make them even more diverse.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

Much of this already exists. FW imperial armor scenarios are geared to the fun fluff converter and scenario/campaign player.


----------



## ShadowMatt (Sep 9, 2008)

Chaosftw said:


> I think your very educated statement can be summed up by one simple yet very powerful word. That word is !!!!FAIL!!!!
> 
> Who is that directed to? its the equivalent of somebody typing POO in caps and hitting "Submit Reply"
> 
> ...


Too right. Not only does complaining make me feel better, it also annoys people who disagree with me. Win-win really.
On topic, I thought USR's would be a step forward in streamlining the system, but annoyingly some of the codex designers have destroyed any gains with a mess of character and unit specific special rules, with the result that unless you know your opponent's codex back to front, they can pull all manner of sneaky tricks (legal or not). I wonder how many others out there have been cheated out of a win because an opponent misinterpreted/misrepresented their own codex special rules. And I don't have the time/money to read and memorise every codex.
/end whinge


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

ShadowMatt said:


> Too right. Not only does complaining make me feel better, it also annoys people who disagree with me. Win-win really.
> On topic, I thought USR's would be a step forward in streamlining the system, but annoyingly some of the codex designers have destroyed any gains with a mess of character and unit specific special rules, with the result that unless you know your opponent's codex back to front, they can pull all manner of sneaky tricks (legal or not). I wonder how many others out there have been cheated out of a win because an opponent misinterpreted/misrepresented their own codex special rules. And I don't have the time/money to read and memorise every codex.
> /end whinge


I never get this complaint. If I think the rule is wrong or have never heard of it I will ask my opponent if I can see the rule in his codex? If he wont show me, very unlikly at my local group, I'll shout out.

The last game I had was against nids. Ive not read the latest nid codex and the learning experience of what all those gribbly little critters could do was fun and interesting, even if he did eat his way through my army. And I never once asked to see his codex.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

I don't understand the OP's issue in any sense of the problem.

40k is a fair game, all armies roughly equal; a good split between competitive and friendly game and it's got adaptable rules.

There is nothing true about your statement saying the game is against people just converting, or whatever rubbish that was.

If you think a game sucks, don't play it? You wouldn't run around saying Monopoly's rules should be changed, just because you suck at it.

All it takes a minor amount of maturity to make a game fair, and enjoyable for both sides; if you're saying that in every single game, you feel someone is cheating; then it's most likely that you're the immature one.

Just man up really; Asking a game to change it's already crystal clear rule set, just shows your own incompetence as a wargamer. If the majority of us find the game fair and think the rules are adequate; then there's something wrong with the minority.

Don't mean to rant, but to be honest, this is retarded.


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

Ultra111 said:


> As you said, the majority of players are competitive. Now, as a business, GW want to appeal to them, as they are the main consumers. Why would they produce lots of books like what you suggested for the minority?


I dont think that is right. There have been a number of polls on Warseer asking if people are competitive or more casual. In all the polls I saw casual or a middle ground won by a long shot. If I used my gaming group as an example we have around 30 w40k players and I would say about 5 are massivly competitive as always asking for competitive games each time they play.
There was also a poll asking if people had been to tournaments official or unofficial and next to none had actually been to a tournament.
I know warseer is not where all the gw gamers go and I know a massive amount dont post on online forums but it was some good data none the less.
The tournament scene is a tiny tiny amount of gamers. I think GW actually appeals more to the casual side of the game.

To the op its easy to make a fluff list and still be competitive. The fluffness I find comes out more in the paint and hobby side than the rules.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

At the OP,

Although I believe this is slightly silly, I would rather see you explain yourself a little bit more before I totally condemn you. However, I don't see how your idea is particularly helpful in solving this issue. In fact, I don't believe this is an issue that needs to be solved. The 5th ed codices are some of the best work I have seen GW come out with, I must say that I am rather impressed with their work. But I digress. 

I don't see any reason to further confuse gamers, a group which is comprised in a large part by children under the age of 14, with 3 versions of the same game. 

@ROT,
Best not to call someone, or their idea, retarded and point out that they are immature in the same post. It is similar to Harry Truman suggesting that there is never a right time to use nuclear weapons and referencing the necessity of the bombing of Hiroshima in the same statement. Just best not to insult someone if you can help it.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

no matter what you do to the rules you will always have atleas tthe following types of people;
- Hard core converters
- Painters
- Competative players
- Play what i like gamers
- Douche bags
- Fun gamers

Even if we go back to 2nd edition or so you will still have that. You get thta sort of thying in EVERY game regardless of being table top, board games or computer


----------



## Ultra111 (Jul 9, 2009)

Talos said:


> I dont think that is right. There have been a number of polls on Warseer asking if people are competitive or more casual. In all the polls I saw casual or a middle ground won by a long shot. If I used my gaming group as an example we have around 30 w40k players and I would say about 5 are massivly competitive as always asking for competitive games each time they play.
> There was also a poll asking if people had been to tournaments official or unofficial and next to none had actually been to a tournament.
> I know warseer is not where all the gw gamers go and I know a massive amount dont post on online forums but it was some good data none the less.
> The tournament scene is a tiny tiny amount of gamers. I think GW actually appeals more to the casual side of the game.
> ...


Fair enough man, I'm just going from my own experience. Sure, biased, but meh, doesn't really matter in the long run lol


----------



## Talos (Aug 4, 2008)

Yea tbh it all depends where you play. You could have a gaming club full of tourney players or just casual players it really depends where you play.
So to the op maybe talk to your friends and see if any of them want to set up some more story based games or anything like that. 
Campaigns are a great way to allow crazy units and ideas.


----------



## don_mondo (Jan 28, 2007)

Nahhhh, a single set of rules for both factions is fine. What it needs is properly updated timely and accurate FAQs/Erratas, which would eliminate most of teh arguments taht occur when the opposing factions play.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

ROT said:


> I don't understand the OP's issue in any sense of the problem.
> 
> 40k is a fair game, all armies roughly equal; a good split between competitive and friendly game and it's got adaptable rules.
> 
> ...


If the rule-set was crystal clear, it wouldn't need to be clarified by FAQs and errata.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Im a very casual player, so can never really get my head around the whole broken rules debate, people trying to gain advantage by telling you lies about what a unit can do, cant be that common? and in any case if they are genuinely trying to win by cheating i would just pack up my models and wish them good luck with there cheating. I cant understand the competitive play thing either, If you only get off on the winning and cant enjoy the hobby without it you missing the point of "play".

Can anyone give an example of a broken rule that does not have a common sense solution or FAQ/errata available for it?
And i dont just mean "TLOS is shit", i mean a rule that is genuinely broken and why you say its broken and why you cant logically see a solution


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

bitsandkits said:


> If you only get off on the winning and cant enjoy the hobby without it you missing the point of "play".


-_-

No, that's not being a competitive player, that's being an asshole. There's a difference.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

I'd like 2 rule systems, an advanced version of 40k with all the fun stuff included (written by someone who knows what the fuck there doing as well), and you can keep the shitty metagame dumbed down version we have currently for all the competetive gamers and children since neither like or are capable of thinking to win anyway.

those lot can sit in the corner and brag about tableing in 2 turns to there hearts content while proper gamers have fun and have a laugh with a proper rule system.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

i agree with Katie, HUGE difference.

i think im a competitive player, but often times my group plays @ such a low point level (500 point combat patrol-ish) that its almost impossible to have a "hardcore" list, that being said i do as much as possible (w/o cheating) to WIN! if i dont & i wasnt tabled/SOL'd right @ the beginning it was fun a game. which is all that i wanted - winning is a bonus.


----------



## Imperious (May 20, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> -_-
> 
> No, that's not being a competitive player, that's being an asshole. There's a difference.


This is biblical truth. I don't play in tournaments or "extreme competetive play." That being said I play to win. This is a game of strategy after all. I know people who just want to collect and paint their armies and then field them once or twice a year. Nothing's wrong with that. I think it's cool. 

But the bottom line is this is a *strategy* game! I want to win. That being said, I've had fun and lost too (especially those close games!).

Katie's point is a clear and distinctive one. Competetive players and assholes are two entirely different things. 

If you want to play a game where winning doesn't matter and everyone is playing just to "have fun", then might I recommend drunken, co-ed twister in your underwear.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Vrykolas2k said:


> If the rule-set was crystal clear, it wouldn't need to be clarified by FAQs and errata.



How are the rules no clear. You play games don't you? Unless you have to google situations every game (In which case it's probably you not knowing the rules), that's proof that they're clear rules.

If there is a rule book, with set rules, they are quite obviously clearly set rules... Because if you query a situation, it's answered in the book.

I don't need FAQs to tell me how to play, neither do 90% of wargamers, so neither do you.

And to Gen.Ahab; When someone is essentially saying; "I don't like the rules/understand them, they BADLY need changing" - That is both immature and retarded. 

Therefore it's okay to point that out. You might not be so quick to condemn someone, but I sure as hell am.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

ROT said:


> "I don't like the rules/understand them, they BADLY need changing"


That statement is in no way immature. Immature would be to call someone a retard for expressing their opinion. Even if it less than well thought out, you shouldn't simply call them a retard for saying it. It is rude.k:


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

I'm not saying he's a retard for expressing his opinions. I'm saying his opinion is retarded. 

