I know this poll won't necessarily generalize to the overall gaming populace but I was curious to see at least on dakka what the overall opinion is of 40k as a whole at the moment and if it has actually affected how/what you play. You tend to get very polarized black and white views in news and rumors threads and I've found that the commentary in heated arguments is not usually indicative of the gaming population as a whole. How do you guys and gals feel overall (rules, models, prices, marketing, fiction, Forgeworld, art, etc all rolled into a single overall impression) about the current state of 40k over the last year or two of changes? That doesn't include fantasy, any of the discountinued specialist games, LOTR, or general changes at GW like 1 man stores but rather specifically how you feel about 40k.
Lego, if you feel this better deserves to be in polls then so be it. I was just curious to guage the overall feel on dakka at the moment regarding 40k.
I've bought 4 new armies just because of the unbound rules. None of them are game breakers, just fluffy ones that I always wanted to do before but didn't because of the restrictions. I'm happy with the changes, even if I do feel like the game has lost it's soul a little.
I feel like the options for what you want to do have opened. Sure, the codex rules have been getting updated at breakneck speeds, but I am of the type that is ok with that. I only play a few armies and paying $50 for 2 years of usage seems ok for me.
I love it! Never before has there been so much freedom in what you can do with the game, and if I had the opponents locally I'd be playing as often as I could!
I would note that this is the polar opposite of my view of GW themselves, which is very negative. Pointless 'update' after pointless update, climbing prices, total disregard for the customers, all of that is bad for them but worse for the customers that would love to support them.
I've decided that I'm probably going to sit out of tournaments for a while here. The absurdity of the releases of the last 6 months have simply made the game too onerous and unbalanced to bother with. I'll continue to try and get games in with pals on a pre-arranged basis, but methinks I'll be waiting for 8E.
Pickup games have become almost nonexistent for me, nobody is showing up anymore.
Crimson Devil said it best.
Crimson Devil wrote: 7th edition 40k is a lot like BDSM these days. Only play with people you know and develop a safe word for when things get too intense. And It doesn't hurt to be a sadist or masochist as well.
Unfortunately this means that pickup and tournament games are increasingly no-goes, and that really kills the desire to continue or buy more stuff.
It also doesn't help that many of the "armies" I'm seeing at this point have so little cohesion and relation to the fluff material (being built largely around power and synergy) that it simply kills any immersion, which defeats the largest purpose of this game. Some people call that "freedom", I find it to simply be a relatively thinly veiled excuse to abuse the rules to make power-armies.
Vaktathi wrote: I've decided that I'm probably going to sit out of tournaments for a while here. The absurdity of the releases of the last 6 months have simply made the game too onerous and unbalanced to bother with. I'll continue to try and get games in with pals on a pre-arranged basis, but methinks I'll be waiting for 8E.
Pickup games have become almost nonexistent for me, nobody is showing up anymore.
Crimson Devil said it best.
Crimson Devil wrote: 7th edition 40k is a lot like BDSM these days. Only play with people you know and develop a safe word for when things get too intense. And It doesn't hurt to be a sadist or masochist as well.
Unfortunately this means that pickup and tournament games are increasingly no-goes, and that really kills the desire to continue or buy more stuff.
It also doesn't help that many of the "armies" I'm seeing at this point have so little cohesion and relation to the fluff material (being built largely around power and synergy) that it simply kills any immersion, which defeats the largest purpose of this game. Some people call that "freedom", I find it to simply be a relatively thinly veiled excuse to abuse the rules to make power-armies.
It does open the doors to power gamers, but on the other side it opens the doors to people who aren't interested in the fluff to choose the models they like and not be excluded. Power gamers tried to win at all costs before 7th ed, that hasn't really changed.
Ratius wrote: Still buying, still playing, still having fun.
Ultimately the last point outweighs all other concerns.
I completely agree that the last part should be the most important and that's why I did the poll in the thread. It seems frankly that for a variety of reasons, some folks simply aren't having fun overall and I wanted to see what the relative numbers were at least on dakka.
Loving it! So much freedom, so many armies to fight, the sheer amount of options means I don't have to fight the same list repeatedly. Nothing but win in my eyes
I'm pretty happy with the game itself. I like that the fast release cycle has allowed for books like Harlequins and Skitarii to be released. People complain about the rules a lot, but they've *always* complained about the rules, and they always will. In practice, I find that I'm generally able to have a fun game provided my opponent and I are both playing to have fun (rather than having some curious obsession with smashing face using the most broken lists available).
The current rules set is roughly as good as it has even been since I started back in 5th. The stand-out feature of the core rules for me right now is that warlord traits and psychic powers being random is mildly annoying, but hardly a game ruiner.
Friendly games are generally a lot of fun, and 7th edition gives me more options for how to play those games.
Now that said, I have my own long list of gripes. Some books have been updated twice since older books have been updated. A lot of the changes in some of the newer books (like vypers and vaul supports being part of craftworld war hosts) feels like a pretty obvious cash grab. The balance in 40k isn't and never has been great, but that's largely mitigated if neither player brings a cheese list.
So yeah. 40k is in pretty good shape as far as I'm concerned. GW is still just a bit irksome is all.
Vaktathi wrote: I've decided that I'm probably going to sit out of tournaments for a while here. The absurdity of the releases of the last 6 months have simply made the game too onerous and unbalanced to bother with. I'll continue to try and get games in with pals on a pre-arranged basis, but methinks I'll be waiting for 8E.
Pickup games have become almost nonexistent for me, nobody is showing up anymore.
Crimson Devil said it best.
Crimson Devil wrote: 7th edition 40k is a lot like BDSM these days. Only play with people you know and develop a safe word for when things get too intense. And It doesn't hurt to be a sadist or masochist as well.
Unfortunately this means that pickup and tournament games are increasingly no-goes, and that really kills the desire to continue or buy more stuff.
It also doesn't help that many of the "armies" I'm seeing at this point have so little cohesion and relation to the fluff material (being built largely around power and synergy) that it simply kills any immersion, which defeats the largest purpose of this game. Some people call that "freedom", I find it to simply be a relatively thinly veiled excuse to abuse the rules to make power-armies.
It does open the doors to power gamers, but on the other side it opens the doors to people who aren't interested in the fluff to choose the models they like and not be excluded. Power gamers tried to win at all costs before 7th ed, that hasn't really changed.
While true, I'm just not seeing most armies making use of all this "freedom" for fluff purposes. It's almost always for power reasons. Covering a capability gap, synergistic powers, etc.
I've played 7E in a multitude of places, not just a single gaming club or store, and my experience has been largely the same, people are picking and choosing the juicy bits for their capabilities, not to portray anything fluffy or interesting.
I will say that I agree with the BDSM comment above. As long as you have gentlemanly agreements with your playing partners, fun times are generally had. I still have a ton of fun and play games with underpowered and fluffy armies all the time. I try to embrace the fluff and so does my gaming circle.
That being said, I don't do tournaments nor pickup games in my LGS anymore for reasons pointed out above. Tournaments because I'm not a competitive gamer anymore, pickup because I don't have free time to just drop by anymore!
I will add that I personally do not like the accelerated release schedule. Previous editions gave you the chance to learn a codex's basics, then move on to the next release within the constrains of normal life responsibilities. Now, I find that I barely scratch the surface of a faction before a new codex/supplement/formation drops.
Finally I'll say that the few times I've dropped by the LGS and seen people playing, they were generally having fun. So at least that aspect appears to be alive and well in my area
Yarium wrote: I'd like to hear from all these people saying these new rules are making them buy less and want to quit.
Stuff like having to deal with large numbers of D weapons in an 1850pt game, Necron where basic 13pt basic Warriors are as hard to kill with most weapons as Terminators are and Wraiths that require more S10 shooting to kill than a Warhound Titan. Skitarii coming in out of allied drop pods and tossing out half a dozen Haywire shots or 9 Plasma shots at BS7, playing against formations that give gobs of free upgrades and/or free wargear (largely negating the purpose of a points limit in the first place), and seeing things like SM armies built with multiple detachments, one with IF doctrines for their tacs and Devastators, the other detachment with White Scars for their bikers, and an allied INQ detachment just to bring in Coteaz.
Vaktathi wrote:Stuff like having to deal with large numbers of D weapons in an 1850pt game, Necron where basic 13pt basic Warriors are as hard to kill with most weapons as Terminators are and Wraiths that require more S10 shooting to kill than a Warhound Titan. Skitarii coming in out of allied drop pods and tossing out half a dozen Haywire shots or 9 Plasma shots at BS7, playing against formations that give gobs of free upgrades and/or free wargear (largely negating the purpose of a points limit in the first place), and seeing things like SM armies built with multiple detachments, one with IF doctrines for their tacs and Devastators, the other detachment with White Scars for their bikers, and an allied INQ detachment just to bring in Coteaz.
kronk wrote:Oh yeah, D-Weapons in normal games also sucks.
That's quite unfortunate. I'd ask if you've tried talking with your opponents prior to and requested that D-weapons be left off the table (or use the common "-1 to all D results" fix), but I'm sure you have and your opponents weren't willing to negotiate, which is a shame. This game is about having fun - not about beating each other up. Personally, I've had tons of fun lately, but our local meta is pretty much on the "don't bring D-weapons, super-heavies, or power-formations without talking about it with your opponent first" train.
Vaktathi wrote:Stuff like having to deal with large numbers of D weapons in an 1850pt game, Necron where basic 13pt basic Warriors are as hard to kill with most weapons as Terminators are and Wraiths that require more S10 shooting to kill than a Warhound Titan. Skitarii coming in out of allied drop pods and tossing out half a dozen Haywire shots or 9 Plasma shots at BS7, playing against formations that give gobs of free upgrades and/or free wargear (largely negating the purpose of a points limit in the first place), and seeing things like SM armies built with multiple detachments, one with IF doctrines for their tacs and Devastators, the other detachment with White Scars for their bikers, and an allied INQ detachment just to bring in Coteaz.
kronk wrote:Oh yeah, D-Weapons in normal games also sucks.
That's quite unfortunate. I'd ask if you've tried talking with your opponents prior to and requested that D-weapons be left off the table (or use the common "-1 to all D results" fix), but I'm sure you have and your opponents weren't willing to negotiate, which is a shame. This game is about having fun - not about beating each other up. Personally, I've had tons of fun lately, but our local meta is pretty much on the "don't bring D-weapons, super-heavies, or power-formations without talking about it with your opponent first" train.
That's the big problem, having to negotiate with an opponent on what they can or can't bring, and changing rules and whatnot, can be really awkward, and really just isn't something one should have to do. With close pals, yeah we can work that out, but showing up for a pickup game when both people already have army lists ready to go, or trying to play in a league or tournament, is just increasingly unpleasant.
More critically, with regards to formations, they're just fundamentally borked in that they're giving a grip of free bonuses, and often wargear, for zero additional points investment. That's inherently unbalanced.
DarknessEternal wrote: PS - don't try saying the rules are just as bad now. No, no they are not. You would be objectively wrong, so don't even start.
We currently have units that have special rules that do nothing but grant other special rules to the unit...
So no, I think there's an argument there.
I like a lot of aspects of the current game - snap shots, overwatch, unbound/allies... these are all good ideas. But the current implementation of them, combined with the fact that a year in we still have core rules that don't function and have yet to be errataed just leaves me cold.
Azreal13 wrote: I'd cut back so much I decided to have a go at rewriting the rules to see if I could do better.
Have you been engaged in the Zagman's errata stuff? I swear we have enough intelligent people on this forum to write 40k rules that work for everyone, just need to work on it.
I'm just not really interested in a rules set where I have to negotiate pre-game so ensure that both my opponent and I get what we want out of it. I play a very occasional ultra casual game and that's it. I've almost entirely moved on to other games, primarily Malifaux.
grrrfranky wrote: I'm just not really interested in a rules set where I have to negotiate pre-game so ensure that both my opponent and I get what we want out of it.
Isn't that how all games of all types occur? You have to agree with your opponent on what type of experience you both want to have? I'm pretty sure it's the foundation of "games".
40k simply has a variable enough paradigm that you can have different experiences within the same game instead of playing either chess or checkers.
Azreal13 wrote: I'd cut back so much I decided to have a go at rewriting the rules to see if I could do better.
Have you been engaged in the Zagman's errata stuff? I swear we have enough intelligent people on this forum to write 40k rules that work for everyone, just need to work on it.
Funnily enough, he is one of the select few I've shared and Alpha copy of my rules with, and he's provided some excellent feedback, enough to earn him a spot in the credits if we were talking about a commercial production. I've also tried to reciprocate but his project is a lot more mature than mine, so there was a lot less I could offer. I am certainly recommending people use his Codex work with my core rules changes (there's a fair few big ones - unit by unit activation, removal of cover saves in favour of modifiers and the complete scrapping of AV values and damage tables being the headlines.)
I plan to share my efforts once I've play tested a little more, I've had just the one game so far, and it worked pretty much as intended, but it needs a little more testing. That said, if anyone is genuinely interested, PM me and I'll send you a drop box link to the current version.
grrrfranky wrote: I'm just not really interested in a rules set where I have to negotiate pre-game so ensure that both my opponent and I get what we want out of it.
Isn't that how all games of all types occur? You have to agree with your opponent on what type of experience you both want to have? I'm pretty sure it's the foundation of "games".
40k simply has a variable enough paradigm that you can have different experiences within the same game instead of playing either chess or checkers.
Rubbish.
I'm playing X Wing at my next club night, the extent of our negotiation? "Game of X Wing next week?" "Ok."
The most negotiation I've ever encountered outside of 40K is a little clarification as to whether it was a balls out competitive game (eg when one or other player was prepping for a tourney) or something a little more chilled.
I think the game is the best it's been in years, but lately I fear I am very alone in this feeling.
I recently saw a user on this forum who is a regular at the club I run, and I checked the post history. It's almost 100% complaining, discussing things that need to change, making excuses for tough matchups, that sort of thing.
With tyranids in 5th, my main army suddenly became unplayable, so I didn't play them much, and played a lot of blood angels, but I used them from time to time, and painted a few.
Then 6th cruddex came about and made it completely unplayable, other than for pentaflyrants. I love walkrants, and the elf players kept complaining about the list (which has never been played in my group/store), and how OP the nid codex is.
7th made BA harder to play with changes to assault
elves in 6th already made me cut back a lot, with serpent-spam and jetseers. 7th made me cut back completely. Most elf players said git gud, QQ moar. The local group organiser became so obnoxious with the latest elf release, that more than 1/2 of the already dwindling group left, leaving behind 4 elf players, 1 necron and 2 tau. The night 8 of us left was when the ork player showed up to fight against a min-maxed scatterbike army, with a wriathknight. He said something along the lines of "are you serious", and the elf player said something along the lines of "beg me, and I might swap out a few bikes for wraithguard". The group organiser came over and said we should learn to be more strategic, and that elves were the hardest army to play. Most of us packed up and left in disgust that night.
I'm just going to paint and play spacehulk, since I don't like PP's asthetics, and there's no other wargame I'm interested in.
Also, my main group of friends don't mini-wargame, but a lot are shifting to the indie boardgame scene. Seems like the boardgame scene is really picking up. Might spend some money on cthulhu wars.
Well haven't really experienced most of the new rules and armies yet. Building an AdMech army. I liked the models and after reading rules/strategies decided I wanted to be the one that knocks.. for once.
