PDA

View Full Version : I have a few questions regarding 40K gamers



BDJV
20-08-2007, 10:09
After following the heated debates over the impending release of Apocalypse, I have a few questions.

Why is using words “house rule” treated like a foul cursed expression by most gamers?

Why must everything be official or tournament legal?

I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?

What happened to just having a good time playing a game of 40K?

When was the last time (be honest) you played 40K where everyone involved had a really good time? No matter who won or lost.

fwacho
20-08-2007, 10:16
at somepoint even the fluff buff eventaully becomes competative. This why we roll dice to sort out who wins. If it were pure chess we get mad and thump each other over the head.

in my case it's the actual challege of a tight game I enjoy most. thus having a balance is key to enjoyment. If I win then so much the better (although winning more than 3 games in row starts to unnerve me)

House rule can not be used outside the house they are used, and they create bad habits that become a problem when playing agianst unfamiliar opponents.

Tourney legal is well and good. of course apocolypse will not be tourney leagal (read white dwarf). Tourney legal just bmeans you are nearly guarenteed a fair game. excepting certain combos of situations(naturally).

Bassik
20-08-2007, 10:25
Why is using words “house rule” treated like a foul cursed expression by most gamers?

Usually, we got plenty of rules from the armybooks, wich are playtested and (in theory) balanced. A house rule can be fun, but usually it isnt.
Plus it leads to a lot of trouble when playing with unfamillar oponents.
My club, however, likes to come up with house rules for the battlefield, like exploding barrels, daemonic influences, etc.

Why must everything be official or tournament legal?

Well why shouldn't it? Its a game, and we just follow the rules. I don't know, it might be just the same fun experience if we do whatever we please, but the fact is most of us just play by the rules that came with the box. (Like we will never use chess pieces for Stratego, never come up with characters for Risk and will never, ever, play strip poker.)

I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?

That is what most people think, but its not true. We all come to the club to play for fun. However, we like to make it difficult for eachother. As long as it isnt obviously broken, we enjoy beating eachother to a pulp, so we can play betther the next time, and beat that rival club in Middelburg... damn them!:p

What happened to just having a good time playing a game of 40K?

I usually do that thursdays, but if I'm lucky I can grab another day for play.

When was the last time (be honest) you played 40K where everyone involved had a really good time? No matter who won or lost.

Last week, thursday.
Two chaos players versus dark angels, space wolves, and ultra marines. Even though some of the space wolf rules where a bit broken... like the super pimped character that is stronger then a Daemon Prince and costs only a fraction, a unit of terminators that benefits from like 3 special rules...
it was still a fun battle, especially BECAUSE of all that weird stuff going on.

We had fun moments: A doomed Daemon Prince defeats a Grey Knights HQ before the rest of the unit cuts him to pieces, a cheap predator tank blows away a devastator squad, but in that same turn 8 lascannons couldn't hurt a single rhino, that realy odd unit of terminators with a space wolf, dark angel and grey knight hero in it, my friend faling 3 difficult terain tests with his vehicles, and last but not least, our discovery that Chaos Rhino's are into bondage...

Edit: It was a draw in our favor

Mojaco
20-08-2007, 10:30
in my case it's the actual challege of a tight game I enjoy most. thus having a balance is key to enjoyment. If I win then so much the better (although winning more than 3 games in row starts to unnerve me)
Hear hear! Noone remembers the masacres (outside tournaments). It's the closely fought games that will burn a place in your memory.

xibo
20-08-2007, 10:33
After following the heated debates over the impending release of Apocalypse, I have a few questions.

Why is using words “house rule” treated like a foul cursed expression by most gamers?

Why must everything be official or tournament legal?
That is because Forgeworld rules are aaah soo badly unbalanced, especially compared to GW's ten years not updated DE and Orks. Oh and don't get me started on LatD cheese of doom... ^_^
Now seriously, I guess it is because nowadays most gamers are kids who haven't been in the hobby for much too long and therefore don't know about rules offered in WD whatever, or try to mix up stuff based on other races entries ( e.g. ork like unit in Necrons ), which leads mostly to such pointless comparisation that make us think that GW makes unit models point cost = some D6s, because there's no way IG grunts pay more points for every HW than marines who live longer and hit better ( and have more LD for the TP tests ), or guardians who are maybe the worst shooting unit together with guardsmen, but still 33% more expensive...



I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?

What happened to just having a good time playing a game of 40K?

When was the last time (be honest) you played 40K where everyone involved had a really good time? No matter who won or lost.
A propper General will fight His enemies no matter how obvious his coming failure is, if it happens to be His will...

the last time I played a funny game in 40k? Does Necromunda count?

Lord Malorne
20-08-2007, 10:38
QFT Mojaco! i myself am a competitive gamer but have a high regard for sportsmanship and used balanced that win through sheer determination...the more balanced a game the more of a sense of victory and accomplishment you get!

Ah yes the point cost for imp guard units old argument...how much points is a unit with HW compared to a SM unit with HW and how many more models are there! these ruless have been playtested.

sebster
20-08-2007, 10:48
After following the heated debates over the impending release of Apocalypse, I have a few questions.

Why is using words “house rule” treated like a foul cursed expression by most gamers?

A lot of house rules suck. As in, are unbelievably badly thought through. I’ve had more than enough games with non-sensical, dysfunctional or downright broken house rules to be more than a little wary about the next one. There are good ones out there too, but I find even the good ones are generally a fun novelty rather than a lasting improvement.