AND before you call me out on that; Yes, you can call someone's opinion retarded for example

ExampleMan1: Hi, I'm mark, and In my opinion 12+8 = 216.
Me: Your opinion is retarded.

And yes, Saying a game should be changed because you don't like it; is retarded - Don't like it, don't play the game. I Can't believe you're finding it so hard to see my point of you. I'm being just as cynical as you usually are towards everything else.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

I have found that it really doesn't help. I believe the saying is that you can.... Ok, I don't recall, but the point is that it is better to be considerate than it is to be overly harsh.

In the case you pointed out it would be better to say that he is simply wrong and point out why rather than just calling it retarded.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

ROT said:


> And yes, Saying a game should be changed because you don't like it; is retarded


what the fuck should they say then?, if you can't post your opinion on a game you play because its retarded then why do forums even exist?, we must all be retarded for posting our opinions positive or negative because ROT says so.

if you want the game to rewritten because in your opinion the rules are a complete mess your entitled to say so and its a completely valid point, a very valid point.

what isn't a valid point is calling somones valid point retarded.

but then again ROT do you even know what a valid opinion is?, since you make so few.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Who else is saying a game should be completely re-designed for their own sake, stella?

On these forums we discuss about the game and around the game, not how it should be re-designed because we don't like it.

I don't know where your getting all this information from, that I directly called him a retard; Stop putting words in his mouth. I called his idea retarded - No i'm not saying that's better - But stop jumping to conclusions stella, and quit putting words in my mouth.

The same for you thinking I'm calling people with opinions retarded, when I'm clearly not. I'm saying if an opinion is retarded, it's a retarded opinion, how is that difficult to see.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

ROT said:


> Who else is saying a game should be completely re-designed for their own sake, stella?


me, because thats MY opinion, what the fuck else am I supposed to post?, my neighbours opinion?


ROT said:


> On these forums we discuss about the game and around the game, not how it should be re-designed because we don't like it.


discussing the game being redone IS discussing the game, duh


ROT said:


> I don't know where your getting all this information from, that I directly called him a retard; Stop putting words in his mouth. I called his idea retarded - No i'm not saying that's better - But stop jumping to conclusions stella, and quit putting words in my mouth.


I didn't say you called him retarded.

although saying an opinion is retarded is akin to calling someone a retard as only a retard would make retarded decisions, everyone else would just make stupid ones.....which you should be able to tell the difference to by now.

the only truly retarded thing to say would be something like this


random fool said:


> 40k is a fair game, all armies roughly equal; a good split between competitive and friendly game and it's got adaptable rules.


which is a load of horsecrap and the complete opposite of how 40k is, but fuck knows who said it hey.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

Ironically I'm the guy who said the last quote aswell; and like It's been said before.

Why do you play a game, if you think it's unfair bullshit? You don't have the right to complain about a luxury. You're not being forced to play the game, you choose to yourself; so you don't really get to complain.

If you think 5th Ed is a load of crap, play 4th with 5th's models, no-ones forcing you to play 5th.

And how is 40k not fair? Most of the armies are equivalents, in some shape or form (Excusing Space Marines and IG, then the other end of the scale Necrons). The rules are simple, they are adaptable.
How is there not a good split of competitive and friendly play; when clearly there are people who play competitive 40k, some who play friendly/casual.

But whatever, I'm not replying to this anymore, you're not worth the infraction stella.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

ROT said:


> Why do you play a game, if you think it's unfair bullshit? You don't have the right to complain about a luxury. You're not being forced to play the game, you choose to yourself; so you don't really get to complain.


you do get to complain, it is your right, when you've played the game longer than some 16yr old punk has, you get the right to bitch all day fucking long, because you know for a fact 40k has been and could be better than what it is right now, but for some idiotic reason it isn't better than what it is right now, because if it was better all the 16yr old fanboy simpletons would be overwhelmed by what GW would call "complex rules", or as most proper gamers would call them, improvements.


ROT said:


> If you think 5th Ed is a load of crap, play 4th with 5th's models, no-ones forcing you to play 5th.


nobody is forcing ME to play 5th no, but nothing really makes me want to play it either, and if 5th edition doesn't make me want to play it because its so watered down even water is thinking its light, then maybe the writers made a bit of a fuckup targetting an audience who have a hard time spelling soap.


ROT said:


> And how is 40k not fair? Most of the armies are equivalents,


most?, does most equal all?, no it does not, so 40k is not fair.


ROT said:


> The rules are simple,


thats the problem, so simple it doesn't require thought.


ROT said:


> they are adaptable.


adaptable my ass.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Stella Cadente said:


> most?, does most equal all?, no it does not, so 40k is not fair.


This is a direct consequence of the rolling release schedule. Once all the books have been updated to 5th edition standards we should be good to go.



> thats the problem, so simple it doesn't require thought.


That's cool. I mean, obviously you must be so intellectually superior to everyone else that plays the game that you and only you are able to play the game without any degree of difficulty or thought. That literally thousands of other people play the game and put a lot of thought into it is completely irrelevant because Stella says so? Bullshit.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Katie Drake said:


> This is a direct consequence of the rolling release schedule. Once all the books have been updated to 5th edition standards we should be good to go.


you mean when 6th edition is released and all the early 5th books no longer are equal to late 5th books because there written with 6th in mind?

exactly like what happened when 5th came out.


Katie Drake said:


> That's cool. I mean, obviously you must be so intellectually superior to everyone else that plays the game that you and only you are able to play the game without any degree of difficulty or thought. That literally thousands of other people play the game and put a lot of thought into it is completely irrelevant because Stella says so?


its about time someone realised the truth round here, even if its you, but someone had to crack and say how gloriously amazing I am at this, and how you common people worship me greater than even a god and how my word is gospel in all matters.

well you may not of said it directly, and tried to cover it up at the end there to seem like you didn't mean it, but I can read between the lines because I am so fucking awesome.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

ROT said:


> How are the rules no clear. You play games don't you? Unless you have to google situations every game (In which case it's probably you not knowing the rules), that's proof that they're clear rules.
> 
> If there is a rule book, with set rules, they are quite obviously clearly set rules... Because if you query a situation, it's answered in the book.
> 
> ...


So, you never question the rules or reference the FAQs and errata, which not only are official addenda but also clarify waters which GW has seen to be muddied?
Interesting...


----------



## Yllib Enaz (Jul 15, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> Can anyone give an example of a broken rule that does not have a common sense solution or FAQ/errata available for it?
> And i dont just mean "TLOS is shit", i mean a rule that is genuinely broken and why you say its broken and why you cant logically see a solution


Intersting how no one has managed to do this yet....


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Yllib Enaz said:


> Intersting how no one has managed to do this yet....


Only one I can think of is, how far a vehicle or unit counts as having moved when coming in off the table edge.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> you mean when 6th edition is released and all the early 5th books no longer are equal to late 5th books because there written with 6th in mind?
> 
> exactly like what happened when 5th came out.
> 
> ...




:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Are you trying to murder me?
Can't breathe...


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Only one I can think of is, how far a vehicle or unit counts as having moved when coming in off the table edge.


I dont follow, can you explain what is broken about that rule?


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Wow, 6 pages of utter shitstorm caused by some moderately good trolling. I'm surprised that it wasn't closed already, since it leads nowhere. Its pretty simple: if you play the game, accept the rules and deal with it. If you don't like the rules, play something else. And "something else" includes homebrew stuff. 

You guys have been talking about this in the previous 5 pages. Nice job.


----------



## RexTalon (Apr 1, 2008)

Wow, I go away for 24 hours and 6 pages pop up. The same subject at Librarium online made it to two posts.

I can see a lot of people don't know how to read, which explains why they think 40k is fine the way it is. Either that or they all play Blood Angels. 

But, before I get into explaining why I opened this thread to begin with let me first stand and clap for you all, even the ones who insulted me. In fact, especially them. :clapping:

I believe we should all be able to post what we think on message boards, even if some people think those opinions are "retarded". The fact that you all came out and voiced your points of view is actually kind of refreshing. I wish there were more message boards like this one. Now, back to the topic.

Stella pretty much hit the nail on the head. The point of this wasn't to say that the system as it is should be significantly changed, although clearer rules and better timing on codex releases, and better FAQs and errata would be good too. It was to say that GW isn't hitting ALL of the target audience. They're leaving people behind and leaving future fans out of what I had always considered the best part of the game. Meanwhile they're aiming the entire ship toward a new audience. Perhaps that's where the money is, but they're just giving up on the entire group of other people, who also have money, by abandoning what was.

What was isn't 4th edition. What was isn't 3rd edition or any other edition previous. It was a mindset that GW gave up. They stopped handling bits orders. They stopped selling to the hobbyist a started selling to the gamer. They stopped being GAMES WORKSHOP, and became GAMES.

Sure, the 5th edition rules are better than 4th. (unless you play Dark Angels) And sure this rules set hits a large target audience and my opinion is going to seem to go against the flow but if you actually read the entirety of what I wrote, and try to understand it's implications, you'll see that all my idea will do is keep people in the HOBBY while still attracting people to the GAME.

You don't need to make anything more complex. If you want to keep the core rules, fine, but make them the competition rules, and re-release a compilation similar to the old Astronomicon books only thicker.

Now some direct responses to some of your comments.

To people who thought this was stupid to even say-
Thank you for your comments.

