Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Well... I'm Done

by SandWyrm


What to do, what to do... It seems that I'm stuck with an army that I literally can't figure out the rules for in 6th Edition. What's up with that? 400 pages and GW can't put a one-line entry in the reference for the Glaives my Sanguinary Guard carry?

One paragraph in the rules would seem to indicate that, being Master Crafted, my Sang Guard's (and Dante's) weapons would simply be counted as a 'normal' AP3 power weapons. Because they have another special rule.

But the paragraph on the right side of the same page would seem to suggest no, because those weapons are using standard special rules and not 'custom' rules.

So, since the SG kit came with both Axes and Swords (neither of which can actually be called a 'Glaive', since glaives are actually a type of polearm) I'm not sure if I need to start hacking off and replacing weapon arms, or not. I don't even get that option with Dante.

Oh, I'm sure that the guys I play with would let me pick whatever I like better in casual games. But what about competitive games? Do I rub my hands together, cackle, and pick the best interpretation based on the army I'm facing? Swords vs. Nids, Axes vs. Terminators, etc. ? Do I roll for it?

It seems like way too much trouble and arguing for something that's supposed to be relaxing. I was sooooo relaxed last weekend playing Flames. Though it did get a little noisy when the 40K crowd came in and started arguing about the new rules. It's warping my perceptions, I'm sure. I shouldn't expect clarity from GW, but I do now.


So Here's My Solution

I'm going to take my brand-new 400+ page, well-nigh unreadable, rulebook back to the Games Workshop store and get a refund. The rules are broken and I can't use them. Literally.

Then I'll wait 3-6 months, and if a FAQ fixes the issues I'll pick up one of the mini-rulebooks from the starter edition (out in August-September I hear) for much less money and see how the game actually plays. Hopefully by then all of these little issues of clarity will be worked out by someone (INAT, NOVA, GW, whoever) and the game will become consistently playable to some degree or another. But I really don't want to take part in those arguments. It's just not worth the headache to me. Stuff I buy should just work.

In the meantime, I'll refrain from commenting on 6th Edition further. Others can tear it apart or praise it based on their actual in-game experiences. I've got my own grimdark wargame to write, and another I'm already playing that's cheap, fun, and competitive.

So... bye bye. I'll post here when I have something fun and positive to say about one of those. I'm through complaining about 6th.

68 comments:

  1. Thanks very much, it was getting old.

    More painting articles!!! Your color theory articles are the reason I started following Back40K. FoW or GW or PPress, it does not matter just paint more and share your results.

    Thanks

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with painting articles is that they're a LOT of work and they normally don't get many comments or hits. Making me think that few people actually care about them.

      Delete
    2. I loved your Tallarns. The perspective you bring to the hobby completely changed the way I painted, and thought about painting. Even if it is just you sapping a picture of what is on your workbench or some thoughts you had, anything would be appreciated.

      Delete
    3. Well, I echo the thanks, you're complaining was something I was tired of seeing in the roll. I really think either you or your local scene just has a problem with 40k if the glaives are that big of a deal and that is fine. Now that you have admitted it, you can move on to do healthy gaming that doesn't frustrate you so much. Good luck with Flames.

      Delete
    4. It's not about what my local scene will or won't allow. It's about not being able to go anyplace and be sure that someone else's local scene won't demand that I play in a way that my army is not designed for.

      The easy fixes that work fine in the basement don't work when every store in town sees the issue differently. Without a ruling on this problem, it's just not worth the frustration of arguing before every game.

      Delete
  2. eh :-) It may not be the only game in town at the Gopher (CU), but it is the only steady group of people playing... Minor annoyances for most of my armies with the lack of clarity... IE: what AP is Eldrad's weapon, why bother with options on Logan's axe... Things like that... The fliers area a mess at the moment, and playing armies without them, I am at a SERIOUS disadvantage... Still trying to figure out the rules and such locally... But from the number of books Dave sold, guessing 40K will be doing fairly well locally...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not every army is going to suffer from the book's lack of clarity. But mine does. So I'll wait until the problem is fixed to play the game.

      Delete
  3. Isn't a glaive also a type of greatsword? I'd go with them all being "exotic" power weapons and thus AP3, regular initiative. If you wanted to take them as AP2 axes I doubt anyone would mind though :P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some will mind and some won't. That's the issue.

      Delete
    2. When the urge to play 40k hits you (lol), just play with someone who won't mind. Hell, I play with a guy who uses tyrranofexes as flyrants!