Why must everything be official or tournament legal?

I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?

What happened to just having a good time playing a game of 40K?

That’s what most of us do. Remember the internet is not representative of the majority of players. The people who are interested in talking about the game on-line don’t share a lot in common with most people that just want to paint their guys and turn up on a Saturday afternoon for a game.


When was the last time (be honest) you played 40K where everyone involved had a really good time? No matter who won or lost.

I’d say 95% of my games are enjoyed by myself and my opponent. The other 5% are usually the result of playing someone for the first time and not being on the same wavelength, usually resulting in a thrashing one way or the other. It happens, and a chat with the guy after the game will normally sort out how we’ll play more fun games in the future, though sometimes we’ve basically decided not to play each other again.

Most other unenjoyable games I’ve had have been against people that were obnoxious or just plain annoying, but there’s not much that can be done about that. A couple of other games I haven’t enjoyed because I played people that weren’t all that good, generally just starting, and got terrible dice to boot, it can feel really bad when someone’s trying real hard, and you’re not trying to thrash them but you just can’t stop making your 6+ invulnerables…

TheLionReturns
20-08-2007, 11:02
Why is using words “house rule” treated like a foul cursed expression by most gamers?

I think it depends on what you mean by house rules really. I generally frown upon the notion of changing a GW rule just because you don't like it. However, if you are referring to additional supplementary rules too add favor I would actively encourage them. I think it is important to keep them constantly under revision to try and balance them. Its my understanding that GW was always keep on its customers customising its hobby and actively promoted this. There is a third type of "house rule" which is an interpretation of the inevitable imprecisions in language from GW that occur from time to time. This I have no problem with as long as it is agreed. Although sometimes the interpretations can be bizarre. An example from fantasy sticks in mind where a Wood Elf item the Spear of Twilight is deemed not to confer the bonuses of a spear because it doesn't say counts as spear. With apologies for a 40K example not springing to mind I think it is when such "house rules/interpretations" are made that defy logic which helps make the phrase a dirty one.

Why must everything be official or tournament legal?

To ensure fair play in a tournament. Outside a tournament it would appear to be because competitive gamers cannot have fun unless they win. That is perhaps a bit unfair but they certainly need a fair chance to win to enjoy themselves. The fact this is insisted on so much at clubs is just pandering to the tournament crowd to me. Such players can just refuse to play lists that aren't tournament legal if they want and I don't think their prospective opponent would take it personally. I suppose the pressure comes from stopping competitive players from taking broken lists just to get an edge, but having played someone once you can tell the type of player they are and if they are competitive and just taking advantage then don't play them.

I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?

This one I find difficult to answer because I really could not care less if I win or lose. I mean winning is rewarding but having a laugh and an interesting game is far more important to me. I do wonder whether those who have to win have 40K or GW in general as their sole competitive outlet. I play a variety of sports and have done since a young age and this is where I get my competitive energies out. GW for me is more of a hobby than a competitive activity. But I am convinced we all need a competitive outlet to varying degrees and maybe this is some peoples. Saying that I suppose you could get competitive over the quality of your painting so maybe this doesn't fully explain the gaming aspect. Alternatively winning will help bring positive reinforcement of self worth. Perhaps for some winning at 40K brings a self-esteem boost that their either are more in need of (ie suffer from low self esteem), or fail to get from other sources. This is all guesswork really, someone who finds winning important would be able to give a better answer.


What happened to just having a good time playing a game of 40K?

Well I still do but that is mostly to do with the people I play against and the way we play the game. However, I had far more fun in 2nd edition where there was more variety and general wackiness. However, if I had any care for balance in the game I would have found 2nd edition unbearable so I concede it is not for everyone and the changes have probably been for the better on the whole.

Davachido
20-08-2007, 12:18
Why is using words “house rule” treated like a foul cursed expression by most gamers?

Why must everything be official or tournament legal?

I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?

What happened to just having a good time playing a game of 40K?

When was the last time (be honest) you played 40K where everyone involved had a really good time? No matter who won or lost.

House rules, we don't have many and we enjoy using it. Recently we stopped doing missions in the BBB and started playing the rules of engagement which I find is really fun, I'm hoping to expand on those rules a bit :) so we don't do 'official' rules all the time.

Winning isn't always the aim, in tournaments yes but friendly fights not most of the time, I have seen some 40k fights in my club where that happens but most of the time win or lose we have a good time.

Last saturday we played a game 2-on-2 (3000 pts total) BA/IW against WH/tau. We made up some excuse that the BA had gone totally berserk and started worshipping khorne then sided with the IW. So the WH and tau were going to eliminate us for the greater good. We even made some jokes that the IW vindicator had STDs by the way the player converted it (he came up with the joke not us), the basilisk had supposedly given the vindicator STDs so they became the 'inseperable pair' on the battle field. We had a good laugh for about 5 min before the game started.

Also there's a mission in rules of engagement to 'rescue' someone, we had a good laugh that the man who was going to be rescued got no help at all because all the units were tied up in combat somewhere in the middle of the battlefield. So yea we try to have fun, otherwise there ain't much point in playing :p

Lindworm
20-08-2007, 13:49
I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?
Because most people are ******s.
I'd agree with you, though. I enjoy having a game with a few good friends in a campaign style... starting at 100 point andmoving up by 50 each time, if a person grabs an objective, they can take a non-troop force organisation chart selection. Defender always goes last but gets a heavy support choice every time... To see who has won all the battles by the end of the day was just count up who had the most objectives achieved.