Before I mostly played Chaos Marines Undevided/Wordbearers all fluffy and boy being slapped around by all the bandwagoner tryhards is fun... A lot of them around here. Got me to the point I only play them against my best friend who has CSM to.
It's mostly depending who you play with and against. Mostly why I skip tournaments to... toxic waste pools they are.
I see kburn doesn't like 6th edition, but i have to respectfully disagree and state my opinion that 6th is the best edition we have had so far - the BRB is incredibly well compiled.
Pet irritation: GW didn't even finish doing all the codex's during 6th! (watch them do the same again with 7th edition)
IMO the biggest problems of 7th ed are formations and the socially inept (of which there are many in this hobby...)
Formations give you great buffs just for owning models - as if there weren't enough situations where a model has great rules in order to sell well. At least in apocalypse you had to pay some points for it.
The socially inept of this game seem to think that because you can take it, you need to take it.
Even worse; they are legion. they will make playing a game a chore, they will guilt trip and tease you for not 'wanting' to take on thier synergised power-list and they WILL turn up with thier uber-list to a 'casual' game.
Why are people taking blood angel detachments of drop pods and librarians with that new mecanicus formation? I don't remember seeing that in the fluff - maybe allied to necrons it would be....
Sorry, it's just that (to me at least) 7th is a completely different game to 6th edition - 7th is to 6th what apocalypse was to 40k in my mind.
To be fair, 6th was where they introduced Formations, allies shennanigans, and the Escalation expansion that brought in Superheavies and the like. 7E just compiled it into a single book.
The December to remember was the final straw for me during 6th edition. I just did not the direction the games was going. Allies, SH, over watch, random warlord traits, and flyers. Where so poorly implemented in 6th it just drove me nuts. To make things worse I relied on pick up games which became a total nightmare after 5th edition. I hated 6th edition and when I read the 7th edition rules it seemed like GW double downed on the things I hated.
grrrfranky wrote: I'm just not really interested in a rules set where I have to negotiate pre-game so ensure that both my opponent and I get what we want out of it.
Isn't that how all games of all types occur? You have to agree with your opponent on what type of experience you both want to have? I'm pretty sure it's the foundation of "games".
40k simply has a variable enough paradigm that you can have different experiences within the same game instead of playing either chess or checkers.
I guess if you count picking a point total or picking red or black. Then sure we negotiate, but I don't know anybody that would count some thing that takes 2 words to do, negotiating.
Chute82 wrote:The December to remember was the final straw for me during 6th edition. I just did not the direction the games was going. Allies, SH, over watch, random warlord traits, and flyers. Where so poorly implemented in 6th it just drove me nuts. To make things worse I relied on pick up games which became a total nightmare after 5th edition. I hated 6th edition and when I read the 7th edition rules it seemed like GW double downed on the things I hated.
This, so this, instead of fixing the massive amount of bad in 6th with the quickly followed 7th. The just added the extra crap and called it a day, ohh wait the did change a few lines so everybody has to by the BRB again so they aren't using outdated rules (thats a 4+ now, get a new book now) instead of a 5 page pdf to show the few changes (notice they aren't fixes).
SirDonlad wrote: I see kburn doesn't like 6th edition, but i have to respectfully disagree and state my opinion that 6th is the best edition we have had so far - the BRB is incredibly well compiled.
I don't dislike the BRB per-se. I dislike the cruddex that was released during 6th. I throught the game was most balanced at 5th. 3rd, 4th and 5th seems to be the most natural progression, with 6th throwing it off, and 7th heading in almost a completely different direction.
My biggest issue with 40k is Flickerjump. It is the worst rule the way it's laid out as it only serves to infuriate and slow down games.
Supers in normal games? Fine with me. Free points for taking super restricted detachments? Totally fine. Things models don't need that only serve to slow down the game? I'll have none of that thanks.
Mulletdude wrote: Free points for taking super restricted detachments?
They're hardly restrictive when you can take as many detachments as you want, and take your Tanks+ with your Infantry+ and Psykers+ in the same army, just in different detachments, sometimes you don't even need different detachments
My interest in the game pretty much started to fall off with the introduction of Newcrons at the tail ends of 5th. I have bought one model 4 years because I just do not see the value of their models to price ratio.
Fenris Frost wrote: I think the game is the best it's been in years, but lately I fear I am very alone in this feeling.
I recently saw a user on this forum who is a regular at the club I run, and I checked the post history. It's almost 100% complaining, discussing things that need to change, making excuses for tough matchups, that sort of thing.
That seems to be more the norm...sadly.
As an example of what I was talking about...since I posted this, the thread has doubled in size, all with people saying the game is irreparable gak. So I guess my feelings weren't far from reality, unfortunately.
There isn't anything wrong with liking something that most others don't as they're both simply a preference rather than an absolute fact. I think the first AVP movie is actually pretty good but that certainly isn't a majority opinion. The only time it is wrong is when folks try to demean the other opinions that differ or try to make their own more important or widespread when they know it isn't the case. Your club frenemy has just as valid an opinion as you do that simply differs and apparently matches the overall feel here on dakka so far in the poll. YMMV.
I was pretty happy with 40K, the codecies were looking good, updates were happening... Then the most recent Necron codex came out. It was a punch to the gut, cause I thought that now after Eldar gets toned down we'll have to wait years for crons to get fixed, as the one blight on an otherwise decently balanced game Admech was an awesome release, and then Eldar came out. The rumors were bad, and final product not much better. So much wrong with that release, I barely decided in favor of buying the new IK codex. Then followed some disturbing formations for admech, and now a new space marine codex that further proliferates the abomination that is grav while adding over-the-top formations. 40K is on the path to destruction.
Until all armies get updated to this new power standard, older codices are going to get crushed regularly, and if they don't have that special something they'll still get crushed. But even if all the codices get updated to Eldar power levels, the game won't be worth playing anymore. There is way, way too much offensive power in the game now without corresponding defense, and if it goes on then the game will revolve around who can go first, steal the initiative, or null deploy with massive reserve firepower to table or significantly cripple the other side before they even fire a shot. Objectives, terrain, and movement won't matter, and we will joke about the old days when we had to roll a dice to see if we had a turn 6, because we used to have models on the table at that point.
To be honest, i've been mostly fine with the game until eldar arrived. However, it only affects the ammount of money i spend on the hobby. It's been reduced to 0. So, i just play with what i got cause there's no real purpose of engaging in an arms race that's so progressive when i can simply have fun with likeminded pals and wait till all calms down. Or in case it doesn't we'll simply homerule the game to be more acceptable.
I was somewhat interested in tourneys before but now i don't see much purpose in them with the raging power creep cycle still progressing.
It's like Rogue Trader without miles of obstructive, tedious, and obscure rules.
PS - don't try saying the rules are just as bad now. No, no they are not. You would be objectively wrong, so don't even start.
I would agree that in many ways 40k today has improved from previous editions. That said, its ruleset & lack of balance is probably some of the worst in all of tabletop gaming. Take the objective/mission cards for example. What you draw is entirely based on luck. What your roll for points is entirely based on luck. So while you may have executed everything in your power perfectly but had abysmal luck, your opponent played like sh*t & won the game due to good objective draws & rolls. Horrible game design.
Power creep. At any given time 1/3 or more of the codex's are not viable in a tournament setting. Even outside of the tournament setting in pickup games it has become an increasing trend for players to bring the most absurd broken lists possible just to feed their ego. What other tabletop games require you to negotiate for 15+ minutes beforehand on what you can/can not use in the game due to imbalance? None that I have played.
It's hard for me to judge as I haven't really been playing 40k for the past year or two due to being at University. From what I have seen, 40k doesn't look too bad, barring the OP codexes such as Eldar. I think that 40k currently looks a lot more interesting than it did in 5th ed, with new units coming out every week or so, instead of every couple of months and tonnes of supplements to really increase the scope when it comes to army building.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm playing X Wing at my next club night, the extent of our negotiation? "Game of X Wing next week?" "Ok."
The most negotiation I've ever encountered outside of 40K is a little clarification as to whether it was a balls out competitive game (eg when one or other player was prepping for a tourney) or something a little more chilled.
Exactly. I'm sure there are other games that share 40k's need to negotiate every detail of how you're going to fix the broken rules before you start playing, but good games don't have that problem.
Fenris Frost wrote: As an example of what I was talking about...since I posted this, the thread has doubled in size, all with people saying the game is irreparable gak. So I guess my feelings weren't far from reality, unfortunately.
Very few people in this thread have claimed that the game is irreparable gak.
Frankly, the fact that so many of the game's problems could be so easily fixed is one of my bigger frustrations with GW right now .
When 7th ed released. I bought the rules, psychic powers and maelstrom cards. About 6ix weeks later I dump everything except 1 army (CSM who suck), my terrain and gaming map. So glad I did, GW = $$$ grab. I used to love this game, but greed of the manufacturer, WAACAH players that can afford to buy the latest auto kill and have time to keep up on all the rules just made me hate playing.
So I wait for 8th Ed and play a new game I picked up = DzC.
warboss wrote: There isn't anything wrong with liking something that most others don't as they're both simply a preference rather than an absolute fact. I think the first AVP movie is actually pretty good but that certainly isn't a majority opinion. The only time it is wrong is when folks try to demean the other opinions that differ or try to make their own more important or widespread when they know it isn't the case. Your club frenemy has just as valid an opinion as you do that simply differs and apparently matches the overall feel here on dakka so far in the poll. YMMV.
This is what dudes who hate the game do, though. There are people all over every website for this game who casually say they don't even play anymore because it's "gotten so bad"...take a look at the thread list of any 40k forum and it's stuff like "Has [new thing] ruined the game?"
It seems like literally every interaction I have with the greater community leads only to overwhelming hate. Even seemingly innocuous discussions still have disses sprinkled throughout. And though I built a community against this, it sometimes seeps in.
Sometimes I feel like I am playing the wrong game, and that there is an entirely different game everybody loves instead -- where they armchair general-ize everything, talk about the most extreme cases as a way to prove their own imagined scenarios. Pushing around models and rolling dice seems to be an exercise engaged in once or twice a month to check their math and give them new material to crap on the game balance/company practices.
We had a guy not too long ago on my forum literally step through a whole game with another player, using math and "his own experience" to explain how the game would go. It had no basis in reality whatsoever. The whole thing was written in a cavalier attempt to just demonstrate one guy's superior knowledge of the game and the math involved. In this external game of talking about 40k like you know everything that happens on every table, the way to get the most points is to gak all over the game, and you get bonus VP if you parrot the latest [thing is OP] sentiments (right now, the Decurion...I hear about it EVERY DAY in relation to our club...we don't even have any Necron regulars...but to hear some tell it, their are Wraith Wings everywhere, and by God, you might as well not even play when you find one).
I built a bulwark against hate and lately I have just been overwhelmed by how much of it has found it's way in. I've opted for more severe efforts to preserve the integrity of our club but I am sure I will only be grilled when that lands this month. I will do whatever I have to. It's just disheartening. Doesn't anybody just play the damn game anymore?
Love the game of 40k, its fluff and models etc. GW as a company, I've got mixed opinions about them. On one hand they produce all the good stuff that I love, but on the other they annoy me by making it increasingly difficult for the consumer with their limited editions, raising prices, web exclusive (GW website only) products and moving more of their stuff away from independents, ridiculous legal bullsh*t towards the fans and community, crap and overpriced White Dwarf and a few other things that I can't be bothered to list, but you get the picture.
I will remain a 40k fan, but would prefer GW to stop this ongoing spiral of closing doors and not involving the community.
warboss wrote: There isn't anything wrong with liking something that most others don't as they're both simply a preference rather than an absolute fact. I think the first AVP movie is actually pretty good but that certainly isn't a majority opinion. The only time it is wrong is when folks try to demean the other opinions that differ or try to make their own more important or widespread when they know it isn't the case. Your club frenemy has just as valid an opinion as you do that simply differs and apparently matches the overall feel here on dakka so far in the poll. YMMV.
This is what dudes who hate the game do, though.
There are people all over every website for this game who casually say they don't even play anymore because it's "gotten so bad"...take a look at the thread list of any 40k forum and it's stuff like "Has [new thing] ruined the game?"
It seems like literally every interaction I have with the greater community leads only to overwhelming hate. And though I built a community against this, it sometimes seeps in.
I would disagree with this. I think there is a big difference between those who frame their opinions around evidence they take from the state of the game and those who directly attack the person who they are arguing with. More often than not, I feel that posters who dislike the current state of 40k tend to put forth a number of reasons for why they are dissatisfied with the game. By contrast, I see a lot of posters who defend 40k personally attacking the persons they are arguing with, rather than engaging in the argument itself.
Of course, it's not all one-way or the other, but I've seen a lot of posting go this way.
That is true, but it is also somewhat the problem. I don't think defenders of the game don't realize the same things detractors do (like that it's too expensive), I think it is more that they don't mind or have mitigated these factors.
For example one of the reasons my club having hateposts and such bothers me is because I have removed a lot of the issues. We don't have tournaments 100% at all anymore, and have rarely had them before, but people still approach and advise all of our impressionable new folk as though they will fight nothing but Perfect Decurions and Wraithknight/Scatterbike spam in the top brackets of the biggest clashes in the world. Not that I want my people to be forever trapped in a bubble...but at the same time, building a list for Adepticon/LVO/BAO/ETC is not quite the same as just building an every day army. And we heavily favor new players, which makes it even worse, as they are highly impressionable.
I would also speak against the point that those who dislike the current game are objective. They may have reasons, but most often they are based on subjective opinions -- for example, saying the Decurion is very strong/popular/etc is one thing...saying you hate it and that everyone who uses it is a jerk is entirely another. And in either case, it's rarely relevant on my forum...like I said, we have almost no Necron presence. But it is okay to make a big deal about it because of "the meta"...the meta means nothing in a local shop where half the people are new players or the army at the top is barely present. That doesn't stop people from making a big production out of it (and speaking on behalf of ALL 40kdom while doing so...which is probably more the issue at my club).
I would also speak against the point that those who dislike the current game are objective. They may have reasons, but most often they are based on subjective opinions -- for example, saying the Decurion is very strong/popular/etc is one thing...saying you hate it and that everyone who uses it is a jerk is entirely another. And in either case, it's rarely relevant on my forum...like I said, we have almost no Necron presence. But it is okay to make a big deal about it because of "the meta"...the meta means nothing in a local shop where half the people are new players or the army at the top is barely present. That doesn't stop people from making a big production out of it (and speaking on behalf of ALL 40kdom while doing so...which is probably more the issue at my club).
Well that's not a good representation or example of common criticisms of the game.
A common and objective generic complaint is the lack of balance, both externally and internally. The obvious examples are also pretty objective to state they're not balanced, but the subjectivity comes in for the solution (point change, wargear change, stat line change, force org change, so on).
Another one thrown around in more specific is wound allocation. It'd be objective to state that the current wound allocation is needlessly complex, time consuming, tedious, and isn't a particularly good abstraction. Between removal from the front and all the random allocation, you end up spending way more time than needed than if you could just decide which models ate it. It also means that once Joe the Melta gunner eats it, no one can ever pick it up ever again because he yelled dibs before the battle. Further, it doesn't even add a real layer of tactics, just micro management of measuring various distances and ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad.
Those would examples of objective criticisms of the game. Anybody's opinion worth listening to doesn't state things like all decurion users are jerks as an objective statement.
warboss wrote: I know this poll won't necessarily generalize to the overall gaming populace but I was curious to see at least on dakka what the overall opinion is of 40k as a whole at the moment and if it has actually affected how/what you play.
