- WARGAMING -

WARBASTION'S LOCATION:

Leisure centre, rear entrance via line wall road. Door No. 4 & 5.

SIGN UP TO OUR NEW FACEBOOK PAGE!
ALL MEMBERS PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY OVER TO::

www.warbastion.com:

And Register

    Why we play?

    Share

    Kelmacett
    Admin

    Posts : 380
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Age : 37
    Location : Gibraltar

    Why we play?

    Post by Kelmacett on Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:26 am

    Why is it we yell so loudly for official FAQ's? Why is it people will give up an entire game they've played for years simply because of one army book, or even one specific build-type within that book?

    Something's been on my mind for a long time now. It finally coalesced into a coherent thought after I flipped through the new Battlehosts book for War of the Ring. Last year we'd been playing WotR in the FLGS for several months and most people were having a great time. It seemed like every week someone else would take up the game. Enthusiasm was riding high! Then a couple guys figured out one or two army builds that literally 'broke the game'. Those armies were only beatable by one or two other lists that were just as nasty. Themed and balanced armies were left dazed and confused and interest in the game crashed almost overnight. Now, you can't pay someone to play, and all because of a couple lists. Oh, there were one or two attempts to house rule the few issues that made those broken armies possible, but despite most people agreeing on the solutions, nothing much came of it. It's a shame. After spending so much time, money, and energy on a game that most people really enjoyed, everything was ruined because of two or three issues that could have been easily fixed with house rules. Hopefully they will be fixed in a future Errata, but no one is holding his breath.

    War of the Ring isn't the only time I've seen this. I have one friend who has played 40k for years, but with the increased power level of the codices from the last year or two, he is questioning whether he wants to stay in the game at all with his older, weaker codex and no immediate hope of an update. Another gentleman I know is about ready to quit Flames of War because he doesn't feel the Americans can reliably defeat a German Panther or Tiger army in the hands of a skilled player. I have had my own doubts about Warhammer Fantasy over the last few years. I started out with WHFB. I love my High Elves and my Skaven. I have far too much money sunk into the game for my own good. But I don't enjoy the "deathstar" playstyle that currently dominates the meta game. I really don't have fun playing against that sort of army. So much so, that I can count the number of WHFB games I've played in the last year on one hand. I've been keeping a wary eye on 8th Edition, hoping that somehow the meta will change. Last week I found myself actually considering what I would do if it doesn't. I'm sure many of you have had similar feelings about some game over the course of your gaming career.

    So why do we do this? Why do we let one army build or a couple of small rules undo years of love of the hobby? Lets be honest, it's not because none of our friends would go along. If you're like me, you probably know the other players in your local gaming community pretty well. If I put a post up on the local forums asking for a Warhammer pickup game that didn't have deathstars, or a FoW game against something other than a Panther or Tiger company, I bet most of the other guys would be more than happy to oblige! In the same way, I would have no problem if a Tau player asked me to tone down my Tyranids. But I have never once made that sort of request, and I don't think I've really ever seen it from anyone else.

    I can already hear some of the retorts- that learning to play against strong units/lists is a part of the game; that people should 'man up'. I appreciate the skill it takes to figure out the "good" units and make a strong list. I've done my share of it over the years. But why does every game need to be a demonstration of your list building skill? Once you've figured out a good list, is there any list building skill involved in playing that same list over and over? What if your opponent doesn't have fun playing against that list, shouldn't his (or her) enjoyment matter? Maybe by playing with "weaker" models every so often and learning to use them well, we'd become better players.