      Delete
    3. I could do that with Farmpunk, but he's even less interested in playing 40K than I am. Something about nothing for his Nuns...

      Delete
    4. I got curious and did some research. Apparently, in French, glaive almost always refers to a sword, though for pretty much everyone else, it is in fact a polearm.

      Also, you can always play me. Hell, I'll even bring my Tau.

      Delete
    5. We can do that a couple of times for kicks, sure. I just don't want to get used to playing one way, spend money, and then be forced to play another. There's no future in it.

      My rulebook has already been returned, so we'll have to use yours. I'll let you pick the rule interpretation that you like best. :)

      Delete
    6. So did GW actually give you a refund?

      Also I like reading painting articles, there is just rarely anything that needs posting about them.

      Delete
    7. Yeah, they did. There was a bit of a mix-up and I got charged again instead of refunded. But Kevin caught the mistake and called me the next day before I knew what had happened. So kudos to him, he's a stand-up guy.

      As for painting articles... Well, if you like them say so. I work for comments after all. :)

      Delete
  4. "Thanks very much, it was getting old."

    /signed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concur. While I think it's silly to ragequit over master crafted power weapons, I'm happy to not see any more posts like this show up in my reader. Now if we could only get TKE to stop posting as well...

      On a positive note, I would be thrilled to see more hobby articles from you. I promise I'll post lots of comments! Can you make the first one "How to use the airbrush that you just bought and don't know how to use?"

      Delete
    2. I'm not rage-quitting, I'm sad-pausing. There's a difference.

      Delete
    3. Ha ha, "sad pausing," I like that!

      Delete
  5. Don't be a frigging baby. I can't understand for the life of me why people react like you are now. It's a friggan game, and every time a new edition comes out, things will change. Armies you loved to play will no longer be viable. The rules ebb & flow. Back when we jumped from 2nd edition to 3rd, I had to redo a good third of my army...half my wargear just went *poof* into the nether.

    Many of us enjoy your posts, don't give up a game because less than ONE WEEK after the ruleset drops, you're unsure if your favorite unit got hit by the nerf bat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think of it this way:

      Once upon a time (1990-1994) buying a computer game meant that I fully expected to spend the entire weekend trying to configure my PC under MS-DOS just to get the thing to run. Extended Memory or Expanded? Oh, this game can't use IRQ9 for the sound card? Open the case and start swapping jumpers around.

      Then, after 2-3 days of this (and 50+ reboots), I might actually be able to run the game and find out whether it was great or sucked.

      Sound stupid? Well, that's how it was. It was expected. We all complained, but we bought the games anyway.

      Then Win95 came along and suddenly everything just worked. I could be playing a new game in an hour or so after updating drivers. I still bought a few MS-DOS games for a while, but then I just stopped. My expectations had been raised and there wasn't any going back to the stupid way.

      So, when 6th Edition 40K is playable without having to argue how my army should work, I'll give it a try. It's not worth the trouble until then. This is a game, not a lifestyle.

      Delete
  6. When I read the rules I thought exactly the same thing as you, what the hell is the deal with glaives. I had hoped before the FAQ they might have fixed them, glaives were broken and rubbish before, a 2h weapon that doesnt infer any bonuses for strength? I dont think so. Now its ap3 and still gives no bonuses AND we have lost I5 from FC. Sorry but GW really screwed this unit up, its not like making it more powerful would make the army over powered hell its well behind wolves and grey knights already.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I found the power weapon rules rather confusing, myself, however, the master-crafted rule is what throws the Glaive Encarmine into the AP3 power weapon category- same for good ole Dante's Axe Mortalis (wha- its an axe! LOL).

    Like you, I had hoped for a little more for the SG, but the lack of a true invuln save coupled with a small nerf to their power weapons makes their cost (in my opinion) prohibitive- especially when compared to the likes of a Terminator. Yah, Termies are going to swing last, but power fists are built in, along with a 5+ invuln.

    So what is this other cheap, fun game you are currently playing? Dust? I have a rulebook in the mail, on the way, and I am rather excited to check it out.

    I have to admit I'm excited to play 6th (I'll get my first game in somewhere between Fri-Sat). Obviously, if something isn't fun then you shouldn't engage it- especially if 'it' is a hobby!

    My hope that is somewhere down the road, you'll find peace with 6th edition, but, I haven't found your complaints to be off-putting by any means; I value honest opinion- good or bad. I enjoy the blog- keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If GW says the Master Crafted rule makes them AP3, cool. But until then there's also that paragraph that seems to say that only weapons with CUSTOM special rules get that out.