*To people who wanted proof that the rules are broken in some way-*
You don't understand the original post. To have 6 special characters per codex that change the way an army is composed and fights is like having 7 armies per codex. I'm not going to buy every codex so I'll know their rules and I'm sure as hell not going to ask a person to see their codex every time they use one of those rules, because I'm not an ass. Saying, "if you can't show me, then I'm going to argue with you until I get my way" is being an ass. And yea, it's a LOT of rules to know. I have better things to do with my time.

To have universal special rules in a core rule book that cover every army is NOT as hard or expensive to learn and you don't have to sound like a douche and ask to see rules every time you play someone.

*Not knowing the rules means you don't know how to play-*
Well that's just retarded to say. 
If you know every rule in every book then good for you. You get a gold star for wasting your life. Congratulations. The game isn't actually that hard to learn... again... Sure I'm on my, what is it now, 4th incarnation of the game? (I missed playing RT by a few months) In some of those versions, armies received two different codecies, in some versions they received none. Some of the armies are kind of new, and others are old hats. The thing is, a scenario version of the game wouldn't need to be updated as often, so I wouldn't need to relearn the game. And I sure as hell wouldn't need to buy 4 codecies. Harumph. Maybe you'll understand when you get older, ROT.

On top of that, you wouldn't need to have 3 expansions. That's kind of the point of a compilation. GW wouldn't have to decide which ones to keep on the shelves and which ones to scrap, because they'd all be in ONE book. Thereby simplifying the mess it is now.

*Just go play 4th with your "buddies"-*
Being in the military keeps me moving quite a bit. My "buddies" are in Seattle, New Jersey, Arkansas, Ohio, and Germany. Right now I'm slotted to spend the next few years in Texas. Yea, I might pick up a game or two a year there, but to walk into a game shop and play a pick up game against someone I don't know is a bit of a bear. Hopefully the area I'll be in next will have some good people who won't all be competitive. Hopefully there will be some people in there who like scenario games. Hopefully the GW managers won't be total douche bags like they were in Tacoma.

Yea, I hope to get to do that again, play with my friends that is. But in an environment geared specifically toward a type of play I don't like, it's not especially promising.

To tell you people the truth, I've pretty much lost interest in trying to convince you. I'm more happy with the fact that it generated conversation between at least one or two intelligent people. That's more important to me. And really, if you think it doesn't matter that we talk about this, you couldn't be more wrong. This game is a part of your life and reflects an aspect of your character. If you're not spending any time considering how that aspect of your life is reflected on others then you're missing a major part of what life is about. The unexamined life is not worth living.

EDIT:
I'm not trolling. I seriously think there should be more than one version of this game. But nice try.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

You are trolling, no matter how hard you deny it, the first sentence of your post references making a similar thread on another site.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

I completely agree with Stella and Katie (now I never thought I'd be able to agree with both of them in a single thread), plus I don't think this is trolling- it's called freedom of speech and nothing he said was so inflammatory that it was insulting- you don't have to respond to a post if you think it's trollnig, especially if it's an entirely new thread. 

Just fuck off, saves you time and us the effort of reading _'he's a troll'_, wow what insight.

Posting the same topic on more than one site is not trolling, I myself have done the same with threads I've made- each site has it's own character and regular members, so it's often interesting to find out how the differences pan out if the same questions are asked.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

RexTalon said:


> I can see a lot of people don't know how to read, which explains why they think 40k is fine the way it is. Either that or they all play Blood Angels.


Or you're just whining.



> *To people who wanted proof that the rules are broken in some way-*
> You don't understand the original post. To have 6 special characters per codex that change the way an army is composed and fights is like having 7 armies per codex. I'm not going to buy every codex so I'll know their rules and I'm sure as hell not going to ask a person to see their codex every time they use one of those rules, because I'm not an ass. Saying, "if you can't show me, then I'm going to argue with you until I get my way" is being an ass. And yea, it's a LOT of rules to know. I have better things to do with my time.


Except that isn't how it works.

Let's take Codex: Space Marines because pretty much everyone is familiar with it. Tigurius, Telion, Chronus and that old Chaplain dude that I can't remember the name of right now - not one of those fundamentally changes the way that the army plays.

Vulkan - Twin links meltas, flamers and master-crafts thunder hammers. No more Combat Tactics. Not hard to remember.

Kantor - Makes army _Stubborn_. Sternguard become scoring units. No more Combat Tactics. Not hard to remember.

Khan - Army can Outflank. If given a Bike, Bikes become Troops. No more Combat Tactics. Not hard to remember.

Shrike - Army gains _Fleet_. Can Infiltrate along with a unit. No more Combat Tactics. Not hard to remember.

None of these characters do anything hugely complex that's difficult to understand or remember. If this is too much... well, I don't think it's the fault of the rules.



> To have universal special rules in a core rule book that cover every army is NOT as hard or expensive to learn and you don't have to sound like a douche and ask to see rules every time you play someone.


You can just go with what people say and trust their word. If you get cheated... why do you care? All it proves is that the other person is a douchebag and doesn't reflect on you in any way, shape or form.



> *Not knowing the rules means you don't know how to play-*
> Well that's just retarded to say.
> If you know every rule in every book then good for you. You get a gold star for wasting your life. Congratulations.


Ahh, sweeping generalizations. That's cool, I guess.

Fact: If you (impersonal use) don't know the rules, you do not know how to play the game. Sorry that this isn't something that's nice to hear, but if you don't know the rules... you don't know how to play the game properly. That's just basic logic. That's like saying that if you know how all of the pieces act in the game of chess except the queen and knight, you know how to play the game.

News flash: No you don't.

Nobody's asking for absolutely perfect rule knowledge. Even Galahad, an admin of this site and one of it not _the_ most well-versed people I know of when it comes to the rules of 40K makes mistakes or forgets things from time to time.



> The game isn't actually that hard to learn... again... Sure I'm on my, what is it now, 4th incarnation of the game? (I missed playing RT by a few months) In some of those versions, armies received two different codecies, in some versions they received none. Some of the armies are kind of new, and others are old hats. The thing is, a scenario version of the game wouldn't need to be updated as often, so I wouldn't need to relearn the game. And I sure as hell wouldn't need to buy 4 codecies. Harumph. Maybe you'll understand when you get older, ROT.


Right. I've been playing since early 3rd edition, which is only one less edition than what you've been playing, yet I manage just fine, muddled Codex releases or not. This game is not that hard to learn, nor is it difficult to stay up to date. Codex releases happen every three to four months. It's quite possible to leave the game for months at a time and return to have things more or less the same as when you left.



> To tell you people the truth, I've pretty much lost interest in trying to convince you. I'm more happy with the fact that it generated conversation between at least one or two intelligent people.


So only people who agree with you are intelligent and all bar one or two people that posted in this thread are dumb. Nice.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Trolling =/= Advertisement.

Trolling = posting deliberately inflammatory comments to provoke a reaction.

So, yes, it needs a rewrite. But not in the sense that it's because one should be for gamers and the other for hobbyists.

If you're a hobbyist, then create your own rules, if you don't like the main rules.

Since when do you *have* to play by the set rules when playing for fun? Make your own up. In a tournament, you can't do that.


----------



## VanitusMalus (Jun 27, 2009)

@Katie: How old were you when you started playing? Early 3rd edition and you're 22, so like the age of 10?

Anyway RexTalon sorry but I really have to disagree with you on this point. I understand you frustration. I'm not a comp player either, honestly I could care less about tournaments, but I don't feel the game needs two seperate formats.

I personally feel the game has been dumbed down a bit to help with newer players coming into the fold. Dude have you ever tried playing 2nd edition? I thought when 3rd edition came out they really set the bar low for the newcomers. Infact funny enough what you are asking of the game is to have a 5th edition version and a 1st edition Rogue Trader version. In 1st you could pretty much customize anything. Hell a friend of mine who played then use to have a BloodThirster running around with a Lascannon (yeah how crazy does that sound?). Admittedly the earlier editions 2nd and 1st were more about silliness and fun but there were power builds. In 2nd edition a Psyker or Special Character could turn the tide of the game in just one game turn. I use to see it happen. In 3rd Edition there were power builds, hell the DE had one that almost no one could stop. I remember a guy making a Salamander Space Marine power build that he never lost with. So the game has always had that element of competition.

Another point I would like to make is any good player can make a build of any combination of units to defeat any opponent. You don't have to have Mechdar, Nob Bikers and the host of other power builds to win a game and trust me each of those builds has a combination in every other army that can counter it if played properly. I admit a streamlining of 40Ks rules is needed, but I also will admit the system at hand can be used to satisfaction if played right.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

Now I know I am missing things that are said due to trying to read on my phone when ever I stop in this god damn traffic that I have been sitting in for just over an hour now. But from what I managed to read is getting pretty lame. 

@ Rex:

You said


> To people who wanted proof that the rules are broken in some way-
> You don't understand the original post. To have 6 special characters per codex that change the way an army is composed and fights is like having 7 armies per codex. I'm not going to buy every codex so I'll know their rules and I'm sure as hell not going to ask a person to see their codex every time they use one of those rules, because I'm not an ass. Saying, "if you can't show me, then I'm going to argue with you until I get my way" is being an ass. And yea, it's a LOT of rules to know. I have better things to do with my time.


You know Rex... If you don't want to ask questions then no shit you don't know about special characters and their rules.