It's simple, it's quick, it's fun. Rule laywering doesn't happen much, as we usually reach consensus about what is likely or after referancing, although one friend is a sore loser and I'm getting sick of him getting defensive if something goes wrong for him, I'll just not invite him for a game later until he grows us.

Culven
20-08-2007, 15:49
Why is using words “house rule” treated like a foul cursed expression by most gamers?
Because "house rules" often modify the baseline rules for 40K. This makes it more difficult to have pickup games against players from outside the group. Not only would the players need to waste time negotiating which house rules to use, but their tactics may be drastically altered due to a reliance upon certain house rules. Finally, arguements often develop during a game in which one player has made an assumption concerning the use of their group's house rules. Overall, house rules tend to complicate the game for no reason.

However, it should be noted that there are many house rules which tend to be more universally accepted. These are often the rules that are created to smooth the rough spots in the rulebook. For example, using the Blast weapon wounding rules for Ordinance weapons is a house rule, as it is not explained in the rulebook. This has become a universal house rule.


Why must everything be official or tournament legal?
The tounament rules are the official baseline rules for the game. Adhereing to them helps make it easier for two players (playing at a tounament, or even just a pick-up game at a store) who have never met to quickly clarify a few rules issues and start play. Adding house rules for fun games within one's group is fine, but they should be limited when playing against players from outside the group.


I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?
Because it is a game, and most people are taught that the goal of a game is to win.


What happened to just having a good time playing a game of 40K?
I don't know, everyone I know plays for fun and the hope of winning.


When was the last time (be honest) you played 40K where everyone involved had a really good time? No matter who won or lost.
A few weeks ago I played in an RTT. Everyone had fun, except me (I became ill during the tournament :( ), but even then I would have had fun if I hadn't felt so poorly. I have found that the environment in which one learns to play has a large influence on whether that player becomes a power-gamer or plays for fun. The people at my store all have fun and the new players develop the same "play for fun, play to win" mindset. This is the balance that I feel all players need to develop. This is where one creates a balanced take-all-comers list, plays to the best of their abilities, and is polite and gracious, win or lose. Essentially, this comes down to Sportsmanship, and whether this is stressed as an important aspect in one's gaming group.

grickherder
20-08-2007, 17:26
Why must everything be official or tournament legal?

EDIT: Disclaimer. If the following paragraph doesn't describe you or the gamers you know, then it is not about you. Please do not respond as if it is about you if it is not.

Because many gamers are spineless sycophants who need their hand held. They need the word from on high legitimizing what they do. When something is "official" or "tournament legal" it gives the sycophants a sense of legitimacy to their hobby. When something is not, they can look down on it as inferior to what they are doing. It basically represents insecurity, inadequacy and a lack of taking ownership of their own hobby. They still need mommy to hold their hands. :D

Bassik
20-08-2007, 17:43
Because many gamers are spineless sycophants who need their hand held. They need the word from on high legitimizing what they do. When something is "official" or "tournament legal" it gives the sycophants a sense of legitimacy to their hobby. When something is not, they can look down on it as inferior to what they are doing. It basically represents insecurity, inadequacy and a lack of taking ownership of their own hobby. They still need mommy to hold their hands. :D

That had betther been sarcastic, because it isn't only a lie, its also a blatant insult to most wargamers.

bungeeboy
20-08-2007, 18:19
Why must everything be official or tournament legal?
when playing numerous game's with the same group of people, it's very easy to go into an "improvisational" way of playing, like carrying a few more points-worth of wargear than normal. so it is a kick in the face if you arrive tooling your troops with an "ultimate combo" and being told it's illegal, so its always best to go by the rulebook, eh?



I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?
it isn't, but because it IS an expensive hobby, and some people can't bear seeing a £600 army being flushed down a vortex, so they would be a little




When was the last time (be honest) you played 40K where everyone involved had a really good time? No matter who won or lost.

yesterday ^^, lost miserably, with about 4 GW staffmembers watching, but i was creasing up at 10 daemonette's beating around 100 models :D

i hope i have spread my little knowing brain of knowledge :)

BDJV
20-08-2007, 19:39
Some very interesting responses, Keep 'em coming.

I'll take some time to address some of the responses a little later and post a few more questions.

shin'keiro
20-08-2007, 19:56
Im not too bothered about touramentsl... but as far as normal rules go.. then yes - they are there for a reason, which includes WYSIWIG! Alot of people don't realise this is an actual rule. Theres nothing more annoying than playing against some one who has a pair of legs on a base and saying it has this weapon, that weapon and expecting me to remember!

'House rules' are also a big no no for me, as they change the rules of the game... The rules are in the codex being used and the BGB.

Luthien
20-08-2007, 20:06
Because many gamers are spineless sycophants who need their hand held. They need the word from on high legitimizing what they do. When something is "official" or "tournament legal" it gives the sycophants a sense of legitimacy to their hobby. When something is not, they can look down on it as inferior to what they are doing. It basically represents insecurity, inadequacy and a lack of taking ownership of their own hobby. They still need mommy to hold their hands. :D

Thats just out of order, seriously

Mortare
20-08-2007, 20:43
I agree with the above, just not constructive.

