Apologies if this thread has been done before, but i haven't played a game for about 6 months and was considering jumping back in by buying 7th.

But i'm just curious, how well do you think the game is balanced after 7th?
Can it be used for proper tactical planning?
Is the majority of cheese from editions past gone?

Thanks fellas!

Reasonably unbalanced.


Unless you're the kind of guy whose philosophy says "more imbalance = better overall balance"


Currently the meta is all over the place with the only exception being Daemons and Grey Knight psychic pilot lists.

Deathstars have also had a major reshuffle, most notably having invisibility as the current mutt's nuts.

In 7th edition, more than ever, dice dictate win or loss. Also there are so many shenanigans you can do with the FoC that I have lost all sense of orientation.

Unplayable for pickup games.

Somewhere between reasonable and somewhat. The real problem I see is the continuation of 40K taking a dump on assault with the whole "roll to see if your melee units actually do something" mechanic, coupled with new stuff like daemonology.

I'd say it's reasonable with games with friends and campaigns, but still horrid for pickup games with randoms.

Better balance for most armies. Shift away from death stars is good for balance, strategy, and fun.

Eldar are more broken than ever.

7th edition is perfectly playable with 6th edition psyker rules in games of 10,000 or more points. Apocalypse seems to be the closest level of "balance" that you are going to get as demons cant just overrun you at that point especially when you are playing times turns and 6th edition psyker rules (to include 6th only powers). My FLGS runs apoc games using the old psyker rules because GW messed up pretty badly in that section. I don't think they play tested demon summoning AT ALL when they released that non-sense. Giving demons that kind of power creates a massive unbalance in the game. If they really wanted to add it that badly they should have let space marines and guard call for reinforcements off the warship that id no doubt orbiting the planet and eldar should be able to call forth their reserves from the webways and such. Each race should have something like that so as not to give demons such a huge advantage. At least this way the other races could try and stem the flow of summoning (although all the demons being summoned are also psykers which would definitely cause a ramping up problem). Being able to bring more points to the board then your opponent is sketchy at best, which is why i don't use summoning nor do i play with any opponent who using summoning abilities. The balance of the game was horrible as it is but throwing the ability to conjure up free points out of thin air just further imbalances demons while the other races really have no effective counter to it.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Unplayable for pickup games.

I agree. The momen twhen a game needs 3+ random tables rolled pre game to make it so so , and even then a single random roll can decide the game before it even starts makes it not good for new players. Vets can house rule . Play without invisibility .Rewrite or change how missions are drawn or add muligans etc. I have no problems with wining , even against new people. But when I had to explain to a new guy that I won , because my 3 objectives were in my deployment and his required him to do stuff his army couldn't, it made me feel bad for him.


7th has a lot of good ideas, but how the stuff is done is horrible. But the same was 6th and 5th and both ended bad.

What is it that makes 7th unplayable in a PUG game?
that your opponent can bring big bad toys along?
the daemons psyker lists that well... no just not good at all really.

still havent got a game in myself, but please id love a detailed example of why its unplayable as a pug game just using the books rules (and if i get a "cos you need to draw LOS from "eyes" " type of comment... insert table flip haha. though id love to know why seriously you cant just pick up the book write an army list and play.
clearly i think you can.

Because, much like 6th, people have to readjust and most people would rather cry about changes than adapt to them.

Most of the people saying "I wont play 7th" probably said the same thing about 6th and yet they're all still here.

7th is definitely playable for pick up, it just requires you to actually talk to your opponent, and for you both to understand the game is about both people having fun, and not just yourself.

They finally put in a rule that was implicit all along - if you dont like whats in your opponents army, you dont have to play it. Of course you never had to anyway, even in a tournament, but some seemed to be unable to have this conversation.

Maybe this is a difference to my gaming experience - we have a large pool of players here from GT winners to pure by-the-background players, yet we can all speak about what we want to play, including changing thihngs we dont like. All very grown up and adult...

As a CSM player...Unbalanced heavily.

Without any fixes:

There is no balance. Unbound, Lords of War, Maelstrom etc., GW purposefully removed every last trace of balance there was in the game.

7th is the edition of house-ruling.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Without any fixes:

There is no balance. Unbound, Lords of War, Maelstrom etc., GW purposefully removed every last trace of balance there was in the game.

7th is the edition of house-ruling.

i fail to see how the bolded is a problem?

unbound means Nothing... you can do just as bad with the base FOC, LOW? who cares there is very few that are that bad. maelstrom... well that ones trickier it leaves less to how you play and manouver and more on luck. so on reconsideratrion that one is a bit tedious. the others... meh not the problem people are making it out to be.

Maelstrom lacks balance because it is mostly based on luck / the luck of the draw and then, on top, you seriously roll for VP.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Maelstrom lacks balance because it is mostly based on luck / the luck of the draw and then, on top, you seriously roll for VP.

yeah as i was typing that hit me... its the odd one, the others arent nearly as bad...so i totally concede that point.

a LOW well the sensible ones. are big versions of the small stuff and points are accordingly done, there is a few i dont think really belong, reaver, revenant etc etc. and i think some of the weapons on the bigger ones, warhounds etc could do with costing rather than free.. but aside from them LOW are fine. and yeah, as i said unbound is as bad as the new FOC system anyway....

 Sigvatr wrote:
Without any fixes:

There is no balance. Unbound, Lords of War, Maelstrom etc., GW purposefully removed every last trace of balance there was in the game.

7th is the edition of house-ruling.

Pretty much. The change to Unbound is bad, but even just the multiple FOCs in smaller games destroys a lot of the balance, throwing out some of the benefits some armies had along with some of the restrictions other armies had.

You could argue there wasn't good balance within the old system anyway, but throwing away all semblance of structure does NOT improve things.

Ok I have played some games of 7th mainly as CSM and for me the 7th Edition is a good Edition. It has its flaws but overall I like it. The problem with the edition is, in order to have fun, and that includes your opponent, you have to talk, a lot.

That doesn´t sound like a bad thing at first, but when you think about it, it will make games against random enemies much slower. In 7th Edition you can basically do anything you want. You could do that in 6th too, but not without house rules. So in 7th you can take Lords of War, you can play Unbound which means you can pick everything you want an take a big dump on the FOC. That can kill balance, but it can also allow you to play some real cool fluff lists. It all depends on your opponent.

So if you have a gaming group where everyone decided on the same house rules 7th is a lot of fun, especially the Maelstrom missions. But if you mainly play with random dudes get prepared to face ultimate cheese lists or to talk a lot before you even started to play.

The balance in the armies, if you don´t play unbound, hasn´t changed that much. They changed Chaos Daemons and Grey Knights with the psychic phase, but overall the balance, at least in my opinion, hasn´t changed that much. Tau is still strong, Eldar too and Daemons with their new gained factory power can bring some real problems.

If you really want to have fun in 7th edition, and if you don´t want to play on tournaments, then I think this edition is a great way to get back into the game. Maelstrom basically kills every Gunline Army and forces the players to do some actually strategy, most of the times.

The same as ever, as balanced as two people are willing to make it.

To me the biggest balance issue is still the existence of completely worthless units that have their point costs simply wrong, as that's hard to fix between two players.

Reasonable, but with a few issues. Its eons better than 6th when certain armies/list types may as well not even show up. Eldar is so broken I sold my.mechdar after 3 games, but that aside I think the balance is nuch, much better. Did I mention I think that the balance is better? Now that the game is very objective oriented, castles and gunline armies that ruled 6th and sucked much of the fun away are very much discouraged. Vehicles were a joke last edition and are rightfully more durable now. The fact that deathstars are harder to effectively run is great to.

The only thing I don't particularly care for is the implementation of the psychic phase. Armies with little or no psychic casters are largely at the mercy of warp charge spammer armies. 2 of my last 3 games have been against grey knights and they're averaging between 10-13 tokens a turn. Add to that even their most potent book powers are WC one and... yea it gets pretty silly. Basically some armies get a whole new phase to generate buffs, damage or even units, while others just clinch their cheeks and hope to either throw sixes for days or that the phase isn't too bad.


Like I said, mostly balanced and a huge improvement over 6th, but there are definitely some noticable prroblems.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
7th is definitely playable for pick up, it just requires you to actually talk to your opponent, and for you both to understand the game is about both people having fun, and not just yourself.

.

Talk for hours you have to go over a ton of rules and tt is not just army builds.

Did I mention I think that the balance is better?

It can't be balanced when it is won by random rolls. You get better objective on your starting hand and you win. The discarding of missions is wack. Armies that can't do fast moving objective caping are at a huge disadventage.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
7th is definitely playable for pick up, it just requires you to actually talk to your opponent, and for you both to understand the game is about both people having fun, and not just yourself.

Funny, I like to talk about other things before and during a game rather than it being a diplomatic discussion about what rules we are going to use and change.

We have been playing just fine at our FLGS in pickup games.


Maelstrom missions can be pretty bad depending on the draws, but they also make games pretty fun. They force you to move stuff in ways you normally wouldnt in order to get points, which means you arent always in optimal firing positions. This is a good thing.

LOW's can also be bad, but i had my first game againgst an Eldar Lynx tank today and won anyway. Double str D pieplates is quite nasty but if you focus it down and play to the missions you can win.

 Rautakanki wrote:
The same as ever, as balanced as two people are willing to make it.

To me the biggest balance issue is still the existence of completely worthless units that have their point costs simply wrong, as that's hard to fix between two players.

I agree with this.

I don't know how much any rule changes have shifted the entire meta. For example, assaulting became less easy in 6th edition thanks to random charge distance and opportunity fire. This shifted the entire game away from assault. I don't know enough about 7th to judge how much it has changed that overall aspect.

However balance is also about the strength of units and codexes, which I don't think has changed much. The codexes have always been unbalanced in every edition. Sometimes a new codex jumps to the top of the heap, like Tau in 6th edition.

Things like Unbound, Allies, Maelstrom and Apocalypse units, that really upset the game, can be ruled out quite easily by two players, or tournament organisers.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
7th is definitely playable for pick up, it just requires you to actually talk to your opponent, and for you both to understand the game is about both people having fun, and not just yourself.

Funny, I like to talk about other things before and during a game rather than it being a diplomatic discussion about what rules we are going to use and change.

Funny, I manage to do all that in a minute, if that. I quiote enjoy talking about the game, what we're both looking to do, general ideas behind armies etc. Makes it much more involving that just rolling some dice. Can understand if thats all you want from the game though, that doesnt mean PUG are unplayable - just how YOU want to run the PUG makes it unplayable.

Makumba - no, not hours. Dont exaggerate. A minute or two, and sort everything else out on the fly if you end up needing to. It really isnt difficult, or lengthy, as long as both players are reasonable. Given I dislike playing unreasonable people, and would usually rather not play at all in those instances, that isnt a huge issue for me.

House-ruling can always be done quickly, as long as both parties are reasonable and if it's clear that they don't want to house-rule purely in their favour.
At the moment I'm in a little "discussion" because some people want to use the old Destroyer-table for our next Apocalypse, claiming it's not OP for Apocalypse. Three guesses to who owns the most Destroyer-weapons
Stuff like that can be a pain in the ass.. But most house-rules are settled very quickly when the RAW is unclear.

Unbound: It's terrible for PUGs since you never know what the opponent expects from a game.
It's not nice to come with a semi-casual list and suddenly you are facing a Riptide-only army.

I'm actually kind of okay with LoW's and Maelstrom, even though I prefer it if most games are LoW-free.

I think unbound is where players need to have a lot of savvy, and a lot more emotional intelligence, than perhaps most are credited with.

In other words: just because youre having fun doesnt mean your opponent is. Too many players, especially those who treat a game as hilariously unsuited to the task as 40k "seriously", tend not to be able to understand this. To some extent mission design can aggravate this (margin of victory systems do this, penalising concession, etc) or help it, but really the player base could do with a swift kick at times. So if you want to play unbound - go for it! Just realise your idea of fun isnt necessarily the same as someone elses, and learn to adapt. A remarkably small amount of tweaking of concepts can go a long way

I say this as someone who has refused games at tournaments before, as I knew it would be an unfun experience for me, and shake my head at (6th ed AB, 8th edition) Dwarf players who seem to derive enjoyment from 30 minute, we each hide in a corner, games.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Without any fixes:

There is no balance. Unbound, Lords of War, Maelstrom etc., GW purposefully removed every last trace of balance there was in the game.

7th is the edition of house-ruling.

i fail to see how the bolded is a problem?

unbound means Nothing... you can do just as bad with the base FOC, LOW? who cares there is very few that are that bad. maelstrom... well that ones trickier it leaves less to how you play and manouver and more on luck. so on reconsideratrion that one is a bit tedious. the others... meh not the problem people are making it out to be.

People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

If you are playing with people aiming to make the most powerful army and make it fun for themselves alone it's not balanced that well.

If you are playing with reasonable people who realize there's another human being on the other side of the table to them and that any game is a contract between two people trying to both have fun then you are golden.

I do the latter so 7th is great.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
7th is definitely playable for pick up, it just requires you to actually talk to your opponent, and for you both to understand the game is about both people having fun, and not just yourself.

Funny, I like to talk about other things before and during a game rather than it being a diplomatic discussion about what rules we are going to use and change.

Funny, I manage to do all that in a minute, if that. I quiote enjoy talking about the game, what we're both looking to do, general ideas behind armies etc. Makes it much more involving that just rolling some dice. Can understand if thats all you want from the game though, that doesnt mean PUG are unplayable - just how YOU want to run the PUG makes it unplayable.

Makumba - no, not hours. Dont exaggerate. A minute or two, and sort everything else out on the fly if you end up needing to. It really isnt difficult, or lengthy, as long as both players are reasonable. Given I dislike playing unreasonable people, and would usually rather not play at all in those instances, that isnt a huge issue for me.

It depends who you play against and what you and they brought. Most people I know tend to not bring their entire army, only what they intend to play with, which can make the pregame discussion awkward if someone doesn't want to play against what you brought with you.

I have fun playing 40k. All griping and complaining about the rules takes a distant second. Still one of the most fun hobbies I have. Glad the game is around personally.

I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?

 Xerics wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Without any fixes:

There is no balance. Unbound, Lords of War, Maelstrom etc., GW purposefully removed every last trace of balance there was in the game.

7th is the edition of house-ruling.

i fail to see how the bolded is a problem?

unbound means Nothing... you can do just as bad with the base FOC, LOW? who cares there is very few that are that bad. maelstrom... well that ones trickier it leaves less to how you play and manouver and more on luck. so on reconsideratrion that one is a bit tedious. the others... meh not the problem people are making it out to be.

People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it).

That's not really true. Maybe of the people you play with, but for most people I know we don't like LOW because they a) tend to be unbalanced b) don't mesh well with the game size we tend to play.

The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex.

This is just silly. No reason to have one other than not wanting to use them which is a pretty good reason IMO. And not wanting to pay for the 9 best units in their codex? When did table top gaming become pay 2 win? Worse yet, when did table top gamers embrace the idea of pay to win?

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
7th is definitely playable for pick up, it just requires you to actually talk to your opponent, and for you both to understand the game is about both people having fun, and not just yourself.

Funny, I like to talk about other things before and during a game rather than it being a diplomatic discussion about what rules we are going to use and change.

Funny, I manage to do all that in a minute, if that. I quiote enjoy talking about the game, what we're both looking to do, general ideas behind armies etc. Makes it much more involving that just rolling some dice. Can understand if thats all you want from the game though, that doesnt mean PUG are unplayable - just how YOU want to run the PUG makes it unplayable.

Makumba - no, not hours. Dont exaggerate. A minute or two, and sort everything else out on the fly if you end up needing to. It really isnt difficult, or lengthy, as long as both players are reasonable. Given I dislike playing unreasonable people, and would usually rather not play at all in those instances, that isnt a huge issue for me.

It depends who you play against and what you and they brought. Most people I know tend to not bring their entire army, only what they intend to play with, which can make the pregame discussion awkward if someone doesn't want to play against what you brought with you.

Then they will quickly learn to bring some variant lists / models along (depending on whether you write lists there or beforehand) and as I said- gain the E.I. to understand their opponents POV and to appreciate it.

Yes it can make the pregame discussion awkward, but only really a problem if one or the other is an immature, entitlement-centred player. If youre both reasonably mature individuals, able to hold a real conversation, with an ability to understand the game isnt all about you, its perfectly fine. Possible that we're lucky, but even with new members of the group we've not had problems - even facing a tournament style space wolves list with my chaos marines with ABG allies it wasnt a problem.

Problem is when people dont feel they can talk about what their opponent has taken and if they will enjoy it, which is probably the motivation behind the explicit rule that says you have to *AGREE* on what youre both taking.

Why did I say PUG's are unplayable? Because the pre-game negotiation. Why do I say that?
Read this thread right here on our very own Dakka. The negotiation is a nightmare sometimes because people have very different ideas of what is fun and I don't want to be TFG because I don't want to play against a LOW.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/604180.page#7016008

I don't think it's luck Nos, if you foster that type of environment then that's the kind of player you get. Once you've laid down the basic laws about how the people involved should behave the rest sorts itself out in my experience.

Once you have a group of players willing to treat each other with the appropriate level of respect they can decide among them however they want to play the games and it may even change week to week because the core tenants of how they behave toward each other are there.

Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

The thread I posted above shows how two reasonable and sane people can have drastically different opinions on what is fair and balanced.

 MWHistorian wrote:
The thread I posted above shows how two reasonable and sane people can have drastically different opinions on what is fair and balanced.

Remember, "reasonable and sane" just translates to "people who agree with me".

 Murdius Maximus wrote:


I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?

Its not hate.

Many of the voices of discontent about the game still have fun, enjoyable games among friends. That doesn't change the fact that these same people can also understand that the game is deeply flawed.

Pick up games are difficult for people now, as there's a whole song and dance of ensuring both players have the same power level.