Don't need a poll for that on DakkaDakka. Then again, there's usually more practical reasons than just kneejerk quitting, but often people just won't admit it and prefer venting.
Well that's not a good representation or example of common criticisms of the game.
A common and objective generic complaint is the lack of balance, both externally and internally. The obvious examples are also pretty objective to state they're not balanced, but the subjectivity comes in for the solution (point change, wargear change, stat line change, force org change, so on).
Another one thrown around in more specific is wound allocation. It'd be objective to state that the current wound allocation is needlessly complex, time consuming, tedious, and isn't a particularly good abstraction. Between removal from the front and all the random allocation, you end up spending way more time than needed than if you could just decide which models ate it. It also means that once Joe the Melta gunner eats it, no one can ever pick it up ever again because he yelled dibs before the battle. Further, it doesn't even add a real layer of tactics, just micro management of measuring various distances and ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad.
Those would examples of objective criticisms of the game. Anybody's opinion worth listening to doesn't state things like all decurion users are jerks as an objective statement.
See, I would argue these are not objective descriptions of the game.
Most wound allocation occurs from the front, and during these times it is faster and makes more sense then allowing a player to decide, as he may take time to debate which casualty is less critical between two vital models. This change also adds value to gameplay by making where you move and how you compose your unit matter a great deal -- both in terms of defense and offense.
Random allocation slows things down but it is also considerably rarer. And your mention of being able to pick up the melta gun isn't objective either; it is your opinion that the weapon should last forever, but from a gameplay perspective it raises the value of units which can carry multiple weapons, or which can have higher numbers of models.
You say that this doesn't add a real layer of tactics, but in reality it made gameplay massively more tactical due to positioning being a viable tactic. "Ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad" is a tactic, isn't it? And how is wound allocation "tedious" when 95% of the time you literally pull the closest models with not even the slightest hesitation?
Ultimately these complaints, while written and reasoned well enough, exist because you just find these rules annoying. You can break down virtually every dig at the game in this way, and ultimately, it is formulaic and not really relevant.
"[Thing that annoys me personally but doesn't actually hurt the game] is bad" doesn't change, to me...even if people are polite enough to bolt on an "it'd be better if it was [Way I want it to be so it wouldn't annoy me anymore]" at the end.
It is true my representation of the complaints was hyperbolic, but here with your actual remarks, it doesn't seem any different to me once distilled...it is still something you personally dislike, that has not had an objectively measurable adverse effect on the game at large (i.e., there is no data to indicate that games take significantly longer because of random allocation, or that the current wound allocation is complex...in fact when I teach someone, I literally say the sentence "the closest guys take the hits first" and it is sufficient almost completely for a new person). And even if there was data, it would be anecdotal, since we aren't involved in every 40k game ever played.
I agree that random allocation is time-consuming and not a good abstraction, but to me it would be compared to the ease of the usual "closest die first" method, not because it personally bothers me. Also, from a game design standpoint...it is because something bad happened to you and your opportunity to lessen or avoid it failed. You shouldn't have control over how bad it is at this point, but neither should the other guy.
For some time, this was one of the chief complaints about 40k -- that bad things on a battlefield were actually good for you in mechanical practice. Now, it is not so, and it's still complaint worthy?
The gun swapping thing always seemed silly to me, too. From an aesthetic standpoint, it'd be just as silly to say the melta gun guy's weapon always survives whatever killed him in a game like this (D weapons, orbital bombardments, artillery shells, grav weapons, plasma, getting run over by a tank...what, is he tossing it to the next guy before he dies?). Some of the weapons in this game are literally attached to the model's body, man...what, does the next guy take off all his power armor and jump into the grav gunner's?
I dunno. I guess ultimately it is not whether a complaint is even valid or not, for me. It just seems like a lot of people do it just for the sake of seeming smarter than GW. This, to me, is the real difference between blanket statements and remarks like yours -- they make more sense in terms of your experiences with the game, instead of being a vicarious out-of-context surmisal based on third-hand accounts from others.
See, I would argue these are not objective descriptions of the game.
Most wound allocation occurs from the front, and during these times it is faster and makes more sense then allowing a player to decide, as he may take time to debate which casualty is less critical between two vital models. This change also adds value to gameplay by making where you move and how you compose your unit matter a great deal -- both in terms of defense and offense.
Random allocation slows things down but it is also considerably rarer. And your mention of being able to pick up the melta gun isn't objective either; it is your opinion that the weapon should last forever, but from a gameplay perspective it raises the value of units which can carry multiple weapons, or which can have higher numbers of models.
You say that this doesn't add a real layer of tactics, but in reality it made gameplay massively more tactical due to positioning being a viable tactic. "Ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad" is a tactic, isn't it? And how is wound allocation "tedious" when 95% of the time you literally pull the closest models with not even the slightest hesitation?
Ultimately these complaints, while written and reasoned well enough, exist because you just find these rules annoying. You can break down virtually every dig at the game in this way, and ultimately, it is formulaic and not really relevant.
"[Thing that annoys me personally but doesn't actually hurt the game] is bad" doesn't change, to me...even if people are polite enough to bolt on an "it'd be better if it was [Way I want it to be so it wouldn't annoy me anymore]" at the end.
It is true my representation of the complaints was hyperbolic, but here with your actual remarks, it doesn't seem any different to me once distilled...it is still something you personally dislike, that has not had an objectively measurable adverse effect on the game at large (i.e., there is no data to indicate that games take significantly longer because of random allocation, or that the current wound allocation is complex...in fact when I teach someone, I literally say the sentence "the closest guys take the hits first" and it is sufficient almost completely for a new person). And even if there was data, it would be anecdotal, since we aren't involved in every 40k game ever played.
I agree that random allocation is time-consuming and not a good abstraction, but to me it would be compared to the ease of the usual "closest die first" method, not because it personally bothers me. Also, from a game design standpoint...it is because something bad happened to you and your opportunity to lessen or avoid it failed. You shouldn't have control over how bad it is at this point, but neither should the other guy.
For some time, this was one of the chief complaints about 40k -- that bad things on a battlefield were actually good for you in mechanical practice. Now, it is not so, and it's still complaint worthy?
The gun swapping thing always seemed silly to me, too. From an aesthetic standpoint, it'd be just as silly to say the melta gun guy's weapon always survives whatever killed him in a game like this (D weapons, orbital bombardments, artillery shells, grav weapons, plasma, getting run over by a tank...what, is he tossing it to the next guy before he dies?). Some of the weapons in this game are literally attached to the model's body, man...what, does the next guy take off all his power armor and jump into the grav gunner's?
I dunno. I guess ultimately it is not whether a complaint is even valid or not, for me. It just seems like a lot of people do it just for the sake of seeming smarter than GW. This, to me, is the real difference between blanket statements and remarks like yours -- they make more sense in terms of your experiences with the game, instead of being a vicarious out-of-context surmisal based on third-hand accounts from others.
Remember we still have the random wound allocation mechanic, which universally slows things down and also removes player decisions, both of which are bad for game play.
As for closest model dying being faster...I'm not buying it. In general, I'm sure most players will have some sort of general idea which models are going to die first and die last if they had the choice. Player's choice is almost universally faster as you don't have to check which one is closer or even have to think about discussing with your opponent in case they intended to charge said unit and the difference could cost them the charge. Player's choice just lets you remove whichever one you so chooce without having to check LoS, range, or worry about micro-management in the prior movement phase.
The slight tactical upside of having to plan your moves so that you keep a meatshield in front your valuable models is overshadowed by its tediousness and minor impact once you've played a handful of times. Instead, player's choice lets you make the same tactical choice at time of model removal without the details of ensuring ranges from various enemy threats are managed.
As for the weapon thing, you're right, the weapon could very well be destroyed. It could also not be destroyed. Bullets may very well kill the closest model, and they also may very well kill the furthest model. The fact is there must be some concessions for gameplay, and between the two options, it makes nearly equal sense (I'm more in the camp the weapon would often survive), but is much quicker and puts control in the player's hand at all times.
Whenever you look at a mechanic, consider its ease, time, tactical aspect, player control, and compare that to alternatives. The only real downside to player's choice removal is that you'll nearly always end up with your special weapons, sergeants, and other important wargear being last, which to some may seem not fluffy/narrative enough. For others, its perfectly fluffy. However, casualties from the front also doesn't make sense in that many people from secondary ranks or who happen to be half a body width behind would still die as easily and readily. It takes more work in measuring distances depending on the unit size of the target and the firer, and creates more time wastage in the prior movement phase micro managing model positions, especially in larger squads.
On a more minor note, as an ex foot power blob player from 5th, I remember how cool it looked to have all my sarges and commissars leading the charge from the front of the platoon. Now, I have to hide them with a wrap of 2 guardsmen thick to ensure casualties don't leak in to them. Casualty removal in 5th took far less time than it has in 6th and 7th with that single change, plus the time I now have to spend ensuring my bubble wrap is properly done.
Now, you're right in that not all of that is absolutely objective, but its pretty damn close, and I'd argue that saying the current system is more time consuming, offers very little tactical depth for the time given, isn't any better of an abstraction than the previous system, and removes player control (in the case of random wound allocation) are pretty objective statements. Whether or not you enjoy them or have preferences is a different topic altogether.
Regardless, discussions are better served by properly explained posts anyways, and my original sentiment should have simply been to explain to you that the people doing the criticizing worth listening to will make it abundantly clear by their reasonsed posts. You may disagree with them, and it may be technically negative in that its not praise for GW and 40k, but its a valid post worth considering and thinking about.
I don't write these posts because I enjoy hating on GW and 40k.
I write these posts because I fething care about this game. I want 40k to succeed.
I want to feel my money is well spent on this game, but I just can't when GW can't even bother to FAQ or write clear rules in the first place.
It is perfectly possible to deeply hate the current state of the game but still have fun playing it.
Personally I play with a close group of friends. We talk about our lists beforehand so we get fun games, and we get the funds to constantly update our armies with new units/allies in order to stay competitive.
This doesn't mean I don't completely loathe the state of the game that forces me to do all that abd don't wish I could lay down my Iyanden wraith army while my friend is unpacking his Deathwing across the table and have a fun game from the get go.
LordBlades wrote: It is perfectly possible to deeply hate the current state of the game but still have fun playing it.
I think the more accurate way of describing that is that you have fun DESPITE the current state of the game. That sounds like a soft no above in the poll IMO. YMMV.
I have already bellyached on the subject enough. I am waiting to see what 8th edition will have to offer.
The one thing I will add is: more than any other factor, what turned me off was the release of 7th so shortly after 6th. I spent a lot on all the collector's editions rulebooks and codexes and expected them to stay useful for a while.
I could deal with bad rules as long as they stay that way for a while.
The statement that makes me most concerned so far in this thread was''..there has never been as much freedom in the game as now..''
So in the last 20 years NO ONE ever just made up cool stuff with their friends at their club/gaming group?
The narrative players NEVER EVER wrote scenarios and campaigns at any point in the last 20 years?
It is only when GWofficially give you permission to buy what you like and put your random collection on the games table and play against any other random collection of models and roll some dice to see what happens.That people actually use their imaginations and make up stuff?
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN OPTION TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF COOL!!!!!!
(If you agree with your opponent before hand,and if you can not negotiate with your opponent , you can not play 7th ed 40k any way!)
All GW plc have done is throw away any link from the deep and inspiring background , to the actions on the 40k game table.
JUST to try to boost short term sales, and in the process remove any sort of enjoyment from random pick up games.
The people who suffer the most are those who are more dependent on random pick up games.Eg most new players.
They have to spend ages trying to get a game because their random collection of minatures is not the ''right'' collection of random minatures according to many different groups of players...
IF GW plc were writing for 'relaxed narrative games' they would NOT use point values or any form of F.O.C .They would release scenario and campaign generation guide books.
THE ONLY VALID REASON to include point values and F.O.C is to achieve enough balance for enjoyable random pick up games.GW plc just use them to try to manipulate sales ...
I like the intended game play of 40k.But the awful implementation by GW plc mutated by sales greed leaves me very cold...(Ill continue to play Epic , the best battle game rule set for 40k !)
techsoldaten wrote: I have already bellyached on the subject enough. I am waiting to see what 8th edition will have to offer.
The one thing I will add is: more than any other factor, what turned me off was the release of 7th so shortly after 6th. I spent a lot on all the collector's editions rulebooks and codexes and expected them to stay useful for a while.
I could deal with bad rules as long as they stay that way for a while.
Good thing you're a chaos player then... *zing*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lanrak wrote: The statement that makes me most concerned so far in this thread was''..there has never been as much freedom in the game as now..''
Total anarchy is a sort of freedom. Of course, just like with unbound and the current "bound" state of multiple sources/detachements/factions/free models/free upgrades, that "freedom" isn't as idyllic of a state as originally advertised by those who seek to profit most from it.
Fenris Frost wrote: Most wound allocation occurs from the front, and during these times it is faster and makes more sense then allowing a player to decide, as he may take time to debate which casualty is less critical between two vital models.
This isn't really true. The "closest first" system is much slower than simply choosing your casualties if you actually play it RAW, since you have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which model is closest. It's only faster if you decide to change the rules and just approximate it, which is a concession that the original system doesn't work.
You say that this doesn't add a real layer of tactics, but in reality it made gameplay massively more tactical due to positioning being a viable tactic. "Ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad" is a tactic, isn't it?
It's a tactic, but not a very interesting one. It's just tedious execution of the obvious, and you're punished if you don't spend the extra time to do it. Positioning models within a unit rarely adds any interesting choices, and when it does it's usually because of something stupid like deliberately using a vehicle to block LOS to most of a squad so that the melta gunner is the closest visible model.
And how is wound allocation "tedious" when 95% of the time you literally pull the closest models with not even the slightest hesitation?
Because 95% of the time you can't do that, you have to carefully measure and argue over which model is 0.1" closer.
Ultimately these complaints, while written and reasoned well enough, exist because you just find these rules annoying. You can break down virtually every dig at the game in this way, and ultimately, it is formulaic and not really relevant.
I don't really see your point. The rules are badly written in ways that other games aren't. You can drag the criticism out into an extended argument, but the defense of GW's rules is rarely more than "I like it this way" and stubborn refusal to acknowledge the game's flaws. Any attempt to defend GW's rules as good game design is almost inevitably going to fail.
The gun swapping thing always seemed silly to me, too. From an aesthetic standpoint, it'd be just as silly to say the melta gun guy's weapon always survives whatever killed him in a game like this (D weapons, orbital bombardments, artillery shells, grav weapons, plasma, getting run over by a tank...what, is he tossing it to the next guy before he dies?). Some of the weapons in this game are literally attached to the model's body, man...what, does the next guy take off all his power armor and jump into the grav gunner's?
Sigh. It's called abstraction. Most of the time another member of the squad would be able to pick up a weapon, and it's much simpler to assume that this happens all of the time instead of screwing around with complex wound allocation systems that add tons of complexity without really adding any depth. And it's certainly more plausible that the gun usually survives than trained soldiers being completely unable to shoot a specific member of a squad because someone else is 0.1" closer. No wound allocation system in a game like 40k is ever going to be a perfect simulation of reality, so the goal is to balance simulation and ease of use. And the current system fails horribly at both of those things.
It just seems like a lot of people do it just for the sake of seeming smarter than GW.
