I believe rules need to take competive players in mind

[Grocklock]

as for the resson why the background is different from the fluff in black libary, they are different pathways into the experiance of 40k, much like when oyou read a book and then watch the film they are based on the same idea but perform differently,

alot of the desissions they make for the game are based on balance, and as Gw says if you want to creat a rule then go ahead

[yabbadabba]

Yabbayabba,

I'd really like to know the motivation behind your posts, the intent. I noticed in the past, every time you show up and start posting in a thread, it's always a topiclike this one and all you do is that you try to discourage discussion.

Not discouraging discussion, because that is impossible, and not always on a discussion like this. Maybe its because this is the only place where we cross paths? Is there any harm in pointing out relevant issues, like this is not a new discussion and that it has been going on for ages? The key thing is that this type of discussion always comes down to competitive players suddenly realising they have bought into a product that is no longer fulfilling their needs and was never designed for these new needs, yet they do not move on but demand change. Why is that? Why is everyone else can move on in other fields, but not with GW products?

So, I wonder. Why do you do this? You're obviously not an obedient GW monkey who can't stand anyone criticizing their company, for you acknowledge errors made by GW. So, what else is it? Sometimes it seems like a futile crusade to educate people they are wasting their times with these discussions, because they won't change anything. But then again, why bother. Some of us want to have these discussions, even if they change nothing. Sometimes just to went steam, other times because we're taking inspirations for house rules or even our own home-made systems out of them. Yet, here you are, taking great efforts to silence all criticism, all complaints, all suggestions. And I just can't figure out: Why?

I wonder why all people want to do on posts like this is be negative, criticise, provide no answers than "I know better than GW" yet carry on playing the games and buying the models. Time and again it is stated that this is "so obvious" and yet that is only presented from one side of the argument and it always flies in the face of the facts surrounding GWs sales.

The correct answer to these discussions is something I fully endorse and you mention - house rules. Comp is house rules; points in tournaments for sportsmanship and painting are in effect houserules, yet somehow this is seen as acceptable whereas correcting a perceived flaw in the writing of the rules isn't? There is a real mental block in discussions like this, and maybe that is why occasionally I slip and end up posting in one.

It always amazes me that this is one of those weird little situations in life where reality just seems to walk out the door and all that is left is some bewildering fantasy on inertia. BTW if you check my first post on here it is nothing like you describe, unfortunately another poster wanted to get all upset with me, so what can you do?

[Torga_DW]

Sorry, that's not opinion - that's fact. Cheating is breaking the rules to gain an unfair advantage, therefore, you can't be cheating if all you're doing is following the rules.

You could consider someone a poor-sportsman for using the wound-allocation rules in the way you describe (but that's subjective), but you can't actually accuse them of cheating.

My favourite situation thats appeared in recent times is the ruling on ogres taking magic armour in fantasy. They released an errata, where they said its okay rules as written, but it makes you a bad person if you do so, rules as intended. Their official position is rules as written are the opposite as rules as intended? Thats all kinds of wrong, for many different reasons.

Well, if only there was some way they could turn their imaginary 'sportsmanship' rules into real rules. I mean, it's not like they were actually writing the rules or anything.

They certainly could, if that was their priority. But it's not, so much so that it goes against their fundamental business model, driven by their ceo. Who said something along the lines of "we are a toy soldiers manufacturer. Rules are a good way to sell them."

Consider this, you're testing a new codex/ruleset. Your instructions should be "break this codex". Essentially, rule-testers should be doing exactly what competative players do - they should see if they can "abuse" the rules - because if they find a way, you can be damn sure that competative players will. However, if they actually did their job and tested the rules properly, we'd get far fewer abusable rules, and they'd more likely be far more minor than the current ones.

That would be a good idea if their target demographic was players who were going to stick with the game. Its not. Their target demographic for some time now has been young children, who are expected to make an initial investment over a short period, then wander off and never come back. You don't need a tight ruleset for that demographic, by the time they start to notice and question the problems, they're no longer the target demographic.

It wasn't when they last released those games, when I started arguing this point, and I got as negative a response then. Those models would be as easily available now if gamers had supported them properly. Now they are a missed opportunity for the GW competitive gamer. As for aesthetics then that's obviously your perogative, but that doesn't justify changing another game ruleset just because you like the associated figures better.