Hell I know dick all about special rules, I only really know MAYBE a handful. Why? because I don't have the time to read ether. But at the same time I am not going to complain because the codex that guy plays has too many options. I just ask "what does he do?" I get a brief Idea and then roll with it. Then I typically can recall that info if I happen to run into that character again.

If you don't want to read and you don't want to ask the question then sir there is no justification for your complaint. You cant be spoon all the rules. Next your going to ask GW to build, paint, and play for you too...

It sounds like someone is mad because they don't like how every codex can bring so many "special rules" into games based on certain characters that are chosen at any particular time. Honestly... WHO THE FUCK CARES. So you don't know what someones army does when you start set up, so you get boned by a special rule you forgot... oh well

Are you saying you would rather every codex have 1 character with 1 set of rules? Jesus man do you want to buy a fucking army book for 50.00 and only be able to generate a static list to a degree based on that 1 HQ choice?

Now the blurb I quoted specifically bothered me and thats my 2 cents. You may have some legitimate argument somewhere else but asking for more simpler codexes is really just sad.

OMFG ITS A MIRACLE TRAFFIC IS MOVING... typing this took so long I would not doubt a handful of posts passed mine lmao... oh well.

Chaosftw


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

_*munches popcorn*_

More! More!


----------



## gally912 (Jan 31, 2009)

So, you don't want special characters because they encourage list/army variety? Did I read that right? That is bad because?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

VanitusMalus said:


> @Katie: How old were you when you started playing? Early 3rd edition and you're 22, so like the age of 10?


I got into playing at around that age, yes. Owned some models earlier than that.


----------



## VanitusMalus (Jun 27, 2009)

hell I started around 12. Good ole' HeroQuest the boardgame brought this paint and game addiction into my life.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Svartmetall said:


> _*munches popcorn*_
> 
> More! More!


With your avatar: FUCKING LOL!

I'm backing Katie, she's just generally the best.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

RexTalon said:


> The 40K "Realism" rules would expand weapon ranges and make bombardment pieces, such as the Basilisk and Deathstrike unusable on anything but massive tables (more than 10 feet).
> Discuss.


First off...you know what screw it its easier to do this in Points!

-Basilisks and deathstrikes are made for two different game's 40k AND APOCALYPSE

-See Above for second version of 40k.^

-Also suck it up princess, 40k is pretty balanced right now, NOW YES I DO PLAY BLOOD ANGELS (CAPS SO HE UNDERSTANDZ) Pre-heresy mind you so i dont spam stuff! If you have time to whine and bitch about a single army you should learn to play around it.

-If you Don't like it go play something else.

-40k will be redone in 9th edition Till then.....maybe you will then be happy then when My Blood Angel jump troops are all required to Ride Bats and Sparkle?

-Also i just noticed you stop played, your local gaming store must be having a party if you complain about a game this easy.


/End Rant.

(Also if you think this is to harsh i don't give a damn im not making friends anyhow!):wacko:


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Chaosftw said:


> Yes your right, There are ALWAYS gamers that are more focused on winning. Who cares? if they want to play you and thats not how you roll then say no thanks... Pretty simple. But I mean what ever happened to enjoy a challenge. On the same note people that don't want to play people that only want to win is because that means they can't win or don't want to have to try hard to do so. So in actuality are you really any better?


I resent this remark, i'm actually a pretty accomplished player and won a couple of local tournies with my orks pre fifth edition. Even in the current campaign i am playing i'm winning more often then not but i'm having to cut units that i feel would look cool on the field to do so. WHilst i might not be grand tourni standards my dislike for playing competative games isn't by any stretch down to incompetence or lazyness. I_t's just personal preference, i play warhammer to kick back and chill with a beer some good music and a relaxed atmosphere. A lot of the people who i used to play 4th and 3rd ed with are now more worried about maxing their armies then what's fun to play. _

Flash gits for example uned to be a good chuckle thanks to teir rediculous overheat rules, i hardly see them any more. Previously i had a fully mounted army using speed freaks and only units mounted in trucks. Now i've got to build more battlewagons to allow my elite units into vehicles and that eats up my heavy support making it a choice of missing one awesome unit or making one walk. Also the stripping of wargear for nobs means my elite units are now no longer as effective in combat in the first place. As well as that i'm certainly going to need to field meks with force fields to protect them thereby removing my choice of fielding a shock attack gun. Voila i've created a pretty much cut out mechanised ork army, in fact i bet this list is alrady in the army lists section.
I don't mind the competative play but my primary list was never designed as a tournie army and so i have now 7000 points of an army i based around what models i liked the look of with no reguards to function. It was a stroyline army that developed over time fighting battles with my opponent. is it really worth taking only 2 units of traitors? no it's not but it fitted the storyline at the time.

I'm not saying games shouldn't progress and develope, i'm simply saying that it would be nice if GW left a door open to allow people to field units that are a bit more complex. Hence my sugestion for the vetrans book. House rules are fine but the fact that the rules now span several editions makes this task long winded and bound to fail. How many different rules sets have their been for Chimera transports since the DH codex was released for example?
A universal set of vetran rules, not unsimilar to the experiance system from vs4 but with a bit more depth and specification to race, also with a fixed price set would go a long way to fixing this.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Angmar, quit being a damned troll and either stop baiting/insulting another member or stay the hell away.

The caps comment was not needed, the last comment was not needed; dear gods man grow the fuck up a little. I don't care if he started it or was acting the child first, be the adult and rise the hell above it and at least try to pretend your an adult.


I can only imagine the bitching or whining or backlash that this post might get but a little advice: there is no commenting on this one and coming out on top because as blunt as this post may be it is true. So do everyone a favour and take this post, accept whats been said, and move on.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> I resent this remark, i'm actually a pretty accomplished player and won a couple of local tournies with my orks pre fifth edition. Even in the current campaign i am playing i'm winning more often then not but i'm having to cut units that i feel would look cool on the field to do so. WHilst i might not be grand tourni standards my dislike for playing competative games isn't by any stretch down to incompetence or lazyness. I_t's just personal preference, i play warhammer to kick back and chill with a beer some good music and a relaxed atmosphere. A lot of the people who i used to play 4th and 3rd ed with are now more worried about maxing their armies then what's fun to play. _
> 
> Flash gits for example uned to be a good chuckle thanks to teir rediculous overheat rules, i hardly see them any more. Previously i had a fully mounted army using speed freaks and only units mounted in trucks. Now i've got to build more battlewagons to allow my elite units into vehicles and that eats up my heavy support making it a choice of missing one awesome unit or making one walk. Also the stripping of wargear for nobs means my elite units are now no longer as effective in combat in the first place. As well as that i'm certainly going to need to field meks with force fields to protect them thereby removing my choice of fielding a shock attack gun. Voila i've created a pretty much cut out mechanised ork army, in fact i bet this list is alrady in the army lists section.
> I don't mind the competative play but my primary list was never designed as a tournie army and so i have now 7000 points of an army i based around what models i liked the look of with no reguards to function. It was a stroyline army that developed over time fighting battles with my opponent. is it really worth taking only 2 units of traitors? no it's not but it fitted the storyline at the time.
> ...


I think I am missing what your trying to tell me. No one is saying you cant kick back and no one is saying you cant use models that you like.

You speak as if I directed the comment at you... the way your getting all defensive giving me the history of your fluffy army. To be blunt I hate fluff I really don't care for it. I read books day in and day out from 7am - 6pm if not longer. 

GW never said you cant play the way you want and that you must use the rules we provide. Make your own rules, use the rules you like best, use 4th ed. rules nobody cares. Just when it comes to playing people out of your circle and in tournaments don't expect to play against another fluff based army.

I have no desire to read about make believe space men and aliens fighting for domination of this that and what ever. I just want to model some great looking figs, and go out and roll some dice with friends. Sure we power game together but hell we all know thats whats coming and we don't bitch about rules we just bring really competitive lists and beat the living shit out of one another. I think it makes me a better player especially because we are always tossing new crap in each others faces.

Now I have probably missed your point entirely but I guess I lost it within all the talk about flashgits and fluff in your post (which I don't have a clue what they do).



darkreever said:


> I can only imagine the bitching or whining or backlash that this post might get but a little advice: there is no commenting on this one and coming out on top because as blunt as this post may be it is true. So do everyone a favour and take this post, accept whats been said, and move on.


No Disrespect Darkreever, I enjoy these threads as rude as they are they bring up a lot of different views, and ideas about the game we all enjoy playing regardless of the views mentioned. I think its safe to say we can all handle the personal attacks because we all post here. If we don't want the back lash then we know not to stick our necks out.

I mean maybe it can be toned down a bit sure but as far as debating this issue that people clearly have things to voice, I say why not?

Cheers,
Chaosftw


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

RexTalon said:


> I can see a lot of people don't know how to read, which explains why they think 40k is fine the way it is. Either that or they all play Blood Angels.


Yes we all have a very difficult time replying to this because we are incapable of reading.



> But, before I get into explaining why I opened this thread to begin with let me first stand and clap for you all, even the ones who insulted me. In fact, especially them. :clapping:


:don-t_mention: No problem



> Stella pretty much hit the nail on the head. The point of this wasn't to say that the system as it is should be significantly changed, although clearer rules and better timing on codex releases, and better FAQs and errata would be good too. It was to say that GW isn't hitting ALL of the target audience. They're leaving people behind and leaving future fans out of what I had always considered the best part of the game. Meanwhile they're aiming the entire ship toward a new audience. Perhaps that's where the money is, but they're just giving up on the entire group of other people, who also have money, by abandoning what was.