      It's not about power. It's about having to argue over something I really don't care about. But I have to build my army to work one way or the other. So if store/tourney B doesn't agree with A on how to treat my army, I'm playing at a disadvantage.

      I've always played 40K in the first place because it was universal. I could get a game anywhere. But for the time being, at least, it's not.

      Delete
    2. Actually, SW, Games Workshop stated that the Master Crafted rule makes a power weapon something other than what the model represents- bear with me.

      On page 61, 3rd paragraph the rules state,"If a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has,"(emphasis mine).

      Flipping to page 32, Special Rules are defined as (but not limited to), "uncommon rules to govern uncommon circumstances." and, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule." Page 39, 'Master Crafted' is listed as a special rule.

      To recap, if a model's wargear says it has a power weapon which has no further special rules, look at the model to tell which type of power weapon it has: if it's a sword or dagger, its a power sword; if its an axe or halberd, its a power axe; if its a blunt weapon like a mace or staff, its a power maul; if its a spear or lance, its a power lance."

      A Sanguinary Guard's Glaive Encarmine has one or more special rule(s) (Master Crafted), therefore it is not defined by looking at the model. Likewise, Dante's Axe Mortalis has a special rule (again, Master Crafted)and is also not defined by looking at the model.

      Where does that leave these unusual weapon(s)?

      Page 61, Section 'Unique Power Weapons', paragraph four, "Many Models have unusual power weapons that have one or more unique rules. If a power weapon has its own unique close combat rules, treat it as an AP 3 Melee weapon with the additional rules and characteristics presented in its entry."

      Is the word unique ambiguous in this text? Perhaps, but the word unique isn't our focus in this case. Our focus is when a power weapon is defined by it's model- the book clearly states when it isn't. As a result, the rules for unusual power weapon(s) take effect.

      A power weapon that has any special rules associated with it becomes unusual (Twin Linked is a special rule, by the way Pg. 43). An unusual Power Weapon is then treated as an AP3 melee weapon.

      Unless, Games Workshop clarifies these rules, this is how I will be playing unusual power weapons, as I can't simply ignore the third paragraph on page 61.

      Delete
    3. I agree with this assessment. But Dodger and others won't. Because they don't think Master Crafted is special enough, and there's a paragraph they can point to that can, in theory, back this up.

      Heck, there's a large number of people who currently believe that Dante's axe is an axe, but the Glaives are unusual weapons. That an interpretation like that can even exist makes my head hurt.

      Delete
    4. Saying Unique is not the focus is not the case, it's the point where people diverge from special and say "well, the nemesis force weapons GK have are unique because they don't have special rules, so Master-crafted weapons are not unique".

      Well, let's see if I can back this logic a little more.

      The definition to "special rule" is at the beginning of the second paragraph, pg. 32: "whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends the mais games rules (...)".

      Yet, lower on that same page, on the topic "What SPECIAL rules do I have?", forth paragraph down, it reads: "most of the more commonly used special rules in warhammer 40k are listed here, but this is no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own UNIQUE abilities, which are laid out in their codex."

      With this we have found the definition of unique rule which rules the Power Weapon dilemma: It's a special rule, either one from the list presented on the list from the BRB, pgs. 32/43, or one presented on the unit's codex.

      Delete
    5. Master Crafted is included in the Special Rules section of the rulebook (therefore is a special rule). If a power weapon has one or more special rules, it is no longer defined by it's model.

      The confusion lies in the section,'Uniqie Power Weapons' because it does not specifically state that a power weapon with one or more special rules is unusual (or unique).

      Off topic; is the other game you mention FoW, or is there another game besides that which you are playing?

      It doesn't have to.

      When a power weapon is no longer defined by it's model (due to having one or more special rules)then it becomes unusual and adopts the generic power weapon profile.

      Obviously, this will require a measure of discussion with an opponent prior to a game until GW clarifies or rewords the section pertaining to power weapons (if they do).

      Delete
    6. Heh, my off topic question should have been at the end of the post not in the center.

      Delete
    7. Flames is what I'm playing competitively.

      I'm also writing my own game, but it's not in a playable state yet. You can go check it out if you want though:

      http://them42project.blogspot.com/

      I'm keen on trying Infinity, and of course I still have a bunch of Malifaux stuff.