While the game has never been particularly balanced, I think the total absence of list building rules makes it even less balanced, especially for people playing against relative strangers.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

So a player wanting to play a perfectly legal list is the real culprit, not the rules that allow those lists to exist in the first place?

We love game so much, that when we recive a brick to da face we don't quit it ! It's just emotions and opinions not poison

PhantomViper wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

So a player wanting to play a perfectly legal list is the real culprit, not the rules that allow those lists to exist in the first place?

Yes. It's a game after all, a game between people. GW's rules have gotten worse and worse recently so it's up to the players to fix it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Same thing here.
I have the Vault from GW, I have one T-C'tan incoming from eBay and are planning to buy another one (I found a metal version!).
I also have a (Gaus) Pylon that I could field.

The problem is not that I don't have one and don't want to pay for it.
My problem is that I know the game becomes less fun for me if a player fields a unit that is 800 points, nearly unkillable and able to annihilate everything in its path.
It becomes a big problem since we mostly play games with 1500 points.

Maelstrom can be a great addition to the game, if you make tons of houserules and allow players to discard the annoying/impossible ones.

Unbound is just.. It's fine right to the point where people use it to spam their most overpowered unit.
I would use Unbound to field a melee-only Necrons list. That's when Unbound becomes a great addition since I don't have to field Warriors and Immortals.
But I would never use it to field 5+ AB's, etc.

Kangodo wrote:
[ That's when Unbound becomes a great addition since I don't have to field Warriors and Immortals.
But I would never use it to field 5+ AB's, etc.

Play a Maynarkh army (IA12 - Fall of Orpheus) and you get FO as troops

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

I voted reasonably unbalanced but I wanted to say Reasonably Unbalanced per all the crying over Lords of War, Unbound and what not.

Seriously if you follow the rules as dictated in the rule book no one is forcing you to play anything you do not want to play. This latest edition of the rules pretty much made it so that you can be a giant ass or a gentleman when it comes to game play. I guess that is a serious issue for a lot of people.

And as stated by Murdius Maximus "I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?"[u]

This cannot be said enough.

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

Why would he need to? Come up against a WAAC list? "No, thanks", then on to next opponent.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

Why would he need to? Come up against a WAAC list? "No, thanks", then on to next opponent.

It's not so black and white as that. There are many gross imbalances without "WAAC" lists being involved.
Also, can you define a "WAAC" list because so far I've never seen a clear definition. Only examples that often can't really be agreed upon.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't. You had no difficulty in one case. That's good. Others do have trouble. If you find the increasing amount of pregame negotiation isn't a problem, it could simply mean that you are easy to get along with, or what you expect out of the game is not hard for a variety of other players to meet. The fact that negotiations are required at all is a point of failure that should not exist; just because you handle it easily doesn't mean everyone does.

Story time: I know with my own little group, when it used to exist, there was always a good deal of tension between myself and one of my best friends, my main opponent, because we had different ideas about how the game should be played. I was a complete fluff bunny, he was much more competitive. I owned several armies that I'd built up over many years to fit the fluff, many of which were terribly non-competitive because of fluff-appropriate but game-useless units. He was spending money hand over fist to get as many options as possible for a new army, to try out all kinds of combinations, some of which proved very effective on the table, but which sometimes strained in-universe credulity in my mind. I didn't want to invest a ton of money into upgrading bad armies to prevent them from being hilariously stomped, I just wanted to play out cool scenarios. We used to argue a lot about this or that unit he wanted to buy or field, mostly because while I don't care THAT much about winning, I don't like losing all the time either. Likewise he didn't really enjoy lopsided games where I couldn't put up a good fight. Several of my armies stopped seeing table time altogether because they weren't worth taking out of the case.

Neither of us were "playing the game wrong" or being unreasonable, neither of us were WAAC or TFG. We generally managed to compromise on things but at least for me it reduced my enjoyment of the game (and again, not his fault at all, in case he's reading this - it's just a flaw in the game itself when putting together an iconic army for your faction results in a force that can't fight its way out of a paper bag, and subsequent releases not only avoid fixing this, but often make it worse).

To tie this back into the thread, I haven't played 7th, so I didn't vote. But 7th seems to continue a strong trend of removing what few restrictions exist on force building while also adding more high-power units you need to worry about potentially countering. It's "balanced" in the sense that the more complex you make your system (the more options you add), the harder it is for people to find an optimum (a meta-dominating build) and so there will probably be a higher diversity of relatively powerful builds available. The flip side of that is, with fewer restrictions and more high-power options, I think it's increasingly likely that people with different approaches to the game (or even just different tastes in army building or income levels) will find themselves with armies of vastly different power levels. Depending on the depth of your respective collections and how willing you are to negotiate, this might not be solvable either.

Just my opinion on the direction things have gone. To the people saying "if you hate it so much, quit", I did quit. Good enough for you?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also T-ctan is ridiculous at 1000 points but thats the other problem. Nobody plays with enough points and so everyone cry's foul at LoW.

 Xerics wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.

So, you fully endorse the "pay to win" model of gaming?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.

So, you fully endorse the "pay to win" model of gaming?

Have you ever played MTG or Pokemon or wizkids games like mageknight, mechwarrior, heroclix? They release new stuff and void older stuff. If you don't have the new then you don't win and some of those cards can get pricy ($120 per card and you need 4 in a deck) and the cards don't even last through 2 full years. I play warhammer because in the long run it was cheaper then MTG. I don't support pay to win, but when the new stuff comes out you don't have much of a chouice and GW has to make money somehow. If you already have enough little guys in your collection then its time to get some big ones.

Phantom - wow, hyperbole much? Sheesh, real life isn't so absolutist. No, he realised he was at a new place, so brought a few different lists along. Not tricky, at all.

Calgar- it was in response to a definitive, absolutist statement that the game is unplayable without... All I needed to do to prove it wrong was show one contrary example, which I did.

 Xerics wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.

So, you fully endorse the "pay to win" model of gaming?

Have you ever played MTG or Pokemon or wizkids games like mageknight, mechwarrior, heroclix? They release new stuff and void older stuff. If you don't have the new then you don't win and some of those cards can get pricy ($120 per card and you need 4 in a deck) and the cards don't even last through 2 full years. I play warhammer because in the long run it was cheaper then MTG. I don't support pay to win, but when the new stuff comes out you don't have much of a chouice and GW has to make money somehow. If you already have enough little guys in your collection then its time to get some big ones.

I don't play any of those games. Besides, I thought 40k wasn't supposed to be competitive. Instead of power creep, why not make a new unit that's really interesting, different or just really cool looking? Or if they really want a nice boost in sales, maybe a new faction like Convergence of Cyriss from Warmachine? Plays different than anything else, not over powered, not under powered, but different and interesting. That sounds better than pay to win. I won't play pay to win, one of the reasons I don't play 40k anymore.

Flying Toaster wrote:
I voted reasonably unbalanced but I wanted to say Reasonably Unbalanced per all the crying over Lords of War, Unbound and what not.

Seriously if you follow the rules as dictated in the rule book no one is forcing you to play anything you do not want to play. This latest edition of the rules pretty much made it so that you can be a giant ass or a gentleman when it comes to game play. I guess that is a serious issue for a lot of people.

And as stated by Murdius Maximus "I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?"[u]

This cannot be said enough.

To be honest it has been said far too much.

If you do not like to read threads in which people criticise 40K, do not read threads in which people criticise 40K.

Posting and reposting the fact you do not like to read such threads is spam.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Xerics wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Xerics wrote:


People don't usually like LoW because they don't have one and don't want to shell out for one (this has been my common observation from where I play at. People who have one will play with it but those that don't have one won't let you play with it). The lords of war are out there and available for every race. There is no reason not to have one. I feel its the same as unbound. People just don't want to pay for 9 of the best units in their codex. Maelstrom i would have to agree with though. It is very random and adds even more chance on top of the general dice rolling odds.

That's a highly suggestive and offensive thing to state as you say the most often reason for disliking LoW is envy.

I own two T-Ctan and a Tesseract Vault (thanks China!) and could easily roflstomp most enemies. T-C'tan at 1000 points? Have fun. I don't play them anymore as they are incredibly lame. Same goes for Unbound. Spamming the same unit over and over is fun and strategic? Nope. We are currently working through the LoW to find which one could be ok to use and which one not (hint: T-C'tan is out). Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down.

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive... Just be happy that GW doesn't remove core units from the game and make you buy similar models with a different name but close to the same stats (maybe just 1 extra ability thrown in there for kicks). Buying the new stuff is the very definition of staying competitive in games.

So, you fully endorse the "pay to win" model of gaming?

Have you ever played MTG or Pokemon or wizkids games like mageknight, mechwarrior, heroclix? They release new stuff and void older stuff. If you don't have the new then you don't win and some of those cards can get pricy ($120 per card and you need 4 in a deck) and the cards don't even last through 2 full years. I play warhammer because in the long run it was cheaper then MTG. I don't support pay to win, but when the new stuff comes out you don't have much of a chouice and GW has to make money somehow. If you already have enough little guys in your collection then its time to get some big ones.

I don't play any of those games. Besides, I thought 40k wasn't supposed to be competitive. Instead of power creep, why not make a new unit that's really interesting, different or just really cool looking? Or if they really want a nice boost in sales, maybe a new faction like Convergence of Cyriss from Warmachine? Plays different than anything else, not over powered, not under powered, but different and interesting. That sounds better than pay to win. I won't play pay to win, one of the reasons I don't play 40k anymore.

I'm not the one who stated the competitive meta trip... if you read all the posts its merely a response to Sigvatr who said and I quote "Unbound, Maelstrom and LoW have no place in a competitive meta. Hands down." -Sigvatr

If a game requires you to have a lengthy discussion of how it's going to be played before you play it, and requires both sides to re-write rules as presented, then you really wasted your money in buying the rulebook.

If those are the lengths required to play the game, why don't you and the opponent just put some models down, roll some dice, and decide that whoever rolls the most 6s wins whatever action you're doing?

 Xerics wrote:

Wait a second... your saying that these things have no place in the competitive meta... sorry but you must not play very many different games because in just about every other game you need the new stuff to stay competitive...

Different definition of competitive. Uncomped 40k boils down to "Who can make the strongest list and then roll lucky". Actual competitive meta should aim at focusing the actual players more by removing poorly balanced power peaks and forcing to re-think. If you think that competitive means "I can bring the strongest list", then that's your very definition of competitive. I, however, fail to see where the actual competition lies.

Balance is the primary reason I left 40k. Not because it was so unbalanced I couldn't enjoy it, but because it felt like for what I was paying I shouldn't have to work so hard to make the game play fairly.

For what I pay for the rules (which to me include codices), my buddy and I should be able to both take a reasonable 1500 point army no matter what codex we use and have a fun, fair game. I simply was not getting that experience, so to me the value wasn't there and we decided to try something different.

So....lengthy pre-game negotiations and play to win endorsed by the player base. That's some of why I don't play 40K anymore.

We basically have adopted the BOA Tourney rules for house rules and things have been fine.

We announce when we're going to do "actual rules" nights so folks can bring what they want.

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

 Sillycybin wrote:
> Then they will quickly learn to bring some variant lists / models along

Dude, this is just pay to win. It costs money and a lot of time to make a nice army. If i have enough points to play 1250 even if its not optimized doesn't mean I should be the underdog, That's what a point cost system is about. Why have points at all if my 1500pts doesn't equal the potential of your 1500 points?

This is the main problem with the rules. The whole system is built on the presumption that there is a balance in the game. What we are experiencing is the equivalent of eyeballing an army of models and going... yea that's about 1500 points.

Sorry I want to have a fair game with the battle force I bought, I didn't know I had to have multiple copies of the entire army I play so i can have a fair game. That only costs like 2 grand and a year of building and painting.

ill be honest if i had ONE army at 1250 pts or 1500 and thats ALL i had to play it would see maybe 3 games before i bought more for it cos id be bored of it. you would be playing the same game every time.
and i have seen it, people buy a small force and expect the world from it and have to use the same tactic to try and win game after game. and when they get stomped on its no fun cos thats all they have and they cant customize it. so news is this, prepare to expand your army, spend money and time building and painting because as you do and you expand the game will open up more and more. tying yourself to one small force.. just no for me, boring, i dont think i have run the same list twice, and dont really intend to.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Sillycybin wrote:
> Then they will quickly learn to bring some variant lists / models along

Dude, this is just pay to win. It costs money and a lot of time to make a nice army. If i have enough points to play 1250 even if its not optimized doesn't mean I should be the underdog, That's what a point cost system is about. Why have points at all if my 1500pts doesn't equal the potential of your 1500 points?

This is the main problem with the rules. The whole system is built on the presumption that there is a balance in the game. What we are experiencing is the equivalent of eyeballing an army of models and going... yea that's about 1500 points.

Sorry I want to have a fair game with the battle force I bought, I didn't know I had to have multiple copies of the entire army I play so i can have a fair game. That only costs like 2 grand and a year of building and painting.

ill be honest if i had ONE army at 1250 pts or 1500 and thats ALL i had to play it would see maybe 3 games before i bought more for it cos id be bored of it. you would be playing the same game every time.
and i have seen it, people buy a small force and expect the world from it and have to use the same tactic to try and win game after game. and when they get stomped on its no fun cos thats all they have and they cant customize it. so news is this, prepare to expand your army, spend money and time building and painting because as you do and you expand the game will open up more and more. tying yourself to one small force.. just no for me, boring, i dont think i have run the same list twice, and dont really intend to.

Half the problem with it is the game ca largely be won or lost in the list building stage, which IMO is not a good thing, at least not from a "game" perspective.

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

 Sillycybin wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

ill be honest if i had ONE army at 1250 pts or 1500 and thats ALL i had to play it would see maybe 3 games before i bought more for it cos id be bored of it. you would be playing the same game every time.

You do realize that for a 1500 point army you can get a playstation and call of duty which will last you more then 3 games.

What are they going to do when the games are 2k? What about Apocalypse? Are they going to have to just accept that they have units they will never use, and should never have bought in the first place? The principle here is you play games in point values smaller then your whole force, but the principle remains that if I want to use my entire 1500 point force. I should have a fair chance of winning against another 1500 point force.

This is what they are trying to accomplish with maelstrom objectives. To stop the game being won or lost in list building unfortunately they dont understand this comes with adjusting their fundamental system so points reflect ability. Will you argue that a riptide is the equivalent of a forge fiend?

wait so your saying random objective values is GREAT NEWS. because you cna then run any list you want and still do well?

bad news, part of the game is the list building. a BIG part. a modern war scenario also involves making sure you take the right tools for the job. just turning up with a random mish-mash SHOULDNT be a way to win. the game isnt won in list building but it SHOULD be a good 50% of it to be honest. bring a saw to do a hammers job? it just doesnt work. list building is integral to the game. what you see with those random point objectives is now shooty armies are even better, because they will just shoot you OFF them and you cant score...

and cool so for the cost of my armies (look in the sig) i could buy a new car and all sorts of other things.

If you want to play your entire 1500 pt force and have a good game (accepting you have bad units in it) then you want your opponent to have an equally scrabbly list. i have 20,000 points odd of CSM so i can pick and choose anything i want, i play usually at the 1850 mark so less than 1/10 of my force sees the table top in any one game and guess what its good, it means i can play anything i want. i can write a fun list (Thousand sons led by Ahriman) it wont win but itll be a fun fluffy list. or i can write a very shooty nasty list thats intent is to win. Why should players be rewarded for taking total trash. i can understand the dissapointment of buying a model thats no good or that gets wrecked with updated rules. (helldrake buffed then nerfed hard, i have 3. mutilators i have 3 as well. warptalons i have 10 etc) but thats part of how GW works. it keeps you buying more and expanding your collection. Being in the mind set of you only need to buy once and for a couple of hundred $$ and your good in a game that would span years of hobbying is just nonsensical.

now in your case, you say run 1250 pts because you have 1500 pts of models. how many variations of that army do you run? how much of that 1500 pts is "competitively optimised"?

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 Sillycybin wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

ill be honest if i had ONE army at 1250 pts or 1500 and thats ALL i had to play it would see maybe 3 games before i bought more for it cos id be bored of it. you would be playing the same game every time.

You do realize that for a 1500 point army you can get a playstation and call of duty which will last you more then 3 games.

What are they going to do when the games are 2k? What about Apocalypse? Are they going to have to just accept that they have units they will never use, and should never have bought in the first place? The principle here is you play games in point values smaller then your whole force, but the principle remains that if I want to use my entire 1500 point force. I should have a fair chance of winning against another 1500 point force.

This is what they are trying to accomplish with maelstrom objectives. To stop the game being won or lost in list building unfortunately they dont understand this comes with adjusting their fundamental system so points reflect ability. Will you argue that a riptide is the equivalent of a forge fiend?

wait so your saying random objective values is GREAT NEWS. because you cna then run any list you want and still do well?

bad news, part of the game is the list building. a BIG part. a modern war scenario also involves making sure you take the right tools for the job. just turning up with a random mish-mash SHOULDNT be a way to win. the game isnt won in list building but it SHOULD be a good 50% of it to be honest. bring a saw to do a hammers job? it just doesnt work. list building is integral to the game. what you see with those random point objectives is now shooty armies are even better, because they will just shoot you OFF them and you cant score...

and cool so for the cost of my armies (look in the sig) i could buy a new car and all sorts of other things.