Look, if you're in the military I assume you learned this by now. YOU CAN'T PLEASE EVERYONE. This is a fact in the universe.

Now I get you're a into the hobby more then the playing, that is FINE. No one has a problem with that. I, myself, prefer the hobby to actually playing the game. As I'm pretty sure I stated before I generally only play story driven games now using the 3 expansions. I have a good time, and I don't feel abandoned by GW in anyway.



> What was isn't 4th edition. What was isn't 3rd edition or any other edition previous. It was a mindset that GW gave up. They stopped handling bits orders. They stopped selling to the hobbyist a started selling to the gamer. They stopped being GAMES WORKSHOP, and became GAMES.


GW had to change direction in one edition, but personally I feel it's been heading this way for a while.



> Sure, the 5th edition rules are better than 4th. (unless you play Dark Angels) And sure this rules set hits a large target audience and my opinion is going to seem to go against the flow but if you actually read the entirety of what I wrote, and try to understand it's implications, you'll see that all my idea will do is keep people in the HOBBY while still attracting people to the GAME.


Having read the entirety of what you wrote it sounds like you want to make the game vastly more complex then it is in it's current form. Have two sets of rules doesn't make anything easier and it would make it harder for new players to come into the game and the hobby. The price of this game is scary enough, if I told a buddy of mine he needed to buy 3 rule books (Comp rule book, Hobby "rule" book, and codex) just to play he'd just say "How bout noooo."



> You don't need to make anything more complex. If you want to keep the core rules, fine, but make them the competition rules, and re-release a compilation similar to the old Astronomicon books only thicker.


But asking for 2 rule books DOES make things more complex. If I went to my FLGS and went looking for a game I'd need to bring 2 rule books with me, just in case. Thats crazy.



> *To people who wanted proof that the rules are broken in some way-*
> You don't understand the original post. To have 6 special characters per codex that change the way an army is composed and fights is like having 7 armies per codex. I'm not going to buy every codex so I'll know their rules and I'm sure as hell not going to ask a person to see their codex every time they use one of those rules, because I'm not an ass. Saying, "if you can't show me, then I'm going to argue with you until I get my way" is being an ass. And yea, it's a LOT of rules to know. I have better things to do with my time.


It sucks if you're not playing with honest people who would tell you the rule honestly, but if thats the case find new people to play with. A buddy of mine plays CSM, and I know jack about the CSM codex. I take his word, and when something doesn't sound right I ask about it. Sometimes I learn something and sometimes we both learn something.



> To have universal special rules in a core rule book that cover every army is NOT as hard or expensive to learn and you don't have to sound like a douche and ask to see rules every time you play someone.


If GW did that, they wouldn't need to produce codexs. You also wouldn't have any fluffy armies or any difference between armies. All the troops would be the same with nothing to make them unique. Tsons would just be their stat line with something like Stubborn, Zerkers would have furious charge, same with any other CC specialist. THAT IS BORING.



> *Not knowing the rules means you don't know how to play-*
> Well that's just retarded to say.


If you told people you knew how to play basket ball and when the game started you just kicked the ball off the court, you don't know how to play.

If you're playing soccer (euro football) and you catch a ball someone kicked at you, if you're not in goal, you don't know how to play.

To play a game correctly you must know the rules, otherwise you're not playing the game.



> If you know every rule in every book then good for you. You get a gold star for wasting your life. Congratulations. The game isn't actually that hard to learn... again... Sure I'm on my, what is it now, 4th incarnation of the game? (I missed playing RT by a few months) In some of those versions, armies received two different codecies, in some versions they received none. Some of the armies are kind of new, and others are old hats. The thing is, a scenario version of the game wouldn't need to be updated as often, so I wouldn't need to relearn the game. And I sure as hell wouldn't need to buy 4 codecies. Harumph. Maybe you'll understand when you get older, ROT.


The game does not change too much from edition to edition, from a general rules standpoint. Sure weapons are altered, special abilities are tweaked, and cover/LOS may change but the basic rules of the game have not changed. You still roll d6s, you can still only move 6 in. during movement, and MCs love to munch on tanks.



> On top of that, you wouldn't need to have 3 expansions. That's kind of the point of a compilation. GW wouldn't have to decide which ones to keep on the shelves and which ones to scrap, because they'd all be in ONE book. Thereby simplifying the mess it is now.


GW wouldn't make as much money if it didn't update their rule books. Besides, if they could somehow have all their ideas from Apoc, Planetsrike, CoD, and Battle missions in one book who's to say they don't come up with new ones?



> *Just go play 4th with your "buddies"-*
> Being in the military keeps me moving quite a bit. My "buddies" are in Seattle, New Jersey, Arkansas, Ohio, and Germany. Right now I'm slotted to spend the next few years in Texas. Yea, I might pick up a game or two a year there, but to walk into a game shop and play a pick up game against someone I don't know is a bit of a bear. Hopefully the area I'll be in next will have some good people who won't all be competitive. Hopefully there will be some people in there who like scenario games. Hopefully the GW managers won't be total douche bags like they were in Tacoma.


Playing against people you don't know is rough, but thats life. If you move around a lot you should be used to such things by now. Go to the FLGS and see when they have the most amount of people playing 40k around. Show up then and hope for the best. It's all you can do.



> Yea, I hope to get to do that again, play with my friends that is. But in an environment geared specifically toward a type of play I don't like, it's not especially promising.


I don't think that 40 is "geared" toward competitive play, it's the players that gear it that way.



> To tell you people the truth, I've pretty much lost interest in trying to convince you. I'm more happy with the fact that it generated conversation between at least one or two intelligent people. That's more important to me. And really, if you think it doesn't matter that we talk about this, you couldn't be more wrong. This game is a part of your life and reflects an aspect of your character. If you're not spending any time considering how that aspect of your life is reflected on others then you're missing a major part of what life is about. The unexamined life is not worth living.


So, you're ignoring all the intelligent posts that people have made about why 2 rule books is a bad idea, and the 2 people that agree with you on this are the only intelligent people posting? Thats funny.

I agree it is important that these types of posts be discussed, as it opens minds to people on both sides of the argument. However this is an opinion, and if people wish to voice their opinion they are not "unintelligent" for disagreeing with you.


----------



## darkreever (Apr 3, 2008)

Chaosftw said:


> No Disrespect Darkreever, I enjoy these threads as rude as they are they bring up a lot of different views, and ideas about the game we all enjoy playing regardless of the views mentioned. I think its safe to say we can all handle the personal attacks because we all post here. If we don't want the back lash then we know not to stick our necks out.


I'm sorry, I honestly do not follow you on this; are you telling me you enjoy watching members troll and attack each other over the slightest of things? 

Because if that is the case, than please remember that while you may enjoy it most reasonable adults do not go about debate or decent conversation by outright attacking each others character or intelligence. They use a fair amount of subtlety and tact to do that so that its less obvious.



Chaosftw said:


> I mean maybe it can be toned down a bit sure but as far as debating this issue that people clearly have things to voice, I say why not?


Why stop members from trolling and/or attacking each other? Well I can think of at least one good reason for each of them:



Da Rulez said:


> *Trolling and/or attempting to bait others into a flame war will not be tolerated.*


*

*


Da Rulez said:


> *Personal attacks will NOT be tolerated!*


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

I think what he means, Darkreever, is that when things get heated you get an interesting exchange of opinions.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

darkreever said:


> I'm sorry, I honestly do not follow you on this; are you telling me you enjoy watching members troll and attack each other over the slightest of things?


No, I enjoy seeing what comes from people getting heated over those slight things  

If you don't want to watch it, Then don't come into the thread:grin:



darkreever said:


> Because if that is the case, than please remember that while you may enjoy it most reasonable adults do not go about debate or decent conversation by outright attacking each others character or intelligence. They use a fair amount of subtlety and tact to do that so that its less obvious.


Sorry my wording was not proper. I simply meant that there is nothing wrong with attacking each others thoughts provided you have a defence. What I meant by toning down was getting rid of the personal attacks at a persons intelligence and or character.

I apologize if I am not as "reasonable" as you are. :laugh:

Chaosftw


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

bitsandkits said:


> I dont follow, can you explain what is broken about that rule?


Well has it moved 1", 6", 12" or what?


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Well, since it's a thread about fixing 40k, my idea would be to use 3rd edition rules with 5th edition codices.
That would be a good fix.


----------



## VanitusMalus (Jun 27, 2009)

Insults when unjustified are pointless, i.e. if someone has a legitimate concern even if it's not well thought out but genuine, they don't deserve to have a ton of insults and degredation thrown their way....

However stupid questions or comments do require an equally and sufficient moronic response, example: "You suck" Response: "No you suck".


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Bah! 40k is fine. 

I believe there are more expansions for 40k than any other game system. 

Planetstrike... Cities of Death... Apocalypse... Battle Missions...

Plus many homebrews to be found on forums like this.

So if you want scenario narrative based gameplay I suggest you OPEN your EYES and look for them. You have at least half a dozen books worth of GW sanctioned rules and expansions to use for whatever imaginative purpose you can come up with.