For what its worth, i was a big fan of epic, had a decent investment in it. Until they released the epic:40k ruleset, at which point i played a couple games, and sold all my armies for it. The writing was on the wall, you just needed to know what to look for.

Nice use of nerds We are all nerds if you haven't noticed.

I take great offense to that, sir. I am a geek. In my little world, nerds are people who know things. I'm just a semi-trainable monkey.

And? So you want the game to do things its not designed to do? Four simple answers: write in and create a dialogue with the design team, you never know; accept that your vision of 40K is not the same as the designers and play on; houserule; quit and play something else - GW will have already understood that you have that choice to leave and play something else if you choose - in fact they are almost betting on it.

Agreed, sad but true. The fact that we're posting on an internet forum is a strong sign that we're not the target demographic.

I am starting to feel that the "change" argument is like going into McDonalds' and complaining because your burger isn't as extra rare as you like it, and demanding they change the entire business model to suit your wants. Why can't people accept that GW isn't catering to their needs and move on?

Thats a very good question, and i'll be damned if i can think of an answer.

If they are not fulfilling your needs, then why are you a customer of theirs?

As above. For myself, they still make really good models, even if i've been largely priced out of the casual impulse spending range. Their fluff used to be really good.

Look at MMORPG games. The rules (meaning the whole game mechanics etc.) are very complex but it is not that easy to "break" them.

Actually, i found it easier and more noticable than you might think. I played wow pre-expansion, and halfway through the first expansion, on a pvp server. There was a noticable difference in class performance in world pvp, there were classes that could solo groups of other particular classes. But then i played a paladin, in a time where one of the devs was on record as saying that he hated them. It showed. I think their eventual solution was to allow both teams access to all the classes, which didn't fix the problem but at least made it consistent for both teams.

FaQ and Errata given by GW, that should play this role, is too slow and in a lot of cases plainly wrong ( anyone can ask tyranid players what do they think about GW's FaQ and chaos players about warptime nerf).

I had this discussion recently in the fantasy forums. Apparently i'm in the minority in regards to patching the problem until its fixed. Oh well.

Someone said before that he knew people that were testing things for GW and they were not listening to them...GW's fault I guess. I am wondering why ? Is it caused by GW's dillusion that they "know better" or is it caused by mistrust in playtesting folks, that they will keep some loopholes for themselves or leak rules too much. I'd be worried by the second one.

I think the mistrust in playtesters is part of it. But as i said earlier, it comes down to their target demographic: churn and burn children. Once you realize this, a lot of what they do makes perfect sense. A lot of the complaints i see on warseer seem to be along the lines of: "go dogs go" doesn't appeal to me, it needs to be fixed. "Go dogs go" was a brilliantly written childrens book, but i'm an adult now. Of course it doesn't appeal to me, but neither does it needs fixing, i'm not the target audience.

edit: quote thingys problem

[yabbadabba]

For what its worth, i was a big fan of epic, had a decent investment in it. Until they released the epic:40k ruleset, at which point i played a couple games, and sold all my armies for it. The writing was on the wall, you just needed to know what to look for.

Same here mate, I put my lot in the loft though . I always banked on getting a game of Space Marine as I have all the bits. Gonna start doing personal recasts soon - I know its naughty but I have about 6k of Squat plastics and a couple of each metal figure - its not enough dammit lol!

I take great offense to that, sir. I am a geek. In my little world, nerds are people who know things. I'm just a semi-trainable monkey.

Pass me the bananas and a cup of PG Tips!

Agreed, sad but true. The fact that we're posting on an internet forum is a strong sign that we're not the target demographic. Thats a very good question, and i'll be damned if i can think of an answer.

Let me know when you get one please mate? I think the key thing here is that generally no one in wargames targets the kids market direct. Until that happens GW has got it sown up and doesn't need to worry about us troublesome and difficult picky Vets.

[striker8]

I have been thinking about this for a while when I heard the rule for 40k were made with the beer and pretzel crowd in mind and not competitive player


Is out of date thinking? 20+ years ago this was true. People didn't have access to the internet to find the "list" or broken combos so for most casual game this wasn't a problem.

Now that people have access to this information and everyone in the world can get together to find the best of everything to play if you want to play to win. This can make casual games not as fun or balanced.

I believe it's time that the rules need to be designed with competitive players in mind. Not just for tournaments but for the "beer and pretzel" crowd.