    Why is it that we all yell and scream for an FAQ or Errata instead of agreeing on a house rule amongst our local group? And yet, how many of us really make that small effort? It's as if we feel the need for an "official" ruling in order to justify our own play experience. I understand that tournaments are a different story, and I wholeheartedly believe we should expect clear and timely FAQ's and Errata's from game companies, but honestly, when was the last time many of you played in a tournament? I guarantee no one forces you to play in them. I'm also willing to bet that you play many many more pick-up games than tournament games. Instead, we decide to pack up or sell off an entire game often because of frustration over one or two little things we might face in a tournament somewhere, someday, that we may or may not choose to attend. Heck, down here in Austin there are even regularly scheduled "Hobby" Tournaments, specifically designed to reward "weaker" lists and painting in addition to the normal tourneys. The possibility of playing against "outsiders" from different areas who don't know the local rules is another argument against house rules, but again, how often does that really happen? The Doom of Malantai was debated over and over for weeks, and then the INAT ruling popped up and everyone at the LGS accepted it, even if they weren't happy. Why? Why is it that even when there are house rules, they are often not accepted by anyone until a "higher power", such as GW, PP, the INAT, Battlefront, or even the LGS owner ratifies them? What makes their ruling better than ours?

    I'm not sure I have an answer for any of these questions. I can understand dropping a game because of a dislike of the core rules and overall game play. But why should the problems in one codex or one army list prevent us from enjoying a game? Perhaps it's preconceptions about what our friends will go along with. Perhaps it goes back to that idea of our need for an "official" rule for everything. Maybe it's the idea that once something is in the official rules it cannot changed. What I do know is that there are armies and games I spent a lot of money on and had a lot of fun playing that now languish in my closet because of some rule created by some guys I've never met from a game company headquartered more than a thousand miles away. I think we as players can fix this.


    _________________
    We were proud warriors of the Emperor, Truest sons of the Crimson King, Masters of the Great Ocean.
    Until the coming of Wolves, Great Burning, Mutatis Mutandis,
    and the Rubric absolute.

    Now. . . . .all . . isss . . . dusssstt.....

    Anarkhia
    Admin

    Posts : 673
    Join date : 2010-03-09
    Age : 32
    Location : Gibraltar

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by Anarkhia on Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:02 pm

    I don't mind moving back to the way i used to use the doom of malantai if that's what you're trying to get at Laughing


    _________________



    Vangeleon
    Moderator

    Posts : 631
    Join date : 2010-05-24

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by Vangeleon on Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:43 am

    WALL OF TEXT CRITS YOU FOR 7,000,000 DMG

    Kelmacett
    Admin

    Posts : 380
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Age : 37
    Location : Gibraltar

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by Kelmacett on Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:49 am

    Hahaha, but you know where im coming from right?

    You guys never played war of the ring man and the killed that game with beardy builds that should be nerfed.

    I mean dont you think that 40k may be suffers a little too?

    Nidzilla lists, Destroyer Wing, Double Lash Chaos lists etc...


    _________________
    We were proud warriors of the Emperor, Truest sons of the Crimson King, Masters of the Great Ocean.
    Until the coming of Wolves, Great Burning, Mutatis Mutandis,
    and the Rubric absolute.

    Now. . . . .all . . isss . . . dusssstt.....

    Anarkhia
    Admin

    Posts : 673
    Join date : 2010-03-09
    Age : 32
    Location : Gibraltar

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by Anarkhia on Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:03 pm

    The true term nidzilla doesn't exist anymore (which was 6 carni's). Now peoples tyranid armies seeem to vary a lot between each other. Dual lash of submission is only 2 models though, so the army could be anything. Pure destroyer wing is just unforgivable really lol.

    I think lately it's not really too bad for 40k. I mean personally with my eldar and tyranids there's very few things i'll pretty much never use (and even then i might play around with them at some point). My tryanids has a lot of T6 models, but it's either that or T3 stuff, and in this mechanised game i need my T6 "tanks". With eldar same thing, i use a lot of tanks. But even when i make an infantry stand and shoot army, and wind up playing Tau, i still ended up... erm... surviving lol.

    The builds i've mainly used have all been my own and not some standard cheesefest list i got from the internet, apart from when i was using the old tyranids codex and nidzilla was the only way to go after the only way possible to destroy a vehicle was by CC carni's, after the new rules crippled the only viable gun. But even then i played around quite often with genestealer lists.

