<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Poll Discussion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478</link>
	<description>Daily news, reviews and information for tabletop gamers of all interests.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:18:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: oldsalt</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20963</link>
		<dc:creator>oldsalt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:49:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20963</guid>
		<description>yawn. no no and no.
I haven't played in 3 years and despite owning several armies
feel no reason to unpack them.
The 40K rules suck.
I'll play PP for skirmish level games (I think playing above 750pts is crazy)
and
I'll play AT-43 for massed armies games  (I don't think AT-43 gets going till at least 3000pts... and only starts to shine at 5000+pts)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yawn. no no and no.<br />
I haven&#8217;t played in 3 years and despite owning several armies<br />
feel no reason to unpack them.<br />
The 40K rules suck.<br />
I&#8217;ll play PP for skirmish level games (I think playing above 750pts is crazy)<br />
and<br />
I&#8217;ll play AT-43 for massed armies games  (I don&#8217;t think AT-43 gets going till at least 3000pts&#8230; and only starts to shine at 5000+pts)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nathan</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20829</link>
		<dc:creator>nathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20829</guid>
		<description>Yeah.  When I said that, I mean it pejoratively.

What I was getting at is that I want the design goals of a game to be to produce a great game.  I don't want sales or marketing issues to impact game design in the things I play.  At the very least, it should be nigh undetectable to the player.

I have this idea that games should be sold and marketed on their merits &lt;i&gt;as games&lt;/i&gt; rather than be a sales and marketing tool in of themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah.  When I said that, I mean it pejoratively.</p>
<p>What I was getting at is that I want the design goals of a game to be to produce a great game.  I don&#8217;t want sales or marketing issues to impact game design in the things I play.  At the very least, it should be nigh undetectable to the player.</p>
<p>I have this idea that games should be sold and marketed on their merits <i>as games</i> rather than be a sales and marketing tool in of themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zac</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20828</link>
		<dc:creator>Zac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:12:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20828</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;They’re not a game design company.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Then they shouldn't sell their rules.

This is one thing that GW says about themselves that is totally wrong. They make a lot of money on their games and they need to focus on them or farm out rule development to people that will take it seriously.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>They’re not a game design company.</p></blockquote>
<p>Then they shouldn&#8217;t sell their rules.</p>
<p>This is one thing that GW says about themselves that is totally wrong. They make a lot of money on their games and they need to focus on them or farm out rule development to people that will take it seriously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nathan</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20826</link>
		<dc:creator>nathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20826</guid>
		<description>I'd have no problem if it was infantry rather than troops.  But the force org chart is so arbitrary.  It just doesn't make sense that a tactical squad from the 2nd through 10 companies (those that form tactical squads anyway) can hold an objective, but if it's their best of the best, their elite 1st company, suddenly the squad can't hold anything because of some ridiculous rule.    A squad of 9 tyranid warriors, synapse creatures, can't hold terrain for the hive mind, but a bunch of termigants can?

It's just so completely arbitrary it makes no sense.

I shouldn't really have higher expectations though when it comes to GW.  They're not a game design company.  They're a model selling company.  The purpose of their games is not necessarily to be a good game but to be a good sales tool.

As much as I love 40k's imagery and background, more and more I'm finding I have no interest in GW's sales tools that they pass of as game rules, codex updates, new editions, etc.,.

Will I be picking up a copy to play the game?  I voted no.  Will I wait until a bunch of the boxes are broken up and being sold off on eBay to get a bunch of cool models for cheap to use with better rules?

Definitely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d have no problem if it was infantry rather than troops.  But the force org chart is so arbitrary.  It just doesn&#8217;t make sense that a tactical squad from the 2nd through 10 companies (those that form tactical squads anyway) can hold an objective, but if it&#8217;s their best of the best, their elite 1st company, suddenly the squad can&#8217;t hold anything because of some ridiculous rule.    A squad of 9 tyranid warriors, synapse creatures, can&#8217;t hold terrain for the hive mind, but a bunch of termigants can?</p>
<p>It&#8217;s just so completely arbitrary it makes no sense.</p>
<p>I shouldn&#8217;t really have higher expectations though when it comes to GW.  They&#8217;re not a game design company.  They&#8217;re a model selling company.  The purpose of their games is not necessarily to be a good game but to be a good sales tool.</p>
<p>As much as I love 40k&#8217;s imagery and background, more and more I&#8217;m finding I have no interest in GW&#8217;s sales tools that they pass of as game rules, codex updates, new editions, etc.,.</p>
<p>Will I be picking up a copy to play the game?  I voted no.  Will I wait until a bunch of the boxes are broken up and being sold off on eBay to get a bunch of cool models for cheap to use with better rules?</p>
<p>Definitely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20809</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20809</guid>
		<description>"troops are the only scoring unit."