Which isn't very difficult. GW's incompetence and stupidity is almost unbelievable, and even random newbies could probably do a better job of game design and balance.
Fenris Frost wrote: Most wound allocation occurs from the front, and during these times it is faster and makes more sense then allowing a player to decide, as he may take time to debate which casualty is less critical between two vital models.
This isn't really true. The "closest first" system is much slower than simply choosing your casualties if you actually play it RAW, since you have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which model is closest. It's only faster if you decide to change the rules and just approximate it, which is a concession that the original system doesn't work.
I've found that alot of the slowdown regarding that one rule is from an experienced and knowledgeable player trying to account for that "closest" factor when moving his or her own troops rather than during the subsequent enemy shooting phase. Trying to get the angles right and making sure you don't put your valuable short ranged meltas TOO close to the front line yet getting them close ENOUGH to be useful is time consuming compared to just moving the squad of 5-50 models forward (I play both marines and IG), putting the specials in the front, and taking off casualties from the middle or rear. The end result is almost always the same for an experienced player (the melta survives or the squad is decimeated and it doesn't matter) but the road to get there is alot longer with 7th. YMMV.
I've played some Rogue Trader, got distracted, played some 6th, now playing 7th. I like building and painting models, and the game gives me that. I play in a friendly club. Some guys want to do competitions, some guys don't. We set up the games in advance and check that we're both looking for the same sort of thing. It works. So I have fun.
Love it. Formations, super heavies, maelstrom, rapid releases etc.
It's the end of the world, every game! Apocalypse for everyone regardless of desire, point total, model collection, rules, or release schedule! There is no stopping the end of the world every game! *in lego voice* Everything is awesome! I can't wait for 8th edition where you can play a BFG battleship and just lay down 10" str D blasts barrages every turn.. of course balanced because of only BS3 (but if you field two Nova Class cruisers then you get BS4 twin linked for free in the Admiral of the Fleet web exclusive formation because balance!).
Remember we still have the random wound allocation mechanic, which universally slows things down and also removes player decisions, both of which are bad for game play.
As for closest model dying being faster...I'm not buying it. In general, I'm sure most players will have some sort of general idea which models are going to die first and die last if they had the choice. Player's choice is almost universally faster as you don't have to check which one is closer or even have to think about discussing with your opponent in case they intended to charge said unit and the difference could cost them the charge. Player's choice just lets you remove whichever one you so chooce without having to check LoS, range, or worry about micro-management in the prior movement phase.
The slight tactical upside of having to plan your moves so that you keep a meatshield in front your valuable models is overshadowed by its tediousness and minor impact once you've played a handful of times. Instead, player's choice lets you make the same tactical choice at time of model removal without the details of ensuring ranges from various enemy threats are managed.
As for the weapon thing, you're right, the weapon could very well be destroyed. It could also not be destroyed. Bullets may very well kill the closest model, and they also may very well kill the furthest model. The fact is there must be some concessions for gameplay, and between the two options, it makes nearly equal sense (I'm more in the camp the weapon would often survive), but is much quicker and puts control in the player's hand at all times.
Whenever you look at a mechanic, consider its ease, time, tactical aspect, player control, and compare that to alternatives. The only real downside to player's choice removal is that you'll nearly always end up with your special weapons, sergeants, and other important wargear being last, which to some may seem not fluffy/narrative enough. For others, its perfectly fluffy. However, casualties from the front also doesn't make sense in that many people from secondary ranks or who happen to be half a body width behind would still die as easily and readily. It takes more work in measuring distances depending on the unit size of the target and the firer, and creates more time wastage in the prior movement phase micro managing model positions, especially in larger squads.
On a more minor note, as an ex foot power blob player from 5th, I remember how cool it looked to have all my sarges and commissars leading the charge from the front of the platoon. Now, I have to hide them with a wrap of 2 guardsmen thick to ensure casualties don't leak in to them. Casualty removal in 5th took far less time than it has in 6th and 7th with that single change, plus the time I now have to spend ensuring my bubble wrap is properly done.
Now, you're right in that not all of that is absolutely objective, but its pretty damn close, and I'd argue that saying the current system is more time consuming, offers very little tactical depth for the time given, isn't any better of an abstraction than the previous system, and removes player control (in the case of random wound allocation) are pretty objective statements. Whether or not you enjoy them or have preferences is a different topic altogether.
Regardless, discussions are better served by properly explained posts anyways, and my original sentiment should have simply been to explain to you that the people doing the criticizing worth listening to will make it abundantly clear by their reasonsed posts. You may disagree with them, and it may be technically negative in that its not praise for GW and 40k, but its a valid post worth considering and thinking about.
I don't write these posts because I enjoy hating on GW and 40k.
I write these posts because I fething care about this game. I want 40k to succeed.
I want to feel my money is well spent on this game, but I just can't when GW can't even bother to FAQ or write clear rules in the first place.
I agree whole-heartedly with this entire post, but most fervantly with the highlighted portion. I hate how unheroic units look now.
Love it. Formations, super heavies, maelstrom, rapid releases etc.
It's the end of the world, every game! Apocalypse for everyone regardless of desire, point total, model collection, rules, or release schedule! There is no stopping the end of the world every game! *in lego voice* Everything is awesome! I can't wait for 8th edition where you can play a BFG battleship and just lay down 10" str D blasts barrages every turn.. of course balanced because of only BS3 (but if you field two Nova Class cruisers then you get BS4 twin linked for free in the Admiral of the Fleet web exclusive formation because balance!).
To do this you have to buy the new 1:35 scale BFG ship models as they release rules banning proxies. The game becomes balanced again when no one can afford to field an army!
I honestly like this edition, despite its less than perfect rules. Some things (invisibility, wound allocation) do not make a lot of sense and slow down the game while power creep is hitting my poor orks really hard, but I enjoy the game and have gotten in a lot of games over the past few months.
Fenris Frost wrote: Most wound allocation occurs from the front, and during these times it is faster and makes more sense then allowing a player to decide, as he may take time to debate which casualty is less critical between two vital models.
This isn't really true. The "closest first" system is much slower than simply choosing your casualties if you actually play it RAW, since you have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which model is closest. It's only faster if you decide to change the rules and just approximate it, which is a concession that the original system doesn't work.
I've found that alot of the slowdown regarding that one rule is from an experienced and knowledgeable player trying to account for that "closest" factor when moving his or her own troops rather than during the subsequent enemy shooting phase. Trying to get the angles right and making sure you don't put your valuable short ranged meltas TOO close to the front line yet getting them close ENOUGH to be useful is time consuming compared to just moving the squad of 5-50 models forward (I play both marines and IG), putting the specials in the front, and taking off casualties from the middle or rear. The end result is almost always the same for an experienced player (the melta survives or the squad is decimeated and it doesn't matter) but the road to get there is alot longer with 7th. YMMV.
This.
When you are a skilled player and you are doing everything in your power and within the rules to win, model placement especially with complex squads becomes a night mare of time consumption. Not to mention each model gaining individual saves and how difficult it is to make sure you are maximizing your position to its fullest.
Actually removing from the front isn't terribly time consuming, still more so that choose a model, but it is position knowing they are taken from the front which is the real problem.
This stuff about the casualty removal is just mind blowing to me.
I observe ~10 games a week, our club has a super strict time frame, and I am the only person consulted where there is any need for judging or rules questions...and nobody there does this at all. In fact if anything it is usually the oppositie problem; the casualty removal is so natural people forget to check at all, and only put on the breaks to check when they are removing the last couple of models as they go to grab the closest and stop for a sec because they aren't sure which of the ones they are about to grab is the closest.
If I do 10 wounds to a unit, and the first ~9 guys are all closer than the 10th, there is no reason to even check until the last model. Otherwise it would be a pointless exercise in seeing which of two models I pick up who are dead anyway.
Also, no one cares unless it is an important model. If you are checking every single model that is hyperbolic bs that no one who actually plays the game ever actually does. I do 15 wounds to that guard blob, as long as a unique is 16 models away, there is no need to measure a damn thing. And even when there is, it is a split-second sweep of the table.
Don't blame min-maxing donkey-caves taking a 45-minute movement phase to make sure the least amount of 4-point models can be hurt, as a rule being bad.
This is literally EXACTLY what I was talking about. To hear you guys tell it, the game is in this grievous borderline unplayable state from this one, extremely simple, super-easy-to-teach, easy-to-understand mechanic.
And what's the solution? No one ever has a solution, and when they do it's always niche, always to the abusable benefit of the guy making the complaint (like the fellow here lamenting that his guard blob can lose it's five commissars if they are at the front...the solution proposed is to allow self casualty selection which would render that blob completely irremovable due to Commissar buffs and he Commissars never being in danger. How do you explain that in fluff terms? The Guardsmen just keep stripping the Commissar and taking his uniform?). I can tell what armies people play by their complaints and suggestions about the game at this point. The static gunline armies say Maelstrom isn't fair, dudes with Invis say Stomp is OP, grav is OP to all the power armies, etc. etc.
It is a ceaseless parade of mechanical gripes that mean absolutely, absolutely nothing to someone like me. Why? Well, one of the replies earlier said that he wanted 40k to be a success, and that he makes such complaints because he cares. Well, I have brought countless new people to the game, revitalized a struggling local store in doing so, and do what I can to mitigate price and power level problems when they come up. I encourage my people to embrace the game and grow with the change, adjust their tactics, and understand that the occasional mismatch is nothing but a good learning experience to facilitate that growth. I've been doing it for seven years now, across three editions...
So knowing that...you will understand why I find it completely preposterous that spreading disdain for the game all over the internet is somehow supposed to help this, the literal biggest worldwide juggernaut of a wargame that has been in business and thriving for over a quarter century, "succeed." The very notion is a complete joke, especially when half the detractors have admitted to ragequitting the game.
Even the brief responses to my points have led to yet another page full of just straight up mockery of the game. That is what these kinds of discussions bring up. Drudgery, loathing, mockery. This is success? Thank goodness this game has such noble heroes to help it limp along in its unplayable, unintelligible state...
Fenris Frost wrote: the casualty removal is so natural people forget to check at all, and only put on the breaks to check when they are removing the last couple of models as they go to grab the closest and stop for a sec because they aren't sure which of the ones they are about to grab is the closest.
IOW, you concede that the rule as published by GW sucks and to make the game playable you have to modify the system. If you're constantly forgetting to use the rules correctly then it's a pretty clear sign that something is wrong with those rules.
Also, no one cares unless it is an important model. If you are checking every single model that is hyperbolic bs that no one who actually plays the game ever actually does.
IOW, "the rules are so bad that nobody ever uses them".
Don't blame min-maxing donkey-caves taking a 45-minute movement phase to make sure the least amount of 4-point models can be hurt, as a rule being bad.
If playing a rule correctly and using the ideal strategy makes you a "min-maxing donkey-cave" then the rule is broken.
And what's the solution? No one ever has a solution
And this is just plain dishonest. We've given you solutions in this thread (mine being "just let people choose their casualties"), so don't complain that nobody has a solution.
I can tell what armies people play by their complaints and suggestions about the game at this point. The static gunline armies say Maelstrom isn't fair, dudes with Invis say Stomp is OP, grav is OP to all the power armies, etc. etc.
I guess it's a lot easier to dismiss legitimate concerns about the game when you can stereotype everyone as the worst kind of TFG? Maelstrom is bad design regardless of what kind of army you play, stomp is an awkward mess, grav spam is too effective and never should have existed, etc. And no, I don't fit your convenient stereotypes.
Even the brief responses to my points have led to yet another page full of just straight up mockery of the game. That is what these kinds of discussions bring up. Drudgery, loathing, mockery. This is success? Thank goodness this game has such noble heroes to help it limp along in its unplayable, unintelligible state...
If every discussion of "are the rules good" turns into mockery, loathing, etc, then it's probably a sign that the rules are broken. Do you actually have any constructive discussion to offer, or are you just going to keep saying "STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE!" in the grand tradition of GW defenders before you?
Fenris Frost wrote: This stuff about the casualty removal is just mind blowing to me.
I observe ~10 games a week, our club has a super strict time frame,and I am the only person consulted where there is any need for judging or rules questions...and nobody there does this at all. In fact if anything it is usually the oppositie problem; the casualty removal is so natural people forget to check at all, and only put on the breaks to check when they are removing the last couple of models as they go to grab the closest and stop for a sec because they aren't sure which of the ones they are about to grab is the closest.
While I appreciate the more detailed answer, you kind of solved your own conundrum without knowing it. Your club has "a super strict time frame" for games so you've effectively house ruled away the issue by simply not allowing folks to do so with as much forethought as possible. There are things that you do in a tourney or "super strict time frame" game that you wouldn't simply because you might have more important things at the end of a turn or game to finish. That's not any more fair or fluffy but rather just simple prioritization.
Sadly, I have played this game competitively (and Dark Eldar almost exclusively) for well over 16 years.
I am now selling off all my models. I have a few more tournament obligations to meet, then I am done and will not look back.
It is a combination of being unable to keep up with all the new rules, formations and combos as well as my favorite army being stabbed in the back, kicked into a ditch and laughed at while every codex since has been given the red carpet treatment.
Screw you GW. 1 guy leaving may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but this 1 mans money will be spent elsewhere, and not with your company.
I don't like the current edition, how it heavily relies on allies, and the shortcomings of my army of choice - the dark eldars.
I like unbound and the potential it has to make cool army lists without going through contortions or houserules.
Both are personal preferences.
Just because the gripes mean nothing to you doesn't make them less valid.
And seriously, there is no way that casualty from the front is as fast and simple as player's choice. There's also no real advantage to casualties from the front, so why bother with the extra hassle when there's a simpler method?
But if the gripes don't matter to you, there's no real sense in discussing this any further than you.
Anglacon wrote: Sadly, I have played this game competitively (and Dark Eldar almost exclusively) for well over 16 years.
I am now selling off all my models. I have a few more tournament obligations to meet, then I am done and will not look back.
It is a combination of being unable to keep up with all the new rules, formations and combos as well as my favorite army being stabbed in the back, kicked into a ditch and laughed at while every codex since has been given the red carpet treatment.
Screw you GW. 1 guy leaving may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but this 1 mans money will be spent elsewhere, and not with your company.
The new Dark Eldar book is great and I've placed priZe at several events since. The real space raiders detachment is VERY strong.
The whole point of casualties from the front is that positioning of models matters, something never previously true in the game at all. Without it, so much makes no sense. Your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the most important guys to you survive every time? It is to make the game fairer and to make your positioning matter.
It enables much of the best parts of the current game:
- Weapon power levels are able to grow because the model carrying them can be lost over the course of the game.
- It also indirectly allows more weapon options for the same reason.
- In turn, it gives extra value to the "scrub" models, who can actually have a use in the game besides being wound counters for their Sergeants.
- It allows you a defense against faster assaulting units when a few casualties can make or break a long charge.
- It gives you an incentive to use a bigger unit rather than several small ones.
- It allows you to actually remove scoring models from an objective, as opposed to having to kill the entire unit.
- Without it, Strength D becomes completely foolish, since it will only ever kill the worst guys in a unit.
- It introduces at least some degree of realism.
- It is SUPER easy to teach and explain. Why does this not matter to anyone?!
- It introduces an entire universe of tactics the game didn't have before (like flanking a blob to kill it's heavy weapons, or taking out a special weapon trooper before he can bring his unique powerful weapon to bear).