Anyhow, as for the original questions:
House rules are fine by me. If you want to play with your own variations or interpretations, then go ahead, you pay for your hobby, and thats what it is- yours. If you want to play them with other people, and they agree, cool. If they dont, then thats also fair, it just may not be their bag.
Why must things be tournament legal? Maybe they dont have to be. But some people may only be able to play at such wider events, where there is such a range of players that one set of over-riding rules is the easiest way to ensure that all players have an equal footing. Yes, some may be old, or 'broken', but thats what they say so no one should be in doubt. If you dont want to stick to them, ask your opponent and see if you can come to some agreement.
Having a fun game? I havent played properly in about 3 years, and had a game in my old store a few weeks ago, was beaten quite heavily by a younger kid. It was quite fun, but I wouldnt have played if I didnt think I might have fun at the hobby. Ive been to tournaments, both local and GT, and largely enjoyed all of my games.

My personal thought is that its our personal hobby, and you get out what you put in. Enjoy

grickherder
20-08-2007, 20:50
EDIT: Disclaimer. If the following paragraph doesn't describe you or the gamers you know, then it is not about you. Please do not respond as if it is about you if it is not.

To those who found my statement out of line or overly negative, all I can do is talk about shoes that fit.

Does the shoe fit?

I think my appraisal of (EDIT: some) gamer's need for everything to be "official" is accurate. The truth is often uncomfortable.

(EDIT: Some) Gamers use "official" in the same way as fundamentalists use "biblical." To prevent variance, squish ideas they don't like and to validate their own positions. That may be an ugly way of stating it that rubs you the wrong way, but is it accurate? It just might be.

"Official" is whatever two gamers are willing to put on the table. Sometimes they might agree to follow a certain set of rules to the letter and that's good. But it's not the rules or some company pronouncing it "official" that makes it so, but their willingness to play that way.

You legitimize your hobby. You don't need any company to rubber stamp it or to hold your hand.

Culven
20-08-2007, 21:15
I think my appraisal of gamer's need for everything to be "official" is accurate.
"Accurate"? Based upon what? I assume that your opinion on this matter is based upon your experience. It should be pointed out that this implies that you are using faulty reasoning. Just because players in your experience fit your stereotype, that doesn't mean that all players fit it. Furthermore, to insult all gamers based upon your stereotype is unwarrented.


Gamers use "official" in the same way as fundamentalists use "biblical." To prevent variance, squish ideas they don't like and to validate their own positions.
In my experience, most gamers are simply refering to published rules when they refer to "official" rules, as that is exactly what constitutes the canon of 40K rules. I have never seen or heard of anyone using the official rules to "squish ideas", but most players seem to understand that if a rule isn't "official", then it is by default a "house rule". As for using rules to validate one's own position, of course everyone does this. 40K uses a permissive ruleset and therefore, everything that one does in game must be validated by the rules (Official or House Rules alike).

Also, "biblical" merely refers to something "from the Bible". A better comparison to "biblical" would be "Rules as Written".


"Official" is whatever two gamers are willing to put on the table. Sometimes they might agree to follow a certain set of rules to the letter and that's good. But it's not the rules or some company pronouncing it "official" that makes it so, but their willingness to play that way.
This all depends upon context. Generally, the "official" rules are those published in the 40K rulebook, codecies, and FAQ's. It may be beneficial to use the term "official" for these rules, and "allowed" to refer to anything that the players have agreed to use.


You legitimize your hobby. You don't need any company to rubber stamp it or to hold your hand.
Why do we need to "legitimize" the hobby? Is it in doubt that it is a legitimate hobby? Also, how do you feel that GW holds our hands? Granted, most players will use the rules as a guide to how the game is intended to be played, but I fail to see how one could claim that this is hand-holding.

Mortare
20-08-2007, 21:25
Grickherder, if that is your opinion then obviously you are free to air it. I agree that some people stick solely to the rules and moan that if it aint written down by GW, then it shouldnt be used. Not my thoughts, and I think that this limits some of the nature of the game. But if thats how they want it, then their choice. Personally, I use the rules as laid down because I find them fair and mean allow the game to flow better. If someone wants to do something outside of this that adds to the character of the game (eg a duel within a combat between 2 characters), then cool. If they are just trying to bend their way around a situation, then Id rather they play properly.
I agree with some of your points, but I think you are using too large a shoe-horn to fit everybody into the 'shoe that fits'

As for Culven, of course it is his opinion. That is what this site is here for, to trade information and ideas with like-minded people. You may not agree, but thats why we are discussing it

Culven
20-08-2007, 21:46
As for Culven, of course it is his opinion. That is what this site is here for, to trade information and ideas with like-minded people. You may not agree, but thats why we are discussing it
I realize that it is his opinion, but he seems to be implying that it is a factual statement. Also, I neither care for his broad, insulting opinions, nor his insulting manner of presenting it. I have no problems with people expressing their opinions provided that they do not imply that their opinion is the "correct" one, and they do not insult others whilst doing so.

Lindworm
20-08-2007, 22:15
I think my appraisal of gamer's need for everything to be "official" is accurate. The truth is often uncomfortable.
By "gamer's" your are fairly generalising. For one, I have been having "campaign" style battles with friends, starting off at 100 points and with no emphsis on traditional force organisation... So I guess that's your delusion shattered that every gamer holds their rulebooks like their pasifiers.