I have seen to many heated "rule debates" ruin casual games. If we could make the rules more clear and balanced it would lessen the rule arguments, though never get rid of them

Lets put some perspective on this. I don;t go around asking people if the rules should be changed to suit me since I personaly think that people trying to play the game competitvely should be soundly beaten with a metal dread in a sock. So you have your opinion and I have mine and niether is going to satisfy the other so niether is valid!

This constant demand for GW to do rules to satisfy a very small percentage of the players using the disengneuous idea that it would be better for everyong is lame and shows how the small minority just wants everyone to conform to their ideals. It's self centered thinking that only the things you want are best for all because they make things easier for you instead of thinking about all the other people who don;t have issues with the rules as they are.

I know I don't need better rules, I like things so I can adjust them to fit the people I play with and so do 99% of the people I enjoy playing the game with. What we want is for that small goup of over competitve people to stop making every damn game into a competitve event so they can practice for the next tournament. The rules aren;t the problem it;s people who can;t seperate the fact that a game is not a measure of themselves.

[Vipoid]

I think what we need to do is wait for 6th edition, if they do to 6th what they did to 8th then I truly think balance or as close to balance there will be.

Um... how exactly did you coem to that conclusion?

Oh goody! Now 6th edition can be like 8th edition fantasy! Enjoy flipping a coin to see who wins each game, because strategy certainly isn't involved.

[Torga_DW]

Same here mate, I put my lot in the loft though . I always banked on getting a game of Space Marine as I have all the bits. Gonna start doing personal recasts soon - I know its naughty but I have about 6k of Squat plastics and a couple of each metal figure - its not enough dammit lol!

You might be better off that way, as i understand it the molds are starting to show signs of their age. Like i said in i think the pricing thread, the ceo is probably no more than 5 years away from retirement. Fingers crossed what new blood at the top will do for them.

Pass me the bananas and a cup of PG Tips!

Give me a minute, i'm foraging for lice at the moment. Tasty, tasty lice.

Let me know when you get one please mate? I think the key thing here is that generally no one in wargames targets the kids market direct. Until that happens GW has got it sown up and doesn't need to worry about us troublesome and difficult picky Vets.

Heh, myself i'm more concerned with how it applies to the world at large. Massive s***storms coming in at all levels, all over the place. Coming up with an answer might result in world peace or something. But they say, never discuss religion or politics at the dinner table. I might have to add games workshop to that list.

[Grocklock]

Um... how exactly did you coem to that conclusion?

Oh goody! Now 6th edition can be like 8th edition fantasy! Enjoy flipping a coin to see who wins each game, because strategy certainly isn't involved.

are dear boy, if you want to play a game of flip the coin that is up to you, for one it is cheap and you can play by yourself.

Fantasy is highly tacticaly challanging, yes they put random eliments into the game such as charging then premesureing wouldn't work. In the random movment of charging example it represents the dust being kicked up and the confuission of battle that means some units charge while others may fulter.

The terrain rules which was a bone of contention are optional it says in the rule book.

If you look at the books they have produced for 8th edition they are all generally equally balanced, or as dam close as you can get it, but i take it for the post you don't think so, which is fine, there are plently of tordeiments out there who will scolpped the game to your desires.

on a side note some times I read peoples posts and they seam to be saying GW is a dictatorship of there hobby, they don't like them but feel they cannot leave them. I understand we all need to vent, but im curious to know what enjoyment your getting out of the game other the dislike fo what GW is doing.

[stroller]

I disagree. I have no figures, but I suspect that tournament players are less than 1% of total players. (Entirely anecdotal based on people I know)
Well, I won't get into the fact that this figure is based on what you "suspect", which is itself based on entirely anecdotal data...

Then why query it? All I've done is look at the OP's posting. My impression from the OP is that he divides GW gamers into "competitive" and "beer & pretzels" gamers. Of the 100 or so gamers I know, one has entered a tournament, once. All like to win if they can, but winning is a bonus, not the primary purpose (which is enjoyment). I've already said it's anecdotal. Your experience may be different.

But, I will ask this: do you have to be a tournament player to be competative?