You may not be trolling, but you are definitely whining. :cray: 

So you`ve stopped playing. Whatever will the rest of us do? icknose:


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> I believe there are more expansions for 40k than any other game system.
> 
> Planetstrike... Cities of Death... Apocalypse... Battle Missions...
> 
> Plus many homebrews to be found on forums like this.


I haven't played any of those except for Apocalypse and it wasn't too good. Haven't heard people being too enthusiastic about them either. But Killzone looks like a fun addition, kinda like what DotA is to Warcraft 3. I played two 200 points yesterday in 30-40 minutes and it was a blast. So thumbs up for homebrew stuff. 

I agree with what Chaosftw said about heated conversations; after all, you don't forge swords in snow.

Oh and Vanitus' last sentence is worth considering too. Well said, mate, well said. :laugh:


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Serpion5 said:


> Bah! 40k is fine.
> 
> I believe there are more expansions for 40k than any other game system.
> 
> ...


You forgot spearhead, then you have FW Imperial Armour books (I believe upto 9 now), Apoc Reloaded....


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Blue Liger said:


> You forgot spearhead, then you have FW Imperial Armour books (I believe upto 9 now), Apoc Reloaded....


Gaah! Even more stuff, how could I have forgotten?!

Well... Everyone makes mistakes.

Derpy Serpy! :crazy:


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Well has it moved 1", 6", 12" or what?


Do you mean coming on from reserve ? or is this some other thing.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Blue Liger said:


> You forgot spearhead, then you have FW Imperial Armour books (I believe upto 9 now), Apoc Reloaded....





Serpion5 said:


> Planetstrike... Cities of Death... Apocalypse... Battle Missions...


you mean the stuff nobody plays because there is no incentive and they add so little to the game so are generally ignored?
spearhead was dumped almost immediatly after creation
cities of death nobody plays because its a TLoS nightmare and peoples precious mech forces struggle in a proper city.
battle missions...well I don't think I've heard of that ever
and of course apocashit, a game so abused it only has one kind of player audience.

thats not very good is it now, if they actually added something that added and expanded on the basic game and had something for everyone they'd do well, instead of making small add-ons that add nothing.

and in the case of FW they try to add as much as they can in interesting units, but large chunks of the gaming community disallow them because there not to a set boring template of standardboringness.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

We tend to use the Battle Missions book here, it's pretty good fun. You can still end up playing the standard book missions but the others are good. We played the Dark Eldar feigned retreat one recently with 2 Marine Armies, started with 2 Hit and Run Dreadnoughts in the middle of the board, that was interesting. 

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the game. 

Aramoro


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Stella Cadente said:


> you mean the stuff nobody plays because there is no incentive and they add so little to the game so are generally ignored?
> spearhead was dumped almost immediatly after creation
> cities of death nobody plays because its a TLoS nightmare and peoples precious mech forces struggle in a proper city.
> battle missions...well I don't think I've heard of that ever
> ...


Hahaha love it Stella, yeah I find most expansions wasted, Cities of Death I love though and I'm yet to get into battle missions, and yes I honestly don't know what happened to spearhead...did such a thing even exist...


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

spearhead fell foul of a WD release, if it had been in book form it would have been better, but ultimately with imperial armour's and expansions and your own imagination and logic you can enjoy 40k without worrying about rewriting the rule books or "broken rules/codex".


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

bitsandkits said:


> spearhead fell foul of a WD release, if it had been in book form it would have been better


being written by a complete moronic asswipe doesn't help either.


----------



## The Son of Horus (Dec 30, 2006)

The real problem with 40k, I think, is in the codecies, and not in the core rules. Each successive codex seems to be written with a heavier emphasis on competitive gaming and simple list building rather than presenting broad options that a player can take and create their own tactics with. For example, there are three ways to play an army out of Codex: Blood Angels-- you can bring a Death Company army with Astaroth; you can bring a jump pack-mounted assault army; or you can bring a conventional Rhino-mounted army. If you don't fall within one of those three categories, your army is going to lose purely because no matter how good you are at the game, an opponent who has brought a written archetype from their own book simply has too great a mechanical advantage. 

Put more simply, 40k has become about synergies between units and list building, and less about creative thought. One of the reasons I don't really play 40k anymore, and have moved on to Fantasy, is because Fantasy still rewards creative thought and tactical skill, whereas 40k is just an exercise in netdecking, and there's no skill involved in the game anymore.

Mechanically, the 5th Edition rules aren't bad. They're not great-- there are some glaring flaws in the system. But they're not bad. If you took older codecies and used the 5th Edition rules with them (for example, Codex: Space Marines, 3rd edition), you'd find a lot more strategy comes into play rather than simple list building, because the named characters and written-in power gaming options simply don't exist in those books. You know, back when they playtested 40k and didn't fairly openly admit it was the game they were going to sell to kids who were more after the "ooh shiny!" effect than an actual game.


----------



## Yllib Enaz (Jul 15, 2010)

The Son of Horus said:


> If you took older codecies and used the 5th Edition rules with them (for example, Codex: Space Marines, 3rd edition), you'd find a lot more strategy comes into play rather than simple list building, because the named characters and written-in power gaming options simply don't exist in those books. You know, back when they playtested 40k and didn't fairly openly admit it was the game they were going to sell to kids who were more after the "ooh shiny!" effect than an actual game.


One thing I find funny about playing 40K since RT is that everytime a new edition comes out you get this whole dumbing down for the kids complaints. I suspect if it were all actually true GWs target audience would be the 0-5 year old audience by now...


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Okay, too many pages to read properly, so I've just scanned through... soo heres my thoughts.

In principle, the idea of two systems, a competative, and a 'fluff' version appeals to me. Yes it would cause problems and arguements... but the fact is the games already in two camps, Those who think that competative gamers are ruining the game by being out to dominate rather then have fun, and the 'fluff' gamers who'll use units just because they like them and their internal narritive because its fun.

Now I don't think that having two systems would solve the problem, but there does need to be a better way to satisfy the competative gamer and the fluff gamer.

Alot of my mind in making a list is choosing what I like. Really, its how you use it that makes a unit effective or not. For instance, you could have the mother of all tanks, the Baneblade... but if you sit it at the back out of line of sight, its a waste, but point it at a bunch of melta's and your gonna get hit too.

In reality, commanders do choose what troops and units they think will be most effective for a situation, or just try to use what they've got. None of them think 'I won't use X because its not as survivable as Y', but rather 'How can I use x so its as effective as Y?'.

Soo really... perhaps the game needs to be rewritten to give more flexibility to units so that the 'fluffy' units can be more competative, but your 'ultimate force' has a weakness that any army can exploit to stop that unkillable lists from ruining the game.


----------



## Chaosftw (Oct 20, 2008)

VanitusMalus said:


> However stupid questions or comments do require an equally and sufficient moronic response, example: "You suck" Response: "No you suck".


Ya, That pretty much sums it up...



bitsandkits said:


> Do you mean coming on from reserve ? or is this some other thing.


The way I always understood it was that you treat the vehicle as if its nose was at the table edge and it "Rolls on" Rhinos are approximately 6' so if they wanted to only move 6' on to the table you would simply put its back side against the board edge. If you wanted to move it 12' then you would move the rhino 6' up from the board edge.

Another example is Oblis, When they come on I roll for their slow and purposeful and walk them up as if they were sitting on the edge of the table.



Stella Cadente said:


> you mean the stuff nobody plays because there is no incentive and they add so little to the game so are generally ignored?
> spearhead was dumped almost immediatly after creation
> cities of death nobody plays because its a TLoS nightmare and peoples precious mech forces struggle in a proper city.
> battle missions...well I don't think I've heard of that ever
> ...


Well... this pretty much sums it up for me those extra books are a joke they bring very little to the game and I remember once I went into a tournament at GW and they would not let me participate because I did not own my own copy of 3 expansion books. I walked over skimmed them and laughed, then left. Spend another 140.00 or so on shit missions and boring additions... meh



GrizBe said:


> Okay, too many pages to read properly, so I've just scanned through... soo heres my thoughts.
> 
> In principle, the idea of two systems, a competative, and a 'fluff' version appeals to me. Yes it would cause problems and arguements... but the fact is the games already in two camps, Those who think that competative gamers are ruining the game by being out to dominate rather then have fun, and the 'fluff' gamers who'll use units just because they like them and their internal narritive because its fun.
> 
> ...


GW does cater to both the gamer and the fluff addict.

The gamer gets codexes and models, the fluff fanatic gets that great line of books, models, and a codex that has a splash of fluff as well as some decent art.

Chaosftw


----------



## rawrgh (May 28, 2010)

Well can’t believe I actually read through all that... and I'm posting a reply. I usually think about it but then really can’t be bothered but this time I am

Firstly I find some of the attitude and name calling in this thread unnecessary and frankly offensive and hope that the mods have this under control. I enjoy reading heresy but things like this quickly put me off.

Secondly at 32 I’m guessing I'm one of the "older" (I certainly don’t consider myself old) members and would just like to add my 2 pennysworth to the original point of the post.