If you want to play your entire 1500 pt force and have a good game (accepting you have bad units in it) then you want your opponent to have an equally scrabbly list. i have 20,000 points odd of CSM so i can pick and choose anything i want, i play usually at the 1850 mark so less than 1/10 of my force sees the table top in any one game and guess what its good, it means i can play anything i want. i can write a fun list (Thousand sons led by Ahriman) it wont win but itll be a fun fluffy list. or i can write a very shooty nasty list thats intent is to win. Why should players be rewarded for taking total trash. i can understand the dissapointment of buying a model thats no good or that gets wrecked with updated rules. (helldrake buffed then nerfed hard, i have 3. mutilators i have 3 as well. warptalons i have 10 etc) but thats part of how GW works. it keeps you buying more and expanding your collection. Being in the mind set of you only need to buy once and for a couple of hundred $$ and your good in a game that would span years of hobbying is just nonsensical.

now in your case, you say run 1250 pts because you have 1500 pts of models. how many variations of that army do you run? how much of that 1500 pts is "competitively optimised"?

And none of that sounds like a good game.

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

@MW, care to list any specifics? cos you have grabbed a nice wall of text there

and sure you can say writing lists shouldnt matter BUT in a game where there is customization ofcourse choices matter, or we would just play checkers.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
@MW, care to list any specifics? cos you have grabbed a nice wall of text there

and sure you can say writing lists shouldnt matter BUT in a game where there is customization ofcourse choices matter, or we would just play checkers.

List making should matter, but it shouldn't determine the winner. There could always be bad match ups, but not to the extent that GW does it. Little Timmy comes in with his shiny new Blood Angels army and goes up against Tau and Eldar. He has no chance. Even an experienced player would not have good odds.
The balance issue is a serious problem for many people and makes the game fun when the type of army they like is utterly useless. GW should reward fluffy armies, not punish them.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
@MW, care to list any specifics? cos you have grabbed a nice wall of text there

and sure you can say writing lists shouldnt matter BUT in a game where there is customization ofcourse choices matter, or we would just play checkers.

List making should matter, but it shouldn't determine the winner. There could always be bad match ups, but not to the extent that GW does it. Little Timmy comes in with his shiny new Blood Angels army and goes up against Tau and Eldar. He has no chance. Even an experienced player would not have good odds.
The balance issue is a serious problem for many people and makes the game fun when the type of army they like is utterly useless. GW should reward fluffy armies, not punish them.

i agree here, what i see though is that example is used alot, and i use it too, eldar and tau are what i think are 6th ed oddities, as in they are powerhouses, that no one before or after matches up to... atleast they cant really ally any more. it also comes from BA are a heavy CC type force and CC is weak in 6th/7th though i think BA have decent delivery systems compared to other CC based forces.

IF you were to look at the other 6th books besides eldar and tau would you say they are all rather similar in power level? not a massive difference between them, sure some of the 6th books are better than others but they are reasonably close. (jsut talking the books released in 6th here).

Ive played probably 12 or so games of 7ths ranging from 500-1000 points and I actually really don't have any complaints so far. Im just in it for the fun factor, never play in tournaments or anything. Just fun games at the FLGS!

There are some issues with the psychic phase and powers like invisibility (i think that it's gona be reasonable the moment you make it 3 WC) and possibility to fail a 1' charge but i find the 7-th rulebook is good on it's own.

The problem lies within awful codex ballance. When there are simultaniously codexes like dark angels and eldar no ruleset is gona make them even close to each other in power levels.

I've played around 10 games so far in 7th (between 1000-1500 points) and maelstrom missions are really fun and add another level of tactics to the game since you can't rely on holding 1-2 objectives the entire game and win .... ya it adds alot more randomness to the game but you have to think in those terms to win. I play C:SM White Scars, AV 13 Wall Necrons, and Nidzilla, so far i've had great and dynamic games so far in 7th using TAC lists.

The only thing with this edition that can be annoying is playing against a lord of war without knowing before hand (or a trans c'tan in general), but if you have forewarning you can minimize the damage and play to the objectives, I think the main problem most people are having is TFG pick up games (which regardless of the edition is going to lessen the fun of playing) and not adjusting play styles to the new missions / rule changes.

After reading the rules discussions for 7E, I didn't even buy them. The previous edition was already on the path to being a mess and 7E was a higher price that addressed nothing. Pure random outcomes as objectives is an absolute joke to anyone who might actually like to enjoy a rousing game with an opponent. Asymmetrical design has already been done better in 40k at tournaments and in other games, like Malifaux.

It needs a whole lot of love to get playable outside of groups of like minded folks or heavily controlled events.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
@MW, care to list any specifics? cos you have grabbed a nice wall of text there

and sure you can say writing lists shouldnt matter BUT in a game where there is customization ofcourse choices matter, or we would just play checkers.

List making should matter, but it shouldn't determine the winner. There could always be bad match ups, but not to the extent that GW does it. Little Timmy comes in with his shiny new Blood Angels army and goes up against Tau and Eldar. He has no chance. Even an experienced player would not have good odds.
The balance issue is a serious problem for many people and makes the game fun when the type of army they like is utterly useless. GW should reward fluffy armies, not punish them.

i agree here, what i see though is that example is used alot, and i use it too, eldar and tau are what i think are 6th ed oddities, as in they are powerhouses, that no one before or after matches up to... atleast they cant really ally any more. it also comes from BA are a heavy CC type force and CC is weak in 6th/7th though i think BA have decent delivery systems compared to other CC based forces.

IF you were to look at the other 6th books besides eldar and tau would you say they are all rather similar in power level? not a massive difference between them, sure some of the 6th books are better than others but they are reasonably close. (jsut talking the books released in 6th here).

They're used because it's a quick and easy way to make the point because the power difference is so blatant that even people who don't care about power balance can see it and go "dayum that's fethed up". There are many more examples, but they tend not to be so blatant as they're at a unit level rather than codex. Compare some necron untis such as the lychgarde or praetorians to wraiths. The lychgarde and praetorians are hugely overcosted/underpowered in comparison for units that fill a similar roll. Then you compare CSM zerks to plague marines, CSM bikes to warp talons, SM bikes to assault squads and you see many examples of extremely poor internal balance in the codices which results in greatly limited choices if you want to be competitive and the risk of unintentionally having greatly disparate power levels between players in a game. Most codices can field a decent list but if you stray too far from it you're boned which sucks.

Sucks to be the non-waac player taking 800 points of necron lychgarde and praetorians (20 models) for his low model count elite list against the non-waac player taking a nurgle list with 800 points of nurgle bikers (30 models) for example. That's only going to end one way no matter how many times you play.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

wait so your saying random objective values is GREAT NEWS. because you cna then run any list you want and still do well?

bad news, part of the game is the list building. a BIG part. a modern war scenario also involves making sure you take the right tools for the job. just turning up with a random mish-mash SHOULDNT be a way to win. the game isnt won in list building but it SHOULD be a good 50% of it to be honest. bring a saw to do a hammers job? it just doesnt work. list building is integral to the game. what you see with those random point objectives is now shooty armies are even better, because they will just shoot you OFF them and you cant score...

and cool so for the cost of my armies (look in the sig) i could buy a new car and all sorts of other things.

If you want to play your entire 1500 pt force and have a good game (accepting you have bad units in it) then you want your opponent to have an equally scrabbly list. i have 20,000 points odd of CSM so i can pick and choose anything i want, i play usually at the 1850 mark so less than 1/10 of my force sees the table top in any one game and guess what its good, it means i can play anything i want. i can write a fun list (Thousand sons led by Ahriman) it wont win but itll be a fun fluffy list. or i can write a very shooty nasty list thats intent is to win. Why should players be rewarded for taking total trash. i can understand the dissapointment of buying a model thats no good or that gets wrecked with updated rules. (helldrake buffed then nerfed hard, i have 3. mutilators i have 3 as well. warptalons i have 10 etc) but thats part of how GW works. it keeps you buying more and expanding your collection. Being in the mind set of you only need to buy once and for a couple of hundred $$ and your good in a game that would span years of hobbying is just nonsensical.

now in your case, you say run 1250 pts because you have 1500 pts of models. how many variations of that army do you run? how much of that 1500 pts is "competitively optimised"?

Makumba wrote:

ya it adds alot more randomness to the game but you have to think in those terms to win

Ok how to you outthink your opponent getting objectives in his deployment unlike you or him getting missions he can do unlike you ?

You're forging a raging narrative there!
(I really dislike random objectives like this)

 Musashi363 wrote:
So....lengthy pre-game negotiations and play to win endorsed by the player base. That's some of why I don't play 40K anymore.

1) If by "lengthy" you mean 1 or 2 minutes, then yes, "lengthy"
2) Pay to win, and thisis no more true than MtG - in fact, far less so. And, in general, it is only really extreme already pay to win armies that suffer with codex changes, e.g. carnispam nid 4th edition being nuked by 5th edition. Happens every codex change, in general.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
So....lengthy pre-game negotiations and play to win endorsed by the player base. That's some of why I don't play 40K anymore.

1) If by "lengthy" you mean 1 or 2 minutes, then yes, "lengthy"
2) Pay to win, and thisis no more true than MtG - in fact, far less so. And, in general, it is only really extreme already pay to win armies that suffer with codex changes, e.g. carnispam nid 4th edition being nuked by 5th edition. Happens every codex change, in general.

An army doesn't have to be good to be nuked. It just merely needs to exist in 40k. Space Marine White Scars list prior to the 6E codex weren't exactly tearing up the scene, but players had them. Deathwing was pretty damned gross in 5E, but *poof* gone so fast in 6E. So on, so forth.

DW "Gross" in 5th? Thats why they won so many....no, wait, they generally lost to weight of fire armies like BA, GK, and necrons.

Whitescars in 6E are only amazing if you alter the models to take advantage of new weapons, grav. Otherwise they are merely good.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

1) If by "lengthy" you mean 1 or 2 minutes, then yes, "lengthy"

In fairness if your views of the game and what you want are so different it could take longer though at that point you are probably best off just finding a different opponent.

It then gets easier as you get to know the group at the FLGS/Club or whatever as you can go in and see gamers X, Y, Z who all play tight tourney lists and A, B, C who play weaker lists. You can then based on the kind of list you brought sidle over to the relevant group and play and maybe arrange a game with a different one for the following week.

In both the "Pay to Win" instances it only matters for "tourney" grade list chasers, my CSM have no cultists, no heldrakes, no oblits and they do just fine for making a fun army to play 40k with.

Makumba wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

wait so your saying random objective values is GREAT NEWS. because you cna then run any list you want and still do well?

bad news, part of the game is the list building. a BIG part. a modern war scenario also involves making sure you take the right tools for the job. just turning up with a random mish-mash SHOULDNT be a way to win. the game isnt won in list building but it SHOULD be a good 50% of it to be honest. bring a saw to do a hammers job? it just doesnt work. list building is integral to the game. what you see with those random point objectives is now shooty armies are even better, because they will just shoot you OFF them and you cant score...

and cool so for the cost of my armies (look in the sig) i could buy a new car and all sorts of other things.

If you want to play your entire 1500 pt force and have a good game (accepting you have bad units in it) then you want your opponent to have an equally scrabbly list. i have 20,000 points odd of CSM so i can pick and choose anything i want, i play usually at the 1850 mark so less than 1/10 of my force sees the table top in any one game and guess what its good, it means i can play anything i want. i can write a fun list (Thousand sons led by Ahriman) it wont win but itll be a fun fluffy list. or i can write a very shooty nasty list thats intent is to win. Why should players be rewarded for taking total trash. i can understand the dissapointment of buying a model thats no good or that gets wrecked with updated rules. (helldrake buffed then nerfed hard, i have 3. mutilators i have 3 as well. warptalons i have 10 etc) but thats part of how GW works. it keeps you buying more and expanding your collection. Being in the mind set of you only need to buy once and for a couple of hundred $$ and your good in a game that would span years of hobbying is just nonsensical.

now in your case, you say run 1250 pts because you have 1500 pts of models. how many variations of that army do you run? how much of that 1500 pts is "competitively optimised"?

So another words to play w40k you need to buy 20k points of armies. Nice starting cost . The problem is not that if someone makes an army full of vespid and non sniper kroot and it sucks, but that someone has a whole codex that has 1 way to play or that a codex that was just updated doesn't work in a new edition. I have 1500pts , most people here have 1500 points armies. New edition or codex we of course update, but when suddenly fast MSU and psyker spam is the thing to do and your army can't do either , it sucks for both old players with armies and any new that may want to start.

ya it adds alot more randomness to the game but you have to think in those terms to win

Ok how to you outthink your opponent getting objectives in his deployment unlike you or him getting missions he can do unlike you ?

To be honest i didn't vote as its a bit of a moot point.

Take into account the fact that "club metas' " exist as well as the well known pitfalls of the rules, make these discussions go round in circles.

If you want to play it fine, nobody is stopping you, however threads like this are adequate warning even if they do to some extent "concentrate" the totally fair gripes.

Personally (apathy warning...) its 40k being 40k. No amount of moaning is going to change things unless GW has a eureka moment. Players must agree to their own changes etc, at my club things are ok but its got stale for me currently. No amount of changing army lists is going to stop the boredom when you know by about turn 2 or 3 that you have won or lost. So i've stopped playing for the moment.

That being said nobody has ever used unbound in a game yet. Partly because of the insane risks of players being, to put it politely "stupid", as well as a perceived lack of trust to do things sensibly.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

Why would he need to? Come up against a WAAC list? "No, thanks", then on to next opponent.

Now you came to the store and you didn't get to play a game, that is a win-win right there.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

1) If by "lengthy" you mean 1 or 2 minutes, then yes, "lengthy"

In fairness if your views of the game and what you want are so different it could take longer though at that point you are probably best off just finding a different opponent.

It then gets easier as you get to know the group at the FLGS/Club or whatever as you can go in and see gamers X, Y, Z who all play tight tourney lists and A, B, C who play weaker lists. You can then based on the kind of list you brought sidle over to the relevant group and play and maybe arrange a game with a different one for the following week.

In both the "Pay to Win" instances it only matters for "tourney" grade list chasers, my CSM have no cultists, no heldrakes, no oblits and they do just fine for making a fun army to play 40k with.

I've had OBs since 3rd, so theyre alternating good and bad it seems

Indeed, however even tourney players, of which I'm sort of / sort of not (I don't optimise my lists based on the codex or army level, I play with the models I like, but I then try to do the best I can with what I have) within our group can manage to play with the fluffiest of players, as they know how to make the game fun for both people. Losing a game, being stomped, doesnt mean it HAS to be "unfun" - again, it just speaks volumes about the low EI of some posters here, or of the people they play with really.

Do I wish the game had better external balance? Yes. However there are currently TWO real outliers, tau and eldar, with everything else being reasonably close to parity, or has difficulty with true TAC lists (even Tau to some extent, due to loss of riptide buffing)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Chumbalaya wrote:
Unplayable without a GM/TO fixing things.

Definitively untrue, given what I've already posted. As in, a player from the other end of the uk came in and within a minute had decided what we wanted. Done, easy.

MW - except that a net conversation is a *really* poor meter of how it would go in person. At least from my experience you just miss far too much nuance with text.

And that other player lugged around his entire 40k miniatures collection so that he could adapt his choices?

Why would he need to? Come up against a WAAC list? "No, thanks", then on to next opponent.

Now you came to the store and you didn't get to play a game, that is a win-win right there.

Against that one opponent. Or, you know, actually organise yourself a little better and use this thing called communication to help out. It isnt much of an excuse any longer to claim you will never have any way of knowing who will show up to play. It really isnt.

Against that one opponent. Or, you know, actually organise yourself a little better and use this thing called communication to help out. It isnt much of an excuse any longer to claim you will never have any way of knowing who will show up to play. It really isnt.

Yeah and then you wake up and the closest place where you can play against armies that are not good is in another country. That is like tripple win.

sure lots of people have their 1500pt armies but you just flat out cant expect longevity with it, you cant write a list one way and expect it over time to keep on working. thats folly, you need to expand and get other units etc otherwise its NOT going to work. and i didnt think 7th was either fast MSU or Psyker spam (daemon factory just doesnt work on the table) so when does this happen?

My codex is AM. I had a 1500points list of them. It was made with the writer of the codex knowing the rules for next edition. As for fast MSU not being the thing for 7th ed, how many test games have you played ? How can fast MSU not be a thing, when in 7th win=who is able to do 3 missions per turn and clock as many extra VP , before his army goes to the ground.
Psyker spam is not just demon lists. It is invisibility death stars supported by cheap henchman in rhinos or razorbacks or CSM triple sorc builds with invisibility spawn and bikers.
And as expanding goes, that would work if there were units or builds I could expand in to. I already have the best set up from the AM codex. Adding ogryns , rough raiders and other bad units or unbalancing the list will not make it better against most lists and at best it will allow me to tailor. And no one tailors his list here .

I don't think some of you realize how flawed your logic is when compared to other games. Saying "my 1500 points should be competitive with your 1500 points because that's all I own" is like saying (in MTG), "my 60 cards from random boosters should be as competitive as your 60 cards that you carefully selected to form a powerful deck". In what war game or TCG is there balance when one player can choose from multiple copies of everything available to him and the other player is just playing with everything they have? Go ahead and think about it, I'll wait...

Makumba wrote:

Against that one opponent. Or, you know, actually organise yourself a little better and use this thing called communication to help out. It isnt much of an excuse any longer to claim you will never have any way of knowing who will show up to play. It really isnt.

Yeah and then you wake up and the closest place where you can play against armies that are not good is in another country. That is like tripple win.

So you have noone who plays armies that are less than 100% optimised? I struggle to believe that is true.

Again. Communicate with people. Even hard core tourney playerrs enjoy mixing it up a little (generalisation here) - playing lopsided matches, handicapping themselves, etc. Again, low emotional intelligence is not the fault of the game (it has enough faults of its own)

Toofast wrote:
I don't think some of you realize how flawed your logic is when compared to other games. Saying "my 1500 points should be competitive with your 1500 points because that's all I own" is like saying (in MTG), "my 60 cards from random boosters should be as competitive as your 60 cards that you carefully selected to form a powerful deck". In what war game or TCG is there balance when one player can choose from multiple copies of everything available to him and the other player is just playing with everything they have? Go ahead and think about it, I'll wait...

