10th edition wishlisting/"How do we fix this mess?" thread

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Here’s an example.

me and my brother can agree next time he’s in town he brings his DE, and I’ll use my guard, and create fun narrative of all day play of DE ‘raiding parties’ where I don’t remove killed models, just lay them on their side, and to take them as slaves he had to get a vehicle within 1” of the model, and we can agree on each game i get I get increase my points allowance to represent the PDF getting their response together.

 

a well balanced game for competitive purposes doesn’t stop that, but I cannot go to a store and expect someone to have that same scenario in mind let alone want to play such a scenario 

Yeah that sounds cool! That’s why it’s good to play with like-minded players.  I’m just not interested in arguments that hinge on playing with strangers.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

15 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

Scribe, it just seems like we’re playing two entirely different games in entirely different social circumstances.  I just don’t care what happens to pick up games, sorry.  None of the things you argue really matter to me because I’m not in it to win, just have a nice time trying out a scenario and seeing what happens.  So if they take out certain units from the game in the name of balance, that’s a bummer for me and not something that I can ignore, to follow up with your suggestion I just ignore the points.  Plus it has an effect on how annoying the way they word rules are, it has an effect on how much space they dedicate to list building when they could focus on other things.  The rules are so bloated and change so often chasing something I’m not sure ($$$) that it seems like a nightmare to expect a balanced experience from the game, and if I wanted one, I’d just play something else.  

And we dont care about what happens to Low.

you cry because people are calling for moving LoWs from standard 40K to a special ruleset, but are completely disregarding the experiences of (likely) the overwhelming majority of the player base, and trying to throw that out completely.

[Scribe]

16 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

Scribe, it just seems like we’re playing two entirely different games in entirely different social circumstances.  I just don’t care what happens to pick up games, sorry.  None of the things you argue really matter to me because I’m not in it to win, just have a nice time trying out a scenario and seeing what happens.  So if they take out certain units from the game in the name of balance, that’s a bummer for me and not something that I can ignore, to follow up with your suggestion I just ignore the points.  Plus it has an effect on how annoying the way they word rules are, it has an effect on how much space they dedicate to list building when they could focus on other things.  The rules are so bloated and change so often chasing something I’m not sure ($$$) that it seems like a nightmare to expect a balanced experience from the game, and if I wanted one, I’d just play something else.  

 

Fair enough. In my ideal world, we can all be playing 40K, but in the world where you dont want points, or lists or whatever, then there is simply no game for me. Its not like Knights would cease to exist. They simply would not fit into the "Matched Play" format, while they would still be part of the Codex, part of the 'rules' and part of 40K.

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

31 minutes ago, Scribe said:

 

Fair enough. In my ideal world, we can all be playing 40K, but in the world where you dont want points, or lists or whatever, then there is simply no game for me. Its not like Knights would cease to exist. They simply would not fit into the "Matched Play" format, while they would still be part of the Codex, part of the 'rules' and part of 40K.

In both our ideal worlds there would be a rule set that would serve all kinds of players and it is to GWs credit that they have tried to do that.  But I just don’t think that they can make the game all things to all players, and I would just prefer that they acknowledge that and choose a more committed direction.  To be honest if that direction were pure competitive I would prefer that to this current mess.  

[spessmarine]

On 10/16/2022 at 12:50 PM, Evil Eye said:

Not a bad idea, though myself I'd argue good ol' fashioned blast templates are the way to go.

why not combined systems, templates but drop scatter in favour of rolling to hit

large blast -> place it over a blob, oh it touches lets say 11 models -> 11 hits rolls to make

[Xenith]

=][= I've cleaned up this topic and merged the many double posts. Things are heated so I'm locking this down so people can take a breather, and look at reopening in 24h if the team agrees that this is a place of constructive discussion =][=

[Brother Tyler]

A late update...

 

We received numerous reports from members concerned about the behavior of certain participants in this discussion. As Xenith indicated above, the mod team hid the problematic posts. In addition, disciplinary action was imposed on those members whose participation was determined to be in violation of the forum rules. All of this took place before the topic was closed.

 

For those members that steered clear of problematic behavior in what is clearly a contentious discussion about a highly subjective issue, thank you for treating your fellow members with respect even when they disagree with you. And to those members that reported the behavior instead of responding in kind, thank you for setting the example for your fellow members and for helping us to keep the Bolter & Chainsword a place where we can discuss our different viewpoints respectfully and constructively.

 

If you like this outcome and want to give a reaction, please don't give it to me (I didn't do anything). Instead, give it to Xenith in the post above or other previous posts where you see the mods giving guidance (I'm just the messenger). We're working on improving our communications on such matters and you should be seeing more information on that soon.