I've played RT extensively 2nd/3rd edition briefly (I switched primarily to fantasy during this period) and am getting back into 5th now with a few games under my belt to date so by no means an expert but it's plainly obvious that the game has been dumbed down steeply (Streamlined I think is what GW would call it ) Not sure whether this is a good thing or not yet but I am liking the latest edition so far, it's also obvious that the age demographic, at least within the stores, has dropped... It doesn’t seem too unlikely that these 2 points are related.

It's also obvious that over the last few years 40k (and GW in general) have gone from being a minority / specialist hobby to being a mainstream, "High street" hobby so from a corporate point of view this can only be seen a huge success. Anyway already written more than I intended, and con only say that personally while I am enjoying 5th edition I am missing the customisation and flexibility available in the older editions, but that may be as much down to nostalgia as reality.

Gareth... considering digging out his original GW stuff to see if nostalgia really is as good as everyone remembers it....


----------



## qotsa4life (Dec 31, 2009)

I don't think 40k needs to be rewritten. It caters for the competitive gamer and for the fluff based gamer. I don't reckon we need two different rule books; though there are definately (At least) two different mindsets in the game. 

If I want a really challenging game, I'll put together a really tight list and go to my FLGS or the gaming club I'm a member of and look for one. I regularly get my arse handed to me during these sorts of games, but I've learnt a lot and enjoyed myself doing it.

I really enjoy the fluffy side of 40k, and if I want to have a game that is not overly competitive, but more narrative based, I can find those sorts of games too. Mostly I play these games at my house. That way we can describe the storyline as we go and both players know from the outset that they don't need to build an uber-competitive list, for fear of being tabled.

Having said that, I find I enjoy a competitive game just as much as a fluffy one; but for different reasons.

This really seems to be an issue of perspective. People tend to find in life, that which they expect to. Maybe the OP just needs to adopt two different mindsets, rather than hoping for two different books.

+Rep to the OP for starting a thought provoking and entertaining thread.

EDIT: I think this might go under the category of 'Broken rules' and it may have been covered in an errata or FAQ, but I can't be bothered looking it up right now. What happens when you're playing Dawn of War deployment and have a chaos dreadnought. Are you supposed to roll on the crazy dread table before the model enters play?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I'd just like to congratulate everyone that posted in this thread. We've all officially made it onto the Friday Night Internet Fight.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> I'd just like to congratulate everyone that posted in this thread. We've all officially made it onto the Friday Night Internet Fight.


So, do we , like, totally get a prize for that?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Vrykolas2k said:


> So, do we , like, totally get a prize for that?


Internet fame, I guess?


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

The Son of Horus said:


> The real problem with 40k, I think, is in the codecies, and not in the core rules. Each successive codex seems to be written with a heavier emphasis on competitive gaming and simple list building rather than presenting broad options that a player can take and create their own tactics with. For example, there are three ways to play an army out of Codex: Blood Angels-- you can bring a Death Company army with Astaroth; you can bring a jump pack-mounted assault army; or you can bring a conventional Rhino-mounted army. If you don't fall within one of those three categories, your army is going to lose purely because no matter how good you are at the game, an opponent who has brought a written archetype from their own book simply has too great a mechanical advantage.


All codexs had their own "written in" archetypes. Even in the exalted 3e Chaos codex you had builds that were flat out better then others. Nothing has changed much in that regard, beyond older codexs needing to take mono-builds due to their age.



> Put more simply, 40k has become about synergies between units and list building, and less about creative thought. One of the reasons I don't really play 40k anymore, and have moved on to Fantasy, is because Fantasy still rewards creative thought and tactical skill, whereas 40k is just an exercise in netdecking, and there's no skill involved in the game anymore.


Again, you had synergy between units in the older editions as well. It's not like in 4th or 3rd every unit was stand alone and capable of dealing with everything that came its way. The synergy between units wasn't as great in the older editions, meaning you didn't get a much bang for your points in older editions.

As far as tactics go, you still need them. You can have the best list on the planet, but if you can't use proper tactics you're going to lose.



> Mechanically, the 5th Edition rules aren't bad. They're not great-- there are some glaring flaws in the system. But they're not bad. If you took older codecies and used the 5th Edition rules with them (for example, Codex: Space Marines, 3rd edition), you'd find a lot more strategy comes into play rather than simple list building, because the named characters and written-in power gaming options simply don't exist in those books. You know, back when they playtested 40k and didn't fairly openly admit it was the game they were going to sell to kids who were more after the "ooh shiny!" effect than an actual game.


Even looking at older codexs with current rules, list building is a very important part to your overall strategy. If you take the least point efficient units in the book, or load units down with an large amount of war-gear your best strategy might not win you the game against a player with a more efficient point list.



GrizBe said:


> Okay, too many pages to read properly, so I've just scanned through... soo heres my thoughts.
> 
> In principle, the idea of two systems, a competative, and a 'fluff' version appeals to me. Yes it would cause problems and arguements... but the fact is the games already in two camps, Those who think that competative gamers are ruining the game by being out to dominate rather then have fun, and the 'fluff' gamers who'll use units just because they like them and their internal narritive because its fun.
> 
> Now I don't think that having two systems would solve the problem, but there does need to be a better way to satisfy the competative gamer and the fluff gamer.


The problem is the fluff gamer just wants to be able to take units that are "bad" (read point/rule inefficient) and expects them to work as well as units that are "good" (point/rule efficient). It doesn't work out. Every codex has units that are just going to be "better" (point/rule efficient) then others. Unless they made each army had one unit, and even then one codex would be better then another.



> Alot of my mind in making a list is choosing what I like. Really, its how you use it that makes a unit effective or not. For instance, you could have the mother of all tanks, the Baneblade... but if you sit it at the back out of line of sight, its a waste, but point it at a bunch of melta's and your gonna get hit too.


See thats competitive thinking right there. You are clearly trying to win with that mentality.



> In reality, commanders do choose what troops and units they think will be most effective for a situation, or just try to use what they've got. None of them think 'I won't use X because its not as survivable as Y', but rather 'How can I use x so its as effective as Y?'.


Sometimes X will just never be as effective as Y. When you're working with numbers thats just the way it may turn out.



> Soo really... perhaps the game needs to be rewritten to give more flexibility to units so that the 'fluffy' units can be more competative, but your 'ultimate force' has a weakness that any army can exploit to stop that unkillable lists from ruining the game.


The only way to make "fluffy" units more competitive is to make them more point/rule efficient. If GW did that, the roles reverse and mech armies become the "fluffy" armies while Vanguard/thunderfire lists become the new "power gaming" list. We then find ourselves right back where we started, with fluffy players saying they want X unit as good as Y.

It's really a vicious cycle of people getting upset that they're getting beat by people using better lists. Unless they make a rule that will turn every game into a draw this is a never ending conflict. 



rawrgh said:


> I've played RT extensively 2nd/3rd edition briefly (I switched primarily to fantasy during this period) and am getting back into 5th now with a few games under my belt to date so by no means an expert but it's plainly obvious that the game has been dumbed down steeply (Streamlined I think is what GW would call it ) Not sure whether this is a good thing or not yet but I am liking the latest edition so far, it's also obvious that the age demographic, at least within the stores, has dropped... It doesn’t seem too unlikely that these 2 points are related.


I love the phrase "dumbed down," it's such fun to use. Making a game more accessible isn't "dumbing it down," it's weeding out useless and overly difficult rules that slow down gameplay. Most players don't want to check tables and tables of information with every dice roll. Making the game run smoother is the purpose of every revision. 



> It's also obvious that over the last few years 40k (and GW in general) have gone from being a minority / specialist hobby to being a mainstream, "High street" hobby so from a corporate point of view this can only be seen a huge success. Anyway already written more than I intended, and con only say that personally while I am enjoying 5th edition I am missing the customisation and flexibility available in the older editions, but that may be as much down to nostalgia as reality.


The level of customization was cool, but I'd forgo some of that to make getting a game together easier. Seems like you would to.



Katie Drake said:


> I'd just like to congratulate everyone that posted in this thread. We've all officially made it onto the Friday Night Internet Fight.


I made it to the big time. Woot.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Well that is wonderful, Katie, this thread fails so hard it was recognized by a different site. Weeee!


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> I'd just like to congratulate everyone that posted in this thread. We've all officially made it onto the Friday Night Internet Fight.


OMG, the picture they gave me is fucking amazing XD
And yours is pretty cool too, Katie, although not Super girl :3


----------



## Shadowfane (Oct 17, 2007)

Why stop at two versions of the rules?
I want a painters version of the rules, where the best painted army automatically wins...

Or a converters version, where on turn 1, every model that isnt in some way converted get flicked off the table and counts as dead (and no, Eternal Warrior doesnt save you!)

Or a version of the game for people who really, really get into their chosen armies, so generals of the Imperium have to goose-step around the board, and Tyranid generals aren't allowed to say anything except "NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM", and Chaos generals have to "get their tentacles out" or lose the game....

Can I stop being sarcastic yet?.... Please?....


----------



## RexTalon (Apr 1, 2008)

HA! Everyone who disagreed with me thought I meant the "intelligent" people were the ones agreeing with me. Now THAT'S funny.

Since then there's been a lot more thought out responses to my suggestion. Most people who were not agreeing with me were just saying OMG YOU'RE A TROLLING IDIOT! So naturally I assumed people responding in this way were unintelligent. Some of you have very good points though.

One of the best points came from a different message board, so I'll repeat it here so you can see why this idea REALLY wouldn't work.