      Delete
  8. As much as I'll love not continuously hearing you b*tch about the hobby for 3-6 months,if you can't otherwise tell, you look at the model. Problem solved? The bitz that look like an ax are axes, and the bitz that look like swords are swords.

    The whole "unique rule" bit is for (take a guess) actual *unique* weapons, not weapons found here and there in various codices. Saying a "master crafted" weapon is unique is like saying a "twin-linked" weapon is unique... neither of those changes the weapon itself, it's an add-on to make it a touch better.

    Seriously, enjoy Flames. It's a game that you like playing, so play it. Have a hobby that you don't hate. Kindly leave 40k to the people who enjoy the game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've just stated the problem nicely. You see it one way, some see it another. It's simply arbitrary as to which one folks will want to go with.

      I expected to like or dislike a lot of things in 6th. But I never thought that my army would be a giant question mark right out of the gate. Or that I'd spend 4 days reading the rules only to be just as confused afterward as I was before.

      Delete
    2. Sandwyrm, you are ruining the game for him by not agreeing with him, please let him enjoy 6th edition without telling him what's controversial or else.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I suppose that it's like standing behind someone playing a slot machine and reminding them of the odds and the state regulations that define just how likely you are to win. :)

      Delete
    4. Quitting and moving on, while trying to produce your own game, is probably the best thing you can do. I did that in the 3rd edition, and came back in 4th edition. My 40k experience has only gotten better, thanks to that change in perspective.

      Delete
  9. Enjoy the different corner... don't forget to pay rent on the old one... :P

    I'll be reading a big yellow book...

    CK

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :)

      It's a nice corner. Really nice. Nicer than I ever thought a corner could be.

      Delete
  10. Sandwyrm's going to stop with all the 40k doomsday posts? Holy smokes, ring the bells he's freaking gone(As the munchkins sing "Ding dong the whitch is dead"). You just made my day sir thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gone? No. But I won't be writing about 40K until I can actually play it without getting a migrane.

      If you think I jest, listen. I had to intervene in a VERY heated debate a few weeks ago over whether walking jump troops have to take dangerous terrain tests for entering a wood or ruin. Two veteran players, 4 years into the fraking edition, were nerd-raging and pointing to the exact same paragraph in the book, yet seeing something completely different. They're still sore over it. This sort of thing happens EVERY TIME I go to that store to play.

      On my honor, I have NEVER EVER had an argument like that over one damned thing in Flames of War. Because as soon as someone opens the book to find an answer to a question, there is no more debate. It's right there in clearly written text and diagrams.

      Delete
  11. To clarify for anyone who's actually interested about the 'problem' posed instead of just complaining/commenting on complaining:

    The mistake made in the article is the assumption that all Glaives Encarmine must, for whatever reason, be the same kind of Power Weapon. Why? Power Weapons are all they are, and Power Weapons are (now) various things.

    In fact, in ALL relevant cases, GW went back and FAQ'd any reference to Power Axe/Sword/Spear/etc to be "Power Weapon;" i.e., they're actively going for LESS definition of Power Weapons, to allow the insertion of the various Power Weapon profiles based on what the model is holding. Why would Glaives Encarmine be any different, when it's just a fancy name for "Power Weapon + 2H + Master-Crafted"?

    Here's what a Sanguinary Guard sprue looks like: http://bitzbarn.com/oscommerce/catalog/images/SanguinaryGuardSprue2.jpg

    Some of those are very clearly Axes, and some of them are very clearly Swords. Get this: The ones that are Swords are Swords, and the ones that are Axes are Axes. This does not somehow melt the foundation of the game and send us spiralling into disarray; it is in fact exactly what the rulebook is going for.

    If you wanted to attack GW over this, you had a must less insane angle to come at it from: Accuse them of trying to wring extra sales out of "Power Weapon" users by forcing them to all go scrounge up bits of the particular types of weapons they want to use. Or had we already run the "GW wants all the dollars" well dry long ago?

    Regardless of what their intent was, anything that looks like an Axe is suddenly going to be a whole lot rarer than anything that looks like a Maul. Think Meltaguns vs. Flamers in terms of the bitz market.

    And for what it's worth, it's a good change gameplay-wise. Particularly if your options are Swords and Axes (also known as "the good ones"), you get to make that decision for your army. It's not a matter of "what someone will allow," if you equip them all with the Axes (via the GW illuminati conspiracy to get you to buy an extra sprue), then they've got Axes. All Swords? Swords. Want some of both? Feel free! It's added variability, with tradeoffs in either direction, made at a list-building level. That's a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said that it melted the foundation of the game.