personally I LOVE this - but then I don't have an army that does not have 4 troop choices..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;troops are the only scoring unit.&#8221;</p>
<p>personally I LOVE this - but then I don&#8217;t have an army that does not have 4 troop choices..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Psychotic Storm</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20805</link>
		<dc:creator>Psychotic Storm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:29:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20805</guid>
		<description>and the latest rumors are worse, "model must have two powerfists or a powerfist and a thunder hummer to gain +1A" and I thought GW had reached its full potency in making players buy more models......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and the latest rumors are worse, &#8220;model must have two powerfists or a powerfist and a thunder hummer to gain +1A&#8221; and I thought GW had reached its full potency in making players buy more models&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nathan</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20804</link>
		<dc:creator>nathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20804</guid>
		<description>&lt;q&gt;If the “leaked” pdf holds up I think 40K will be a much better game in 5th.&lt;/q&gt;

I think if the "leaked" pdf holds up 40k will be a much worse game.  For example, troops are the only scoring unit.  So if you've got a squad of marines from the 1st company.  A veteran squad of the best of the best, they suddenly can't hold a building.  I guess they forgot how.  After all, elite is worse right?

The leaked pdf is full of arbitrary and stupid things like that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><q>If the “leaked” pdf holds up I think 40K will be a much better game in 5th.</q></p>
<p>I think if the &#8220;leaked&#8221; pdf holds up 40k will be a much worse game.  For example, troops are the only scoring unit.  So if you&#8217;ve got a squad of marines from the 1st company.  A veteran squad of the best of the best, they suddenly can&#8217;t hold a building.  I guess they forgot how.  After all, elite is worse right?</p>
<p>The leaked pdf is full of arbitrary and stupid things like that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shakespear</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20803</link>
		<dc:creator>shakespear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20803</guid>
		<description>I guess I will, just to justify the massive amount of money I have in the game (which is often the reason why GW players dont play other games)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess I will, just to justify the massive amount of money I have in the game (which is often the reason why GW players dont play other games)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stormwolf</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20798</link>
		<dc:creator>stormwolf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20798</guid>
		<description>nanite (Seth), 

You are spot on, the last original rules that GW bought out was Space Hulk. As for 40K I loved Rogue Trader, hated 2nd edition (yuk, too many cards).

3rd was limp but better than 2nd, but had some nice add on`s but 4th just killed it for me. I played it a few times and was very disappointed every time. 

Thats when I cranked up Ebay (before it got too bad), and tracked down Rogue Trader and the supplement books and also Space Hulk and several old versions of Warhammer, including 1st edition.

The retro stuff, is just better than the tasteless mush that is being put out by GW today.

In fact the two most modern game sets I play now are Hammers Slammers and the odd game of 5150.

SW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>nanite (Seth), </p>
<p>You are spot on, the last original rules that GW bought out was Space Hulk. As for 40K I loved Rogue Trader, hated 2nd edition (yuk, too many cards).</p>
<p>3rd was limp but better than 2nd, but had some nice add on`s but 4th just killed it for me. I played it a few times and was very disappointed every time. </p>
<p>Thats when I cranked up Ebay (before it got too bad), and tracked down Rogue Trader and the supplement books and also Space Hulk and several old versions of Warhammer, including 1st edition.</p>
<p>The retro stuff, is just better than the tasteless mush that is being put out by GW today.</p>
<p>In fact the two most modern game sets I play now are Hammers Slammers and the odd game of 5150.</p>
<p>SW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nanite (Seth)</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20787</link>
		<dc:creator>nanite (Seth)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:31:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20787</guid>
		<description>No for me.  I've never played 40k and don't see any reason to start now.