Even if it did take longer (which the majority of the time, it absolutely doesn't), is is easily worth the time due to how it affects all these (and more) aspects of the game, giving it much needed depth.
I would like to see actual recordings of people playing in a way that makes this take a long time, that is how unfathomable it is to me that it is complicated and arduous. I consider it LITERALLY the easiest rule I've had to learn in my entire decade playing this (and numerous other) games.
There are a number of advantages to the rule in this form -- the only way you can blanket say it has nothing but disadvantages is if you completely do not understand how these effects ripple through the game. People took my quotes out of context and say that people I game with forget the rule because it's crap...no, they forget the rule because in almost every situation it is intuitive and there is no need to even use a measuring tape. It is clear who is closer almost all the time, and even when it doesn't the models will often be identical when there is a close call between two.
Fenris Frost wrote: The whole point of casualties from the front is that positioning of models matters, something never previously true in the game at all. Without it, so much makes no sense. Your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the most important guys to you survive every time? It is to make the game fairer and to make your positioning matter.
Model position used to matter too. The assault phase was still dependent on getting as many models in to B2B as possible, especially your heavy hitters, and you'd have to position your short ranged weapons to maximize potential damage.
- Weapon power levels are able to grow because the model carrying them can be lost over the course of the game.
Sorry, that's a good thing? Weapon power levels shouldn't be growing, and having them get lost randomly because you didn't micro manage sufficiently is a pretty poor method of balance, if it can be called that.
- It allows you a defense against faster assaulting units when a few casualties can make or break a long charge.
You can do the same thing with player's choice removal. You know, by removing the front models if you want.
- It allows you to actually remove scoring models from an objective, as opposed to having to kill the entire unit.
Yeah, sorry, but that's not really tactical or an advantage. Once more, that would just bog down them game by having to measure the new unit's footprint to check if it's still within range of the objective. Plus, more often than not, it won't have any impact, which kind of reduces that to being almost meaningless.
Winning a game because you happened to kill the right amount of models to move a unit just outside of scoring range hardly strikes me as anything nearing tactics.
- Without it, Strength D becomes completely foolish, since it will only ever kill the worst guys in a unit.
That's a bad thing? Maybe, just maybe, D weapons shouldn't be in the game, and if they must remain, they should be oriented towards taking out high durability targets. Frankly, D-weapons are already ridiculous, so I don't think you'll find a whole lot of sympathy for them being 'weaker' if I could choose my own casualties.
Frankly, all that point does is illustrate how far off the deep end this game has gone.
- It introduces at least some degree of realism.
It introduces the exact same or less amount of realism. Once again, bullets do not discriminate by who's standing closer. Further, weapons don't magically vanish most of the time. Thirdly, nearly every military organization I can dream of, fictional or otherwise, has some sort of chain of command within even a squad should the sergeant die. Master Corporal Bob steps up to the plate after Sergeant Smith valiantly dies, representing the continued existence of a sergeant type model to boost morale.
- It is SUPER easy to teach and explain. Why does this not matter to anyone?!
You know what's even simpler?
Removing the modes you want!
- It introduces an entire universe of tactics the game didn't have before.
An entire universe? Tactics? Really?
Micro management of models in a squad based game is not tactical. Keeping a two guardsmen thick fence around my sergeants and melta guns is not tactical. Not even a little.
Even if it did take longer (which the majority of the time, it absolutely doesn't), is is easily worth the time due to how it affects all these (and more) aspects of the game, giving it much needed depth.
It doesn't affect anything than having one more tedious bit of micro management. There is no conceivable universe where this system is faster than plucking up the models you like, which means it must be slower for the majority of players in most situations over the course of the game.
The tactical elements people like to point out consist of simply looking at your unit and their unit and thinking "Gee, I should probably make sure that there's some expendable minion between my enemy and my special/heavy weapons." And then having to fiddle with it. That's it. There's nothing tactical about it. Nothing someone wouldn't figure out after a game or two, but otherwise punishes people who either forget or just don't care enough to have to move 30+ models in such a way to game the system, and eats up time better spent playing the game than having to worry about LoS and ranges from multiple units.
Its not tactical, its just gaming the rules.
I would like to see actual recordings of people playing in a way that makes this take a long time, that is how unfathomable it is to me that it is complicated and arduous. I consider it LITERALLY the easiest rule I've had to learn in my entire decade playing this (and numerous other) games.
I'm not saying its hard. I'm saying its unnecessary when the alternative is even simpler and faster.
Fenris Frost wrote: "Ensuring your important dudes are safely hidden within the larger squad" is a tactic, isn't it?
Sure. Not a particularly viable one when you're using template weapons, though.
The gun swapping thing always seemed silly to me, too. From an aesthetic standpoint, it'd be just as silly to say the melta gun guy's weapon always survives whatever killed him in a game like this (D weapons, orbital bombardments, artillery shells, grav weapons, plasma, getting run over by a tank...what, is he tossing it to the next guy before he dies?).
Which is why the game used to have a rule to take that into consideration, allowing the shooter to choose one of the casualties in certain situations. (commonly referred to as 'Torrent of Fire')
And what's the solution? No one ever has a solution, and when they do it's always niche, always to the abusable benefit of the guy making the complaint
That's quite the generalisation.
People quite often have solutions. For me personally, the solution to the current casualty removal system is to return to the 5th edition system with some minor changes to allocation in units with mixed gear. Not because it benefits my armies (I have 9 of them, so no specific fix is going to benefit all of them equally) but because I found the 5th edition system more fun.
The thing is, the problems with the current game aren't just down to opinions on specific mechanics. We have other silliness like the psychic phase completely breaking down the moment you attach an IC psyker to another unit. Or space marine vehicles not being able to be taken in a detachment. Or Shrike not being able to infiltrate with a unit. Stuff that should have been caught during the design phase, that players catch within 3 minutes of the book being released... and that GW don't bother fixing, because reasons.
The attitude you see on the forums towards the game hasn't come from nowhere. This has been building up for years, but has accelerated considerably with the release of 7th edition. I find the result on the poll here quite telling... Given that this is the 40k board, the overall result on polls like this is still generally positive. The fact that the biggest response now is distinctly negative is a very strong message about how the community is seeing the current state of the game.
Fenris Frost wrote: The whole point of casualties from the front is that positioning of models matters, something never previously true in the game at all. Without it, so much makes no sense. Your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the most important guys to you survive every time? It is to make the game fairer and to make your positioning matter.
It enables much of the best parts of the current game:
- Weapon power levels are able to grow because the model carrying them can be lost over the course of the game.
- It also indirectly allows more weapon options for the same reason.
- In turn, it gives extra value to the "scrub" models, who can actually have a use in the game besides being wound counters for their Sergeants.
- It allows you a defense against faster assaulting units when a few casualties can make or break a long charge.
- It gives you an incentive to use a bigger unit rather than several small ones.
- It allows you to actually remove scoring models from an objective, as opposed to having to kill the entire unit.
- Without it, Strength D becomes completely foolish, since it will only ever kill the worst guys in a unit.
- It introduces at least some degree of realism.
- It is SUPER easy to teach and explain. Why does this not matter to anyone?!
- It introduces an entire universe of tactics the game didn't have before (like flanking a blob to kill it's heavy weapons, or taking out a special weapon trooper before he can bring his unique powerful weapon to bear).
Even if it did take longer (which the majority of the time, it absolutely doesn't), is is easily worth the time due to how it affects all these (and more) aspects of the game, giving it much needed depth.
I would like to see actual recordings of people playing in a way that makes this take a long time, that is how unfathomable it is to me that it is complicated and arduous. I consider it LITERALLY the easiest rule I've had to learn in my entire decade playing this (and numerous other) games.
There are a number of advantages to the rule in this form -- the only way you can blanket say it has nothing but disadvantages is if you completely do not understand how these effects ripple through the game. People took my quotes out of context and say that people I game with forget the rule because it's crap...no, they forget the rule because in almost every situation it is intuitive and there is no need to even use a measuring tape. It is clear who is closer almost all the time, and even when it doesn't the models will often be identical when there is a close call between two.
Micromanaging model position does slow the game down, significantly especially when trying to gain the greatest advantage from a situation ie competetivie games. Removing from the front is slower by default than choice as you always have the choice to remove from the front as well.
The tactics you are talking about are fairly limited and often exploitable in a much slower fashion, ie tanking with my Buffcommander and making sure all of my LoS from most directions will go to drones as well as maximizing models in cover from a particular direction while minimizing dangerous terrain tests. I can tell you this is very time consuming even for an experience player than makes that doesn't slow down for decision making. Sure, I've stolen objectives my carefully maeuvering to guarantee the models I needed to kill were the ones on the objective, then carefully choosing my shooting order and then explaining by the rules how I exploited the per model cover rules and closest first rules to steal the objective etc. Sure, there is some degree of tactics, but they aren't the kind we should have in a squad based game, skirmish based game, sure, but squad is another story.
It removes the cinematic hero leading from the front, without a ridiculous amount of LoS rolls. And that is extremely tedious, rolling look out sirs then rolling save for the closest model, rinse wash repeat for each wound, and deciding to take those wounds. This is very slow and time consuming.
About your random allocation, tell that to an Ork player who has to roll leadership, when failed has to roll on the Mob Rule Table.... then roll again if they have a Boss Pole.... then usually roll a d6 hits.... roll to wound... roll random allocation... wow isn't that difficult if you have odd number of models and is almost impossible to do truly randomly. Yeah, that is really great. Oh, then they get to roll their armor save. Or when a Flyer/FMC Vector Strikes and you have to randomly allocate. Or any of the huge number of things in the game that require random allocation RAW.
The current scale of 40k is all wrong, its large and played ata squad based level with a plethora of skirmish level rules mixed in. Those rules have a very big slowing effect for the game.
Things may work well in your little corner of 40k, where you admittedly glance over some of the rules and push that kind of relaxed approach. And that is fine, but when pushed to use RAW it is a nightmare ie in a competetive setting. Or for pick up games. You've also handwaved balance concerns because most don't seem to be trying to push the boundaries of the game, that is great, its an amazing feat, but it is not reflective of what most of us experience when looking for Pick UP games or looking to play tournaments. Because it is true in your little corner of 40k does not make it reflective of the game as a whole. Almost my entire local scene has been killed by 6th/7th edition... well it started with the first "6th" ed codices ie GK and Necron. Now, I had to schedule and drive 30-90min for game, Pick Up games are non existent locally, and tournaments were my main form of 40k, and now those have been destroyed by GW. That is what has happened in basically my entire state.
With regards to wound allocation: Closest models makes most sense to me and I don't see much of an issue with this. It's quick and easy to work out. (Excepting the times some people decide that their special weapon guy with a lascannon isn't closer than the useless guy with a bolter, when they obviously are.)
However the fact that another guy in the squad should be able to and would pick up this expensive special weapon makes sense.
Give all models Look Out Sir, the idea being that the weapon is not destroyed and another member of the team picks up the weapon? Just an idea that will never happen.
The closest model is no more "realistic" than any other wound allocation system (random would be the most realistic, but a total frakin pain).
Closest being realistic quickly breaks down when a 2+ save model stands in the front and plays goalie against every shot coming toward the unit. Jumping heroically in front of every single bullet that comes their way.
Given that neither system is particularly realistic, I enjoy the simplicity and cinematic fun factor of owning player removes models.
4E's wound allocation probably functioned best and gave units the most utility out of their upgrade parts. The only downside was that mixed saves didn't work terribly well
The current system deals with mixed saves better, but also allows for more abuse of those saves, and makes multi-wound models often painfully hard to clear.
Fenris Frost wrote: Your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the most important guys to you survive every time?
One word: abstraction. When you're trying to play a game with 200+ models on the table you don't need a perfect simulation of reality. "Remove your choice of models" is a straightforward abstraction that is easily explainable fluff-wise (someone picks up the melta gun or assumes command of the squad), and you don't need to worry about the occasional fluff situation where the melta gun is broken by the shot that kills its user in a game with that many models.
And of course you can ask the exact opposite: your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the sergeant in the back survive every time instead of being shot first? Do you really think it's realistic to have the sergeant standing completely exposed in the open at the back of the unit while the enemy puts shot after shot into the models in front of him? Are snipers that roll a 6 to hit really the only shooters in the entire 40k universe capable of saying "hey, let's pick a specific guy to shoot at"?
- Weapon power levels are able to grow because the model carrying them can be lost over the course of the game.
Why is this a good thing? Why do weapon power levels need to keep increasing?
- In turn, it gives extra value to the "scrub" models, who can actually have a use in the game besides being wound counters for their Sergeants.
No it doesn't. Those "wound counter" models are still wound counters, the only difference is that you use them as wound counters by putting them in front of the sergeant instead of by saying "the meatshield takes the wound".
- It allows you a defense against faster assaulting units when a few casualties can make or break a long charge.
Given the relative power of shooting and melee right now this is not really a convincing argument.
- It gives you an incentive to use a bigger unit rather than several small ones.
No it doesn't.
- It allows you to actually remove scoring models from an objective, as opposed to having to kill the entire unit.
Who cares? Why is it better to make scoring units easy to remove? There's a huge difference between "this rule has a strategic effect" and "this rule has a desirable strategic effect".
- Without it, Strength D becomes completely foolish, since it will only ever kill the worst guys in a unit.
Well yes, and that's how it should be. D-weapons are supposed to be specialized tools for killing heavy tanks and expensive elite infantry units where there are no "worst guys". They're not supposed to be a general "kill everything" weapon.
- It introduces at least some degree of realism.
Lol no. It's not realistic at all.
- It is SUPER easy to teach and explain. Why does this not matter to anyone?!
You know what's even easier to explain? "Roll saves and then remove your choice of models". Closest-first (unless you can't see the closest model, or they pass their LoS roll, etc) allocation is more complicated than the alternative. So if having a rule that's easy to teach is important then you should agree with me that the current rule sucks.
I consider it LITERALLY the easiest rule I've had to learn in my entire decade playing this (and numerous other) games.
It isn't hard to learn, it's hard to use. "Remove the closest model" is simple, the hard part is arguing about whether the melta gunner or the meatshield is 0.00001" closer and should be removed by the single remaining unsaved wound, or spending absurd amounts of time carefully arranging a unit to maximize protection for its key models.
Colehkxix wrote: Give all models Look Out Sir, the idea being that the weapon is not destroyed and another member of the team picks up the weapon? Just an idea that will never happen.
This just results in an extra roll that is really not necessary. The previous system (allow owning player to allocate, unless the unit takes more wounding hits than there are models, in which case the shooter gets to choose one specific model to take a save) dealt with it much more elegantly.
Nothing has changed apart from the constant price rises, because less than half the people that used to buy 40k are still buying in to 40k.
Apart from rules slowly replacing meaningful player choice, with RANDUM and counter intuitive, and complicated alternatives they have not changed.
So GW targeting the easiest to please , has made no difference to the easiest to please, apart from them having to pay more.
Because all those wanting more value for money nave moved on...
''..Although it is very difficult to polish a turd, GW have found rolling in lots of glitter makes it shine enough for some..'
Note that, due to terrible poll wording, the people who are satisfied with the game are currently tied with the naysayers despite what the results show. Indifferent players are actually very close to second as well.
I feel that 7th edition has fixed a lot of the nonsense found in 6th edition. We got more nonsense in return, but such is life. I personally am enjoying the introduction of new factions and armies to the game, along with the new ways of building an army. I am having loads of fun playing 40k in my particular gaming group, and have no intention to stop anytime soon.