      It just stops ME from being able to easily play my army without everyone in the room pontificating about their own expert opinion on the matter. It's a problem that affects only a small number of 40K players with Sang Guard armies who also happen to be competitive and play at multiple locations/events. All what? Twenty of us? Them's some big profits there! Woooooo, Nelly! Dividends for everybody!!!

      (/sarcasm)

      An axe is an axe, and a sword is a sword. Unless it has other special rules. Or is that only custom special rules? Dunno. I really don't know.

      You can't reason this out in a consistent way that everyone will accept. Go look at BoLS right now for God's sake. They're dreaming up angles on this I can't even think of. All you can really do is roll a die before each match.

      Like I said before, I don't care if they're one way or the other. But if they're S5 AP2 I1, then I need to modify my weapons in certain ways. Such as dropping Fists and taking more plasma. But if I go the other way, I need the fists and some other options to compensate for my inability to drop Termies.

      It's a set of divergent choices. Whichever one I pick, I'm going to run into somebody who thinks I'm wrong and that the Glaives should work the other way. No matter how they're modeled.

      Considering that I paid $75 for this 'game', it's a load of crap. I don't want to argue pointlessly every time I play.

      So I'm going to wait until the system is out of beta and this particular hole has been patched. I appreciate that you have your own expert opinion on this unanswerable question. But that doesn't solve the problem for when I'm playing anyone but you.

      Delete
    2. No offense, but BoLS is a mess for the same reason this blog is a mess and the same reason every other forum is a mess.

      The culture of the times means it's a big goddamn rush to get your opinion out there before you have the slightest idea what you're actually talking about. EVERYTHING will be a mess for a minimum of two months, because everyone wants to tell us all about the big new thing they just read about five seconds ago, even though they have no basic understanding of the other fifteen rules that interact with that big new thing.

      Nobody wants to take a moment to, y'know, apply some critical thinking or anything. They see two shiny things and go "SWEET LORD, WHY DIDN'T ANYONE NOTICE HOW THESE TWO SHINY THINGS INTERACT?!?!" and rush out to tell the world about it before thinking to themselves "y'know, maybe there's something I'm missing, I should look into this some more before drawing any conclusions."

      There's a pretty freaking huge gap between "reading" and "understanding." Plenty of people have read the book, that one's easy. Understanding the way thousands of rules actually interact is a whole different story, but that isn't going to get in anybody's way. It's the freaking internet and we have opinions and they need to be LOUD! and FAST! and if we're completely wrong about every word of it, people will forget ten minutes later anyway! To the keyboards!

      It's not a matter of being smart or stupid or trying harder or whatever. Aaron tries to understand the rules harder than most, and a couple days ago he went and posted a big list of SCs with "axes" on the blog and talked about how they'd all been nerfed down to I1, followed by everyone going "no, those are all unique weapons, and therefore exempt."

      It's solely a matter of slowing the hell down and thinking. But you won't see any of that; everyone's too busy rushing out to tell us how Flyers and Allies are going to destroy the game (which they've played three times) because DEAR LORD THEY DIDN'T GIVE US ANY SKYFIRE WEAPONS HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY COPE THERE'S NO OTHER CONCEIVABLE ANSWER etc etc etc.

      If I held myself in such high regard to assume I'd figured out the new Edition, foreseen all the possible ramifications, and gained dramatic tactical insight into what armies/units will be most powerful once the dust settles after simply reading the book and playing a handful of games, I guess I'd have to start a blog of my own.

      Delete
    3. For the record:

      1) Fortifications are definitely broken.

      2) Flyers might be ok, or only slightly broken. I'm willing to give them a chance. Or at least I would be if I could play the game without risking a migrane.

      3) Allies are actually fine, but won't accomplish what most folks expect them to.

      My biggest beef with the game isn't actually the game mechanics, it's the rules clarity and the section layouts. Which I CAN criticize because I'm writing my own rules. 5th had it's problems, but I never went glassy-eyed trying to read it.