I agree with Culven, you're being an ignorant ******, wise up.

grickherder
20-08-2007, 22:18
Furthermore, to insult all gamers based upon your stereotype is unwarrented.

I agree with some of your points, but I think you are using too large a shoe-horn to fit everybody into the 'shoe that fits'

Then consider my remarks to be only about those gamers who *need* things to be official for them to consider playing with or against them.



This all depends upon context. Generally, the "official" rules are those published in the 40K rulebook, codecies, and FAQ's. It may be beneficial to use the term "official" for these rules, and "allowed" to refer to anything that the players have agreed to use.

I think the most beneficial thing would be to never meantion the words "official" or "tournament legal" or "optional" or whatever and just let the players do what they will. There is no reason whatsoever to devalue products like Lost and the Damned by declaring them "unofficial" or even having this false official/unofficial dichotomy.


Why do we need to "legitimize" the hobby? Is it in doubt that it is a legitimate hobby?

That's not what I meant. I mean that we as gamers, by the merit of our ability to choose to play decide what we will play. A game company can come up with some rules and the majority of the players will say "no way that sucks" and perhaps stop playing or play the old edition (Space Marine to Epic 40,000 anyone?). The only thing that makes a hobby legitimate is participation in it. That's what I meant by legitimize. Only you and I can give any legitimacy to any part of our hobby by merit of our ability to do the hobby. A company can publish and pronounce what they like, but it's the gamers who decide what hits the table and what doesn't.



Also, how do you feel that GW holds our hands? Granted, most players will use the rules as a guide to how the game is intended to be played, but I fail to see how one could claim that this is hand-holding.

For those who don't see the rules as a guide. For those who can't even conceive of playing with or against something that GW has stamped "official" or "tournament legal." These gamers are out there. Many here on Warseer would fit the description.

A litmus test would be that if a codex was official today, but tomorrow GW put it up on their website as a PDF and called it "optional" or "unofficial," these gamers would refuse to play against it or allow it in tournaments despite the fact that they would have played against it yesterday or allowed in a tournament yesterday. They rely on GW to tell them what is legitimate in a game and what isn't and see no merit in anything GW doesn't call official.

Apocalypse is going to be a system shock for a lot of these people.

As I said above, if the shoe fits. But sometimes it doesn't. Can't lump everyone together, but it's certainly possible to categorize and describe group dynamics.

grickherder
20-08-2007, 22:25
By "gamer's" your are fairly generalising.

I was generalizing and likewise I'm talking about those that actually fit my description. I think they are widespread but obviously don't make up the entirety of 40k gamers.


For one, I have been having "campaign" style battles with friends, starting off at 100 points and with no emphsis on traditional force organisation...

Cool.

EDIT - My apologies to Lindworm. My rude content was uncalled for and I have removed it.

Lindworm
20-08-2007, 22:25
Well there's actually an interesting example which I say "********" to the official rules.
The fact a monolith can apparently fire all its 5 weapons (some of which are fixed on a 90degee field of view) at any target... When a friend claimed they can... it doesn't make sense. The Monolith can't fire THROUGH itself for weapons with a fixed rotational field. It's a big vehicle, they'd need to turn to shoot, and that has to be taken into account...

Oh, as for the original question of "best time recently"? Was probably the other day when I had three friends around, and in the first 100 point battle, one friend chose 5 chaos marines with 2 plasma guns. Now, this seemed fine, until both of them misfired on the first turn - two men died, and the rest of them decided to leg it off the board... which was genuinely funny at the time. As well as how the other friends' Black Templar assault marines just walked up to the infamous monolith, and with one swift blow from a thunder hammer... it blew up. Whereas lots of fire from tau broadsides and a gaggle of angry khorne bezerkers had done nothing.

Lindworm
20-08-2007, 22:27
If you can't comprehend what I'm getting at, then I guess that's when the personal attacks come out. Nice. Well done.
You worded it awfully the first time to seem like a generalising attack upon the whole community, you got what you deserved :P I am not sorry for misunderstanding something that was clear as mud to begin with.

Melta Pants
20-08-2007, 22:31
What official rules provide is a common denominator when moving/playing out of town/playing with a new group/etc.

One of the reasons I still love GW games is that no matter how cheap other games might be, I never know if there are going to be players in the next region/city I move to or if a group falls apart if there will ever be gamers again.

People play GW everywhere. Seriously, it's everywhere. Because there are official rules, when I encounter new people and say "Hey, wanna play a game?" they already know what game I'm referring to, and I don't have to give them the "Melta Pants Official 40k Errata, FAQ, Addendum, and General Re-2nd-ification" textbook.

grickherder
20-08-2007, 22:32
I have no problems with people expressing their opinions provided that they do not imply that their opinion is the "correct" one, and they do not insult others whilst doing so.

The point in what I've been saying is to do my part to help with the system shock needed to get people who are trapped in the "tournament legal only in all games, tournament or not" to stop trying to force that view on the general 40k community. If using insulting turns of phrases, comparisons and the like will get people to engage with what I'm saying, then great. For those of you who don't fit, it's obviously not about you.

I'll repeat that. If you don't fit the descriptions I've given about official-only sycophants, then don't respond as if I called you that. I only called you that if the shoe fits. Does it? It might not.