TheNewBlood wrote: Note that, due to terrible poll wording, the people who are satisfied with the game are currently tied with the naysayers despite what the results show. Indifferent players are actually very close to second as well.
I have no idea how you're arriving at both of those faulty conclusions. The poll options as well as the results are quite clear. There is a strong yes, a weak yes, an indifferent, a weak no, a strong no, and a joke/abstain answer in that order. The strong no folks have consistently been the highest category running on average double the next highest answer and the combined unhappy votes have been consistently been in the majority for the duration of the poll so far (>50% weak/strong no combined). Feel free to have a minority viewpoint on the question (it is after all just an opinion) but don't try to blame the poll to soothe your bruised ego.
"Not really, but I don't let it affect me" is a negative choice. It's the one I picked and I HATE the changes in 6/7th edition (except for a few things like hull points and more maneuverable rapid fire options).
I think that, in general, 4th/5th were the best editions (especially 4th, the terrain and LOS rules were excellent), but in the end I don't play 40k for great rules. I play because it is the most amazing fictional universe to wargame in and the models rock. But it could be so much more with better rules.
"Not really, but I don't let it affect me" is a negative choice. It's the one I picked and I HATE the changes in 6/7th edition (except for a few things like hull points and more maneuverable rapid fire options).
I think that, in general, 4th/5th were the best editions (especially 4th, the terrain and LOS rules were excellent), but in the end I don't play 40k for great rules. I play because it is the most amazing fictional universe to wargame in and the models rock. But it could be so much more with better rules.
I actually thought when I made the poll that the weak yes/no and indifferent answers would be roughly equal and the clear favorites with the strong answers in the minority. You can probably infer that from the first post. I actually tried to be as objective in the wording of the poll answers as I could since I've seen so many polls with utterly stupid opinionated answers that insult people who chose them. Despite my very strong viewpoint on the current state of 40k, I worded the poll so as not to do that as well as put the answers that I don't agree with first to avoid any favoritism on my part. I'm quite suprised by the clear single biggest pool of respondents as well as the total number of respondents so far. Frankly, the results on dakka mesh with the yearly financial results in that GW likely has a shrinking fanbase in part BECAUSE of the changes they're making not despite them. I can't walk into my FLGS on a 40k game day and automatically get a game in like I used to back in 5th edition. The dozen to two dozen weekly 40k day gamers has consistently and slowly dwindled at my FLGS to only 3-4 during the last two abbrreviated editions. On top of the rising prices, decreasing utility of books, and IMO horrible rules changes, I can no longer be "guaranteed" to find a game anymore where I play. If the latter wasn't true, I might be tempted to vote weak no but that combined with the rest puts me personally in the strong NO vote with the highest number of folks.
TheNewBlood wrote: Note that, due to terrible poll wording, the people who are satisfied with the game are currently tied with the naysayers despite what the results show. Indifferent players are actually very close to second as well.
I have no idea how you're arriving at both of those faulty conclusions. The poll options as well as the results are quite clear. There is a strong yes, a weak yes, an indifferent, a weak no, a strong no, and a joke/abstain answer in that order. The strong no folks have consistently been the highest category running on average double the next highest answer and the combined unhappy votes have been consistently been in the majority for the duration of the poll so far (>50% weak/strong no combined). Feel free to have a minority viewpoint on the question (it is after all just an opinion) but don't try to blame the poll to soothe your bruised ego.
At the time of posting this, the "Strong Yes" and "Weak Yes" have a combined 38% of the vote, tied with the "Strong No". There are two "Indifferent" responses, giving a combined 22% of the vote. The graph is misleading, as you have split the "Yes" and "Indifferent" votes while the "No" vote is not split. Wording and options are everything when it comes to polls.
With this format, you are guaranteed to have more "No" votes, as there is only one option for them, while "Yes" and "Indifferent" are split between two options. A simple Yes/No/Indifferent poll wording would not only be simpler, but also more reflective of people's opinions. Leave the soft statistics and opinions to the comments.
MWHistorian wrote:It's still a very strong lean to the negative. Wording or not.
The lean to the negative is misleading. The "No" option is tied with the two "Yes" options once the votes are combined.
Blacksails wrote:There is only one indifferent option.
I don't know what part of this is confusing you.
Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.
Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.
Sort of... I'm ok with it but it hasn't changed my gaming habits.
Not really... I'm not a fan of the changes but it hasn't affected what I do.
Emphasis mine.
The first one you consider a yes.
The second one you consider an indifferent.
They have nearly identical wording.
If you consider the second one indifferent, then surely you must consider the first one to be equally indifferent. Especially considering the use of 'Sort of' vs 'Not really'.
MWHistorian wrote:It's still a very strong lean to the negative. Wording or not.
The lean to the negative is misleading. The "No" option is tied with the two "Yes" options once the votes are combined.
Blacksails wrote:There is only one indifferent option.
I don't know what part of this is confusing you.
Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.
Sigh.. whatever. You're clearly misreading the poll because it doesn't agree with YOUR opinion and for some reason you think that you can't have a minority opinion. It's ok to like something that most folks don't. I like the first AVP movie even though most people don't; I'm still alive and my psyche is intact despite that.
The "Sort of" and "Not really" responses are clearly the opposite sides a coin being the soft yes and soft no respectively to the question of "Are you happy?". If you ask your significant other or family member, "Are you happy?" and they tell you "not really", you really would think that is a completely neutral indifferent answer???
Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.
Sort of... I'm ok with it but it hasn't changed my gaming habits.
Not really... I'm not a fan of the changes but it hasn't affected what I do.
Emphasis mine.
The first one you consider a yes.
The second one you consider an indifferent.
They have nearly identical wording.
If you consider the second one indifferent, then surely you must consider the first one to be equally indifferent. Especially considering the use of 'Sort of' vs 'Not really'.
Which is the problem. The two questions have nearly identical wording, leaving it up to the pollee to decide which one best applies to them and splitting the vote. Like I said before, a simple Yes/No/Indifferent would have given much clearer results.
Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.
Sort of... I'm ok with it but it hasn't changed my gaming habits.
Not really... I'm not a fan of the changes but it hasn't affected what I do.
Emphasis mine.
The first one you consider a yes.
The second one you consider an indifferent.
They have nearly identical wording.
If you consider the second one indifferent, then surely you must consider the first one to be equally indifferent. Especially considering the use of 'Sort of' vs 'Not really'.
Which is the problem. The two questions have nearly identical wording, leaving it up to the pollee to decide which one best applies to them and splitting the vote. Like I said before, a simple Yes/No/Indifferent would have given much clearer results.
Then make your own poll with wording you like better?
Which is the problem. The two questions have nearly identical wording, leaving it up to the pollee to decide which one best applies to them and splitting the vote. Like I said before, a simple Yes/No/Indifferent would have given much clearer results.
Either way your earlier statement is wrong about the combined yes being more than the no.
I'm sure most people think the poll is fine and understand it perfectly.
warboss wrote: Sigh.. whatever. You're clearly misreading the poll because it doesn't agree with YOUR opinion and for some reason you think that you can't have a minority opinion. It's ok to like something that most folks don't. I like the first AVP movie even though most people don't; I'm still alive and my psyche is intact despite that.
The "Sort of" and "Not really" responses are clearly the opposite sides a coin being the soft yes and soft no respectively to the question of "Are you happy?". If you ask your significant other or family member, "Are you happy?" and they tell you "not really", you really would think that is a completely neutral indifferent answer???
If I "misread" the poll, how many other people who voted do you think also "misread" the poll?
Yeah, I'm opinionated. Just check my signature. I'm perfectly fine being in the minority on some issues; I even thing that the Decurion is balanced! What I don't like is when people make assumptions about what I think simply because I don't agree with them.
Context is everything. One person's "No" is another person's "I don't care".
I think the poll's validity will be ok by assuming that the vast majority of folks who read the question "are you happy?" and see the answer "not really" will consider that to be a soft negative as intended.
The poll does show that (at least) many people are unhappy with how 40k is currently.
That's a problem for the 40k community and if this continues there won't be much of a community left. (As shattered as it is at the moment.)
I thought the point of the poll worked quite well. There are very few games that people would ever be entirely happy with. This poll gives a good distinction of the types of dissatisfaction that can exist that don't necessary entail quitting the game. IMO this poll would also work well with other games, which I'm assuming is the goal.
I've played one game since Christmas that I can think, and that was with my own modified Ruleset, I've just been playing X Wing as it's easier to transport and I feel like I can win against anything if I play well enough, rather than things being somewhat of a foregone conclusion depending on what faction and models you're running.
"Not really, but I don't let it affect me" is a negative choice. It's the one I picked and I HATE the changes in 6/7th edition (except for a few things like hull points and more maneuverable rapid fire options).
I think that, in general, 4th/5th were the best editions (especially 4th, the terrain and LOS rules were excellent), but in the end I don't play 40k for great rules. I play because it is the most amazing fictional universe to wargame in and the models rock. But it could be so much more with better rules.
I actually thought when I made the poll that the weak yes/no and indifferent answers would be roughly equal and the clear favorites with the strong answers in the minority. You can probably infer that from the first post. I actually tried to be as objective in the wording of the poll answers as I could since I've seen so many polls with utterly stupid opinionated answers that insult people who chose them. Despite my very strong viewpoint on the current state of 40k, I worded the poll so as not to do that as well as put the answers that I don't agree with first to avoid any favoritism on my part. I'm quite suprised by the clear single biggest pool of respondents as well as the total number of respondents so far. Frankly, the results on dakka mesh with the yearly financial results in that GW likely has a shrinking fanbase in part BECAUSE of the changes they're making not despite them. I can't walk into my FLGS on a 40k game day and automatically get a game in like I used to back in 5th edition. The dozen to two dozen weekly 40k day gamers has consistently and slowly dwindled at my FLGS to only 3-4 during the last two abbrreviated editions. On top of the rising prices, decreasing utility of books, and IMO horrible rules changes, I can no longer be "guaranteed" to find a game anymore where I play. If the latter wasn't true, I might be tempted to vote weak no but that combined with the rest puts me personally in the strong NO vote with the highest number of folks.
I would be careful to draw too much conclusions from this poll. Topics like this tend to draw in only those who are negative about the game and those who are most vocal about supporting it. Most others have long tired from the constant topics Dakka has on this subject. Due to a biased sample population the results of this poll might not be indicative of the 40k community or even the Dakka community as a whole.
Also, the question itself can be interpreted in many different ways and the possible answers are ambiguously worded.
Plus you have to consider that a portion of the negative people who might have frequented the forums dislike the game so much that they're not around to vote anymore.
Torga_DW wrote: Plus you have to consider that a portion of the negative people who might have frequented the forums dislike the game so much that they're not around to vote anymore.
Actually, little known fact, but when you quit 40k, you're automatically registered on a mailing list that informs you of polls and threads asking if you like 40k.
Torga_DW wrote: Plus you have to consider that a portion of the negative people who might have frequented the forums dislike the game so much that they're not around to vote anymore.
Actually, little known fact, but when you quit 40k, nope nope nope.
Hush Blacksails, stop revealing why there's so much negativity around 40k, you can't let people know you just hang around because you get mail every time something positive about 40k is said. I mean why else would you hang around 40k forums?
Oh yeah, better vote on the poll, wouldn't want my occasional post in a while to look like I'm just waiting to creepily stalk Blacksails.
Torga_DW wrote: Plus you have to consider that a portion of the negative people who might have frequented the forums dislike the game so much that they're not around to vote anymore.
Actually, little known fact, but when you quit 40k, nope nope nope.
Hush Blacksails, stop revealing why there's so much negativity around 40k, you can't let people know you just hang around because you get mail every time something positive about 40k is said. I mean why else would you hang around 40k forums?
You're right. Hopefully I can keep my membership to the mailing list.
Here is my opinion:
As some may know, I'm a fan of 2nd ed. It's when I was first introduced to wargamming and has a special place for introducing me into the hobby.
As I see it, the rules have been taking me further and further from what I consider to be the original war game. Don't get me wrong, I still love 40k and all other war games out there are simply (in my opinion) copies of the original, so I will continue to play even long after GW has closed it's doors as long as I can find someone to play with as there are now 6 different sets of rules out there that we can choose from to play a game
Basically not.
Have a look at the last two codex releases, SM and DA.
Basically no new models and rules, just a slight adaption of the old.
The new parts are formations which hardly justify a new codex.
The price increases seem to accelarate with time. 33€ for five Assault Marines and 46€ for the printed DA codex.
Yarium wrote: I'd like to hear from all these people saying these new rules are making them buy less and want to quit.
*Raises hand*
I no longer actively engage in 40K.
Shoddy rules, no semblance of game-balance and high prices made me leave. GW's game-philosophy, the loss of army-identities and the SELL-MOAR-MODELS attitude kept me away.
I went from buying every single new kit (minus Chaos-related ones) and every single codex/rule-book/supplement.........to buying nothing.
I now play X-Wing instead.
PS. I hang around hoping against hope that the game changes back into something I find enjoyable. I still have my armies (see sig), but they're boxed and shelved.
Yarium wrote: I'd like to hear from all these people saying these new rules are making them buy less and want to quit.
*Raises hand*
I no longer actively engage in 40K.
Shoddy rules, no semblance of game-balance and high prices made me leave. GW's game-philosophy, the loss of army-identities and the SELL-MOAR-MODELS attitude kept me away.
I went from buying every single new kit (minus Chaos-related ones) and every single codex/rule-book/supplement.........to buying nothing.
I now play X-Wing instead.
PS. I hang around hoping against hope that the game changes back into something I find enjoyable. I still have my armies (see sig), but they're boxed and shelved.
Why not just find an oldhammer group if you don't like playing "modern" 40k? Seems a shame to shelve that much of a collection.
Yarium wrote: I'd like to hear from all these people saying these new rules are making them buy less and want to quit.
*Raises hand*
I no longer actively engage in 40K.
Shoddy rules, no semblance of game-balance and high prices made me leave. GW's game-philosophy, the loss of army-identities and the SELL-MOAR-MODELS attitude kept me away.
I went from buying every single new kit (minus Chaos-related ones) and every single codex/rule-book/supplement.........to buying nothing.
I now play X-Wing instead.
PS. I hang around hoping against hope that the game changes back into something I find enjoyable. I still have my armies (see sig), but they're boxed and shelved.
Why not just find an oldhammer group if you don't like playing "modern" 40k? Seems a shame to shelve that much of a collection.
You know, that might be a good idea. Although I imagine finding an acceptable "zero-point" that a group of people can agree on might be problematic.
Anyway, I think I'll look into that.
Yarium wrote: I'd like to hear from all these people saying these new rules are making them buy less and want to quit.
*Raises hand*
I no longer actively engage in 40K.
Shoddy rules, no semblance of game-balance and high prices made me leave. GW's game-philosophy, the loss of army-identities and the SELL-MOAR-MODELS attitude kept me away.
I went from buying every single new kit (minus Chaos-related ones) and every single codex/rule-book/supplement.........to buying nothing.
I now play X-Wing instead.
PS. I hang around hoping against hope that the game changes back into something I find enjoyable. I still have my armies (see sig), but they're boxed and shelved.
Why not just find an oldhammer group if you don't like playing "modern" 40k? Seems a shame to shelve that much of a collection.
You know, that might be a good idea. Although I imagine finding an acceptable "zero-point" that a group of people can agree on might be problematic.