      Delete
    4. You read 5th when you cared and you read 6th when you were already six-months deep into a GW hategasm. You'll have to forgive the assumption of bias, but:

      6th is a freaking miracle in terms of clarity of writing compared to 5th. They actually added detailed orders of operations! Do you know what an absolute godsend that is for anyone who had to deal with all this bullshit in 5th? Hey guys, is the start of the Movement phase and the start of the Turn the same time? When do Reserves arrive in relation to these two things? What about the start of the Assault phase and "prior to Assault moves being made"? Or the other seventy freaking times these kind of timing issues absolutely ground rules discussions to a halt because we literally had nothing to work with. It's honestly shocking that "hey guys, is this an axe or a sword?" is the biggest worry we have in terms of rules right now.

      Your post on Fortifications was...strange, to say the least. The Bastion/Fortress are deathtrap-gambles that you have to pay for. There's a myriad of ways to get killed inside the things, and the enemy can just up and take them from you. In either case, you have to keep the entire thing(s) full of units, otherwise you can be Assaulted from within it. The Skyshield Pad is...odd, at best.

      The only one I believe people will honestly consider is the Aegis Defense Line, and that consists of people choosing to pay 50 points in order to gain a tiny portion of what they already had for free in 5th Edition, which was ubiqutous 4+ cover saves. You honestly suggested, with a straight face, that this would lead to IG never using Chimeras because they can just hide behind the walls.

      The walls which are identical to every piece of area terrain, ever, from 5th Edition. In which we definitely never saw any Chimeras.

      The only problem I see with Fortifications is that their intended usage (being placed prior to terrain/altering the layout of the board) is clearly incompatible with tournament gameplay, and for that reason alone we might see widespread bannings of them.

      Delete
    5. What you call a 'hategasm', I call raised expectations. What happened 6 months ago? I started playing another game (reluctantly at first). One which is structurally quite similar to 40K, but which has almost none of it's ongoing problems. The company that made it reminds me a lot of GW in it's glory days, only without the rampant greed coloring everything. Instead of nerfing what I have, they just continue to release cool new stuff. The sheer number of models they release on a regular basis is amazing. GW hasn't been that prolific in over a decade.

      The fact that I've continued to write about 40K means I do care, very much, about the game. If I didn't, I'd just walk away. But I've invested a LOT of time into 40K, both to play it and to try and improve various things for the competitive community. So it's gut-wrenching to see it torn up by laziness and greed on GW's part.

      Go build a house and then watch someone else burn it down without even realizing what they did. That's pretty much how I feel. For a while in 5th, I fell for the idea that GW was actually listening to us and striving to improve the game experience. Then it became apparent 2 years ago that they were still the same old GW. So the slide began.

      In the end, it comes down to money. Back when I had more of it to throw around, I didn't mind the upgrade treadmill. I could throw thousands of dollars at an army to make it the latest and greatest. Now I can't. Because the economy simply won't let me.

      As for Aegis walls, you've never had the ability to wall off 40% of the table before and hide wherever you want with a 2+ cover save. COMBINED with the general nerf to vehicles (particularly in close-combat) it does change the equation for Guard. You can sit back and shoot in a box that's easy to hit. Or you can spend fewer points to sit behind the new wall or on top of the landing pad.

      There will still be Chimeras around, but not as many. In terms of realism that's a good thing. But it's the way they did it that annoys me.

      Delete
  12. Way I see it, it's an unusual power weapon, therefore an AP3 weapon. Glaives don't really fit any of the four established power weapon types so far. So they're pretty much master-crafted swords, more or less.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And in this instance, I'd say the glaive =/= axe/lance/sword/maul argument is pretty sound.

      Delete
  13. I come here for variety and I've always respected your opinion even if I disagreed with it. Although I've never posted as I'm a casual gamer with a very casual attitude towards 40k in general. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you said this is a game, not a lifestyle. Life is too short to spend it doing you something you don't enjoy. I hope you find peace, just keep posting coz I like FOW too.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm right there with ya, Sandy.
    I walked away from GW, but part of me keeps looking back over my shoulder.
    Sigh...waddayagonnado?
    It's not even 40k I'm 'mad at,' I love the 40k universe. It's GW, man. I just can't keep giving them money and supporting their method of doing things.
    I won't be buying 6th Edition.
    *shrug*
    FoW and Infinity will be keeping me happy for quiet some time to come, methinks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Throw the baby out with the bathwater and be done with it. I'll be glad when you find something else to harp on. This flounce is taking too long.

    Wanna find misspellings and commas in there also?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm still not forcing anyone to read my stuff.