    I guess what i'm trying to say in this chapter of mine is that i don't really see it as much of a problem in our club, or with the latest codex's. I just have my own "fallback" lists for whenever i play someone new or a new army Smile


    _________________



    Kelmacett
    Admin

    Posts : 380
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Age : 37
    Location : Gibraltar

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by Kelmacett on Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:00 pm

    It's not a commentary on what happens at our club though some players with new codexes could change their army a little and not use the damian - i mean beardy - i mean template list for space marines for example. Oh and dude Nidzilla got better imo with the addition of tervigons, mawlocs and trigons. Razz


    _________________
    We were proud warriors of the Emperor, Truest sons of the Crimson King, Masters of the Great Ocean.
    Until the coming of Wolves, Great Burning, Mutatis Mutandis,
    and the Rubric absolute.

    Now. . . . .all . . isss . . . dusssstt.....

    egon52
    Guardsman

    Posts : 9
    Join date : 2011-04-05
    Age : 34
    Location : Gibraltar

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by egon52 on Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:25 am

    I quess a lot of the time that any changes made to games is going to affect all weather its good or bad and normaly it is bad i feel, seeing 40k change over the last 18 years "not as good as it used to be when there was squats (dwarfs with guns) running around making marines look like pepper pots"

    Kelmacett
    Admin

    Posts : 380
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Age : 37
    Location : Gibraltar

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by Kelmacett on Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:38 am

    Hmm not sure I entirely agree with it being better though. The old systems had a tonne of detail more suited to a skirmish game or more precisely a RPG.

    That is not to say that the old systems didnt do some things right though.

    Old 40k used to have a better shooting system with modifiers and cover saves did not exist as they do now for example.



    _________________
    We were proud warriors of the Emperor, Truest sons of the Crimson King, Masters of the Great Ocean.
    Until the coming of Wolves, Great Burning, Mutatis Mutandis,
    and the Rubric absolute.

    Now. . . . .all . . isss . . . dusssstt.....

    egon52
    Guardsman

    Posts : 9
    Join date : 2011-04-05
    Age : 34
    Location : Gibraltar

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by egon52 on Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:51 am

    the offical line was on the 3rd edition of 40k was to speed up the game.

    Your right about the cover saves tho i do really like that idear as you can really make the most of terrain and scenery pieces now rather than just to block line of sight from some dirty big tank

    but im still bitter about losing force/magic cards even to this day lol

    Kelmacett
    Admin

    Posts : 380
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Age : 37
    Location : Gibraltar

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by Kelmacett on Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:00 pm

    Magic Cards in Fantasy AND 40k WERE BRILLIANT.

    So much more exciting drawing from the deck instead of rolling the dice. Seeing what you got and then you knew you were in for pain when you didnt have dispels. Or trying to stop yourself from giggle when got the Ultimate Force card! Added a poker element to the game.

    good times.



    _________________
    We were proud warriors of the Emperor, Truest sons of the Crimson King, Masters of the Great Ocean.
    Until the coming of Wolves, Great Burning, Mutatis Mutandis,
    and the Rubric absolute.

    Now. . . . .all . . isss . . . dusssstt.....

    ElvisIsntDead
    Marine

    Posts : 304
    Join date : 2010-03-10
    Age : 31
    Location : Eye of Terror

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by ElvisIsntDead on Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:46 pm

    was that a good trip down memory lane? I blame the victims of over-powering lists, it just tells me they havent bothered to adapt their army or tactics enough to take on the new threat!

    Principles of a Deliberate attack:

    -Surprise
    -Security
    -Momentum Smile

    .........just thought id throw that in their Razz

    however, my army lists have alway changed on a weekly basis to try and bring out the best counter for others armys, and up until i came to sandhurst I had almost perfected my BA list Sad

    Elvis

    Sponsored content

    Re: Why we play?

    Post by Sponsored content Today at 7:47 am


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 7:47 am