Now for all you official only sycophants suckling at GW's teet and trying to make sure everyone plays tournament rules in non-tournament games, I challenge you to stop and look at what you are doing. Do we really need a competitive stringent atmosphere in all of our games? Do we really need to be fixated on legalities and tournament rules compliance in our friendly games?

I'm not advocating that people stop using rules or that everything goes in a tournament. But I'm saying that there's a large portion of 40k gamers who consider non-tournament style games anathema and have been setting the tone for far, far too long.

I hope Apocalypse utterly shatters that view.


What official rules provide is a common denominator when moving/playing out of town/playing with a new group/etc.

This I completely agree with. If I'm gaming against someone I've never met before, I'm generally going to start with the approach that the rules as they are is what we're playing, with perhaps a small discussion beforehand about some things we might not like. For example, if a Eldar Player wanted to join his Falcon with his Fire Dragons and roll for reserves as one unit, that'd be the type of thing that might come up. I've actually met gamers who have refused to play my other friend's Kroot Mercs because they're "not official." So my friend played someone else at the gaming store and that guy just stood around kibitzing on people's games and trying to promote his "official only" BS and telling everyone how they're doing it is wrong. He was like the "bad fun" police.

My apologies if my over-representitive encounters with such people have caused me some undue ranting :D I will go edit disclaimers into my original post.

BDJV
20-08-2007, 22:33
For those who don't see the rules as a guide. For those who can't even conceive of playing with or against something that GW has stamped "official" or "tournament legal." These gamers are out there. Many here on Warseer would fit the description. A litmus test would be that if a codex was official today, but tomorrow GW put it up on their website as a PDF and called it "optional" or "unofficial," these gamers would refuse to play against it or allow it in tournaments despite the fact that they would have played against it yesterday or allowed in a tournament yesterday. They rely on GW to tell them what is legitimate in a game and what isn't and see no merit in anything GW doesn't call official.

Apocalypse is going to be a system shock for a lot of these people.

As I said above, if the shoe fits. But sometimes it doesn't. Can't lump everyone together, but it's certainly possible to categorize and describe group dynamics.
grickherder, While I think you are too blunt for many forum goers, I cannot help but to agree with a lot of your sentiment.

The part I quoted is so accurate of most gamers it's frightening, at least from my experiences in the last 5 years.

Most GW gamers especially the 40k ones have really gone the way of pushing officialdom to an all new level. Again from my experiences.

grickherder and everyone else can we please try and keep it civil, there is no need for outright hostility over this trivial topic.

Thanks,
BDJV

Lindworm
20-08-2007, 22:34
sorry for being a little harsh grickherder, my edit button appears non-responsive so I can't adjust my posts. Your first statement appeared a little too blanketing you see ;)

chromedog
20-08-2007, 22:46
I've seen games played by these "spineless fundamentaist sycophants" (my wording.) where the commandment of "Thou SHALT NOT use 'house rules'!" was the attitude, and both were eldar players. It was amusing watching them come up with a solution to the runes of warding/witnessing match-up.

They got to turn 1, had a conflict, and spent FOUR HOURS trying to come up with a RaW based solution that didn't unfairly impact on either side. Meanwhile, there were other people waiting to use that table (and they should've had their game and gone off to whine about it elsewhere.). Much grumbling was heard, and even the redshirt called them on it.

40k needs house rules to rectify many situations because the 'guidelines' are worded so badly in the first place. If they were clearly written then they might be rules (and in either case, just because they're in a book doesn't make them commandments.). We also need house rules to separate the players from the tools.

grickherder
20-08-2007, 22:53
sorry for being a little harsh grickherder, my edit button appears non-responsive so I can't adjust my posts. Your first statement appeared a little too blanketing you see ;)

I would like to apologize as well. I did make unfair generalizations and shouldn't have replied in a snarky way to you.

zealot!
20-08-2007, 22:54
Why is using words “house rule” treated like a foul cursed expression by most gamers?

I don't want to make up rules. I don't want my opponent to either. We are the players.

Why must everything be official or tournament legal?

Same as above.

I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?

Unfortunately, a lot of people like to compete and it gets out of hand. Not everyone is like this.

What happened to just having a good time playing a game of 40K?

I have a good time every time.

When was the last time (be honest) you played 40K where everyone involved had a really good time? No matter who won or lost.

Last time I played we rocked out a non-standard mission. It was very close. We both had fun.

Maybe you should find a few new guys to play with or introduce a good friend to your hobby.

BDJV
20-08-2007, 23:03
Maybe you should find a few new guys to play with or introduce a good friend to your hobby.

Oh I've got a great core group of guys to play with but we have been trying to add a few new guys to the group and it's been a nightmare.

I've also been trying to help support the new local game store, so have been playing outside the group a lot lately. The owners a great guy and I want to see him succeed but playin' with a bunch O' tools is no fun. So this situation isn't a house rules one it's just a winning above all else problem. I still strive to have a good time.

Culven
20-08-2007, 23:04
Then consider my remarks to be only about those gamers who *need* things to be official for them to consider playing with or against them.
Very well. I agree that there may be some players who have a need for everything to be official. Conversely, there is also a need to know what is official so that all players have a baseline ruleset for playing the game.


I think the most beneficial thing would be to never mention the words "official" or "tournament legal" or "optional" or whatever and just let the players do what they will.
I disagree. I believe that the identification of rules as official is important to maintain the universality of the rules.