      Delete
  16. Thanks for the post. Unlike a lot of people here (apparently) I understand the frustration at literally being unable to play the game correctly, and at the arguments that inevitably follow. I also enjoy seeing your thoughts on the system, as yours (and Farmpunk's, and Spag's) are one of the few opinions I respect in the 40k online community. Tell it like it is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Way to both prove and miss my point there Dustin!

      I don't know why I bother either. :(

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Dude. Are you really comparing a game book, a product sold for entertainment purposes, to the US Constitution? Do you really think that the two, and the expectations placed upon those that try to follow and interpret them, are in any way the same? Or even should be?

      (shakes head)

      I'm glad that you like 6th. Really, I am.

      But I believe that rules exist to help people get along and do fun or productive things together more easily, not to confuse and divide them for the benefit of retail sales.

      If I have to argue before EVERY game whether my Spork is a Spoon or a Fork, what's the point in playing the game? Doesn't the argument and the stress caused by this run counter to the game's whole reason for being? Doesn't the non-universality of the obvious solution (ad-hoc rules agreements amongst friends) run contrary to the entire point of using an internationally accepted set of rules in the first place? If I have to play by different rules everywhere I go (other stores, other cities), then why am I not instead playing a better system that's only played in one basement or store?

      Delete
    4. You Sir, are quite a credit to your hobby. Your positions and attitudes represent 40K players.

      I've met a LOT of great guys that also happen to play 40K. What I don't appreciate is all of the 'I hope the door hits you in the ass on the way out, and locks behind you!' sentiment.

      SandWyrm and I are choosing to walk away from 40K for a while.

      for me, I'm just not so sure I want to invest another $500 for this edition to keep 'competitive' in a game system where it seems the Designers aims are to make the game non-competitive.
      40K is trending towards being a boutique, basement game.

      yeah, it's becoming the elite, Beer and pretzels game the designers have said they wanted 40K to be. With 'fun' random effects.

      Try other game systems. seriously. have fun with your game. it's a game of dice, and plastic man-dollies, fer crying out loud.

      and remember one of life's most important rules:
      Don't be a Dick

      Delete
    5. Meh.

      I'm disappointed in myself that I even got involved in this unproductive conversation.

      I'm a 40k/GW hobbyist: I read about a fantastic futurist world dreamed up by some far-out Brits and also model and paint toys sometimes... and every once in a great while, a game happens to breaks out.

      I don't care about the rules so much as EVERYTHING else in the GW world. If you want some competitive game to get your rocks off, go play the stuff that I would actually consider to be elitist: Hordes/Warmachine, Infinity, whatever.

      GW games are for us laid back, don't give a shite, let's have a beer, and interpret the rules as they come up type of guys. I don't care about winning. I'm not even that concerned about playing correctly.

      It's the toys and the fluff that I love. It just so happens that I can formally play with them, if I so choose.

      I guess it just comes down to me being a hater. I hate whiners. My mantra is, if you don't like it, either shut up and talk a walk, or be proactive in contributing a solution to whatever ails ya.

      And I hate jocks. Career Warmachine players, which I consider to be the jocks of the tabletop gaming world, are welcome to enjoy their world. But don't compare that game and crowd with my game and crowd. Water and oil.

      40k is like playing out your very own sci-fi movie. Grab a bag of popcorn, a beer, kick back, and enjoy the ride (even if your fork ends up being a spoon this time).

      Delete
    6. I'm glad you like the 40K universe/fiction. I do too.

      There is a game attached to this universe though. It may not be the favorite part of the hobby to you, and that's fine. It doesn't have to be. Unlike you, I don't hate those who get other things out of the hobby than I do. I recognize that the hobby is bigger than my little corner of it.

      But to me the game was the thing I enjoyed most. I enjoyed building lists, collecting/modeling/painting them, and seeing how they played against other competitive players. For me, that was fun. Especially in 5th Edition. Or at least the early part of it.

      Learning to win is a part of that enjoyment. But winning too much isn't much fun, so I kept looking for better and better players to compete with. In the same way that a painter will seek out better and better painters to compare his work to. It's a way to measure your progress in learning and applying the skills you pick up doing something you enjoy.

      As a community, we competitive types built tournament systems and picked up the ball when GW dropped it. We put a LOT of work into making our corner of the hobby work.

      Now, how much would you whine if 40K suddenly didn't have the hobby side? What if every mini were sold pre-painted in sealed boxes that you wouldn't know the contents of until you bought it, like Magic: The Gathering? I suspect you would whine quite a bit. Because something you enjoyed had been taken away and replaced with an obvious money grab. And even when you DO try and buy a few packs, you find that the paint flakes off easily and the models fall apart.