What perplexes me is how little new product actually comes out of GW every year.  They're become a lot like an american auto manufacturer in a lot of ways.  Struggling to put out new product, bring in new customers, and keep old, all while facing a rapidly improving and dynamic competition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No for me.  I&#8217;ve never played 40k and don&#8217;t see any reason to start now.</p>
<p>What perplexes me is how little new product actually comes out of GW every year.  They&#8217;re become a lot like an american auto manufacturer in a lot of ways.  Struggling to put out new product, bring in new customers, and keep old, all while facing a rapidly improving and dynamic competition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LarkinVain</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20786</link>
		<dc:creator>LarkinVain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20786</guid>
		<description>Persoanlly I like page 5 but don't like it when people take it too seriously both both ways. I love the play like you gotta pair mentality I don't like those who interpret it as meaning they can be a jerk. Just like most things, people read things from their own point of view. I find those who usually play like jerks will do so regardless of page 5. 

For me Page 5 is all about brining your best to the table and doing your best. If you lose you did your best. I never got the vibe that page 5 is a license to be a poor winner. Then again it's a document just like our laws is subject to a person's interpretation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Persoanlly I like page 5 but don&#8217;t like it when people take it too seriously both both ways. I love the play like you gotta pair mentality I don&#8217;t like those who interpret it as meaning they can be a jerk. Just like most things, people read things from their own point of view. I find those who usually play like jerks will do so regardless of page 5. </p>
<p>For me Page 5 is all about brining your best to the table and doing your best. If you lose you did your best. I never got the vibe that page 5 is a license to be a poor winner. Then again it&#8217;s a document just like our laws is subject to a person&#8217;s interpretation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr.Mercury</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20785</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr.Mercury</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20785</guid>
		<description>Personally, I do not like the whole "page 5" attitude that PP brings to the table. If that is going to be the hook that brings new blood into the world of hobby gaming, then I am truly scared of what the future holds!
Having been a gamer for over 20 years of my life, I cannot stand the "play like you gotta pair" mentality for someone just getting into the games. I think it teaches new players that winning comes before sportsmanship and enjoyment. Just my opinion, and this is probably not the place to be discussing it</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, I do not like the whole &#8220;page 5&#8243; attitude that PP brings to the table. If that is going to be the hook that brings new blood into the world of hobby gaming, then I am truly scared of what the future holds!<br />
Having been a gamer for over 20 years of my life, I cannot stand the &#8220;play like you gotta pair&#8221; mentality for someone just getting into the games. I think it teaches new players that winning comes before sportsmanship and enjoyment. Just my opinion, and this is probably not the place to be discussing it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zac</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20784</link>
		<dc:creator>Zac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:19:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20784</guid>
		<description>GW also has much greater market penetration and presence. There are dedicated GW stores all over the globe. PP has nothing similar.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>GW also has much greater market penetration and presence. There are dedicated GW stores all over the globe. PP has nothing similar.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trent McCaffrey</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20779</link>
		<dc:creator>Trent McCaffrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20779</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;why not “please PP keep bringing noobs into the game”?&lt;/i&gt;
Because Hordesmachine is chess, while 40k is checkers.  New Hordesmachine players will lose half a dozen games straight before they have a chance at winning (or more if it was their first wargame).  A 40k army is way easier to just move forward and shoot.  There are far fewer decisions to make.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not trashing 40k.  I've been playing it since '91.  It's a great starter game and I love the background.  It's just not deep enough for me to play on a regular basis anymore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>why not “please PP keep bringing noobs into the game”?</i><br />
Because Hordesmachine is chess, while 40k is checkers.  New Hordesmachine players will lose half a dozen games straight before they have a chance at winning (or more if it was their first wargame).  A 40k army is way easier to just move forward and shoot.  There are far fewer decisions to make.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong&#8230;I&#8217;m not trashing 40k.  I&#8217;ve been playing it since &#8216;91.  It&#8217;s a great starter game and I love the background.  It&#8217;s just not deep enough for me to play on a regular basis anymore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc</title>
		<link>http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/04/20/1478#comment-20778</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:18:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2008/03/15/1478#comment-20778</guid>
		<description>I'll be buying it - with over 30 000 pts painted and ~$50K invested in the hobby I can't quite now!
And for those that think this is just another "update".. bear in mind 4th edition came out in 2004... that 5 editions in 21 years (FB has 7 in ~23 years) - not too bad a cycle.
If the "leaked" pdf holds up I think 40K will be a much better game in 5th.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll be buying it - with over 30 000 pts painted and ~$50K invested in the hobby I can&#8217;t quite now!<br />
And for those that think this is just another &#8220;update&#8221;.. bear in mind 4th edition came out in 2004&#8230; that 5 editions in 21 years (FB has 7 in ~23 years) - not too bad a cycle.<br />
If the &#8220;leaked&#8221; pdf holds up I think 40K will be a much better game in 5th.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