Just think about what you've said there. I'll give you a hint, it's a well known phrase regarding comparing different types of fruit. To even insinuate 40k should be play to win disgusts me to my very core at what the remaining player base of this game has become.

Also, to answer your second question. WarmaHordes. That is all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Against that one opponent. Or, you know, actually organise yourself a little better and use this thing called communication to help out. It isnt much of an excuse any longer to claim you will never have any way of knowing who will show up to play. It really isnt.

You seem to live in this magical land were there are still lots of 40k opponents to choose from. In my country the reality is that your lucky if you find someone willing to play 40k when you drop by the store any more.

On top of this, you still wan't to add further barriers to actually playing and enjoying the game, like everyone always carrying multiple lists worth of models, just in case you or your opponent think that they won't have fun playing their intended list or like Samurai_Eduh even suggests just outright refusing to play someone because you don't like their list...

Meanwhile in every other game, I just have to show up, plop my army down and have a reasonable expectation of having a fun game where each player has a reasonably equal chance to win.

In MTG you buy random cards.Dude beats me because he is using mox and BL in an Open match , against my deck. Good game, he paid a lot more for his deck. But if I spend 300$ on my deck and he spends 300$ on his , and he can't beat my army unless he buys the exactly same deck and gets better draw. Then something is wrong. And if it happens Wizard removes or errates cards from a cycle.

How can the game be good , if the only option to play it is to tailor , because you have infinite amount of cash or play one of the top 3 lists.

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Against that one opponent. Or, you know, actually organise yourself a little better and use this thing called communication to help out. It isnt much of an excuse any longer to claim you will never have any way of knowing who will show up to play. It really isnt.

You seem to live in this magical land were there are still lots of 40k opponents to choose from. In my country the reality is that your lucky if you find someone willing to play 40k when you drop by the store any more.

On top of this, you still wan't to add further barriers to actually playing and enjoying the game, like everyone always carrying multiple lists worth of models, just in case you or your opponent think that they won't have fun playing their intended list or like Samurai_Eduh even suggests just outright refusing to play someone because you don't like their list...

Meanwhile in every other game, I just have to show up, plop my army down and have a reasonable expectation of having a fun game where each player has a reasonably equal chance to win.

Ah, so you DONT communicate with other players then? Proving my point rather exactly? How is having multiple lists a barrier? Have 2k worth of models, write 2 1500, 2 1750, 2 1850 lists. Done. People already come to PUGs with different sizes of list.

Again, what you call a barrier to play I call partly a sign of low emotional intelligence in the player base. It really, really isnt anywhere near as bad as your doom laden arguments make it, it really isnt a huge stretch to realise that there are different types of player out there - and that applies in EVERY game, e.g. MtG - and therefore to have the personal responsibility to achieve the social cointract these games are about.

And no, it ISNT a magical 40k land. If you lived in Reading, Berkshire, UK we have 3 clubs (2 privately run, 1 shop) with a large 40k following. Before our move to new premises and day, our club had 40 regular attendees, half of which (at least) played 40k. So take your "magical" gak elsewhere - seriously, make a good point, without hyperbolic bollocks, and it is a STRONGER point because of it.

So in warmahordes you can put down any combination of points of units, whatsoever, against a fully optimised list, and still have a reasonably equal chance of winning? Because the discussions I've seen suggest that really isnt the case. Now, is the disparity closer than the 40k case? possibly / probably, however continued hyerbole really doesnt help. Stop painting things so black and white, the reality is not that at all.

Makumba - yet I can spend $300 on a really badly synergistic deck in MtG. Absolutely I can put together a legal desk, fro 300$, that will lose against your optimised, planned deck. Youre actually proving that PAY to win (seriously, not PLAY to win) is possible ion both, but is actually MORE possible in MtG than in 40k.

That's the first time I've heard the UK referred to as a magical land

In Oxford there is one gaming club and our personal group, it's still enough to be able to be selective in your opponents. It's unfortunate that you live somewhere with so few 40k players Viper so you may have to adopt a different approach but that's not the games fault. It sounds like where you live may just struggle to keep a wargaming community alive or at the very least a 40k one which means you haqve to either move with the flow, try to build your own group or take a break from the game.

It sucks but such is life.

If you have nothing constructive and on topic to add then it's best you don't post.

This is all getting rather off the topic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ah, so you DONT communicate with other players then? Proving my point rather exactly? How is having multiple lists a barrier? Have 2k worth of models, write 2 1500, 2 1750, 2 1850 lists. Done. People already come to PUGs with different sizes of list.

How is having multiple lists a barrier? Seriously? You don't understand how having to pay for a larger collection or having to transport that collection around is an added barrier?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Again, what you call a barrier to play I call partly a sign of low emotional intelligence in the player base. It really, really isnt anywhere near as bad as your doom laden arguments make it, it really isnt a huge stretch to realise that there are different types of player out there - and that applies in EVERY game, e.g. MtG - and therefore to have the personal responsibility to achieve the social cointract these games are about.

Yes, there are different types of player out there, and in every other miniature wargame (I couldn't care less about TCGs, go to a TCG forum if you wan't to discuss them), those different types of players coexist peacefully and play against each other without any problems. In 40k they are labelled WAAC's by people like you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

And no, it ISNT a magical 40k land. If you lived in Reading, Berkshire, UK we have 3 clubs (2 privately run, 1 shop) with a large 40k following. Before our move to new premises and day, our club had 40 regular attendees, half of which (at least) played 40k. So take your "magical" gak elsewhere - seriously, make a good point, without hyperbolic bollocks, and it is a STRONGER point because of it.

What hyperbole, I'm talking about my reality. In Lisbon, Portugal that is the reality that the few remaining 40k players face. It used to also be like you describe with a much larger number of 40k players, but the added barriers to play introduced by 6th edition just drove the player base to other games that don't have those barriers in place.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

So in warmahordes you can put down any combination of points of units, whatsoever, against a fully optimised list, and still have a reasonably equal chance of winning? Because the discussions I've seen suggest that really isnt the case. Now, is the disparity closer than the 40k case? possibly / probably, however continued hyerbole really doesnt help. Stop painting things so black and white, the reality is not that at all.

In Warmahordes you have to really try to find a list that will be genuinely bad. There also are no such things as "fully optimised lists" like there are in 40k. There are better and worse matchups, but the skill of each player (and dice) will be the ultimate decider on who wins the game.

And that is not just Warmahordes: Infinity, X-Wing, Malifaux, FoW, every single other game out there doesn't require any discussion of list power or any other such nonsense between players before they sit down and play the game. That "innovation" is a complete GW exclusive, thankfully!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
That's the first time I've heard the UK referred to as a magical land

In Oxford there is one gaming club and our personal group, it's still enough to be able to be selective in your opponents. It's unfortunate that you live somewhere with so few 40k players Viper so you may have to adopt a different approach but that's not the games fault. It sounds like where you live may just struggle to keep a wargaming community alive or at the very least a 40k one which means you haqve to either move with the flow, try to build your own group or take a break from the game.

It sucks but such is life.

Oh, but it is a magical land. Ask around other places that don't have such a large concentration of GW exclusive stores and you'll find more and more anecdotes like my meta. Ever since 6th edition was launched, the number of 40k players has dwindled rapidly and there are more and more metas where they are becoming the minority.

And no, we are not struggling to keep a wargaming community alive, much to the contrary actually, we are experiencing a sort of resurgence in wargaming over here, its only that people are now playing FoW, WMH and X-Wing (with smaller followings for FoF, Malifaux and Infinity), instead of 40k and WHFB.

And it certainly doesn't suck (well, unless you only really wan't to play 40k or WHFB), with all the diversity out there, it is in fact a great time to be a miniature wargamer.

PhantomViper wrote:

Oh, but it is a magical land. Ask around other places that don't have such a large concentration of GW exclusive stores and you'll find more and more anecdotes like my meta. Ever since 6th edition was launched, the number of 40k players has dwindled rapidly and there are more and more metas where they are becoming the minority.

Ah, but for every person like yourself there's one like me with a healthy 40k community. The people in your meta don't like the balance and that's cool but it doesn't subjectively indicate a balance issue in the same way I can't claim it's subjectively balanced based on my own community.

And no, we are not struggling to keep a wargaming community alive, much to the contrary actually, we are experiencing a sort of resurgence in wargaming over here, its only that people are now playing FoW, WMH and X-Wing (with smaller followings for FoF, Malifaux and Infinity), instead of 40k and WHFB.

There you go, Lisbon has a population density twice that of Oxford yet we do have a 40k community implying it's your local meta that's the decider, they've chosen other games which is why you are having trouble finding a game.

And it certainly doesn't suck (well, unless you only really wan't to play 40k or WHFB), with all the diversity out there, it is in fact a great time to be a miniature wargamer.

But here we are in a 40k thread so that's what we are talking about and it's not a great place to play 40k by the sounds. The "It sucks" is in reference to that fact that if you want to play 40k it sounds like you are stuck taking what you get, nothing more.

Part of the fun for me in 40k IS the unbalance. With so many different factions playing off different concepts and their own unique rules, combined with GWs approach to writing rules without going the extra mile because "players should house rule", means the game never has been and never will be balanced.

I enjoy playing an army like Tyranid DE or CSM and still in the face of this imbalance, building lists that can potentially outplay a lot of the top tiers armies, and for me consistently do so. I put away my 4000 pts of Tau with the release of the new dex - I still love the aesthetics, but while beating Tau with Tyranids has me going home with a warm fuzzy feeling, doing it the other way around feels a little empty - at least to me. The versatility of this is that there is something for everyone, I love my Wave Serpent WK opponents for giving a challenging game and letting me test the lengths of my strategy in list building, and although I'd never enjoy playing their lists, I'm sure they love knowing they have a very strong army capable of going toe to toe with the strongest build someone can throw at it. The competitive side of the game is great to me, I love that people enjoy bringing their very best to the table, and it love trying (and often succeeding) to compete with them with one of the more underdog armies, built and played with the most strategy I can bring to the table.

40k doesnt have a massive competitive scene in comparison to other current dominating the strategy genre, such as MtG, DOta, Starcraft 2. There is no "professional 40k players". Largely due to the imbalanced nature of the game even though how popular it is, with a sizeable cash investment needed to switch armies or even strategies and when you see professional, sponsored, consistent winners of large prize pools, rage-quitting games like Starcraft and walking away from contracts due to a minor imbalance (google "NaNiwa Swarmhost"), it's not hard to see why 40k has never blossomed as a high level competitive strategy medium.
As such, the most popular competitive builds are the most obvious/well known ones, there's a lot of untread ground, and there is a lot of room for discovering more obscure competitive strategies and separating yourself from the pack while still competiting.



Sure, you'd be crazy to call 40k balanced, but the fact that's its unbalanced is what makes a lot of the things possible that I love.






All that being said, better written codex's would be nice. I don't mean make my underdog armies stronger, just fix some of the unplayable crap in them to the level of the other stuff in the dex.

The randomness of the mission in Maelstroms is pretty terrible IMO too.

Phantom - again, most people at PUGs come iwth 2 or 3 lists. Again, if all you have is one force, it gets dfull after a while, so over time you nturally end up with more models. And transporting 2k isnt really a chore, unless its IG infantry or a snotling army....

Retract your assertion. I have NOT labelled people WAAC (cite it otherwise) as to me that is basically cheating to win, which means you havent actually won. And the hyperbole is you described MY place as "magical", i.e. that it is unreal, imaginary, illusory. It isnt. It sucks that your place is bad for 40k, if youre into 40k, but the point is that it isnttrue everywhere. You instead went too broad - hence the comment. Less black and white, more acknowledgment that you are lucky /unlucky / the average etc, and the argument is a lot more persuasive.


Finaly, can you please pay more attention to what you are replying to? I never stated they were GW exclusive - in fact, I said over half was 40k, meaning th eother half isnt.

Youre using "the plural of anecdote is fact" fallacy.

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Against that one opponent. Or, you know, actually organise yourself a little better and use this thing called communication to help out. It isnt much of an excuse any longer to claim you will never have any way of knowing who will show up to play. It really isnt.

You seem to live in this magical land were there are still lots of 40k opponents to choose from. In my country the reality is that your lucky if you find someone willing to play 40k when you drop by the store any more.

On top of this, you still wan't to add further barriers to actually playing and enjoying the game, like everyone always carrying multiple lists worth of models, just in case you or your opponent think that they won't have fun playing their intended list or like Samurai_Eduh even suggests just outright refusing to play someone because you don't like their list...

Why are you surprised that people would refuse to play against tournament lists where all they do is essentially unpack, then repack thier models? Who wants to take the time to drive (sometimes) great distances to thier "local" store to do that? A pre-planned game for tournament prep is one thing, but friendly pick-up games at the store? No thanks.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Against that one opponent. Or, you know, actually organise yourself a little better and use this thing called communication to help out. It isnt much of an excuse any longer to claim you will never have any way of knowing who will show up to play. It really isnt.

You seem to live in this magical land were there are still lots of 40k opponents to choose from. In my country the reality is that your lucky if you find someone willing to play 40k when you drop by the store any more.

On top of this, you still wan't to add further barriers to actually playing and enjoying the game, like everyone always carrying multiple lists worth of models, just in case you or your opponent think that they won't have fun playing their intended list or like Samurai_Eduh even suggests just outright refusing to play someone because you don't like their list...

Why are you surprised that people would refuse to play against tournament lists where all they do is essentially unpack, then repack thier models? Who wants to take the time to drive (sometimes) great distances to thier "local" store to do that? A pre-planned game for tournament prep is one thing, but friendly pick-up games at the store? No thanks.

This happened to me. I got tired of playing against tournament lists with my SOB. My army simply didn't have tournament lists that could compete. Once the new codex dropped my army actually became pretty good, but I saw the difference in power levels still affecting games. I rolled over a CSM army and I don't like that either.
In (a certain other game) I get close games where the winner is determined by skill and a little bit of luck and that's what I crave. I want both sides to have a good chance of winning and for it to be as close as possible. I don't have to bring four different armies or pay for 20,000pts worth of expensive guys. I just bring what army I have and have fun.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, what you call a barrier to play I call partly a sign of low emotional intelligence in the player base. It really, really isnt anywhere near as bad as your doom laden arguments make it, it really isnt a huge stretch to realise that there are different types of player out there - and that applies in EVERY game, e.g. MtG - and therefore to have the personal responsibility to achieve the social cointract these games are about.

I'd like to point out that your entire argument boils down to a direct insult - if EVERY game involves the same level of social contract as you claim, and people have problems with 40k specifically, it must be because 40k players have low emotional intelligence (but obviously you don't have low emotional intelligence, because you don't have these problems, and other games don't seem to have this issue, so their player bases must not have low emotional intelligence either). By extension, the people in this thread who are having issues with setting up games must have low emotional intelligence. You're pretty much outright saying, "It's not the game's fault, it's your fault, because you're probably especially rude or awkward."

Did i read that transporting a large army "2000 points" is very difficult? that its too hard to move that many models then allow me to point you in the direction of THIS bad boy

http://us.battlefoam.com/black-label-rj-16-space-marine-load-out/

now with basic marines it fits. 170 basic marines + so much more. i customed mine up and i fit over 13,000 (yep THIRTEEN THOUSAND) points in one of them (base models theres also a million (nearly haha) magnetized bits), and it has WHEELS and a handle.
Now imagine what you can do with a smaller one.... where you need 1/6 the space..

now i hate to say it transporting this stuff isnt too bad, 1500 points is a shoebox, if you like to keep nicely painted models shell out 40 bucks on some cheap foam pluck trays and a plastic box. and transport is sorted.

the bigger barrier is a 2k army, which if you magnetize the options in a kit up is much easier to do. or bitz things up, devastator boxes come with twice as many weapons as there is bodies or is it 3x? i cant remember. fleshing out options for your army isnt really that hard is it? because if you do that kind of thing your 1500pt base army is now customisable to an extent and saves you owning 50000000 models and is easier to transport. this is just to put ideas out there to those that say my 1500 pt force cant be touched up.

now as to not getting games, if you have a local store that you play at. set up a FB group or something for it so you can have LF games things to make organizing easier and while your at it you can discuss the options for the game, and this is how you can start your own clubs. and grow from there.

this doesnt sort internal ballances, but i see more complaining about getting games at a min. then it seems to be games that "you" approve of, rather than none at all.

for me though ill settle with BRB and go for it without adding in clauses as to what to bring, there is enough other rules discussions to have during the game

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

 Sillycybin wrote:

Real life, which wargames are based on. At Vimmy Ridge the Canadian army didn't use anything different then the French or English who were not able to take the hill. All 3 used artillery and ground troops. The reason the Canadians took the hill was strategy. The use of the rolling barrage, indirect machinegun fire, and trench raids was essentially using the same units as the other two forces just in a different manner which achieved victory. This is what I would like to see in 40k. That its not about what units you choice its about how you use them because something like a point system determined that I should at least have an equal chance as my opponent.

I'll have to look this up, thanks for sharing. And I concur on how the game should be, but isn't.

And for people saying that in real warfare you get to choose what you're taking to the fight: that's a luxury that's seldom seen. The vast majority of the time, you use what you have on hand and adapt your strategy and tactics accordingly.

Calgar- no, only by an unwarranted reduction into absolutist terms could it be misconstrued as a direct insult. Just saying "some people have low EI " doesn't mean all players do, and it isn't the only cause of issues. But it is A cause, for sure,based on my non scientific study of around 600 gamers over the years (tournament and non tournament, pickup and organised games). Some people in this hobby are apparently incapable of communicating well, or just cannot empathise with others.

I'm not saying the game shouldn't do more to help this, but it is explicitly setup as a game between friends , or at least people who vaguely know each other. So trying to make it fit something it isn't designed to do brilliantly, and then complain about it, misses something.

Again. Not, by any stretch, saying the game is blameless. However the sheer hyperbole laden posts here are completely unpersuasive as arguments. Presenting balance, almost treating it as a business case, will win people over more reliably.