      That's how I feel about the new rules. They're badly designed, push new expensive models that I don't want, and seem explicitly designed to destroy the ability of the competitive community to run it's events peacefully. Destroying something that I put a lot of time into helping to build.

      As for the 'Elitist' jab, that's GW's words, not ours. Their corporate strategy is not to grow the player base, but to shrink it with price increases. Because it reduces their overall costs and makes the game more 'Elite' while raising their revenues slightly.

      Does that sound like a good thing to you? Do you want fewer folks in the hobby? Because I can tell you, from personal experience in the 80's and early 90's, what a smaller 40K player base means. It means that nobody ever leaves the basement. It means one game store, maybe, per medium-sized city. It means no large conventions, no tournaments, and no local clubs. It's depressing, and I don't want to return to those days. Not one bit. Even as a casual player back then, it sucked.

      Delete
    7. You'd never hear me complain about it. You'd see me quietly walking away and finding something else to occupy my time. Not cry about what used to be. End of story.

      This ain't your dad's 40k. Sorry you're disappointed, but this new direction is what GW has staked their claim on. Move along.

      That's not me being a dick, that's me being realistic.

      So, you "don't hate those who get other things out of the hobby than (you) do"...

      You say I do, but that's not it at all. The fact that you're having trouble with is... that part of the hobby just ain't there for you to "get other things out of" any longer. Go find that thing you need so badly in some other game and quit complaining. You just end up sounding like a bitch.

      Change can be hard. Take it like a man.

      Delete
    8. So... You'd just walk away? From the tens of thousands of dollars you've spent on their models? The thousands upon thousands of hours that you spent assembling and painting them? From the thousands upon thousands of hours spent writing about the game on a blog? From the community that you helped grow in your local area? From the guys at your local store that you've enjoyed hundreds of games with? From the friendships that you formed on-line with guys you only see once or twice a year, if ever?

      If none of that would mean anything to you, then you don't love the game, the hobby, or the people in it like I do. GW's games have been a part of my life since high school. Twenty-five years ago. Longer than most of the people criticizing me have been alive. Longer than I've been married and had kids. Longer than I lived with my parents or spent in school. It's a part of who I am. Do you have any concept of that? I don't think that you do.

      I can see that 40K is taking a path that won't make me happy. I understand that Jervis and the gang have different plans for the game than I would in their place.

      But that doesn't mean that I can just say "screw it" and walk away. It doesn't mean that I don't have the right to be pissed at their attitude towards the investments in time and money that I, and others like me, have put into this hobby. Into our gaming communities. It doesn't mean that I should just "get over it". Anymore than I should "just get over" someone burning down a house I helped to build.

      So my suggestion to you is this: Accept that others don't enjoy or appreciate the same things you do, shake your head if you must, and kindly be on your way.

      Delete
    9. Good advice. My experience of Warhammer 40,000 is that it makes no difference to me whether Glaives Encarmine are Master-Crafted Two-handed Power Swords and Power Axes, or Master-Crafted Two-Handed Special/Unusual/Whatever Power Weapons. Whatever my opponent says, and move on with the game.

      Which, I think, is why the 6th edition rules are not written as a manual - the entire thing emphasizes the role of cooperation between players. Pointing to a line in a rulebook to have things your way is precisely what should be avoided. Every game is a negotiation between the players, and the 6th edition rules have really emphasized that you're not playing a game of Warhammer 40,000, you're playing Warhammer 40,000 with [insert name here]. You're playing. Play nicely.

      Delete
    10. Necro-post much? :)

      'Moving on with the game' means that you don't care about being able to play the army as you're used to playing it. With different rules every time. Which is fine if you just want to push some models around. But to me it precludes caring about the things that encourage me to collect, convert, and paint an army in the first place. I've got no problem collecting and painting a dozen models for that kind of low-expectation experience, but not 50-100. Why would I set myself up to be constantly disappointed after that kind of money/time commitment?

      It's pretty obvious by now, 10 months on, that GW is deliberately trying to drive competitive players, and their high expectations of quality, away from the game. Mission accomplished, but I don't think that it's a winning long-term business strategy for them. I've played 40K as you suggest in the past, when I had more money than sense. It was far from any sort of nirvana. More like endless frustration and disappointment at how nothing I did seemed to change the (bad) outcome of my games.

      Delete

Recent Favorites

All-Time Favorites