You don't HAVE to be - but that's the impression I got reading the OP. Again, your experience may vary. I play to win, but having fun is (for me) more important than victory (which of course I also enjoy). But when it comes down to it, I'd rather lose an enjoyable game than win at any cost. One of my regular opponents tries to win just a little too hard - so he's not as much fun to play against, though he does make me think more about tactics, strategies and sequence of moves. He is competitive, though not a tournament player. I'd rather have beer & pizza, and laugh when I roll 1's, where he bites back a swear word. Winning matters more to him than HOW he wins. So, for simplicity purposes, in my response I read "competitive" as "tournament" and "beer and pretzels" as "it's a game - have fun - and win if you can."

I mean, am I only allowed to call myself competative if I attend a specific number of tournaments each year?

You're allowed to call yourself whatever you like. It's your game just as much as it is mine.

Basically, even if by some miracle your figure is accurate, I'm just not sure that 'tournament' players are the same as competative players. I'm sure that most torunament players do fall into the category of competative players, but I'm not so sure that all competative players attent tournaments. Surely you can still play competatively, even if you only ever play amoung friends or at a gaming club?

Again it comes down to how you define competitive. I would say that all tournament players are competitive: winning would seem more of the primary purpose than playing. I've never entered a tournament, so I reserve the right to be wrong. Non tournament players CAN be competitive, but don't have to be. Locally, that doesn't seem to be the case. Again, your mileage may vary. Possibly, we may even BOTH be right...

[Vipoid]

Fantasy is highly tacticaly challanging, yes they put random eliments into the game such as charging then premesureing wouldn't work. In the random movment of charging example it represents the dust being kicked up and the confuission of battle that means some units charge while others may fulter.

It also means they turned every unit into a chaos spawn.

Movement should *not* be random.

The terrain rules which was a bone of contention are optional it says in the rule book.

Sooo they're aware that their terrain rules are crap, but instead of fixing them, they just made them optional.

If you look at the books they have produced for 8th edition they are all generally equally balanced, or as dam close as you can get it, but i take it for the post you don't think so, which is fine, there are plently of tordeiments out there who will scolpped the game to your desires.

Aside from the pathetic number of army-specific items (come on GW, you couldn't even manage 10 per book?), I think the 8th edition Army Books are fine. My problem is with the core rules.

on a side note some times I read peoples posts and they seam to be saying GW is a dictatorship of there hobby, they don't like them but feel they cannot leave them. I understand we all need to vent, but im curious to know what enjoyment your getting out of the game other the dislike fo what GW is doing.

Since you ask, I started fantasy because my friends all play fantasy, and it's better than sitting out and watching. Yes, I could start a different game, but unless I can convince my friends to play that as well, I won't be playing many games with it.

In addition, I do enjoy Fantasy games, but that doesn't make the system perfect - nor does it mean that the system is heading in the right direction, if you see what I mean.

[Omniassiah]

Again it comes down to how you define competitive. I would say that all tournament players are competitive: winning would seem more of the primary purpose than playing. I've never entered a tournament, so I reserve the right to be wrong. Non tournament players CAN be competitive, but don't have to be. Locally, that doesn't seem to be the case. Again, your mileage may vary. Possibly, we may even BOTH be right...

My suggestion is that you really need to attend a tournament. Most really are nothing more then the chance to get together play a bunch of games in a row possibly (even hopefully) with people that you don't normally play against. A lot of the people I know enjoy them and they are about as far from the WAAC crowd as you can get. However; poor to crappy rules/codexes can mean that an event that should be enjoyable for everyone there regardless of where they place can devolve into an utter morass of despair. Now in WM/FoW you hear a lot of shop talk (nice thing about tournaments a day where you can talk about your hobby with a bunch of people and not be looked at strangely) on how different lists work how to use units/unit types more effectively... GW games its more focused on what is horrible broken in a codex and the shame that some units are just so awful that nobody wan't to take them even though they may like them. Sad part is a lot of that stuff as been pointed out is ridiculously easy to point out and should be caught, its not somethings that is really hard to figure out.

[RandomThoughts]

Not discouraging discussion, because that is impossible, and not always on a discussion like this. Maybe its because this is the only place where we cross paths? Is there any harm in pointing out relevant issues, like this is not a new discussion and that it has been going on for ages? The key thing is that this type of discussion always comes down to competitive players suddenly realising they have bought into a product that is no longer fulfilling their needs and was never designed for these new needs, yet they do not move on but demand change. Why is that? Why is everyone else can move on in other fields, but not with GW products?
I wonder why all people want to do on posts like this is be negative, criticise, provide no answers than "I know better than GW" yet carry on playing the games and buying the models. Time and again it is stated that this is "so obvious" and yet that is only presented from one side of the argument and it always flies in the face of the facts surrounding GWs sales.