Silly - as long as you make the defiler not immune to s5 or less shots from the front or side, cannot fail morale, etc.

A heldrake is still well worth 170, it just isn't worth 200 points any longer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


I'm not saying the game shouldn't do more to help this, but it is explicitly setup as a game between friends , or at least people who vaguely know each other. So trying to make it fit something it isn't designed to do brilliantly, and then complain about it, misses something.

While I don't disagree with what you've given, I say this is the hardest pill to swallow. While within GW's rights to do so, making a game that can be readily played with anyone universally means you can not only play a lot more, but make new friends. I would say they fail as a game at that point, as any other war game can and does support the idea of a pick-up game and there's no length, be it short or long, of pregame discussion to find out how we can play nice together.

So as a medium, a game, it fails. As a narrative device, without much hacking and editing by the players, it fails. It succeeds at nothing it aims to do without the player base forcing it either way.

Not a direct comparison, but I don't need a fundamental part of our communication, speech, to play a game of chess with someone. We can play the game readily. Other war games outside of 40k, could be played with someone with ever talking just by having a good knowledge of the units and models; a much larger task than chess pieces, but it can be done. With Warhammer 40k, it's a requirement. The rules are written so vaguely that even native English speakers can come up with two (or more) valid interpretations of the rules. We have to express known intent, intent not of the designer, but intent to make sure the game doesn't fall apart, to make the game work. This is where RAI and RAW stem from. These are very much Warhammer 40k terms, or should I say, Games Workshop terms, as every other company clarifies their intent readily.

Oh yes, it could be made better, for sure. It's just like complaining Ferrari don't make a car that can take a chest of drawers, faintly pointless.

Whoops... there doesn't seem to be anything here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh yes, it could be made better, for sure. It's just like complaining Ferrari don't make a car that can take a chest of drawers, faintly pointless.

I'm not sure where that metaphor is going. I was talking about apples to apples comparison of games and how gaming is a social construct. How good games can succeed by removing basic parts of human communication and still function. GW's products do not fall into that category and they fail as a narrative game, as well, because they are still opposition based (player vs. player) and the players require a large amount of modifications to rules to make games even remotely "close." A narrative driven assault squad marine army versus a Tau Gunline (fluffy) or Eldar Sam Hainn list (fluffy) is going to have, what we call in these parts... a bad time.

And if you're even close to equating GW to a "Ferrari" of the industry, outside of cost and poor maintenance, I'd fully disagree. They are much more like the British luxury cars; they look nice, are fun to talk about, but are basically good for leaving a big mess on your driveway and not much else.

Hey! Rolls Royce and Bentley make some of the best cars in the world!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hey! Rolls Royce and Bentley make some of the best cars in the world!

You'd think so after at least 7 editions of them.

Depends on what army you are playing...

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Did i read that transporting a large army "2000 points" is very difficult? that its too hard to move that many models then allow me to point you in the direction of THIS bad boy

http://us.battlefoam.com/black-label-rj-16-space-marine-load-out/

now with basic marines it fits. 170 basic marines + so much more. i customed mine up and i fit over 13,000 (yep THIRTEEN THOUSAND) points in one of them (base models theres also a million (nearly haha) magnetized bits), and it has WHEELS and a handle.
Now imagine what you can do with a smaller one.... where you need 1/6 the space..

That case is also $400.

So, they say a picture is worth 1000 words. Here's the state of 40k right now.




Riddle me this. How is that good for the health of a wargame?

Well, I think the analogy there falls flat, as everyone in 40K is a Paying User. Everyone who plays is playing using rulebooks and armies they (or someone they know) paid for at some point.

The issue is that, for the "free user" in that picture, that is roughly three-quarters of the available armies, and the "paid user" would be the three top-tier armies. The remaining armies fall somewhere in between, where, with luck and skill, you can force a draw from one of the "Paid User" armies, and might even win a game now and then.

But, in the end, regardless of the methods of illustration used, having even the concept of army "tiers" in a competitive game is fething stupid.

Thekbob - Ferrari make a certain type of car to do x. X will never include carrying a chest of drawers, despite significantly cheaper, different cars being able to.

GW is Ferrari, in that their stated aim is not a pure pug ruleset, and certainly jot a tournament set. So complaining that they don't cater to your needs (a pug ruleset) is like complaining that Ferrari do not make a car that fits your need (carrying a chest of drawers). Apologies, I thought the analogy was clear. Is that better?

Note: this isn't making a comparator within war gaming companies, I'm not saying GW is Ferrari. Although they are both following not too disimilar strategies of raising prices and cutting production, just for different aims and with different levels of success.

Finally , both Bentley and RRMC have been German owned since about 1998 (with VW hilariously losing out on RRMC as it turns out they bought something the vendor Vickers wasn't able to sell...) and they make some damn reliable cars. Britain makes great cars, were just usually crap at actually running the companies full disclosure - I work for one of the two firms

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thekbob - Ferrari make a certain type of car to do x. X will never include carrying a chest of drawers, despite significantly cheaper, different cars being able to.

GW is Ferrari, in that their stated aim is not a pure pug ruleset, and certainly jot a tournament set. So complaining that they don't cater to your needs (a pug ruleset) is like complaining that Ferrari do not make a car that fits your need (carrying a chest of drawers). Apologies, I thought the analogy was clear. Is that better?

Note: this isn't making a comparator within war gaming companies, I'm not saying GW is Ferrari. Although they are both following not too disimilar strategies of raising prices and cutting production, just for different aims and with different levels of success.

Finally , both Bentley and RRMC have been German owned since about 1998 (with VW hilariously losing out on RRMC as it turns out they bought something the vendor Vickers wasn't able to sell...) and they make some damn reliable cars. Britain makes great cars, were just usually crap at actually running the companies full disclosure - I work for one of the two firms

What are the rules good for though? Pugs, nope. Tournament? Nope. Narrative? Utter trash as per usual. So what exactly is 40k good at? I suppose you can say that the fluff is good particularly as the mindset of editing out the fluff you dislike can make it more appealing (because, let's be honest, there is a lot of Star Wars expanded universe bad level material out there) and the models are usually rather good (bar finecast ) but really, what does it fit into? A game where you have to rework the rules and go through them with pen and marker to balance the game yourself despite the fact that we are simply customers. Should one have to pay almost 100 dollars for the rules then 50 more for the codex just to play a set of rules that are absolutely atrocious?

 Grimtuff wrote:
So, they say a picture is worth 1000 words. Here's the state of 40k right now.

Spoiler:

Riddle me this. How is that good for the health of a wargame?

If only 40k played that fast!

GW are in NO way comparable to Ferrari. Nothing about their business strategys are similar, no matter what GW wants to believe.

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Did i read that transporting a large army "2000 points" is very difficult? that its too hard to move that many models then allow me to point you in the direction of THIS bad boy

http://us.battlefoam.com/black-label-rj-16-space-marine-load-out/

now with basic marines it fits. 170 basic marines + so much more. i customed mine up and i fit over 13,000 (yep THIRTEEN THOUSAND) points in one of them (base models theres also a million (nearly haha) magnetized bits), and it has WHEELS and a handle.
Now imagine what you can do with a smaller one.... where you need 1/6 the space..

now i hate to say it transporting this stuff isnt too bad, 1500 points is a shoebox, if you like to keep nicely painted models shell out 40 bucks on some cheap foam pluck trays and a plastic box. and transport is sorted.

the bigger barrier is a 2k army, which if you magnetize the options in a kit up is much easier to do. or bitz things up, devastator boxes come with twice as many weapons as there is bodies or is it 3x? i cant remember. fleshing out options for your army isnt really that hard is it? because if you do that kind of thing your 1500pt base army is now customisable to an extent and saves you owning 50000000 models and is easier to transport. this is just to put ideas out there to those that say my 1500 pt force cant be touched up.

now as to not getting games, if you have a local store that you play at. set up a FB group or something for it so you can have LF games things to make organizing easier and while your at it you can discuss the options for the game, and this is how you can start your own clubs. and grow from there.

this doesnt sort internal ballances, but i see more complaining about getting games at a min. then it seems to be games that "you" approve of, rather than none at all.

for me though ill settle with BRB and go for it without adding in clauses as to what to bring, there is enough other rules discussions to have during the game

You read that transporting models was an added barrier.

How in the feth is a $400 carry case not another barrier. Sure the smaller ones will be cheaper, but you are comparing it to space Marines - some of the costlypiest points for standard infantry available, 5 TAC marines no upgrades costs as much as 15 termagants - and this is before we mention that TAC marines are one of the cheapest units in your army, AND would have upgrades as well. A lot of armies travel much harder than power army does, my friend. You could probably fit ore than 2 landraiders in the space it takes a 140 pt Harley's wingpsan and height to fit.

Your post is really narrow minded. At best, doing all that even at good prices, is still just one more barrier. One of many.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Did i read that transporting a large army "2000 points" is very difficult? that its too hard to move that many models then allow me to point you in the direction of THIS bad boy

http://us.battlefoam.com/black-label-rj-16-space-marine-load-out/

now with basic marines it fits. 170 basic marines + so much more. i customed mine up and i fit over 13,000 (yep THIRTEEN THOUSAND) points in one of them (base models theres also a million (nearly haha) magnetized bits), and it has WHEELS and a handle.
Now imagine what you can do with a smaller one.... where you need 1/6 the space..

now i hate to say it transporting this stuff isnt too bad, 1500 points is a shoebox, if you like to keep nicely painted models shell out 40 bucks on some cheap foam pluck trays and a plastic box. and transport is sorted.

the bigger barrier is a 2k army, which if you magnetize the options in a kit up is much easier to do. or bitz things up, devastator boxes come with twice as many weapons as there is bodies or is it 3x? i cant remember. fleshing out options for your army isnt really that hard is it? because if you do that kind of thing your 1500pt base army is now customisable to an extent and saves you owning 50000000 models and is easier to transport. this is just to put ideas out there to those that say my 1500 pt force cant be touched up.

now as to not getting games, if you have a local store that you play at. set up a FB group or something for it so you can have LF games things to make organizing easier and while your at it you can discuss the options for the game, and this is how you can start your own clubs. and grow from there.

this doesnt sort internal ballances, but i see more complaining about getting games at a min. then it seems to be games that "you" approve of, rather than none at all.

for me though ill settle with BRB and go for it without adding in clauses as to what to bring, there is enough other rules discussions to have during the game

You read that transporting models was an added barrier.

How in the feth is a $400 carry case not another barrier. Sure the smaller ones will be cheaper, but you are comparing it to space Marines - some of the costlypiest points for standard infantry available, 5 TAC marines no upgrades costs as much as 15 termagants - and this is before we mention that TAC marines are one of the cheapest units in your army, AND would have upgrades as well. A lot of armies travel much harder than power army does, my friend. You could probably fit ore than 2 landraiders in the space it takes a 140 pt Harley's wingpsan and height to fit.

Your post is really narrow minded. At best, doing all that even at good prices, is still just one more barrier. One of many.

Worst yet when you field chaos daemons. Why are the swords of bloodletters the size of an extra model

When I see carrying cases like that, it makes me so, so, so very glad that I play the game on Computer rather than with models on the TT.

150 guardsmen models? No problem. I'll even paint 'em all for you- it'll take about three clicks.

I dunno, my 2 cents is different then most, i greatly enjoy the hobby aspect as well as playing the game, but i am a strictly for fun guy, you will never see me knowingly bring a WAAC list and/or attitude to the game(Hell my plasma heavy army's blow themselves up every game, bet on it) i just enjoy playing it, and seeing what unfolds. But the other end of the spectrum, i can see where high level player's would be asking for balance, but i also think it's to early in the edition's lifespan to say it's a failure or bad.

Just think of it like the NFL draft for your favorite football team, sure that shiny 1st round pick may live up to the hype, or it could take a little time, you can't just judge him game 1 of the season, let it marinate a lil bit.

But thus far all my game's have been enjoyable, and i dont have a win under my belt yet in 7th lol (Calgar and some marines took out my DA my first game with em, and then the SoB mollywhopped all my DA the 2nd go round!), but as i said thats my 2 cents.

I think everyone should take a deep breath, i see alot of topic's on these forum's which seem to draw 2 or more combatant's trying to beat each other over the head with their own ideology. Were all different, we all have different ideas/opinions, but we all share the same interest, 40k..

Deuces!

Urban

 SHUPPET wrote:

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Did i read that transporting a large army "2000 points" is very difficult? that its too hard to move that many models then allow me to point you in the direction of THIS bad boy

http://us.battlefoam.com/black-label-rj-16-space-marine-load-out/

now with basic marines it fits. 170 basic marines + so much more. i customed mine up and i fit over 13,000 (yep THIRTEEN THOUSAND) points in one of them (base models theres also a million (nearly haha) magnetized bits), and it has WHEELS and a handle.
Now imagine what you can do with a smaller one.... where you need 1/6 the space..

now i hate to say it transporting this stuff isnt too bad, 1500 points is a shoebox, if you like to keep nicely painted models shell out 40 bucks on some cheap foam pluck trays and a plastic box. and transport is sorted.

the bigger barrier is a 2k army, which if you magnetize the options in a kit up is much easier to do. or bitz things up, devastator boxes come with twice as many weapons as there is bodies or is it 3x? i cant remember. fleshing out options for your army isnt really that hard is it? because if you do that kind of thing your 1500pt base army is now customisable to an extent and saves you owning 50000000 models and is easier to transport. this is just to put ideas out there to those that say my 1500 pt force cant be touched up.

now as to not getting games, if you have a local store that you play at. set up a FB group or something for it so you can have LF games things to make organizing easier and while your at it you can discuss the options for the game, and this is how you can start your own clubs. and grow from there.

this doesnt sort internal ballances, but i see more complaining about getting games at a min. then it seems to be games that "you" approve of, rather than none at all.

for me though ill settle with BRB and go for it without adding in clauses as to what to bring, there is enough other rules discussions to have during the game

You read that transporting models was an added barrier.

How in the feth is a $400 carry case not another barrier. Sure the smaller ones will be cheaper, but you are comparing it to space Marines - some of the costlypiest points for standard infantry available, 5 TAC marines no upgrades costs as much as 15 termagants - and this is before we mention that TAC marines are one of the cheapest units in your army, AND would have upgrades as well. A lot of armies travel much harder than power army does, my friend. You could probably fit ore than 2 landraiders in the space it takes a 140 pt Harley's wingpsan and height to fit.

Your post is really narrow minded. At best, doing all that even at good prices, is still just one more barrier. One of many.

i was asnering the complaing that its sooo hard to transport a 2000 point army. if i can fit 13000 points in 1 case, you can surely get a case to carry 2k. and sure flyers take more space.. i have 3 heldrakes. they DO take more space, but in the end if you want to take in the other example termagants custom the tray up they take less space than marines do. and bloodcrushers, they are the Khorne infantry yeah? sure the swords are bigger but they still go in a single marine type slot.

the argument came around because people wanted to take 1500 pts as a single list, which people said, make a few lists and take 2000 pts of models, the excuse became its too hard to transport that many models. and if we are honest its really not. make your own trays and get a plastic tub, you dont need ot buy a 400$ case. the case i use is jsut an example where i can say confidantly i can move LOTS easily, heck i can put that thing into checked luggage and have nothing break. flying america to australia... so you know. all i am doing is showing options for those that firmly believe there is none.

Nobody said it was impossible to transport models, or else nobody would ever have a game against anyone bar their roommates.

It's undeniably an extra barrier, when you have to transport multiple lists to account for a casual or competitive opponent, that you won't know unit you get there.

If you are coming in prepared against an opponent and know roughly what you might be facing, it won't be an issue. The fact that it is if you aren't however shows that the game is undeniably unbalanced. I don't even see how it's a question. In fact it's not. The question was the effect on 7th to balance, the answer is "very little".

 SHUPPET wrote:
NIf you are coming in prepared against an opponent and know roughly what you might be facing, it won't be an issue. The fact that it is if you aren't however shows that the game is undeniably unbalanced. I don't even see how it's a question. In fact it's not. The question was the effect on 7th to balance, the answer is "very little".

Not even that, the fact that this is a topic that has gotten past a page is all the factual evidence you need to see that 40k may well be the worst balanced game on the market. The concepts of 'fluff lists' and 'competitive lists' are a uniquely 40k phenomenon.

I think the greatest asset players can have is solid communication. Our store has a Facebook group that allows all of us to keep in touch, and negotiate games before we even get to the store. This is an awesome way to cut down game time, as we don't have to spend time talking about how many points, rules, missions, etc. We planned it sometimes days in advance, and we get there, set up, and go.

Sadly, our area doesn't have an abundance of people lingering around the store to play 40k, despite there being quite a good amount of us. We all have schedules, and play accordingly. And it's actually pretty damn nice.

We all know what is fun for the group. We all play big apoc games ever month together, and have a blast. We don't like to pull douche moves and play in methods that aren't reasonable. There is no tournament scene in our area, so we all have very little reason to try to assert 'dominance'. We just want to enjoy the game we put so much individual time on (via painting/modeling, etc). It's good times, win or lose.

That being said, I feel 7th has been OK thus far. I don't feel too many changes from 6th, but that's just me. The biggest impact to my army came from the new Codex, as my Orks were basically playing the same as before anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nobody said it was impossible to transport models, or else nobody would ever have a game against anyone bar their roommates.

It's undeniably an extra barrier, when you have to transport multiple lists to account for a casual or competitive opponent, that you won't know unit you get there.

If you are coming in prepared against an opponent and know roughly what you might be facing, it won't be an issue. The fact that it is if you aren't however shows that the game is undeniably unbalanced. I don't even see how it's a question. In fact it's not. The question was the effect on 7th to balance, the answer is "very little".