Anyway, I think I'll look into that.
I know a few groups on facebook, and I'm sure you could find a few folks locally. 5th ed and prior codexes are dirt cheap on ebay, so getting people into it is cheaper. Definite con (to me at least) is the fact that army lists and what not would be relatively static.
-edit-
Hell, I was talking to a guy on facebook this morning that runs a group that has been playing 2nd Ed since it came out. It can be done lol.
You know, that might be a good idea. Although I imagine finding an acceptable "zero-point" that a group of people can agree on might be problematic.
Ultimately, it's just a case of agreeing on which set of core rules you want to use. From there, pretty much any of the codexes could be adapted to fit, although some will take more work than others to fit certain editions. (anything 2nd ed with later editions, or vice versa, being the most amount of work)
I was in games workshop and a mate was complaining that blood angels got shafted, basically saying marine dreads got more attacks, cheaper termies etc.
So I said "so what, just pay the cost marines do for terminators, and give your dreads 4 attacks"
The gw manager said "yeah and str10 attacks and jetbikes and lascannon"
So I basically said to him, if your company cannot be arsed to do its job properly and it's down to us to fix the nonsense you have Created, and it's clear were not getting an faq, then we don't appreciate you taking the piss when we try and fix your companies mess.
It quite annoyed me, after I thought to myself that this guy is a managing representative of games workshop, is that the attitude they encourage there, as the guy is incompetent to say the least, I've personally seen him sell things to a kid that the kid very clearly didn't Want, I've seen him push his own staff members out of the job by bullying them, and this guy is a manager, this is the grass roots gw guys, I am genuinely surprised by it and if he represents gw management, I can see why they treat their player base with scorn it seems like.
Formosa wrote: I was in games workshop and a mate was complaining that blood angels got shafted, basically saying marine dreads got more attacks, cheaper termies etc.
So I said "so what, just pay the cost marines do for terminators, and give your dreads 4 attacks"
The gw manager said "yeah and str10 attacks and jetbikes and lascannon"
So I basically said to him, if your company cannot be arsed to do its job properly and it's down to us to fix the nonsense you have Created, and it's clear were not getting an faq, then we don't appreciate you taking the piss when we try and fix your companies mess.
It quite annoyed me, after I thought to myself that this guy is a managing representative of games workshop, is that the attitude they encourage there, as the guy is incompetent to say the least, I've personally seen him sell things to a kid that the kid very clearly didn't Want, I've seen him push his own staff members out of the job by bullying them, and this guy is a manager, this is the grass roots gw guys, I am genuinely surprised by it and if he represents gw management, I can see why they treat their player base with scorn it seems like.
Did he then reply with "No groaning in my store!"?
Formosa wrote: after I thought to myself that this guy is a managing representative of games workshop
It's always a stretch to assume an employee of a large multinational company represents the company as a whole. I don't think there's much connection between a single store GW manager and GW upper management. The manager of my local GW is a great guy, I wouldn't blame any of GW's failings on him nor would I attribute any of his good qualities to GW as a whole
Formosa wrote: after I thought to myself that this guy is a managing representative of games workshop
It's always a stretch to assume an employee of a large multinational company represents the company as a whole. I don't think there's much connection between a single store GW manager and GW upper management. The manager of my local GW is a great guy, I wouldn't blame any of GW's failings on him nor would I attribute any of his good qualities to GW as a whole
But by the same token, every employee is a "representative" of their employer to some extent. Negative behavior by a single staff member can have repercussions for the company as a whole, even when that negative behavior is performed on the employee's own time and/or has nothing to do with the company itself. The simple (in)action of employing people whose behavior harms or pushes away customers can have an impact on the perception of the company's values, which may hurt their bottom line at the end of the year.
If I worked for Apple or Microsoft and spent my after-work hours screaming racial obscenities at people, while still wearing my uniform, you can bet that even if I were nothing but a coffee-boy for their lowest-level office (and thus the least qualified rep for the company ever), I'd still get fired for being a complete dick.
Obviously a somewhat different situation, but my point is that if everyone in a store's area knows a store manager for his bad, anti-customer behavior, that store will probably get less business than the store where the local manager is a great guy. As a company, one (should) strive to have the company's image represented by the latter, not the former.
Anglacon wrote: Sadly, I have played this game competitively (and Dark Eldar almost exclusively) for well over 16 years.
I am now selling off all my models. I have a few more tournament obligations to meet, then I am done and will not look back.
It is a combination of being unable to keep up with all the new rules, formations and combos as well as my favorite army being stabbed in the back, kicked into a ditch and laughed at while every codex since has been given the red carpet treatment.
Screw you GW. 1 guy leaving may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but this 1 mans money will be spent elsewhere, and not with your company.
Not quite every army - Orks were the first 7th edition codex, and right before DEIIRC. Rest assured we got *exactly* the same treatment
Formosa wrote: after I thought to myself that this guy is a managing representative of games workshop
It's always a stretch to assume an employee of a large multinational company represents the company as a whole. I don't think there's much connection between a single store GW manager and GW upper management. The manager of my local GW is a great guy, I wouldn't blame any of GW's failings on him nor would I attribute any of his good qualities to GW as a whole
But by the same token, every employee is a "representative" of their employer to some extent. Negative behavior by a single staff member can have repercussions for the company as a whole, even when that negative behavior is performed on the employee's own time and/or has nothing to do with the company itself. The simple (in)action of employing people whose behavior harms or pushes away customers can have an impact on the perception of the company's values, which may hurt their bottom line at the end of the year.
If I worked for Apple or Microsoft and spent my after-work hours screaming racial obscenities at people, while still wearing my uniform, you can bet that even if I were nothing but a coffee-boy for their lowest-level office (and thus the least qualified rep for the company ever), I'd still get fired for being a complete dick.
Obviously a somewhat different situation, but my point is that if everyone in a store's area knows a store manager for his bad, anti-customer behavior, that store will probably get less business than the store where the local manager is a great guy. As a company, one (should) strive to have the company's image represented by the latter, not the former.
Of course, and I'm sure people do get fired if and when their boss or their bosses boss figures out how badly you're representing the company.
Of course staff reflect on the company they are working for, but at the same time I think we have to accept that these days with huge multinational companies there's a huge disconnect between the individual staff we might interact with an the company as a whole or indeed the upper management. I'm sure there's a lot of people who would get fired from a lot of jobs if upper management actually knew how crap they were.
It's not a small independent company in the good old days any more where the person you are interacting with genuinely was personally employed by the manager of the company. When we go in to a Walmart or a McDonald's or a Games Workshop, I think it's time we realise that the person we are interacting with has no say in the company as a whole, upper management has probably never even met the person and if they're being a douche it's likely because no one in a position to fire them has discovered how much of a douche they are.
GW killed 'modern' 40K for me after 22 years of playing week-in-week-out since the age of 8. I used to inhale very codex/book/WD I could get my hands on or scrape the pennies together for.
Now I'm back playing 2nd ed like when I started.
Yes the rules are just as(if not more)broken and our group have developed the "Don't Be A ****" veto rule (which has never been used I might add) but the game had real charm then.
The fluff section(which was at least half of every codex) made me want/need to collect every army I read about (anyone remember the 2nd Ed Tyranid codex that oozed gothic horror?).
The balance is applied to the game by us players as the lists are very 'take what you want' pretty much but when the fluff is so bloody good we have to stick to it!
I am so so. I mean, we are seeing a new age of codex, which might as well be a new edition. When a new edition drops, all the codex get revamped one at a time, but some are left behind. Currently the new ones are miles ahead of many of the old ones.
That is frustrating, but the real frustrating part is hearing people complain and rage about it. I have been playing less because of the player base.
Formosa wrote: after I thought to myself that this guy is a managing representative of games workshop
It's always a stretch to assume an employee of a large multinational company represents the company as a whole. I don't think there's much connection between a single store GW manager and GW upper management. The manager of my local GW is a great guy, I wouldn't blame any of GW's failings on him nor would I attribute any of his good qualities to GW as a whole
But by the same token, every employee is a "representative" of their employer to some extent. Negative behavior by a single staff member can have repercussions for the company as a whole, even when that negative behavior is performed on the employee's own time and/or has nothing to do with the company itself. The simple (in)action of employing people whose behavior harms or pushes away customers can have an impact on the perception of the company's values, which may hurt their bottom line at the end of the year.
If I worked for Apple or Microsoft and spent my after-work hours screaming racial obscenities at people, while still wearing my uniform, you can bet that even if I were nothing but a coffee-boy for their lowest-level office (and thus the least qualified rep for the company ever), I'd still get fired for being a complete dick.
Obviously a somewhat different situation, but my point is that if everyone in a store's area knows a store manager for his bad, anti-customer behavior, that store will probably get less business than the store where the local manager is a great guy. As a company, one (should) strive to have the company's image represented by the latter, not the former.
Of course, and I'm sure people do get fired if and when their boss or their bosses boss figures out how badly you're representing the company.
Of course staff reflect on the company they are working for, but at the same time I think we have to accept that these days with huge multinational companies there's a huge disconnect between the individual staff we might interact with an the company as a whole or indeed the upper management. I'm sure there's a lot of people who would get fired from a lot of jobs if upper management actually knew how crap they were.
It's not a small independent company in the good old days any more where the person you are interacting with genuinely was personally employed by the manager of the company. When we go in to a Walmart or a McDonald's or a Games Workshop, I think it's time we realise that the person we are interacting with has no say in the company as a whole, upper management has probably never even met the person and if they're being a douche it's likely because no one in a position to fire them has discovered how much of a douche they are.
If they hired on skill and not "how much they love GW" I could get behind that, a little. Their need to hire on no skill and lots of get-up-and-go instead, put GW in total fault for their staff. Unlike, Walmart or McDonald it is one guy if you can't vet one guy for the store only he woreks at, the company is a fault.
Asuo wrote: For me personnelly 40k has just turned into EPIC with bigger models. Its one of the few games that dosen't scale too badly as you rack up the points.
Indeed. 40k is just as unbalanced no matter what points you play at.
The only thing I'm unhappy with is I'm kinda poor and the Prices really don't fit in my pocket. The production cost of both SMTac Squad and Sternguard veterans is the same. They contain the same amount of plastic material as Tac squad (even less btw cause they are 5 minis in the box), the minis are exact the same size but they cost 50 USD and Tac Squad is ~21USD.
I have no Idea why is this. I think Because Sternguard vets are stronger and have more points in game. So the price in in game points increase?
Whatever the case is im gonna struggle cause I love WH40K.
I hear of some really nice mini wargames like Dust, where the starter pack is cheap and minis in the box come with assembled and primed miniatures.
The rules are weak, the game is cumbersome and counter-intuitive, the models are over-priced and the company works very hard at squeezing the customer at every opportunity.
I actually bought my first models and codex around the holidays last year. It's been quite a ride, especially as Necron decurions and Eldar wraithknights pushed my 6th edition Tau into mid-tier. ^^;
I like the way the game's developed, with the 7th edition rules and "7.5 edition" datasheets and formations. It feels more modular and professional than I'm used to seeing 40k historically.
I think the game would probably be better off without web exclusive formations, though. I also think the codex imbalance is kind of unfair.
@Jewelfox.
What previous editions of 40k are you comparing the current game to.(3rd to 6th?).
I can understand some people seeing a 'progression' of sorts if they selectively view previous editions from a particular stand point.
However, compared to other games 40k has always had over complicated rules .
And as the editions have progressed the level of complication has increased , I believe to try to make up for the ever decreasing level of tactical game complexity.
Lanrak wrote: @Jewelfox.
What previous editions of 40k are you comparing the current game to.(3rd to 6th?).
I can understand some people seeing a 'progression' of sorts if they selectively view previous editions from a particular stand point.
However, compared to other games 40k has always had over complicated rules .
And as the editions have progressed the level of complication has increased , I believe to try to make up for the ever decreasing level of tactical game complexity.
There is a definite progression. 3rd reset the whole game and 4th and 5th were refinements on that same core gameplay idea that while never perfect were logical. 6th, while it didn't reset/invalidate everything before it, was a much bigger change than the previous two with game design based on sales instead of the actual game. It became even more random and started the DLC microtransaction trend (which has admittedly simmered down in 7th) and paved the way for the almost complete abandonment of the army organization and balance in the premature 7th that the three previous editions stressed. 7th just completely jumped the shark and was a pure early cash in to make short term sales (much like the early codex rehashes) at the expense of long term ones. All the crap about opening up the game for fans to use all their minis is just spin; the real reason is so that you can theoretically buy all the minis but it doesn't seem to have worked out that way. Fans seem to be reacting predictably to the complete abandonment of any semblance of reason and balance in the game. It certainly was never perfect (3.5 chaos codex, 5th GK, etc) but at least there was an effort put forth overall to keeping it sane that is gone now. It's no longer a unit or two in a codex or a rogue writer that made his pet army too powerful but everything that is screwed up. With how "open" the game is, everyone can spam a particularly broken unit now. It used to be you had to worry about uber broken chaos daemon princes in 3.5 only in chaos marine armies; now you have to worry about eldar D-spam allies in every army potentially because greed.
@warboss.
I sort of agree with you assessment of 3rd to 7th ed 40k.
3rd ed was originally developed as a cleaned up large skirmish game, eg a progression of 2nd ed.
But was changed to a larger battle game format at the 11th hour by corporate management.
The devs really tried to get a reasonably balanced battle game with the 3rd ed reset.But ended up with 'Blandhammer.'
So they added more diversity with 3.5 .
After the 40k overfiend Andy Chambers realized some core flaws with using stripped down WHFB rules with a sci fi battle game.He pitched a completely new rule set for the new game size.But this was rejected by the corporate management , as they just lost lots of customers with the way they had changed the game size against the wishes of the dev team. (We ignored you and lost customers ,so we are not in a position to risk loosing any more customers by listening to you now. )
4th and 5th ed the devs really tried to make' WHFB in space with lots of special rules we can not explain that well, or really understand how they impact the game,'
work.(Limited play testing and resources hindered the process though,)
But then realized they had a system that was broken at the core rules level.(Like several game developers had said previously, before they left GW.)
They then leaked the '6th ed play test rules' .
I think this was a serious attempt to try to look for fixes in the core rules.But again the corporate management simply made them push more sales of more new kits and not address real game play issues.
The only restrictions they manage to get in 6th ed to try to curb excesses and maintain any sense of background,, were finally removed in 7th ed .
'Buy what every you like and you can play a game of 40k with it because we have officially given up on game play considerations 'edition.
Ignoring the background to push sales short term , is the act of a desperate company IMO.
Compared to other rule sets, (by ex GW game developers,) 40k rules and game play are a diffuse over complicated mess.
IMO, its the interference of GW corporate managers that has messed up 40k game play.
I didnt play 7th as it's not a very tactical ruleset tbh but I looked at it with sympathy, go bonkers edition. Not anymore though, paid formations and cartoonish deviantartey freelance artwork killed it for me.
5th was best edition so far imo and Allesio should have been allowed to write 6th. I hated how you could shoot 19 termagants hidden in the basement because you saw half the arse of the 20th one because ricochets but look out sir is equaly ridiculous. I hate more things now anyway, randumb forge the narrative etc.
No, the game is a mess and is not worth the premium price it asks. The rules alone are overpriced drivel that is rushed out at too fast a pace with little to no regard for game balance. Random is seen as a good mechanic for a strategic/tactical game, which it is not. The models are insanely priced for the quantity required to play a standard sized game for minimal quality in comparison to leading model shop competitors.
