Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
There needs to be AT LEAST two different versions of this game!
I've stopped playing because people are all about competition and the people who would rather just convert some awesome models and play scenario games are getting screwed by the new rules systems. There's a butt load of special rules and counter rules and meta-gaming that have ruined the game for me. I have almost no interest in playing it, but I still feel the burning need to cleanse, purge, and kill the unclean.
I propose there be a competition set of rules with a rule book and codecies (as it is now) and a lighter version that isn't completely compatible but comes as a single book full of all the rules needed to play all the major armies in a fun and fast way.
This faster version would have all the cool rules we love as scenario players, such as VDR(vehicle design rules) and MDR (monster design rules). The scenario book would be thicker and cost more than the competition core rule book but it would have more in it and be thicker. I realize this sounds like a contradiction (simplify the rules but make more of them), but the little special character rules are a lot harder to keep track of, than a rule that is universal for both armies playing.
The competition core rule book could cut out a lot of the fluff to make it thinner and easier to carry to tournaments.
I think these changes are LONG overdue. But if it were up to me, I would produce THREE versions of the rule book. I would also post a digital copy of a more realistic rule book online. The 40K "Realism" rules would expand weapon ranges and make bombardment pieces, such as the Basilisk and Deathstrike unusable on anything but massive tables (more than 10 feet). It would use 10 sided dice to allow for better expansion of weapon and CC damage among other things.
I don`t think that You can change the players` attitude with any kind of reform in rules/armies. It is like the chess, two armies against each other, there always will be opponents who play only for winning. I don`t think the rules have anything to do with this.
Ps 1.: I am not a competitive player.
Ps 2.: And easy to say You want to purge me from that far! Blah! Humie...
Meta-game is a game within a game. People have stopped trying to play the game and they've started trying to win the game. They've stopped saying, "Hey, what do you think would be a fun/characterful addition to my (insert theme here) based army?" and they've started saying, "Hey, what army will win the most/What unit is worth it's points/What special character will give me an advantage?"
It's all wrong IMO, and is a completely different type of game than the one I started playing. This WHOLE game has been targeted toward a competitive player and it's purging all the scenario players. I'm saying there's room for both if they publish another rule book target toward the scenario gamer. On top of that, there's room for further improvement to target the historical gamer who prefers some semblance of realism. Granted 40k is about as far from real as it gets but I know a lot of older gamers that are turning toward more realistic rules sets because a D6 just doesn't cover what it should in the 40k system.
Yea, there's nothing stopping house rules, but wouldn't it be easier if you had a crap-ton of house rules from all over the world in a compilation book, like oh... I don't know... an actual core rule book?
@Fremen, That's just it. I'm not trying to change the minds of players. I'm trying to make room in this rollercoaster for everyone. Instead of swaying one way or the other, we CAN have the best of both worlds. We shouldn't have to just follow GW's lead into competitive play. We should be able to choose our own adventure. (who just had a flashback to those old books with the different endings?)
Last edited by RexTalon; November 4th, 2010 at 18:06.
I agree with realitycheque. There is nothing stopping you from using house rules (unless your at a tournement). But it sounds like that isnt your cup of tea which is fine. Me personally, I like the hobby aspect, I like to make my minatures look cool. I also am very strategical too, and like the idea that if you devote the time and enery to studying the game and can clean house over someone then that should be your reward.
Like everything else in life. You get out of it what you put into it. So if you just like playing scenario games then cool, but you will have diehards out there who live warhammer, its just going to happen.
As for the "Meta-gaming" there will always be poeple in any game who studied and you might argue obsess over the rule, tactics, etc... Warhammer 40k is a tabletop Strategy Game, that is what it is for. You are essentially dueling your armies, and that in itself is a "scenario" I personally thin if you follow all the rules, even if your list is stacked then to fight a speciifc army, its all the more challanging for you to learn.
People who are afraid to play the tough armies or hard list and wine about cheesey list are very poor sports. You get better and learn from playing those hard list.
Bottom line is, 40k is a hobby, you get out if it what you put into it, and you will always find "meta gamers" in any game; and remember that 40k is indeed just a GAME.
Multiple versions at the same time just isn't sensible or feasible. Testing each version would result in a colossal amount of time wasted and no guarantee that each version would be used equally.
And then one guy who plays one version turns up at a club that plays a different version...
And so on.
One system may not be perfect, but at least everyone knows the score no matter what.
You want something different you need to take up Warhammer/Ancients/Black Powder/War Machine etc etc.
Having an army and not owning a rulebook is like owning a car with no steering wheel.Originally Posted by amishcellphone
I think you shot down your own argument with that one. There's plenty that can be improved about 40k, no question, but I'd rather see GW get one set of rules right than two sets of rules wrong. Besides, it's too much of a stretch to have a tournament ruleset and a convert-and-invent ruleset. There would be no crossover between the two; a heavily VDR'd army could never be brought to an official event and a tourney army would be ineffective in an anything-goes environment.Originally Posted by RexTalon
I made that very mistake with my Guard. I built them with a lot of cool proxies and counts-as, and everybody was duly impressed by it. Then the 'Ard Boyz tournament came around and I thought I'd give it a shot, since it looked fun and everybody I knew was doing it, but my awesomely unique army was illegal. I got sidelined for creativity and learned my lesson.
"My tanks have names, my men have numbers." -Col. Edmund Grahvess, 23rd Kronecker Prison Guard
Just play WHFB, a much better written game and one where "meta gaming" is much less common (In my area anyway)