I transport half my models in shoeboxes or a bucket! (YAY BOYZ! XD)

Melevolence wrote:
I think the greatest asset players can have is solid communication. Our store has a Facebook group that allows all of us to keep in touch, and negotiate games before we even get to the store. This is an awesome way to cut down game time, as we don't have to spend time talking about how many points, rules, missions, etc. We planned it sometimes days in advance, and we get there, set up, and go.

Oh definitely. Mine has the same thing, although we are fairly competitive it's just a great thing to have and helps strengthen the community.

Nobody is saying balance issues can't be fixed with a little preparing. However, the fact that communication or negotiation IS necessary for others to work out a happy medium, proves that the game is not balanced.

However, who cares! I like having stronger and weaker armies! It lets me pick between "hard mode" and "easy mode". I personally enjoy hard mode for my armies - it adds to the skill required to win.

I guess this could be achievable if all the dexes were equal by picking the weaker models, but I'm the kind of person who needs the line drawn for me, I want to build the strongest list possible with a less used army, I can't draw that line myself. Plus it would have me choosing from a smaller pool of minis - however I guess this is already the case, having to choose from the pool of minis that ARE useable in a weaker dex. My main issue is internal balance.

At the end of the day, I don't mind some armies being stronger than others - it's been a part of 40k since day 1 thx to their approach to writing rules. I would however, likelike to see all the units in dexes balanced on a similar level to each other - I mean is that too much to ask, should be pretty easy.

So underwords people need 2 armies? One real army for normal games and one casual? I have enough problems with transporting my AM at 1500pts. If I were to transport 2 armies, I would need someone to drive me to the shop and back. And how would people even fit in to the store, if everyone suddenly poped up with 2 armies?

 SHUPPET wrote:
However, who cares! I like having stronger and weaker armies! It lets me pick between "hard mode" and "easy mode". I personally enjoy hard mode for my armies - it adds to the skill required to win.

Welcome to handicaps, available in most competitve games (just look at golf). If every codex and unit was balanced you could get a much more enjoyable "hard mode" game by giving yourself a handicap of 100, 500 points, whatever and not need to intentionally gimp your list. A large part of the enjoyment is trying hard to win so when you artificially limit yourself by playing poorly or choosing poor units I find it much less fun.

The game is unplayable for anyone with a mind more complex than a 7 year olds.

40 k is now a game of chutes and ladders that costs $400.00 to play.

Fire Jervis Johnson, worst head of a rules department in the history of the position.

dresnar1 wrote:
The game is unplayable for anyone with [...].

Thanks for insulting all 40k players. 40k has not been a tactical game for a long time now and still is mostly decided by army list, not individual skill. If you don't like that, that's ok, but don't go around insulting us. Thanks.

It's not an insult. It's a compliment to those who recognise he's correct.

Anyway it is off topic.

I would have said that 7th was a bit less unbalanced than 6th because they toned down Allies and Escalation units but they introduced Maelstrom objectives and Unbound armies and that restored the kujibiki unbalance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thekbob - Ferrari make a certain type of car to do x. X will never include carrying a chest of drawers, despite significantly cheaper, different cars being able to.

GW is Ferrari,...

So what other marketing hype do you believe in?My previous remarks were to highlight how bad your analogy (and car analogies in general) was, but I assume you didn't get it.

Let me say it clearly: Your analogy is bad.

Warhammer 40k is a game and fails to be so without a significant amount of group think or negotiation to operate; almost every individual on this forum that says "the game is fine" either plays in a very small group of people with either a spoken or unspoken agreement on how the game is to be played. THIS DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY OTHER CURRENT POPULAR TABLETOP GAME. Emphasis added so you cannot skim past it. The idea of "WAAC", player base division, and more, is all an outcome of the mismanagement of the game by Games Workshop.

The idea is that a core set of solid, functional rules is a much sturdier foundation to move off of. As long as the game exists as a player vs player game, this is utterly critical. Unlike a true narrative game, such as a pen and paper RPG or a simulation based historical wargame, the outcome is based entirely on how well the rules operate as players work the levers and dials.

So no, Games Workshop is nothing like a "Ferrari" unless you mean in cost alone. They don't make the best models anymore. The have never made the best game. Their sales are falling and people are bailing out like no tomorrow. This is all a direct stemming from the company which has been sown into the rules. The game isn't balanced and any player saying it is relies specifically on what I stated previously.

To put it another way...

A Ferrari is a vehicle designed to get you from Point A to B very quickly and in maximum "style" (as such things are subjectively defined).

GW is not a Ferrari. It does not get you from Point A to Point B without you, the driver, first sitting down with all the other drivers on the road, whether they drive Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches, Fords, Chevys, Kias or Yugos, to decide upon how the driving will be done.

It doesn't get you there in maximum style, because there also exist Lambos, Porsches, Mustangs, classic muscle cars, roadsters, and 100 other makes and models of cars that, subjectively speaking, may appeal to a wider audience. (Hint: This means there are other Wargames on the market to play, and they are generally believed to be better-written and better-designed than 40K.).

The idea that it was never designed to carry a chest of drawers is true... Ferrari makes no cargo-hauling vehicles... but what is it, for purpose of analogy, that the chest of drawers is supposed to represent? Does that represent PUG play? Does that represent Tournament Play? Does that represent the "beer and pretzels" play of a local group?

If we use that to mean PUG play... then 40K again fails as a wargame, as it takes a massive stroke of luck to put any army build on the table against any other random army build at the FLGS and have a game where one side does not utterly destroy the other side, or where disputes over rules interpretations do not arise (either during the game or in the after-action review of the game). Most (none?) other TT wargames do not have these kinds of results because, in those games, there's no such thing as a terrible army-build. Their armies are balanced internally and externally to where a given army list has a reasonable chance to beat any other army list put on the table. Are there ways to optimize your chances of winning against certain other armies in those games? Certainly. Could you build a list that is "hard mode" against certain other lists? Most definitely.

What these other games present players with, though, is the option to buy basically any assortment of models for their respective armies and have a pretty good chance to win against any other list from the same game, provided decent-enough skill and luck with dice.

40K's ruleset ensures that there will be some lists that are entirely useless against other lists, and certain units in certain armies that actively reduce your chances of winning a game, regardless of what you play against.

Or did we want the chest of drawers to represent Tournament play?

In that case... well, this simply cannot be true, as GW used to host tournaments using their ruleset. Obviously, GW had, at one time, intended their game to be "tournament level play".

As a "beer and pretzels" game amongst friends?

Folks, if that's the chest of drawers that the 40K Ferrari isn't hauling... then what the hell *is* it hauling? If it cannot be used for this style of game, which is what the developers have described it as, then what good is its ruleset? But this returns us to the first point. If you *must* house rule a game to play it, because otherwise it is a broken mess of badly-written rules, poor playtesting and poorly-edited publications, then we're not driving a Ferrari here, we're driving a Ford Pinto with bad shocks and two flat tires.

Well, to a degree that is true. However we also have to take into account the fact that GW is trying to make an effort to "randomize" the game. The primary purpose of that is to allow new players to still get a decent chance of winning and make them believe they are responsible. From a business point it is more than understandable, it helps maintain new players interest and keeps the money rolling in. But as a not-so-new gamer (7 Years) it seems to ruin the game for me. Actual tactics and decisions are easily outmatched by a Deathstar unit or by sheer luck. Though I do believe 7th edition has improved the balance largely compared to 6th edition. But, for me at least, I have to say 5th edition is still my favourite.

However, "Random" tables are just as likely to totally screw over a new player as they are a veteran player. As a balancing mechanic, they fail in that regard quite spectacularly.

yeah random is random, it doesn't help or hinder any one more than another.

Newer players would have a much better chance of winning if they weren't horribly gimped by their choice of units - ie. horrible balancing. "Oooh rough riders, they look fun!"... no, not going to work sorry mate. Nor are the great looking warp talons or lychgarde. Even against an average player with an average list, taking many of these "tier" of units is just going to get you destroyed as a new player which is not really the best introduction to the hobby.

There's a major difference in weight probability through random number generators (RNGs), such as dice or cards, and the straight random of things like warlord traits, pyschic powers, maelstrom objectives, and so on found in Warhammer 40k.

The latter is awful game design. The former is a staple of all games, be it meat space or video game, and controlling those variables in the probability is what makes or brakes many games.

Games are math, whether observed literally or figuratively. Meaning whether you embrace mathhammer or just know tacitly what's good and what's not through play, all games break down to their fundamental mathematical mechanics. And Games Workshops are bad. And truly random is generally not desirable.

i dont know about anyone else here, but almost every post i have read with something positive, or even remotely positive to say has started with the preface that "if both players agree/discuss"...

ANY GAME that requires a moderator to do things like interpret rules, judge something over the top, settle rules disputes and keep the players playing in a PUG environment isnt a good game. while this has to happen in a tournament, because the propensity to cheat is MUCH higher, even having someone there for your game when not in a WAAC setting is just silly

If the terms discussion/agreement/house rules/house banning/house balancing have to be used or instituted to make the game playable for all, its a bad game.

Almost every game tournament will have a rules judge, so don't knock any game for that. It's whether or not those rules judges have been equipped to succeed. Most judges for Warmachine events are Press Gangers and can get feedback on calls they make using the forums or their network of PGs. I would assume the same goes for the same folks for Wyrd, Corvus Belli, etc.

I guess 40K's major problem is they want so much to be able to happen, but have no way to make it implemented smoothly WITHOUT the random charts tables. Example being the Vehicle Damage table, Perils of the Warp table, etc. These mechanics are cool, and I'm not sure what other wargames have them. I mean, I can agree that a vehicle being pummeled by rockets wouldn't just break down, there would be the expectation it would explode. Though I would recommend ways to decrease dice rolling, such as set a flat distance the explosion reaches. Cutting even one dice roll is helpful in speeding things up just a tad.

The perils table again takes more time. Feels like there are TOO many possible results, making it again more tedious as you either have to remember all the results, or look it up. More time wasted. A cool mechanic to show you're Psyker screwed up big time, but poorly implemented.

The game just need streamlining on all this stuff. That said though, I've enjoyed all my games thus far, though I enjoyed all my games in 6th as well. Some changes were good, others not so good. But what can we do? Not a lot. It's one of those 'deal with it, or play older edition' situations, or continue to house rule like we tend to do. *shrug* I just enjoy the game for what it is, on a casual level.

@Melevolence.
There are war games out there with far more detail and scope than 40k, who manage to cover the game play with well defined intuitive rules ,that take up fewer pages of rules than 40k uses.
Simply because the rules are written specifically for the game play.

If you re-write rules for 40k based on current game play using modern game mechanics and resolution methods .You could cover the whole system much more effectively,efficiently and elegantly.

But while the GW sales department set the design brief , (following the directive of Mr T.Kirby C.E.O. and Chairman, '.... selling toy soldiers to children...' ).
You are going to get randomly applied rules to a randomly developed game system that is constantly sub par in every respect.

The OP asked how balanced do we think 7th ed is?

The OP didn't ask how we the players can change the game to make it work.
He/She did not ask for excuses for why allowances should be made for 7th ed.
Neither did the OP ask if we were enjoying the game. The question was, "How balanced do we think 7th ed is?".

So as per the original question I voted, " unplayable".


Later,
ff

If you are honestly thinking about rejoining 40k, do it. I've played 13 games of 7th, just slightly more than 2 a week since it dropped. I am honestly having more fun with this edition, than any before. Maelstrom of war missions are crazy fun. Yes, it can be unbalanced in those missions, if you roll or draw bad objectives on the chart. That being said the ideas I've been having for battle forged and unbound army lists are funny. I don't think I will a chance to test them all, but jump in.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyway it is off topic.

I would have said that 7th was a bit less unbalanced than 6th because they toned down Allies and Escalation units but they introduced Maelstrom objectives and Unbound armies and that restored the kujibiki unbalance.

but that is the BEAUTY that is 40k, those things are optional, extra stuff that some other guy wanted (I personally like them, they add lots of complexity to the game, we houserule it so unobtainable ones are redrawn, and the game is on a new level.)


lots of people dont like the cards, and they are too complex for tournaments, so generally are not used, and thats the whole point of GW giving you a framework and letting you all tailor the niggling details for yourself.



doesnt take much, look at the BAO or a comparable tournaments way of making what is in essence, a army of D&D models with a simplified randomize table so that you can play games with little dudes you painted, into a pretty decent competitive, fun, and well balanced game especially considering the scope of it.

if you want the most competitive and balanced games you want computer games, or *gasp* sports! where there isnt a random table backing your performance.

Its hardly fair to say that 40k is better balanced if you ignore all the parts of it that are poorly balanced.

The core game includes Maelstrom and Unbound, and therefore are factors when discussing the balance issues of 40k.

Claiming its fine if you ignore and/or houserule the game is ignoring the point.

There are plenty of miniature games that are competitive and balanced that aren't sports or computer games. Poor example is poor.

 easysauce wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

if you want the most competitive and balanced games you want computer games, or *gasp* sports! where there isnt a random table backing your performance.

Or play Warmachine or Infinity.

Thekbob - nope, guess you still don't understand, as you missed the point by a mile.as did others.

Design philosophy is X. You want game to do Y. If philosophy does not include Y, you will never be happy, as you're asking for something that they have no stated interest in providing.

Enough with your insults of "swallowing marketing", this comes from talking to the actual people who write the game, and what THEY want of it. Your interest and theirs do not coincide. So leave it; you are opposed to how they want to run, so unless you gave some actual leverage - and you demonstrably don't- you can do nothing but sound bitter, or hateful.

It is exactly like complaining that ferraris philosophy for cars doesnot include gross luggage carrying capacity. Unless you can actually change that through leverage , it is a waste of time to continually berate them for not operating as you want them to. However logical the argument is - and, if you would read more carefully you would note I do not disagree about the balance , or that it would be simpler to have a tighter ruleset - you want something they WILL NOT GIVE YOU. So it is so much hot air, and wasted energy.

It is not a bad analogy, once you understand it.

You haven't explained what 40k is good at, or what design philosophy its oriented to.

And? I'm pointing out the flaw others are making. It is not necessary to say what is good to point out a flawed concept.

Personally I have a good laugh with it, in tournaments, campaigns, pug and prearranged. It is good for some narrative play, and generally having fun with like minded people.

I can see the flaws in it, but as long as I still see value in it, and I do, I don't let them cloud my judgement.

Philosophy is fairly obvious, and has been stated more than once here: games with oeople you know, and can talk to. Even a minute. I seem to be incredibly lucky in my interactions

 TheKbob wrote:
There's a major difference in weight probability through random number generators (RNGs), such as dice or cards, and the straight random of things like warlord traits, pyschic powers, maelstrom objectives, and so on found in Warhammer 40k.

The latter is awful game design. The former is a staple of all games, be it meat space or video game, and controlling those variables in the probability is what makes or brakes many games.

Games are math, whether observed literally or figuratively. Meaning whether you embrace mathhammer or just know tacitly what's good and what's not through play, all games break down to their fundamental mathematical mechanics. And Games Workshops are bad. And truly random is generally not desirable.

I feel that this is one of the things that makes 40k so imbalanced to some degree in the later editions, since some of them are kind of useless or can go against the playstyle of your army or something that might work with what you want at all. This kind of can be said of Maelstrom, in which a person can seem to win turn one by just drawing the right objectives out of luck.

Now for the reason I think 40k is between "Reasonably Unbalanced" and "Unplayable" is kind of two fold: The first being the appalling internal and external codex the armies have, where they can be really hit and miss. Especially in the recent ones, since they seem to have almost little to no playtesting to it. The second ties into the rules overall, where the rules are a complete mess and does not seem to figure out what it wants to be, let alone seems to favor certain armies still still favoring mostly shooting armies and/or able to get into assault with mitigating the chance of a poor charge roll (which was the one thing I still hate to this date. Now all personal feelings aside here....). I am not asking for completely and full balance, it is very hard to attain, but I want it where most everything is playable and I feel I can win or lose with just mostly skill playing a factor in it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Design philosophy is X. You want game to do Y. If philosophy does not include Y, you will never be happy, as you're asking for something that they have no stated interest in providing.

Their design philosophy says one thing, but their implementation is an utter failure. Narrative games are strictly PvE style games with a GM or something like a historical wargame where you are running more a simulation; the history being the GM. There's nothing in Warhammer 40k that creates such an atmosphere. It's PvP through and through. The rules call the other player your opponent. If you're playing a game of PvP, the rules must be designed in such a fashion. So again, their design philosophy is marketing schlock until their actions prove otherwise.

Your analogy continues to be terrible. Stop comparing crap to cars. Strawman argument, thou shall not use fallacies. Games to games, Warhammer 40k is not a functional system without a large amount of hand waving and house ruling.

Though tacit and anecdotal, I've had far more "forge the narrative" moments with Infinity, Malifaux, and Warmachine in the short time I've have stopped Warhammer 40k than I have in 40k. I remember more struggles with the rules than anything. I am quite certain that you could look under the hood, to steal your continued line of thought, to find that GW's "Ferrari" has a straight 4 cylinder for as much glitz and glamour they pour onto the outside. It would be very much like Ferrari saying they have the best sports car on the market and it could barely keep up with the posted speed limits without catching on fire every other trip. (Car analogies are dumb)

I personally haven't found 7th to be particularly well balanced. They've fixed some things, broken others, and thrown the door wide open to everything else.


While GW has a philosophy they seem to be designing from, the playerbase, as I've found it, for "typical" pickup games, has gone completely to yot, and as a result, from a personal perspective, I'm seeing more one-sided games and completely absurd (from a fluff perspective) armies than ever before, largely the opposite of what it would appear GW is trying to do with their ruleset.


It seems most people and events are having to enforce some selective banning of certain things and/or houseruling of others, far more than I've ever experienced before. This seems to reinforce my perception that the game is a mess.