There is no reason whatsoever to devalue products like Lost and the Damned by declaring them "unofficial" or even having this false official/unofficial dichotomy.
Just because something is no longer allowed in GT play doesn't devalue those rules. They are often still seen as just as valid as they were previously by players and Tournament Organizers alike. It is only when they become replaced or incompatible with the core rules that they tend to lose playability/validity.


For those who don't see the rules as a guide. For those who can't even conceive of playing with or against something that GW has stamped "official" or "tournament legal." These gamers are out there. Many here on Warseer would fit the description.

A litmus test would be that if a codex was official today, but tomorrow GW put it up on their website as a PDF and called it "optional" or "unofficial," these gamers would refuse to play against it or allow it in tournaments despite the fact that they would have played against it yesterday or allowed in a tournament yesterday. They rely on GW to tell them what is legitimate in a game and what isn't and see no merit in anything GW doesn't call official.
Honestly, I have never met a player who refused a game because not everything was "official". Most players I have met know the difference between tournament-style games and friendly games. Granted, the official rules are normally used, but that is no to say that they wouldn't be open to including house rules.


Apocalypse is going to be a system shock for a lot of these people.
Possibly, which may be a good thing.


I'm not advocating that people stop using rules or that everything goes in a tournament. But I'm saying that there's a large portion of 40k gamers who consider non-tournament style games anathema and have been setting the tone for far, far too long.
I hope Apocalypse utterly shatters that view.
I have to disagree, I do not think that those against non-tournament style games have had much influence over the game. Everything that they need for their games is in the core rules, they need not concern themselves with what others are doing to add additional elements to the game. Quite honestly, I believe that the opposite is true. The inclusion of the Comabt Patrol, Killteam, and campaign rules in the 40K rulebook would seem to indicate a trend toward more non-tournament play.

I will admit that the rules debates may lead one to believe that many of the posters here are strict "official"-only players, but I do not believe this is the case. The majority of the posts seem to be intended to understand the rules to make gameplay more universal and easier to play.

Also, as far as players being "official"-only, I find that this mindset develops from the group in which one plays. Personally, I could never play in a group that is overly strict, but at the same time, by playing mostly by the rules, it does make games much easier to set up and play.

Luke
20-08-2007, 23:06
Hmm, to me the phrase "house rules" always feels like a cop out. When we impement house rules it basically means our 30 quid rule book may as well not exist, why don't we just make up our own games? (I do btw :p)

I guess I just want to know I got my moneys worth and admitting the need for house rules is admitting the books are maybe not all they are cracked up to be.

Plus it always feels like cheating as invariably, it is usually the decision of a minority of gamers in the group that coerce the rest of the group into using them.

Bassik
20-08-2007, 23:23
EDIT: Disclaimer. If the following paragraph doesn't describe you or the gamers you know, then it is not about you. Please do not respond as if it is about you if it is not.

To those who found my statement out of line or overly negative, all I can do is talk about shoes that fit.

Does the shoe fit?

I think my appraisal of (EDIT: some) gamer's need for everything to be "official" is accurate. The truth is often uncomfortable.

(EDIT: Some) Gamers use "official" in the same way as fundamentalists use "biblical." To prevent variance, squish ideas they don't like and to validate their own positions. That may be an ugly way of stating it that rubs you the wrong way, but is it accurate? It just might be.

"Official" is whatever two gamers are willing to put on the table. Sometimes they might agree to follow a certain set of rules to the letter and that's good. But it's not the rules or some company pronouncing it "official" that makes it so, but their willingness to play that way.

You legitimize your hobby. You don't need any company to rubber stamp it or to hold your hand.

Thats some odd bias you have to gamers, there.
I for one never met anyone you just described, so, if its not out of line, may I ask if you are a real gamer yourself, or know real gamers? It doesnt look like it.

Edit: it was neat of you to edit your post, tho. Good job.

Brodrick
20-08-2007, 23:40
I agree with Luke. I have no problems with sticking with the book. Why even say that you are playing a game of 40k, when you have 20 house rules to try to work with.

Generally if a player proposes a house rule, it is meant to give that one player (or if he can try to angle other into supporting him) an advantage.

That being said, I have no problems with scenarios and missions, but outright rule changes are too much for me.

I can honestly say, I like rules, regulations, order, and regimented ways of doing things. I realize other players might not be that way, in fact I have found the army they play sometimes reflect their personality when it comes to things like this.

Does there really need to be insults and flame? You do say the you will do your part....... Seems a little arrogant to be the voice of the revolution.... I will refrain from other comments, because I really feel you enjoy baiting arguments.

BDJV
20-08-2007, 23:48
Does there really need to be insults and flame? You do say the you will do your part....... Seems a little arrogant to be the voice of the revolution.... I will refrain from other comments, because I really feel you enjoy baiting arguments.

I can understand you don't like house rules, that's fine. You lost me on this last part, what are you talking about? :confused:

Lord Malek The Red Knight
20-08-2007, 23:57
one point no-one has made about official vs unofficial (in terms of GW written rules):

when GW writes a new codex, they playtest it against other armies (at least i hope they do... :p) to try to ensure it is fair and balanced.

now, when carring out these playtest games, do you really think they get out all the unofficial armies they have written lists for over the years, and use them alongside those that are currently legal?

and if your army hasnt been tested against someone elses army, you could end up with an unfair advantage over them (or they could have one over you) or you could find that some of your rules are (especially) incompatible with some of theirs.

these are obviously things (some) people would want to avoid, which could explain why some people would rather stick to playing armies that are currently rules-legal.