The correct answer to these discussions is something I fully endorse and you mention - house rules. Comp is house rules; points in tournaments for sportsmanship and painting are in effect houserules, yet somehow this is seen as acceptable whereas correcting a perceived flaw in the writing of the rules isn't? There is a real mental block in discussions like this, and maybe that is why occasionally I slip and end up posting in one.

It always amazes me that this is one of those weird little situations in life where reality just seems to walk out the door and all that is left is some bewildering fantasy on inertia. BTW if you check my first post on here it is nothing like you describe, unfortunately another poster wanted to get all upset with me, so what can you do?

First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer. You're probably right that we just never cross paths outside of threads like this, and I most likely didn't pay to much attention to your first post. I want to apologize if I did you wrong, it's just, when I see your avatar, I am usually already bracing myself mentally for "none of your points matter. Your discussion is futile! The people in chargwe don't care! You're wasting your time! move along!" posts, which again might not do justice to what you actually do or try to do, but that's just the way it comes across, to me at least.

Which is not to say, that yu aren't correct in what you say, mind you. Personally, I took the exact consequence you suggest, and went and started another tabletop game with outright better rules and gameplay. It doesn't change that I am still fond of 40K, mostly because of the background and the models, and sometimes when I'm bored I sneak back in, into threads like this, and I enjoy the discussion. I also like to understand where the flaws in the rules are, which solutions are suggested, how these are taken up or rejected by others, etc. It's stuff I find interesting and I think I can learn from.

Same here mate, I put my lot in the loft though . I always banked on getting a game of Space Marine as I have all the bits. Gonna start doing personal recasts soon - I know its naughty but I have about 6k of Squat plastics and a couple of each metal figure - its not enough dammit lol!

I also used to play Squats in Space Marine (the game, I'm not talking about tiny squats walking around inside actuall Space Marines; although that would make for a fun game. "It's the bionic heart, quick, bring the las cannons, our other weapns just bounce off!!!"), mostly because my mates had Eldar, Chaos and Orks covered and were looking for someone to split the Warlrds box. Looking back, I wonder why I didn't just by the Imperium box on my own and play MArines, as that was what I wanted to play back then.

This constant demand for GW to do rules to satisfy a very small percentage of the players using the disengneuous idea that it would be better for everyong is lame and shows how the small minority just wants everyone to conform to their ideals. It's self centered thinking that only the things you want are best for all because they make things easier for you instead of thinking about all the other people who don;t have issues with the rules as they are.

I know I don't need better rules, I like things so I can adjust them to fit the people I play with and so do 99% of the people I enjoy playing the game with. What we want is for that small goup of over competitve people to stop making every damn game into a competitve event so they can practice for the next tournament. The rules aren;t the problem it;s people who can;t seperate the fact that a game is not a measure of themselves.

But that's the point of this whole discussion. Making a tight ruleset that can't be exploited (more or less, nothing is perfect) and that balances units properly should benefit all of us. I think nobody enjoys loosing all the time, I certainly didn't when I was 15 and I was the only player in my neighborhood that build his armies based on the background, when everyone else built armies based on what units are most powerful.
So, we ask for better balance. Better balance means I can take my Swooping Hawks without shooting myself into my own foot. I don't know what environment you play in, but my gaming group has pretty much agreed to play armies that are to equal parts fluffy and competitive. We stay away from the major tournament power-builds, mech armies are the exception, but we still play to win. And as much as we would all like to play rare units like Swooping Hawks, regular Terminators, etc., every time we try we feel that the game punishes us for it. That's why we don't use them anymore, and that's why I'd really like to see a better balanced rule-system.

Because, and that is really my point: If the game is written in a way that the WAAC powergamers can barely break it, then the average schmucks like you and me won't have to worry about power-imbalance between fluffy lists. As the game currently stands, a lot of fluffyy builds will simply auto-loose against other equally fluffy builds, and that's a situation the fluff crowd shouldn't be too happy about, either.

on a side note some times I read peoples posts and they seam to be saying GW is a dictatorship of there hobby, they don't like them but feel they cannot leave them. I understand we all need to vent, but im curious to know what enjoyment your getting out of the game other the dislike fo what GW is doing.

