Friday, July 6, 2012

Stupid Dramas

by SandWyrm

There are some things that I need to clarify.

Why do I play games like 40K?
1) For The Social Interaction With Friends
2) For The Mental Challenges Of The Game
3) To Try And Improve My Game Performance Over Time
4) For The Hobby/Painting Aspects
Now, an issue has come up with Sanguinary Guard Glaives that simply cannot be resolved with logical debate. The rules are too sloppily worded, and there are fantastic arguments that favor every possible interpretation of these terribly written rules. But the arguing is pointless. There can be no resolution without someone with authority making an arbitrary decision on how these weapons should work.

Yes, I know your particular view is simple, logical, and absolutely right. But so is everyone's. Look at the comments that have been posted on this blog about how this problem should be ruled. There is no consensus. Xenos players are predominant in thinking the Axes should be I1. Because that gives them an advantage they think they deserve. While Imperial players with Terminators are going to probably come down on the side of making them AP3 to protect THEIR favorite troops. So it's going to be an argument every time I sit down to play. Personally, I would like them to be (not the point) so that I can kill (not the point either), but that's just my own bias talking because the problem can't be logically ruled in a consistent way.

Yes, I know I can re-model the minis to use swords or axes. But THAT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

If I re-model the minis to all use axes, then there will always be someone who will think I'm cheating because being Master Crafted CLEARLY (to them) makes the Glaives unique weapons that should be AP3. Whereas if I re-model them as swords, then a GW FAQ could come out tomorrow that rules all Glaives to be axes regardless of what they look like.

Yes, I know that I can just contact tournament TOs and see how it's going to be ruled at their event. But that limits my choices of where to play in Tournaments to half of what it was before. Unless of course I purchase the models for two lists so all of my bases are covered. But if was willing to do that, I'd just play a different army instead. Like Ultramarines, who have the spiffy new flyer to play with. Why would I throw that much money at this army?

There are those who think I'm being intentionally childish about this, but go read the rules again. Half of my (smart, experienced, competitive) friends think it should be one way, while the other (smart, experienced, competitive) half think it should be the other. There are a couple of my more relaxed friends who will let me play the Glaives however I like (at least for a while), but that doesn't help me with the problem of the arguments I'll have when I play the rest of my friends. If I can only play a couple of my friends without arguing, then why did I pay so much for the rules to this game? How is it better than what we had before? Rules are supposed to make it easier to have fun and resolve disputes, not harder.

It comes down to a logical set of choices. Do I:

1) Piss off at least half of my friends by asserting how I think Glaives should work when we play?
2) Simply let my opponent choose how they think the Glaives should work before the game?
3) Do nothing and wait for GW/NOVA/INAT to make a choice that everyone will accept.

Option #1 breaks the first rule of why I play games.

Option #2 breaks the 2nd and 3rd rules. Because to play competitively against my competitive friends, I need to make certain adjustments to my list based on the resolution of my problem. If they can simply choose whichever option gives them an advantage, then I'm going to lose interest in the game real quick!

Certain Adjustments?

I have about 165 points to spend in my list because Sanguinary Priests got nerfed (good riddance!). What I spend those points on matters. If I can't hurt Termies in close-combat, then I need to yank off every model's stormbolter and replace it with a plasma pistol to torrent down those Termies from afar. If I CAN hurt Termies in close-combat, then I would like to add a unit of Honor Guard or a Librarian with those points. Or shuffle some points around and take a 6th unit of Sanguinary Guard. Or some allies.

But that all costs money to do, and I have no guarantee that after spending that money, a FAQ won't invalidate my choices and force me to spend MORE money switching all of my weapons back the other way. I used to have enough money that I didn't care about these things, but then my job was shipped to China. So not wasting money is more important to me than it used to be. If I can't modify this army cheaply, then I can't afford to play 40K anymore. Full stop.

So I'm going to wait.

Not quit, not yet, just... wait. Until I can play without pissing everyone off.

"That's BS! You Just Hate GW!"

I don't hate GW, and I never have. I'm just REALLY disappointed in them. I expected to love or hate certain things in 6th, and I certainly had fun with the rumors (too much probably). But I was ready to try 6th out anyhow and see what it was really like. Some of the changes sounded good for my army. So I put up my money and bought the book. Only to find out that my particular army's rules are broken in a way that keeps me from having fun with my friends. Which is, you know, the entire point of playing a game.

I'm not saying 6th sucks or does not suck for everyone based on this one unfortunate error. How many people are both competitive AND play Sanguinary Guard? Not many. If you're having fun then more power to you. I'm glad.

Once this problem is resolved, I look forward to playing at least a dozen games before I decide whether to spend money on my army or not. But I'm not going to spend money and just hope that everything works out. Because I've been a GW gamer a LONG time and don't really expect, based on experience, a decision on this for at least a month. Probably more like 3. This isn't my first rodeo, after all. Remember the Nid FAQ.

"You're Just Looking For An Excuse To Quit!"

No, I'm looking for an excuse to keep playing. The last game I played was the week after the Indy Open in March. Almost 4 months ago. Prior to that I played the ringer at the Indy Open for one game. Throw in one game with Spag and that's all of the 40K games I've played this year. Three. In 7 months. I've still got lots of GW models, and I haven't really quit until I sell them off. But it looks like I'll have to wait some more for whatever goodness or badness this edition brings.

"You're Just Trolling To Promote Your Own Game!"

No, I'm writing my own game because otherwise I would do nothing at all, all day,  but complain about how GW develops theirs. That's what frustrated artists do. We create stuff to vent our emotions.

Plus I'm enjoying the process. Regardless of what comes of the project, I'm having fun. Besides, how can I push a game that's not even half-way to alpha yet? I'd rather get you to play Flames of War, because it's universal, accepted, and highly refined. Because best-case, it will be years before my game will have any sort of player base. If then.

I'm going to wrap this up now.  I'm also going to disable comments, lest I get 12 more heartfelt diatribes about why interpretation X of the new rules is the correct one. Because that's missing the point. The point is, I can't play the new edition yet. Because I don't want to argue about this issue before, during, and after every game I play. And until we get that ruling I don't want to play a bunch of games, argue the issue to death, and build up a bunch of expectations within myself about the way the rule SHOULD be, because that has frak-all to do with whatever it will be in the future. I'm cranky enough about 40K these days without feeding myself that extra bit of hope and disappointment.

And that's the last thing I have to say about 6th on this blog until we see some more FAQs.

Recent Favorites

All-Time Favorites