> Testing each version would result in a colossal amount of time wasted...


 GW can't get ONE core rule book completely right, there's no WAY they would get two core rule books even close to correct. The cut/paste errors alone would be staggering.

Some people are correct in saying that there are plenty of expansions and scenario play to be had. They're all in different books that not every has. If they were in ONE book then people wouldn't have to buy 6 expansions and stores wouldn't have to stock 7 books of rules. You people keep saying my way would be more difficult but you're still not listening. Take all the expansions, the fluff and the lists from the core rule book, the tiny rule book, and a few pages of missing rules from the core book, and a few updated versions of the more awesome rules that have come out over the years, and mash them all together and you'd have what I've been talking about.

It would actually REDUCE the amount of rule books available and make things LESS confusing by putting all the fun rules in ONE place.


Now that I think of it, maybe I should have started a thread about how it's the players that are killing the hobby. Although judging by the responses, I suppose I could have equally started a thread about how internet anonymity is making younger audiences more brazen, disrespectful, and selfish, but that wouldn't have made a difference either.
No, you know what? Truth is truth. GW has catered to the competition player because they think it can make them more money, which has resulted in a younger, less friendly crowd, who is more interested in winning. The game has changed, and if GW doesn't want to try to get money from both sides of the fence by making the scenario game and hobbyist part easy to get into, then that's just going to be a market they've missed.

I'm sorry a lot of people got butt hurt over my ONE opinion about the game. I'm sorry your egos can't stand up to a single thread of criticism, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Peace out folks, it's high time I sell this gaming stuff and buy something useful, like that Kel-tec RFB I've been eyeballing. *drools*
By all means, continue arguing and tearing each other to pieces over an idea.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

RexTalon said:


> Things


Can I have your models?


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Stella Cadente said:


> you mean the stuff nobody plays because there is no incentive and they add so little to the game so are generally ignored?
> spearhead was dumped almost immediatly after creation
> cities of death nobody plays because its a TLoS nightmare and peoples precious mech forces struggle in a proper city.
> battle missions...well I don't think I've heard of that ever
> ...


Ah, The master cynic striketh again. You are of course, entitled to your opinion. 

Actually, I agree with you in part. The expansions are terrible when played as one offs, but that kind of adds to my point. The OP was referring to the lack of scenario play, but when you use parts from these expansions in linked battles, mix and match rules and design multiple game campaigns, your play options increase by a lot. 



Katie Drake said:


> I'd just like to congratulate everyone that posted in this thread. We've all officially made it onto the Friday Night Internet Fight.


I almost pity the retards who deliberately look for internet fights like this. I didn`t even know such crap existed, and now my opinions of certain people have been altered...



RexTalon said:


> HA! Everyone who disagreed with me thought I meant the "intelligent" people were the ones agreeing with me. Now THAT'S funny.
> 
> Since then there's been a lot more thought out responses to my suggestion. Most people who were not agreeing with me were just saying OMG YOU'RE A TROLLING IDIOT! So naturally I assumed people responding in this way were unintelligent. Some of you have very good points though.
> 
> ...


Not listening? I`m sorry if my previous post came across as a little negative (not really) but look at what you said. 

You have said that you like the older 40k. Would you rather the game just stayed the same forever? Never changing, never updating, always the same rules, the same play, the same experience?

Fuck Halo and Kingdom Hearts, I`m gonna go play Pac-Man! :wild:

Dude, things change, deal with it. If selling your crap and leaving is how you deal with it, then fine. The simple truth of the matter is, people like you give me the shits to no end. People like you are the reason nobody in my area plays WHFB anymore.

"Waahh! My uber power list doesn`t auto win anymore! Fuck my life!" :cray:

To you and all the whiny bitches out there, unish: Nobody Cares! 

And I am sorry in advance for losing my cool...


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> And I am sorry in advance for losing my cool...


That insinuates that you haven't lost your cool yet.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Winterous said:


> That insinuates that you haven't lost your cool yet.


What? I meant that in case any of the _staff_ want to scold me for being bad. As in I know I said stuff I shouldn`t and am sorry for it.

But I think it had to be said.


----------



## Winterous (Mar 30, 2009)

What I mean is, you said 'sorry in advance.'.
In advance means ahead of time, as in "I am apologising for something I am GOING to do.".


----------



## LordofFenris (Mar 10, 2010)

I've read over this thread, hoping to garnish some shread of though out of it. All I can say is Do you people do nothing but throw jabs at each other? How about instead of calling people's ideas retarded (Rot), or telling people, what was it Katie? Man up I think?...How about you HELP the OP see the game as you do INSTEAD of insulting him or her? Jesus people, what are you 5? Stella and gen. ahab are some of the most up front honest posters I've met and to me, they seem to be defending the OP's right to opinion. 

To the OP, I don't really agree with your view on seperate rules, but as others have said try different formats or house rules. Like you I am a veteran player (2nd ed early) and I likewise miss the older play. 5th ed is what we have now and I try to make it work. I do like the rules after playing with a group of like minded friends. All I can say is forget what the other people said. Don't be discouraged and give the game a chance.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Serpion5 said:


> I almost pity the retards who deliberately look for internet fights like this. I didn`t even know such crap existed, and now my opinions of certain people have been altered...


Ack, my sensitive feelings. 

Seriously though, I don't see what's so awful about people seeking out silliness to make fun of and have a laugh.


----------



## Imperious (May 20, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> Fuck Halo and Kingdom Hearts, I`m gonna go play Pac-Man!


Hey WTF? I like Pac-man!


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Winterous said:


> What I mean is, you said 'sorry in advance.'.
> In advance means ahead of time, as in "I am apologising for something I am GOING to do.".


What? Okay then. Clearly me brainey not as good as me think. :scratchhead:



Katie Drake said:


> Ack, my sensitive feelings.
> 
> Seriously though, I don't see what's so awful about people seeking out silliness to make fun of and have a laugh.


Ahhh, taking the aussie literally.  Sorry for hurting your feelings, Katie. 



LordofFenris said:


> I've read over this thread, hoping to garnish some shread of though out of it. All I can say is Do you people do nothing but throw jabs at each other? How about instead of calling people's ideas retarded (Rot), or telling people, what was it Katie? Man up I think?...How about you HELP the OP see the game as you do INSTEAD of insulting him or her? Jesus people, what are you 5? Stella and gen. ahab are some of the most up front honest posters I've met and to me, they seem to be defending the OP's right to opinion.
> 
> To the OP, I don't really agree with your view on seperate rules, but as others have said try different formats or house rules. Like you I am a veteran player (2nd ed early) and I likewise miss the older play. 5th ed is what we have now and I try to make it work. I do like the rules after playing with a group of like minded friends. All I can say is forget what the other people said. Don't be discouraged and give the game a chance.


And what right do you have to tell RoT and Katie that their opinions are wrong? Harsh advice and criticisms are still opinions, as valid as any other. 

The guy has come on, posted his dislike of the current game, then had a whinge about what HE thinks it should be before turning and announcing that he`s leaving. 

Why the fuck should we waste time trying to salvage a player who isn`t happy in the hobby anyway? If he wants to go, I say just let him go.



Imperious said:


> Hey WTF? I like Pac-man!


Wakka wakka wakka! :victory:


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Serpion5 and everyone else in this thread said:


> whinge


It's spelled _whine_, for heaven's sake.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Katie Drake said:


> It's spelled _whine_, for heaven's sake.


No KD,

Whinge is spelt Whinge. Its a different word similar/same meaning. 

Check _whinging pom_ a term used by Aussies to describe English immigrants to Australia originally but now for English in general.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

No, you can whinge, 

A cry; A complaint; To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whinge

OR a common other spelling: Winge.

To cringe; To complain whiningly
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/winge









You're under arrest, Katie Drake. For heaven's sake.

EDIT: These damn ninjas; they're everywhere.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Viscount Vash said:


> No KD,
> 
> Whinge is spelt Whinge. Its a different word similar/same meaning.
> 
> Check _whinging pom_ a term used by Aussies to describe English immigrants to Australia originally but now for English in general.


Oh, no wonder. It's a non-real word made up by Aussies. Doesn't count, I'm afraid. :grin:


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

It's in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is good enough for me.

whinge(whinge)

Pronunciation:/wɪn(d)ʒ/
British informal
verb (whinges, whingeing or whinging, whinged)
*
complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way:stop whingeing and get on with it! (as adjective whingeing) a whingeing killjoy 

noun
*
an act of complaining persistently and peevishly:she let off steam by having a good whinge 

Derivatives

whingeingly
adverb
whinger
noun
whingy
adjective(whingier, whingiest)

Origin:

late Old English hwinsian, of Germanic origin; related to German winseln; compare with whine

Spelling help
Whingeing can also be spelled whinging, without an e; both are correct.

Well bugger me it's of Germanic origin, well thats my lesson for the day, so the Aussies just made it popular with _Whinging Pom._

Edit: Why on earth is this thread still going?


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Viscount Vash said:


> Edit: Why on earth is this thread still going?


'Cause people keep posting in it.

But yeah, thanks for the correction. Despite feeling perhaps a little silly, I've learned something new. I'll be turning in my badge in a moment also.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Thats cool, we both get to learn something, I was most surprised to learn it was of Germanic origin. :biggrin:

And on that finally productive and educational note.

*Thread Locked.*


----------