Well, I shiftr my focus more and more to other game systems, but it doesn't mean I've completely given up on 40K yet. I still treasure my Eldar army, and really wish I could play them more often without the feeling the game is neither very challenging tactically, nor good at creating a cinematic experience.

The first has to do with how little impact the player and his decisions actually have on the game, with random movement, armies going into autoplay once in melee and stuff like that, the other one results from all the disruptive moments I already listed above in response to yabbayabba.

[RandomThoughts]

Funny. I don't play FoW, but my group picked up Warmachine over the last year, and even the diehard 40K nerds who initially refused to even try another game are slowly coming over, and one of the most common comments is that the rules seem more interesting and less gamey at the same time. Every time we do play 40K these days, there is at least one moment per game that completely annoys the crap out of us, mostly when the rules lead to completely unrealistic situations. "Wait, your Skimmer pops up, and I still have to stop my tank rush where it was, instead of rolling into the infantry I was aiming at?" "So, shooting my pistols as I rush into an assault will prevent my Assault Marines from ever getting there, even though I started out 3" away from your unit?!" "Wait, putting a speedbump unit in the path of your Orks actually accelerates them?" "My Wraithlord has two flamers and I'm surrounded by twenty Orks, tell me again why that doesn't work!" "So, melee also entails close ranged shooting, right? That's how the guys in the back row get to contribute attacks, right? So, my Fire Fragons are in melee with your Dreadnought, here come the Meltaguns ... or not." "This is my Banshee Powersword, it cuts through heavy armor like butter, but completely bounces off other heavy armor. And this is my Witchblade, it bounces off the first kind of heavy armor, but cuts through the second type with gusto" "Artillery battalion Beta, fire into the hugh clump of Ork Infantry right in front of you! - We can't sir, me might accidentially hit our own men. - Just do it, they are dead anyway, and even if not, the grimdark fluff says we sacrifice our own men all the time. - No, sir, we won't. - Commissar! Shoot this man for disobedience!"

Those are the issues the fluffy player in our group have with 40K, and strangely, Warmachine, despite its tighter ruleset geared more towards competitive play avoids these stutters mostly.

And? So you want the game to do things its not designed to do?

That's not the point. Please let me clarify the intention behind my post:
On the first two pages of this discussion, before I started posting, there were people claiming that GW had to choose between a gamey system with tight rules suited for competitive play and an immersive game which creates a cinematic experience on the table. It was further implied that the two of them were mutually exclusive, so any attempt on GWs part to make the game more balanced would inevitably hurt the immersive experience.

In direct response to that, I tried to point out how the 40K ruleset has become a bloated mess that supports neither playstyle very well. Warmachine (the only other system I currently play, so it's the only one I can compare to), despite its reputation as a WAAC tournament game, avoids pretty much anything even close to the examples I listed. Sure, there are some disruptive elements as well, but the 40K ones are on an entirely different level.

Essentially, I didn't list these as things I think are wrong with 40K and should be fixed (although that is true as well), but mostly as an argument against the notion that balanced gameplay and an immersive experience with that tells a great story are mutually exclusive and that GW does a good job at the second and thereby is excused for ignoring the first.

[Wishing]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer. You're probably right that we just never cross paths outside of threads like this, and I most likely didn't pay to much attention to your first post. I want to apologize if I did you wrong, it's just, when I see your avatar, I am usually already bracing myself mentally for "none of your points matter. Your discussion is futile! The people in chargwe don't care! You're wasting your time! move along!" posts, which again might not do justice to what you actually do or try to do, but that's just the way it comes across, to me at least.

That's personally not how I read yabba's posts. I read them as a response to people posting based about what they think 40k should be based on their personal perspectives, while ignoring what 40k is actually designed and intended to be. People can obviously discuss their fantasy versions all they want, but such discussions are more interesting and relevant if they relate to what the game is designed to be like in reality.

[Bloodknight]

I know I don't need better rules, I like things so I can adjust them to fit the people I play with and so do 99% of the people I enjoy playing the game with.

Probably wouldn't hurt you to have them, though . House ruling stuff is nice if you have a fixed group of people you play with, sucks for pick-up games, though.

nor good at creating a cinematic experience.