~ Tim
p.s.
of course apocolypse will not be tourney leagal (read white dwarf). Tourney legal just bmeans you are nearly guarenteed a fair game. excepting certain combos of situations(naturally).
i think you are a bit confused here.

things are "Tournament Legal" at a tournament in which they have been deemed legal. thats all it means.

BDJV
21-08-2007, 00:11
So the official stamp creates balance. I'll buy that premise and agree most gamers believe this.

I feel it gives the appearance of balance. An example would be the Chaos codex that will be unofficial and replaced in a few weeks. Right now you'll happily play a game against an army built from the list, but once the new list is out and this one is replaced/unofficial you won't.

Is this right?

The game is balanced now right?

So what wrong with using the old codex if it's balanced.

(Now I know there were some truly messed up things in the soon to be replaced Chaos codex, and I like the new one.)

grickherder
21-08-2007, 00:22
GW's playtesting is quite lax, from my understanding. They have scaled back their "techmarine" program where real gamers do some volunteer playtesting for them and now just have the studio guys and various hangers on trying it out a bit. As for testing against "unofficial" lists to make sure they're balanced, I don't believe they even test them comprehensively across the multitude of possible armies in the "official" codexes. Have they tested the new Chaos Codex against a Tau army with maxed out Kroot Squads? How about a Tyranid army with only termigants, rippers and a brood lord? Or perhaps a Ork army with grots for all the troop choices? Does anyone in the studio even play Speed Freaks right now? What about against a mechanized guard army? A Space marine force with tons of scouts? Or are they testing against the possible units in the new Ork codex? Testing untested units against untested units and hoping for the best?

I don't think GW can do proper play testing without taking the Vault rules approach they took with Bloodbowl. Release all the upcoming stuff for the players out there to hash through and playtest like crazy. It's worked to produce excellent living rulebooks for the Specialist games range. Involving hundreds or even thousands of players is the only way to cover the various army permutations and combinations. There are too many variables to rely only on in house testing.

So the best we have are the game designers using their intuition about stats and units. Proper playtesting can't even really happen. For some things, their intuition works, for others it fails. When it fails, it makes crap units that no one takes, wargear/power combinations that everyone takes and units that are obvious to pick as being more points efficient than others. Kind of sounds like it fails a lot. Like they're not much better than the house rules designers here in the Rules Development forum. Good thing we have a vanguard of gamers always demanding that things be "official" so they'll be properly playtested and balanced. Oh wait :(

Lord Malek The Red Knight
21-08-2007, 00:23
So the official stamp creates balance. I'll buy that premise and agree most gamers believe this.

I feel it gives the appearance of balance. An example would be the Chaos codex that will be unofficial and replaced in a few weeks. Right now you'll happily play a game against an army built from the list, but once the new list is out and this one is replaced/unofficial you won't.
between now and the time the next codex is released*, it wont really make any difference whether you use the old (current) Chaos codex or the new (next) one, in terms of balance.

but once GW start writing/release their next codex (Orks?), it could become important to stick to the ones it was playtested against when facing it. they wont have balanced the new Ork codex against the old Chaos one, but against the newest one (i presume), so using the old Chaos Codex against the new Ork Codex may cause problems (as the authors never intended such armies to meet).

~ Tim
p.s. *FAQs, Erratas and supplements being released may also cause problems if you are using old/unofficial rules, not just new codex books. for example, something could be added to the rulebook FAQ assuming the old Chaos codex (for example) is no longer being used.

dcikgyurt
21-08-2007, 00:26
Why is using words “house rule” treated like a foul cursed expression by most gamers?

I have no idea, Most of the games I play outside of tournaments use some form of house rules. I that we use quite often is allowing players to shoot wrecks. If you get a penetrating 6 (or an ordnance penetrating 5 or 6) then the wreck is removed, This allows players to clear their line of sight, or explode the ammo/fuel in an attempt to kill nearby models.


Why must everything be official or tournament legal?

It doesn't, the game is supposed to be fun, outside of a tournament you can change rules as you see fit or even add new ones to cover situations which the rulebook doesn't cover.


I understand we are playing a game, but why does winning seem the most important aspect of 40K to most gamers?

It isn't. I play to win, but if I lose I use it as a chance to improve on my tactics, my army selection and my game.


What happened to just having a good time playing a game of 40K?

It still exists, if the people you play with only care about winning and you just want to play for fun, find others to play with.


When was the last time (be honest) you played 40K where everyone involved had a really good time? No matter who won or lost.

This weekend just gone at the X Legion Tactica tournament. Everybody had a good time, and we even offered advice to ech other after each game. It was a good fun atmosphere where winning came second to playing.

Brodrick
21-08-2007, 01:57
I can understand you don't like house rules, that's fine. You lost me on this last part, what are you talking about? :confused:

:eek:Sorry BDJV, the last part was meant for grickherder's comments. SOme of his comments are not polite. No offense meant to you. I merely forgot to direct it to him, in the heat of things.:p

I tend to be a serious player, who has a good time while gaming. I try to make the experience enjoyable for both players. That being said, I believe fun can be had playing within the confines of the existing ruleset.