I started playing in just before 6th was released and have found that 7th allows for more creative lists, or more narrative lists. If all you want to do is win then it can be done but there will be someone that with a greater cash flow than you that can bring bigger guns to the field. If you want to just have fun and play the army you like for the sake of playing then you should have fun. Also the new Missions have changed the game greatly, as you can score tons of points by completing objective cards, Vs just waiting until turn 4-5 and trying to rush the other guy.

Of course if you knowingly play a game with a Win At all cost player then expect to get stomped, or play against someone that takes the prize at Tournaments you may have little fun, unless that is your thing.

It really comes down to what kind of gamer/Hobbyist you are, me I have been known to play against cheesy lists just to see how I do, I have been know try out lists that make little sense, but so long as I have fun I keep hobbying.

There are a lot of things they fixed. No more Taudar. No more Buffmander with a riptide. The psychic phase at first kinda pissed me off, but honestly it's not that bad, and makes psychic powers harder to get off, and you cast less anyway, and it's a little more involved, so I've come to like it. Vehicles are actually usable now, which means that my Necron vehicles are harder to kill.

The Maelstrom of War missions were a good concept, but certain game scenarios are more unbalanced than others. Like, Deadlock or the one where you can Complete eachother's objectives. First hand draws can make or break the game, and me and my friends have pretty much decided to make a Mulligan rule, or at least you can discard ones you LITERALLY cannot do. Otherwise, the missions can be fun, especially on a narrative scale.

The FoC is all kinda of messed up. There might as well not even be one anymore. You can pretty much make any army you want, just call it another "detachment".

I'm still upset they didn't change Ordnance, or Ignores Cover, but whatever.

They also nerfed Tau and Eldar vehicles, simply with the new Jink rules, and I'm happy with that.

Overall, it has a lot of issues, but there will always be issues, so we can't escape that.

Thekbob - nope, that's not a straw man. Please look up terms before using them.

You've still cheerfully missed the point, so I will abstain from attempting to engage you on this, as it seems faintly pointless. The analogy is fine, and was easy. Did not need to be cars, a similar complaint would be moaning that pp won't adopt a codex model, as that is what you would prefer. Philosophical difference.

Th point remains that-0: you want X. They will never give you X. You complain that they don't give you X, missing the point that your interests are not relevant to them, unless and until you gain some more leverage than you currently have.

I've had some cool moments in WM, but as a setting I find it much less expansive to 40k. I just don't get on with it as the intensely everything's bollocksed atmosphere of 40k. According to some that makes me stupid, but meh, I ignore ignorant opinions , makes my life simpler

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thekbob - nope, that's not a straw man. Please look up terms before using them.

You've still cheerfully missed the point, so I will abstain from attempting to engage you on this, as it seems faintly pointless. The analogy is fine, and was easy. Did not need to be cars, a similar complaint would be moaning that pp won't adopt a codex model, as that is what you would prefer. Philosophical difference.

"I'm wrong so I'm taking my ball and going home".

While not totally balanced, with a few TO rules, it could be the best edition yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The option "reasonably unbalanced" amuses me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Thekbob - nope, that's not a straw man. Please look up terms before using them.

You've still cheerfully missed the point, so I will abstain from attempting to engage you on this, as it seems faintly pointless. The analogy is fine, and was easy. Did not need to be cars, a similar complaint would be moaning that pp won't adopt a codex model, as that is what you would prefer. Philosophical difference.

Th point remains that-0: you want X. They will never give you X. You complain that they don't give you X, missing the point that your interests are not relevant to them, unless and until you gain some more leverage than you currently have.

I've had some cool moments in WM, but as a setting I find it much less expansive to 40k. I just don't get on with it as the intensely everything's bollocksed atmosphere of 40k. According to some that makes me stupid, but meh, I ignore ignorant opinions , makes my life simpler

Still a lame analogy.

It's an illustration of how you can want something, but that doesn't mean your opinion matters one jot.

But hey, don't engage with substance, add no content instead. Much more productive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It's an illustration of how you can want something, but that doesn't mean your opinion matters one jot.

No.

It's a terrible analogy.

I prefer it to 6th but i seem to be in the minority. I would have classed 6th as unplayable for me, however i will concede that i had quite a long break from 40k, got back in to 6th and by the time 7th came out i've got a bit better with the ole' tactics. I still think if you play an army that wears power armour you're paying way to many points for troops. 3+ and str 4 weapons are now basically the geq of today, whereas in 3rd the marines (and csm) were literally as good as or better than other races' elites.

mind you, i can't talk as i've just bought a de army for the lulz and that seems to be asking for pain (again, quite literally)

Played my first 7th game yesterday. Seems more streamlined and liking the new Psychic phase.

 Grimtuff wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It's an illustration of how you can want something, but that doesn't mean your opinion matters one jot.

No.

It's a terrible analogy.

I'm waiting for him to explain what the current game is good for. It might hold a bit more weight then, but for that to happen the current rules need to have a clearly defined purpose.

Its all well and good to say if you want X then Y is not for you, but what the hell is the purpose of Y then?

Its a lot easier to say that the game isn't delivering X to explain how some people are unhappy with the state of the game. The problem with that is that X isn't defined, so it can be used in poor car analogies and then waved away when people have difficulty understanding the point being made.

If the game isn't made for some of the people in this thread, who is it made for? Its not a good narrative game, or tournament game, or pick up game. Its passable between close friends with like-minded philosophies on gaming, but then again, so is every game. Outside of that, it doesn't do anything other than provide a rough outline for how to play 28mm games in the 40k universe. But if you can only really play with close friends who think just like you, why bother with 40k at all and just play an RPG with models.

To answer the original question; its not balanced. It hasn't been play tested in any meaningful manner, and its overly complicated without adding any real depth.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It's an illustration of how you can want something, but that doesn't mean your opinion matters one jot.

No.

It's a terrible analogy.

I'm waiting for him to explain what the current game is good for. It might hold a bit more weight then, but for that to happen the current rules need to have a clearly defined purpose.

Its all well and good to say if you want X then Y is not for you, but what the hell is the purpose of Y then?

I'm sure they'll say its a great game for hanging with your mates, having laughs and goofing off...which any game would be great for, only the other games would be way cheaper and would have better rules in case a break of soberness allows for a moment of thoughtful play.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Th point remains that-0: you want X. They will never give you X. You complain that they don't give you X, missing the point that your interests are not relevant to them, unless and until you gain some more leverage than you currently have.

They say they make X. Then they make a game that's Y. Players realize that if they actually made Y, it could also be X. But they continue to make Y despite what they say, and do so poorly.

Your analogy sucks. A better balanced game is good for all types of play. It's why every other game, including narrative based RPGs, have forums to discuss rules issues and issue forth FAQs and errata. Which Games Workshop cannot even get correct.

People mentioned it before, but isn't it strange that w40k has HUGE problems with casual vs normal games and at the same time is realy bad as a narrative game stright out of the box.

TheKbob- sigh. Again, dont interject your conclusions as if others have said they are not true, to then argue against them. You love to use strawman arguments, making it significantly more hassle to respond.

I have not stated that a better balanced game wouldnt be better, for some definition of better, for all / majority. At all. I have not said that. Do not write things that imply otherwise, as that is misleading. In case you miss it again, I agree that, as a whole good balance for everything is likely more desirable for more people than the current situation. (The caveats are that dealing in absolutes, as you do, is generally more unsafe than safe, and I'm being precise with it)

You seem to have difficulty accepting that someone pointing out the flaws in your position doesnt mean they disagree with some parts of your argument. Treating everything as too black and white, us vs them. It is entirely possible to enjoy 40k games while understanding their flaws, but still seeing sufficient value in the game to continue. Just because you, and others, have decided that it isnt for you, doesnt mean you are right in that assessment, nor that others are wrong.

Again: I would prefer them to write tighter, adequately balanced rules, however much I enjoy reading and understanding them and debating them currently it would make the game swifter for people to pick up and play. However I am also aware that the aim for them isnt necessarily going to result in what I want, and so I dont expend quite so much energy on something I understand to be mostly a pointless exercise in futility. I cannot make them change. Thats fine, I accept that - I have no leverage over them. However i DO actually enjoy playing the game, across many parts of the UK and in many settings. IT still grabs my interest in ways few games do, and so I@ll keep on playing it.

Grimtuff - good to see your contentless posts continue. Keep at it, its not like the forum has rules against it. I'll file under "cant see the wood for the trees".

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm waiting for him to explain what the current game is good for. It might hold a bit more weight then, but for that to happen the current rules need to have a clearly defined purpose.

Its all well and good to say if you want X then Y is not for you, but what the hell is the purpose of Y then?

I can't speak for Nos (Though I seem to share a similar viewpoint) but I know what I find the game is good for:

Generating hours of fun for me.

I've played other systems and 40k is the one I find the most fun to play at my local group and with friends. Really what else does a game need to do?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
TheKbob- sigh. Again, dont interject your conclusions as if others have said they are not true, to then argue against them. You love to use strawman arguments, making it significantly more hassle to respond.

I have not stated that a better balanced game wouldnt be better, for some definition of better, for all / majority. At all. I have not said that. Do not write things that imply otherwise, as that is misleading. In case you miss it again, I agree that, as a whole good balance for everything is likely more desirable for more people than the current situation. (The caveats are that dealing in absolutes, as you do, is generally more unsafe than safe, and I'm being precise with it)

You seem to have difficulty accepting that someone pointing out the flaws in your position doesnt mean they disagree with some parts of your argument. Treating everything as too black and white, us vs them. It is entirely possible to enjoy 40k games while understanding their flaws, but still seeing sufficient value in the game to continue. Just because you, and others, have decided that it isnt for you, doesnt mean you are right in that assessment, nor that others are wrong.

Again: I would prefer them to write tighter, adequately balanced rules, however much I enjoy reading and understanding them and debating them currently it would make the game swifter for people to pick up and play. However I am also aware that the aim for them isnt necessarily going to result in what I want, and so I dont expend quite so much energy on something I understand to be mostly a pointless exercise in futility. I cannot make them change. Thats fine, I accept that - I have no leverage over them. However i DO actually enjoy playing the game, across many parts of the UK and in many settings. IT still grabs my interest in ways few games do, and so I@ll keep on playing it.

Grimtuff - good to see your contentless posts continue. Keep at it, its not like the forum has rules against it. I'll file under "cant see the wood for the trees".

And in all of your posts you still didn't explain what exactly is the aim for the design studio, despite having been asked by several posters.

You're the one that isn't adding any actual content to the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:


I've played other systems and 40k is the one I find the most fun to play at my local group and with friends. Really what else does a game need to do?

What other miniature games have you played and why did you consider 40k superior to them?

Warmahordes, Space Marine/Epic, Infinity, Dystopian Wars, Dropzone Commander, there must be others but off the top of my head over the years.

Each has some nice elements or rules ideas here and there but 40k I find a more enjoyable game. I like how diverse armies can be in 40k compared to other games, infantry, jump troops, tanks, MC's etc. I like the scale of 40k as the first two on the list feels like skirmish combat by comparison.

It's a lot of things including some I just can't put my fingers on, it's just more fun.

How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

 Random Dude wrote:
How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

It certainly isn't. It fixed a lot of things, but of course brought some other things that need changing.

I think the point is it is possible to have fun with ANY rules set with like minded people .

This thread is specifically about game balance in 7th ed 40k.

Can you use the rules as written to arrive at the intended game play of 40k ,yes or no?
Can you rely on the codex books and point values as written by GW to arrive at balanced and enjoyable pick up games, yes or no?

The answer is no to both of these questions, so the 7th ed rule and codex books fail to perform the basic function they are supposed to deliver.

The rule book is not a clear and concise set of instructions on how to play the game.
And the Codex books do not contain any provable levels of internal or external balance.

if GW plc sold them as a 'rough guide to playing games of 40k',and a 'rough outline of how you could collect citadel minatures'.

Then they would be describing the books more accurately, and people would not complain about the lack of inferred balance.

 Random Dude wrote:
How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

The word 'balanced' wasn't used there at all. 'Playable' was. The two aren't necessarily equal, although they should be.

If you rock up to a game, can you play straight off the bat? Yes, although probably not advisable. Chances are though, that unless you talk it over, your lists are not going to be equal.

40K doesn't work for pickup games. Close groups it's fine. Not a desirable state, but hey, we take what we can.

My $0.02

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

The word 'balanced' wasn't used there at all. 'Playable' was. The two aren't necessarily equal, although they should be.

If you rock up to a game, can you play straight off the bat? Yes, although probably not advisable. Chances are though, that unless you talk it over, your lists are not going to be equal.

40K doesn't work for pickup games. Close groups it's fine. Not a desirable state, but hey, we take what we can.

My $0.02

I was referencing the poll at the top.
And for the "take what we can get," well, we can get better in other places.

 Random Dude wrote:
How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

BRB rules tangent discussion aside, from a balance perspective my group of friends got to the point where the game was essentially unplayable. We have a BA player on a limited budget -- 6th edition made his army complete junk. Meanwhile we have another player who plays Tau and dropped something like $600 when his new codex came out.

It's literally not worth it for them to set up a game using the rules/codices as written. The Tau player simply wants to use his cool new riptide and some of this other new suits -- who can blame him? The BA player has Sang guard, Dante, some Death Company, a Storm Raven. All models he likes, has painted nicely, and would normally enjoy playing. Without any serious effort, the Tau player can absolutely destroy him. Where's the fun in that?

Sure, if they go into pre-game negotiations, they can sufficiently handicap the Tau player and/or buff the BA player to make the game somewhat fair and have a good time. But the point is, there's no reason they should have to for the amount of money and time they've already invested into 40k. That's what makes the game "unplayable." The fact that, as written, it doesn't lead to an enjoyable experience for both players, so why play?

 MWHistorian wrote:

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

The word 'balanced' wasn't used there at all. 'Playable' was. The two aren't necessarily equal, although they should be.

If you rock up to a game, can you play straight off the bat? Yes, although probably not advisable. Chances are though, that unless you talk it over, your lists are not going to be equal.

40K doesn't work for pickup games. Close groups it's fine. Not a desirable state, but hey, we take what we can.

My $0.02

I was referencing the poll at the top.
And for the "take what we can get," well, we can get better in other places.

True enough, and yes, the game is unbalanced beyond anything, without player discussion.
We can get better other places. Warmachine/Hordes, MtG, literally any other game, but 40K is still one of my favourites. It's stupid, over the top, and amazing for a laugh with some mates. The variety is enormous. OK, hardcore tournament style? Awesome, let me write a list. Just two melee armies smashing into each other, just to see how stupid we can make it? Sure. None of the other games quite have that. Just the way I feel.

My $0.02.

 Random Dude wrote:
How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

There comes a point where the rules issues that GW doesn't bother to fix simply make it not worth the effort required.

 Random Dude wrote:
How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

For some people here, not enjoying it is the same as it not working.

In all fairness there are bits that technically dont work though.

Well, most of my gaming group refuses to play it if that's any indication. The only one interested in the game only plays games for the "competitive aspect" of the game, which he says the more imbalanced the game the more competitive the game gets.

I don't get this philosophy myself, but to each their own.

I myself am rather upset that the only opponent I have now is just in the game to go for the throat, and the game to me is now unplayable due to this. FYI this guy is one of the reasons I determined I hated HordesMachine after getting my @$$ handed to me without any ability to fight back. Opponents like this who have no fun unless they're rolling their opponent (and do it through the rules being awful) are, to me, a great reason to hate a game.

Again, FYI I think the game is won and lost based on tables and list building rather than via strategy and gameplay. Give me Malifaux, Infinity, or X-Wing over 40k any day.



P.S. I think HordesMachine is an awful ruleset as well, but that's a thought for another thread.

 Etna's Vassal wrote:


P.S. I think HordesMachine is an awful ruleset as well, but that's a thought for another thread.

Well, don't leave us hanging. Go start a thread.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Etna's Vassal wrote:


P.S. I think HordesMachine is an awful ruleset as well, but that's a thought for another thread.

Well, don't leave us hanging. Go start a thread.

That would involve too much obscenity and swearing to happen. Give me a couple of shots of vodka and that may very well happen.

Not to derail this thread. Back to 40k!

I don't really see any issues I had with 6th ed being fixed.
Battle brothers is removed and reserved almost solely for Imperial forces, so that's not really a fix to me. Saying that only Imperial and Eldar deserve battle brothers based solely on race, from what I can tell, actually seems like more of a problem than it was a fix. Regardless it doesn't seem like an intentional fix, which makes matters even worse to me.

The Maelstrom missions and psychic phase are both poorly thought out and seem unfinished, which is surprising since they are the only real change from 6th.

The psyker phase has mostly been one sided in every example I've seen. GK for example can completely shut down a normal army with only a psyker or two. Not every game is going to be against GK, but the fact that this situation can arise where your 100+ point HQ is rendered useless just doesn't sit well with me.

The maelstrom missions are silly. There are so many quick fixes and balance fixes, but the problem is that none of them are in the book. The games that I have played have been almost entirely decided on the luck of the draw and not on anything that actually happened during the game. Why not just save yourself the book keeping and play the game, then at the each player draws a card from a pack of playing cards and high card wins?

Phantom - actually I have stated so, more than once, but as per form you missed it.

Shocked I am

The game is good for, so far, stupid numbers of hours of fun. Does it need to be more? Not necessarily. Could it be? Of course. This is where the analogy is exactly useful at pointing out that just because you feel entitled to something doesn't mean you'll get it.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
How can so many people say 7th is unplayable? You might not like it, but it's certainly not unplayable.

I think the bigger question is: how can anyone think the game actually IS balanced?

Regardless, the topic is completely subjective. Everyone can have a different opinion, and none of them is wrong.

The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

 Yonan wrote:
The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

If it weren't subjective there would be no reason for this thread. The OP gave multiple options implying that he expects people to have different opinions.

I gave 7th a chance, saw the rulebook got sad.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

If it weren't subjective there would be no reason for this thread. The OP gave multiple options implying that he expects people to have different opinions.