Yeah, that part of the game got pretty dulled down with 3rd edition plus, nothing wacky ever happens.
I don't really remember any games from that time, but we still laugh about that one time when a friend and I were fighting a game where you had to conquer something in the middle of the table in 2nd edition (we both had the same mission card; I never understood why they went away from hidden and different mission targets per player, it was a lot of fun, trying to find out what the other guy was trying to achieve), at some point one of my ratling snipers killed the driver of a warbuggy; driverless, the buggy zigzagged over the battlefield while the gunner was frantically trying to get into the driver seat, eating another poisoned needle. Finally the buggy crashed into the building we both wanted to conquer, exploded and took the building with it in a big fat fireball, leaving us without a mission target. Coolest tie ever.

[yabbadabba]

That's not the point. Please let me clarify the intention behind my post:
On the first two pages of this discussion, before I started posting, there were people claiming that GW had to choose between a gamey system with tight rules suited for competitive play and an immersive game which creates a cinematic experience on the table.

And I think that is a common misconception; GW has shown itself perfectly capable of writing rule systems that fulfill both sides of the equation, and are still as creative as ever. They choose to stick to the old WFRP mechanical core for 40K and WFB; who is responsible for that decision is up for debate but I would not point the finger exclusively at the designers.

I have always advocated that GW needs to have a two string approach to their games systems, basic and advanced. I think that this is the only way to ensure both a tight ruleset for the tournament players, and the expressive grey areas that many like me prefer, all while using the current rules mechanisms.

[RandomThoughts]

And I think that is a common misconception; GW has shown itself perfectly capable of writing rule systems that fulfill both sides of the equation, and are still as creative as ever. They choose to stick to the old WFRP mechanical core for 40K and WFB; who is responsible for that decision is up for debate but I would not point the finger exclusively at the designers.

I fully agree.

I have always advocated that GW needs to have a two string approach to their games systems, basic and advanced. I think that this is the only way to ensure both a tight ruleset for the tournament players, and the expressive grey areas that many like me prefer, all while using the current rules mechanisms.

I share that sentiment.

[Carlosophy]

I love the detail in some of the newer codices but feel this on top of a detailed ruleset overcomplicates the game.

GW tried to get it right in the past: 3E was a simplified ruleset around which detailed codex rules could be added. Think of Traits, Doctrines, WH, DH and the Chaos codex. 4E was a more detailed ruleset with simplified codices like Eldar, Dark Angels, NuChaos and Orks.
5E is chock full of overwrites and conflictions and so Id like to see 6E return to the streamlined days of 3E.

[Grocklock]

It also means they turned every unit into a chaos spawn.

Movement should *not* be random.

Not really did they, a spawn moves 2d6 so has a charge range of 2-12 inches, which can be a little anoying. in fantasy they charge there movment plus 2d6 so a orc warrior has a movment of 4 and on average you will roll a 7, so there charge arc is on average 11, even if you roll a double 1 you are getting a 6 which is only 2 short of what they used to do.
also as i remember, people where getting anoyed that fantasy was getting to predictable with the charges, most people could judge a charge by looking at it, so charges were certian. The way the new rules work means a charge requires more planing. It would be great if they did that in 40k, because at the minuite it is getting a little anoying that people are garantieed a 12 inch charge, 6 in movment and 6 in assult.

Sooo they're aware that their terrain rules are crap, but instead of fixing them, they just made them optional.

didn't say that, i just sayed they where optional so if you don't like them then don't use them, optional rules in the rule book have always been there. As for being borken, I don't think they are, but i am aware some people don't agree with me.

Aside from the pathetic number of army-specific items (come on GW, you couldn't even manage 10 per book?), I think the 8th edition Army Books are fine. My problem is with the core rules.

I begain in 5th edition when it was like this, the then magic box had a collection of standard magic items open to all, then it had a slection not alot of race specific items. It was great and I welcome it back with open arms.

In addition, I do enjoy Fantasy games, but that doesn't make the system perfect - nor does it mean that the system is heading in the right direction, if you see what I mean.

ok, but there are alot of people who belive that it is headed in a better direction, I mean balance is what people want and GW gives it to you, As for being perfect, well I suppose they are not, there is always room for improvment, an artists work is never done. (then again nothing truely is not, and it is kind of wired when ever people defened them they are accussed of saying they are perfect) but they are leagues ahead of there opponents.

[zoggin-eck]

Oh goody! Now 6th edition can be like 8th edition fantasy! Enjoy flipping a coin to see who wins each game, because strategy certainly isn't involved.

What game are you playing again?