People can have different opinions due to a knowledge gap or personal bias, that does not make the topic subjective. You can prove using mathhammer that certain units are objectively worse. A lot of people think with no rational basis that the rapture is coming or that climate change isn't real despite 97%+ of scientsts studies saying otherwise. That does not mean there's a debate on the topic.

 Yonan wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
The game being balanced is in no way subjective. There are units that are objectively worse than others and codices that are objectively worse than others.

If it weren't subjective there would be no reason for this thread. The OP gave multiple options implying that he expects people to have different opinions.

People can have different opinions due to a knowledge gap or personal bias, that does not make the topic subjective. You can prove using mathhammer that certain units are objectively worse. A lot of people think with no rational basis that the rapture is coming or that climate change isn't real despite 97%+ of scientsts studies saying otherwise. That does not mean there's a debate on the topic.

I'm not arguing the game is balanced. I know it isn't, however, I will listen to other people's opinions.

You're arguing that it's subjective - it's not.

 Yonan wrote:
You're arguing that it's subjective - it's not.

Well, now I'm going to stop arguing.

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW are in NO way comparable to Ferrari. Nothing about their business strategys are similar, no matter what GW wants to believe.

Yes, but in principle it's possible to have companies with different strategies that won't fit your needs, and just because they don't fit your needs does not mean they will go out of business. The Ferrari example illustrates how Ferrari is different from other car companies. That's all (I know others tried to bring it further, but I think that's wrong)

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW are in NO way comparable to Ferrari. Nothing about their business strategys are similar, no matter what GW wants to believe.

Yes, but in principle it's possible to have companies with different strategies that won't fit your needs, and just because they don't fit your needs does not mean they will go out of business. The Ferrari example illustrates how Ferrari is different from other car companies. That's all (I know others tried to bring it further, but I think that's wrong)

I think the question is more: "Does it fit enough people's needs to stay in business?"
I believe the financial report won't be too awful. It'll probably be "Ok."
But "OK" isn't good either. After drastic cost cuts, Imperial Knights and a new edition they should be soaring. If they aren't, then they have deep seated problems that need to be fixed very soon or they will go under.

 MWHistorian wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW are in NO way comparable to Ferrari. Nothing about their business strategys are similar, no matter what GW wants to believe.

Yes, but in principle it's possible to have companies with different strategies that won't fit your needs, and just because they don't fit your needs does not mean they will go out of business. The Ferrari example illustrates how Ferrari is different from other car companies. That's all (I know others tried to bring it further, but I think that's wrong)

I think the question is more: "Does it fit enough people's needs to stay in business?"
I believe the financial report won't be too awful. It'll probably be "Ok."
But "OK" isn't good either. After drastic cost cuts, Imperial Knights and a new edition they should be soaring. If they aren't, then they have deep seated problems that need to be fixed very soon or they will go under.

Not to mention double didgit growth in the market. Their growth should not be compared to 0, it should be compared to the rest of the market. Breaking even in this situation still nets them a huge loss.

But back to the topic at hand Ferrari are good at what they do, just most people can't afford it.
I'd still argue GW aren't good at whatever it is they are trying to do.

I recognize they aren't making what I am looking for, doesn't get them off the hook though.

Ferrari are bad at what they do though, if you want them to make a car with a carrying capacity of a volvo estate.

Theyre also raising prices (dramatically) while cutting production, as they can sell fewer cars (dramatically reducing aftersales costs, such as warranty, given the requirement to maintain parts for so long) for a higher price. Theyre doing it for a different reason though - exclusivity.

Enough already with the GW = Ferrari delusion.

If your looking for an auto maker analogy then compare to GM.
Why?

Because GM in a near ubiquitous brand that is makes money off of mass production as opposed to limited run models designed to increase product value through exclusivity.

True, GM has "some" high end products like the Cadillac Brand and the Chevy Corvette but those are not the company's central focus. GM's bread and butter is maintaining their position as a market share leader through massed sales of moderately priced vehicles.

This is where GW fails in comparison. If GM followed GW's business model then base models of their Chevy, Opel & Holden brands would cost as much as the Cadillac STS or Avalanche.

GW has a high end brand in Forge World yet have priced their base product to where GW mass produced plastics are often in the same price range as the FW resin pieces.

To the point, people will balk, and rightly so, at paying a Cadillac prices for a Chevy Cavalier.



ON TOPIC!!!

As per the OP's original question and the poll...I rate the game as unplayable.

For myself, a game should not require "verbally" negotiating a "social contract" to play. Such nonsense is GW failing to assume responsibility and leadership for their product.
Imo, this is GW is just being to lazy to put any effort into balancing their game.

There are well designed and balanced games that allow players to engage in a player vs player game where the players involved don't even speak the same language.

All in all, starting with 6th ed, 40k became a labour /chore rather than a pleasurable activity/game. It has become a bloated rules mess that never allows for fluid play.
Immersion in the game is constantly interrupted by rules conflicts/question or just rules that make so little sense that you have those wtf moments.

Can we just drop the car analogies completely? They're really quite stupid. GW are nothing like Ferrari, there's nothing useful to be gained by comparing them to Ferrari, it's absurd. Ferrari make high end sports cars, GW mass produce little toy soldiers.

I really tire of pointless and (in many cases, like this one) spurious analogies.

We are pretty much all wargamers and hobbyists here, how's about we confine our discussion to wargames and hobbies, it's not like using an analogy actually serves to clarify something in all but very rare cases given that we are wargamers talking about wargames.

Comparing GW to any car manufacturer is silly enough that I feel the only fitting reply is:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
Reasonable, with a couple of issues. The real broken things come from tournament and WAAC players trying to make power lists. I have played a bunch of games and have yet to have any issues when playing with reasonable, sane people.

If you have to put qualifiers on it (ie when playing with reasonable, sane people), then maybe it's not so reasonable after all....

 Captain Avatar wrote:

For myself, a game should not require "verbally" negotiating a "social contract" to play. Such nonsense is GW failing to assume responsibility and leadership for their product.
Imo, this is GW is just being to lazy to put any effort into balancing their game.

There are well designed and balanced games that allow players to engage in a player vs player game where the players involved don't even speak the same language.

Not sure I agree, on communication being required that is, there are games out there where it works, look at FPS lobbies...
Working however is different to both sides enjoying themselves

Even if you both brought balanced lists if you players players regularly and has for years taking each move with measured and considered care and the other plays once a month for fun and making cinematic situations. If the (lets shorthand this down) "Good" player plays his usual game he'll in all likelyhood roflstomp the new guy.
If he'd taken the time beforehand he could have easily handicapped himself in some way perhaps or played in such a way as to help the newer play learn by imparting knowledge or even (Blasphemy I know) self nerfed his list. Even a perfectly balanced game is improved by communication for my money.
playing at less than your best is disrespectful to your opponent but handicaps are an established part of games.

FPS lobbies are actually a great example of the importance of communication. How many times have you been in this situation:

it's say 10 vs. 10, 4 players on one side are way above the average, very skilled players and their team is winning round after round. Those 4 players proceed to kill the lobby by staying in there and staying together, the other team gets demoralized and leaves en masse after drubbing number 5-10. Instead had 2 of those high skills players changed team they could have created a lobby where everyone had fun, not just 1 team *and* they were challenged into the bargain.
It doesn't happen though does it?
It's the difference between "I played" and "We played" and communication is the key.

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Enough already with the GW = Ferrari delusion.

Sigh, no delusion, just reading comprehension failures. It is an analogy, that is all. It serves a point, and without the ignorant posts does well when discussing philosophies.

I enjoy that I get to talk to my opponent about the game. Makes it more personable. Guess I'm lucky though.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Enough already with the GW = Ferrari delusion.

Sigh, no delusion, just reading comprehension failures. It is an analogy, that is all. It serves a point, and without the ignorant posts does well when discussing philosophies.

I enjoy that I get to talk to my opponent about the game. Makes it more personable. Guess I'm lucky though.

You get to talk to your opponent about the game in every game that you play, talking about games isn't a GW exclusive.

Requiring a negotiation process before the game even begins, on the other hand, is a GW exclusive.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
I have fun playing 40k. All griping and complaining about the rules takes a distant second. Still one of the most fun hobbies I have. Glad the game is around personally.

I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?

I wonder this constantly when reading these forums. Just remember that very few people run to the internet to yell "we love XXX" its always we hate....

Just dont play. Warmachine is a fun game if you hate GW so much.


In our local meta we have some pretty standard rules. We have about 50 players in my area and other than a few individuals we all pretty much play standard bound armies with a limit to the amount of detachments and LoW only when agreed upon. 7th seems really fun to me. Yes invisibility is stupid and demons (or non-demons for that point) making bloodthristers etc is dumb fluff wise but its not that big a deal to me.

 Icelord wrote:
I wonder this constantly when reading these forums. Just remember that very few people run to the internet to yell "we love XXX" its always we hate....

This is blatantly false, just check any new release thread in news and rumours.

So just because some players let GW off writing clear instructions to play a game of 40k.
And they can agree with their player group to edit the codex books to arrive at what they believe to be fun games.

This means that ANYONE who wants the rule book to clearly explain how to play the game, is not getting the basic functional requirement from 7th edition 40k rule book.

And ANYONE who has not got the luxury of a regular gaming group, and relies on the codex books to deliver enough balance for random pick up games.
Is not getting the basic functional requirement from their codex book.

Asking for GW plc to supply publications that provide the basic functional requirement of the game system.(They charge premium prices for.)Is not 'hate'.
It is just common sense to expect basic functionality out of goods sold.And to complain when it is not present.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Enough already with the GW = Ferrari delusion.

Sigh, no delusion, just reading comprehension failures. It is an analogy, that is all. It serves a point, and without the ignorant posts does well when discussing philosophies.

I enjoy that I get to talk to my opponent about the game. Makes it more personable. Guess I'm lucky though.

*Sigh......(A very condescending way to start a reply).

Reading comp failures? ....Is this statement a direct shot at myself or just you being as vague as 40k rules.

I love where you think I that need to have the concept of an analogy explained to me. Seriously dude, get over yourself.

My use of the word delusion was both intentional and spot on. This is because the only thing that GW and Ferrari have in common is that they are for profit corporations. Thinking that there is some analogy to be made beyond that is delusional.

Why? Because for it to be an analogy then the two companies would need to be analogues of one another.
I refrained from feeding into this "GW is a high end luxury" myth that the company has been trying to establish. Bad enough that someone has bought into that sales pitch enough to even try and make the comparison.

As to communication....communication is fine. But verbal communication should not be a must if both players know the rules.

One of the things that I like about most "real" beer&pretzels games is that not only do they promote friendly competition they also can be played by people who don't even speak the same language.
Pool(billiards) and chess are games I can find all over the world and play even if I don't speak the language.

Also, one of the areas I play in I have a deaf friend. I don't use sign language day to day enough to be fluent. So dealing with current 40k has killed a lot of the fun in playing.
How to solve this? He got me into Warmachine. We can have a good game, enjoy each others company without struggling with the language barrier.

 Yonan wrote:

 Icelord wrote:
I wonder this constantly when reading these forums. Just remember that very few people run to the internet to yell "we love XXX" its always we hate....

This is blatantly false, just check any new release thread in news and rumours.

Or the painting section.

No, it is a failure to read because it is making an equivalence when I have never stated one.

Things can be analogous without being comparable in every way, as you posit. So no, not delusional, if you understand plain English.

I even said it wasn't about being high end, it's about explaining two philosophical differences which are apt and pertinent. Th fact you don't see it, but continually miss the point entirely , as in the post above, is just very telling.

Situations can be analogous. Philosophies can be analogous. Trying to explain a simple idea, that just because YOU want a company to design things the way YOU want, doesn't mean you have any entitlement to it, so acting like you ARE entitled just comes along as either pompous, or deluded.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it is a failure to read because it is making an equivalence when I have never stated one.

Things can be analogous without being comparable in every way, as you posit. So no, not delusional, if you understand plain English.

I even said it wasn't about being high end, it's about explaining two philosophical differences which are apt and pertinent. Th fact you don't see it, but continually miss the point entirely , as in the post above, is just very telling.

Situations can be analogous. Philosophies can be analogous. Trying to explain a simple idea, that just because YOU want a company to design things the way YOU want, doesn't mean you have any entitlement to it, so acting like you ARE entitled just comes along as either pompous, or deluded.

http://i.word.com/idictionary/analogy
http://i.word.com/idictionary/analog


Analogy & analogue

To paraphrase the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "Those words, you keep using it. I don't think it means what you think it means.".

I would take time to try and educate you further on the proper meaning and use of these words but your arrogance and insulting remarks tell me that your ignorance is a willful choice rather than a failure of your countries education system.

Oh, also consider yourself reported.

Have a nice day,
Captain Avatar

Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

40k is not a war, it is a game.

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

Real wars are not required to entertain the enemy commanders and make both of them feel like it was worth showing up. Playing in a wargame is optional, and done for fun. These things are not fun:

--Coming to the table and doing nothing but removing pieces.
--Getting chastised because your army crosses a hazy line that makes you "TFG"
--Looking at the lists and realising your army has been hard countered to the point where playing the actual game is a formality.
--Losing based on a random roll early on (you lose initiative and your superheavy gets blown away before it can act, for example)
--Having your army that you chose based on a cool part of the lore turn out to be useless (or too powerful).

And scenarios that are unequal in-setting can easily be done in a wargame while being fair to the players; there's the classic "last stand" scenario where the attackers outnumber the defenders, but must wipe out the defenders in a time limit to win. But even if one side is doomed from an in-universe perspective, the actual game on the table must use player skill as the deciding factor in a win.

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

And neither side tries to deploy 1000 points with only a maximum of 5 points of variation in real war. 40k is a game, not a war.

And scenarios that are unequal in-setting can easily be done in a wargame while being fair to the players; there's the classic "last stand" scenario where the attackers outnumber the defenders, but must wipe out the defenders in a time limit to win. But even if one side is doomed from an in-universe perspective, the actual game on the table must use player skill as the deciding factor in a win.

This is what happened in the only narrative league at my store. The first game was a break through. All drop pod and eldar armies just droped in to extraction zones turn 1 getting 23-0 for bonus objectives. All people that were attackers quit the league after the first game. Next weeks game was a planet strike bunker assault mission . The eldar players only rolled to see who gets to be the attacker and out of the four marine players left the BA and SW drop pod players didn't show up , because they rolled to be defenders.

What does the OP mean by unplayable? By definition the game is not unplayable. Am I taking it too literally?

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

And neither side tries to deploy 1000 points with only a maximum of 5 points of variation in real war. 40k is a game, not a war.

Please don't open THAT can of worms please.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

And neither side tries to deploy 1000 points with only a maximum of 5 points of variation in real war. 40k is a game, not a war.

In the grimdark future, there is only war.

 Random Dude wrote:
What does the OP mean by unplayable? By definition the game is not unplayable. Am I taking it too literally?

Well it is if you're trying to play Legion of the Dammed without allies but yes, too literally.

I find the imbalance so great I can't enjoy the game and no longer play. Therefore I voted unplayable.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Well it is if you're trying to play Legion of the Dammed without allies ...

That's not unplayable. Just really, really quick.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

40k is not a war, it is a game.

This is true. However, the reason I haven't played much 40k is because I feel that 40k is a warGAME, as in, more emphasis is placed on rules lawyering, gimmicks, and metagaming than there is emphasis on actual tactics and the like.

Ogiwan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

40k is not a war, it is a game.

This is true. However, the reason I haven't played much 40k is because I feel that 40k is a warGAME, as in, more emphasis is placed on rules lawyering, gimmicks, and metagaming than there is emphasis on actual tactics and the like.

I think OP armies like Eldar encourage more tactical thinking. If your playing an under-powered army you are forced to have better tactics if you want to win.

 Random Dude wrote:

Ogiwan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Corporal_Chaos wrote:
Balance is not an issue. War is never equal...lol

40k is not a war, it is a game.

This is true. However, the reason I haven't played much 40k is because I feel that 40k is a warGAME, as in, more emphasis is placed on rules lawyering, gimmicks, and metagaming than there is emphasis on actual tactics and the like.

I think OP armies like Eldar encourage more tactical thinking. If your playing an under-powered army you are forced to have better tactics if you want to win.

Player skill would be better.

 Icelord wrote:

 Murdius Maximus wrote:
I have fun playing 40k. All griping and complaining about the rules takes a distant second. Still one of the most fun hobbies I have. Glad the game is around personally.

I love all you guys but I swear these forums are poison sometimes. How can you all play a game you clearly hate so much?

I wonder this constantly when reading these forums. Just remember that very few people run to the internet to yell "we love XXX" its always we hate....

That's 100% false.

I love bourbon, chick with huge "tracks of land", and anyone that hates eggplant.

40K is still fun, *if* you have people you play with that you can agree on rules. I have sworn off tournaments.

When I want a reasonably balanced tournament I have my other games, GW is clear that they don't care about competitive play and that is why the game can be made in a lazy way... no need to balance if you are a "narrative beer and pretzels" game.

That isn't even a slight. I have FUN playing 40K. I just don't play it in a competitive environment anymore.

 Moktor wrote:
40K is still fun, *if* you have people you play with that you can agree on rules. I have sworn off tournaments.

When I want a reasonably balanced tournament I have my other games, GW is clear that they don't care about competitive play and that is why the game can be made in a lazy way... no need to balance if you are a "narrative beer and pretzels" game.

That isn't even a slight. I have FUN playing 40K. I just don't play it in a competitive environment anymore.

Numerous TOs have made good decisions. The BAO and ATC still have very competitive games.

The game's undoubtedly unbalanced if you take it as-is, with no alterations whatsoever. However, my gaming group, as a set of house rules, rules out many things such as Unbound and I've had some very good, close, balanced games with that ruleset.