Better minis, I'd play Malifaux or Infinity. For better rules, I play Warmachine. Warhammer 40k is a trainwreck and I am tired of having to play "the way we play it" everywhere I traveled. So I sold 90% of it off before 7E hit.
On a more minor note, as an ex foot power blob player from 5th, I remember how cool it looked to have all my sarges and commissars leading the charge from the front of the platoon. Now, I have to hide them with a wrap of 2 guardsmen thick to ensure casualties don't leak in to them. Casualty removal in 5th took far less time than it has in 6th and 7th with that single change, plus the time I now have to spend ensuring my bubble wrap is properly done.
I agree whole-heartedly with this entire post, but most fervantly with the highlighted portion. I hate how unheroic units look now.
You do realize that leading from the front with the 6/7ed targeting rules is actually far more heroic? Hiding your hero in the back to avoid taking the hit, or running them in front when you know they can't be hit (with the old method) isn't playing the hero.
Talk the talk, walk the walk and all that.
Would a better system be to take casualties from the front and replace the look out sir rule with a "pick up his kit" rule where a special, heavy, power sword etc, could be picked up on a 3+ by survivors in the gory aftermath?
It might go a long way towards quickening things up. Tanking IC's can be painfully slow sometimes.
In answer to the poll, I enjoy the game, flyers, overwatch, and allies are all things I enjoy and have wanted for a long time. Personally I wish there was a quicker resolution to assaults, breakthrough assaults, pinning through volume of fire, and less linear deployment zones. Don't really care for how "clean" the battle lines are in 40k.
Overall I still enjoy the game, and find more often than not I have more trouble with specific gamers rather than 40k itself. It isn't Epic, but its more fun for me then checkers.
Would a better system be to take casualties from the front and replace the look out sir rule with a "pick up his kit" rule where a special, heavy, power sword etc, could be picked up on a 3+ by survivors in the gory aftermath?
That's actually a pretty cool idea. If you fail the roll, doesn't mean you didn't pick up the weapon, just means it was destroyed and couldn't be used anymore.
I've always taken my casualties from the front anyway, when I played (back then they had the "pile in" rule for CC which auto moved models into base contact if another model died. Not sure if they still have that rule)
TheKbob wrote: No, the game is a mess and is not worth the premium price it asks. The rules alone are overpriced drivel that is rushed out at too fast a pace with little to no regard for game balance. Random is seen as a good mechanic for a strategic/tactical game, which it is not. The models are insanely priced for the quantity required to play a standard sized game for minimal quality in comparison to leading model shop competitors.
I agree wholeheartedly. Collected around 9 full armies, painted, played etc over a period of 6 years. I had hoped that the rapid pace of new codexes coming out were going to fix glaring problems with the game: they didn't. Worse, it appears that they didn't even try. I'll wait another year or two, then check back. If it's still in a sorry state then I'll sell everything off.
You do realize that leading from the front with the 6/7ed targeting rules is actually far more heroic? Hiding your hero in the back to avoid taking the hit, or running them in front when you know they can't be hit (with the old method) isn't playing the hero.
Talk the talk, walk the walk and all that.
Yes of course. There is nothing more heroic and cinematic then setting your Ork Nob in the front of a mob, then pulling him right back off the table as he jumps in front of every single shot pointed toward the unit.
dracpanzer wrote: Would a better system be to take casualties from the front and replace the look out sir rule with a "pick up his kit" rule where a special, heavy, power sword etc, could be picked up on a 3+ by survivors in the gory aftermath?
That's actually a pretty cool idea. If you fail the roll, doesn't mean you didn't pick up the weapon, just means it was destroyed and couldn't be used anymore.
No, it's a terrible idea because it adds even more pointless dice rolling. Why is it so important to have a chance of failure? Just let the owning player choose their casualties and significantly reduce the complexity of the wound allocation process.
No, it's a terrible idea because it adds even more pointless dice rolling. Why is it so important to have a chance of failure? Just let the owning player choose their casualties and significantly reduce the complexity of the wound allocation process.
You do realize that leading from the front with the 6/7ed targeting rules is actually far more heroic? Hiding your hero in the back to avoid taking the hit, or running them in front when you know they can't be hit (with the old method) isn't playing the hero.
Talk the talk, walk the walk and all that.
Would a better system be to take casualties from the front and replace the look out sir rule with a "pick up his kit" rule where a special, heavy, power sword etc, could be picked up on a 3+ by survivors in the gory aftermath?
It might go a long way towards quickening things up. Tanking IC's can be painfully slow sometimes.
You do realize my main gripe is with the visual appeal of having your ICs at the front without suffering from the 'tactical' idea of managing your models in the current system, right? My choices now are either to hide my characters for maximum in game effectiveness, or look cool while losing expensive and important characters to keep my blobs around.
And no, that idea would only slow things down even more and once more put the narrative out of the player's control and into the hands of the dice. In other words, randomness for the sake of being random.
Here's an idea, why not put control back into the player's hand with the simplest possible resolution method that both makes as much sense fluff wise as it does make sense crunch wise for smooth gameplay.
I've nearly completely stopped playing, I hate the direction the game is going. GW seems so obstinate when it comes to game balance and general rules writing. All it would take is the regular release of FAQ's to tweak game balance, and they just refuse to do it.... I just don't understand the logic. To really compound the insult they now take crappy units and force them down players throats with formations and detachments...
You do realize my main gripe is with the visual appeal of having your ICs at the front without suffering from the 'tactical' idea of managing your models in the current system, right? My choices now are either to hide my characters for maximum in game effectiveness, or look cool while losing expensive and important characters to keep my blobs around.
I get it, I just don't have any sympathy for it. Its your choice to hide or be heroic, at least I don't have to suffer through watching all my shots only hit models in the rear rank of your unit while your super killy gits up front dodge every shot. Yes the thought that the casualties always coming from the closest models isn't as "realistic" as random targeting, I wouldn't want that either.
It does afford the shooting player to be able to have some control over what they are trying to assign target priority too with unit positioning. Are we just advocating for the player being shot at to have control of who dies first? Shouldn't the player who is targeting the unit have some control too? Or must we all be forced to whittle through 50 guardsmen to start getting a chance at the heroic commissar who knew he had 50 additional wounds if he was just smart enough to join up with first platoon?
And no, that idea would only slow things down even more and once more put the narrative out of the player's control and into the hands of the dice. In other words, randomness for the sake of being random.
I would like to see if removing look out sir entirely and resolving wounds closest model first, where surviving models in the unit could roll ONCE to see if one of them could pick up the squads meltagun, or sgt's power sword, would take less time to resolve than the current look out sir system.
Here's an idea, why not put control back into the player's hand with the simplest possible resolution method that both makes as much sense fluff wise as it does make sense crunch wise for smooth gameplay.
I'm all for it. But shouldn't it be putting the control back in both players hands? I like dice in a game, they keep it from turning into little kids knocking each others army men over as fast as they can then crying "nuh uh" when their favorite guy throwing a grenade gets his number called. Seems like your advocating for YOU to keep control of what models get hit.
You have the option to keep your "favorite" guys up front and think they are heroic or hide them in back like the cowards they truely are. I should have the option to deploy my troops so as to kill your little dandies first if I want or even last if I want to isolate them to pile on and ensure his fifteen friends are no help in the challenge my MoW card says I need to get busy with.
Throwing in one 3+ to succeed dice roll is a fair trade off IMO to see if your units remaining troops are smart enough to remember the meltagun kills stuff their bolter just won't. You still have control of who goes where in your unit. I still have control of which direction I want to shoot from first so as to get at my intended target with the most effective shots.
And there's still a chance your bolter marine will remember that plasma gun is better at killing terminators. A pretty good chance. Different doesn't always = Bad. I will talk to some friends about playtesting it a bit. We will see if 50+ wound commissars are better or worse than that 3+ pickup the special bits roll.
dracpanzer wrote: Are we just advocating for the player being shot at to have control of who dies first?
Personally, I'm advocating for a return to the 'owner chooses, coupled with Torrent of Fire' system used previously. So the owner generally chooses, but excessive firepower (and precision shots) would allow the shooter to choose the casualty.
Shouldn't the player who is targeting the unit have some control too?
He does. He gets to choose which unit he targets.
And that's the big issue - 5th edition saw 40K well on its way to becoming a unit-based game, which was needed to keep it playable at higher points levels. 6/7th edition has wound the clock back, by returning a whole bunch of fiddly individual-model mechanics that don't belong in a game of this size.
Or must we all be forced to whittle through 50 guardsmen to start getting a chance at the heroic commissar who knew he had 50 additional wounds if he was just smart enough to join up with first platoon?
Unless you overwhelm the unit with torrent of fire, or take him out with a sniper, yes.
I voted no. After the lousy and overpriced 6th ed nid dex, quickly followed by the money grabbing dataslates, and with 7th on the horizon I stopped playing 40k. The game is a mess with more random, less and less balance and just a 'throw whatever you want together attitude' [buy more expensive stuff] that turns me off.
The only hope is that GW sees the decline/dissatisfaction of their player base and turns things around with 8th ed (massive overhaul) or more likely continues in the same direction and if sales decline enough tank with the hope that a game company buys the IP and makes 40k into a decent game (maybe slim chance but that is all that is left at this stage).
I don't see the huge confusion over "models closest to shots" die first mentality. Why pick and choose models? It'd be a pretty faith based system on a game that has players trying to win.
If it wasn't overwhelming firepower, why would I choose my warboss to take the wounds over my boys?
If it was overwhelming firepower, why would my opponent not just throw them all on my warboss?
Why risk heroes or individual units at all?
Closest models taking hits first makes it more tactical than choosing anything. This means armies with drop pods or trying to move into position want to gain that angle where the juicy targets can take more hits than the bubble wrap around them.
Choosing casualties doesn't make sense. If this is some odd IRL logic that's being used, I can use my experience and say that IRL logic doesn't exist.
I get it, I just don't have any sympathy for it. Its your choice to hide or be heroic, at least I don't have to suffer through watching all my shots only hit models in the rear rank of your unit while your super killy gits up front dodge every shot. Yes the thought that the casualties always coming from the closest models isn't as "realistic" as random targeting, I wouldn't want that either.
And that's a gakky choice, mechanically, and fluff wise. Either I spend the extra time micro managing models so that my melta gunners and sergeants are safely bubble wrapped, or I throw the game for a turn of looking cool. Its not hard to realize that the overwhelming majority of players in the overwhelming majority of situations will pick the former over the latter.
Yeah so you have to watch random guys get killed off the back. Use your imagination. Its an abstraction; an approximation of what's actually happening. In a game that can potentially field upwards of 200 individual models, you want the game to run smoothly and efficiently, and let the players make up the reasons why 'X' is happening. When you think of the blob as less of a detailed representation of every person's exact position and more of a general footprint they're all running, ducking, weaving, and shooting in, it makes a lot more sense.
It does afford the shooting player to be able to have some control over what they are trying to assign target priority too with unit positioning. Are we just advocating for the player being shot at to have control of who dies first? Shouldn't the player who is targeting the unit have some control too? Or must we all be forced to whittle through 50 guardsmen to start getting a chance at the heroic commissar who knew he had 50 additional wounds if he was just smart enough to join up with first platoon?
The shooting player should. As Insaniak mentioned, there's a compromise through a mechanic like torrent of fire. Likewise, we have precision shots USR. Sounds like plenty of control to me without burdening the game or removing too much control from the owning player.
I would like to see if removing look out sir entirely and resolving wounds closest model first, where surviving models in the unit could roll ONCE to see if one of them could pick up the squads meltagun, or sgt's power sword, would take less time to resolve than the current look out sir system.
I too would like to see LOS gone. I am absolutely against more dice rolling when you can just have a simpler method and justify the story in your head. People always talk about forging a narrative, but then demand for the rules to have a chart, rule, or roll to make for every detailed action. Just make up the story in your head that the metla gunner was actually shot and his best friend picked up to enact revenge on the chaos land raider that vaporized him. Or how the sergeant died in single combat with a Tyranid warrior, only for Master Corporal Bob to pick up the power axe and finish off the warrior while rallying his platoon onto the objective.
I'm all for it. But shouldn't it be putting the control back in both players hands? I like dice in a game, they keep it from turning into little kids knocking each others army men over as fast as they can then crying "nuh uh" when their favorite guy throwing a grenade gets his number called. Seems like your advocating for YOU to keep control of what models get hit.
There's a difference between using the dice as an impartial judge to resolve opposed checks and using the dice to justify every detail of the battle. Abstraction is key here. Let the player remove their own casualties and then add a small handful of exceptions and workarounds for the opponent.
You have the option to keep your "favorite" guys up front and think they are heroic or hide them in back like the cowards they truely are. I should have the option to deploy my troops so as to kill your little dandies first if I want or even last if I want to isolate them to pile on and ensure his fifteen friends are no help in the challenge my MoW card says I need to get busy with.
As I said earlier, its a gakky option.
Throwing in one 3+ to succeed dice roll is a fair trade off IMO to see if your units remaining troops are smart enough to remember the meltagun kills stuff their bolter just won't. You still have control of who goes where in your unit. I still have control of which direction I want to shoot from first so as to get at my intended target with the most effective shots.
And that's still the same problem the current system has, only with more dice rolling and the same amount of micro management. In that system, anyone worth their salt is still going to bubble wrap their important guys so you don't even get to make that dice roll. Its still model micro management and not anymore fluffy than just making up the story yourself.
And there's still a chance your bolter marine will remember that plasma gun is better at killing terminators. A pretty good chance. Different doesn't always = Bad. I will talk to some friends about playtesting it a bit. We will see if 50+ wound commissars are better or worse than that 3+ pickup the special bits roll.
This game needs less dice rolling, not more. Forge your own narrative the way you want by letting players remove the models they want. Its faster, simpler, easier to learn, and as fluffy/narrative oriented as any alternative.
Choosing casualties doesn't make sense. If this is some odd IRL logic that's being used, I can use my experience and say that IRL logic doesn't exist.
It makes as much sense as choosing casualties.
Tell me, do bullets always hit the closest models in the exact order they appear from the firer?
Because that's what you're saying when you say its more logical. Once more, abstraction is key here. Stop thinking of the models as being representations of their specific location, but as a constantly moving and shifting mass within the unit's footprint.
OrkaMorka wrote: I don't see the huge confusion over "models closest to shots" die first mentality.
The issue isn't that it's confusing. The issue is that it leads to pointless micro-managing of models within units. And when you combine it with mixed armour and Look Out Sir, it leads to having to roll saves one at a time, which is just downright irritating against massed incoming shots.
Why pick and choose models? It'd be a pretty faith based system on a game that has players trying to win.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
If it wasn't overwhelming firepower, why would I choose my warboss to take the wounds over my boys?
If it was overwhelming firepower, why would my opponent not just throw them all on my warboss?
Yes, that's the point.
Against normal incoming shooting, you get to absorb the shots with your meatshields. That's what they're there for.
Against overwhelming fire, the shooter gets to allocate a shot specifically against the model he wants to take out.
This isn't just an abstract idea that's being thrown out there. It's how the game used to work, and it worked just fine, and with far fewer issues than are caused by the current system.
Choosing casualties doesn't make sense. If this is some odd IRL logic that's being used, I can use my experience and say that IRL logic doesn't exist.
It's less real-world illogical than the guy at the front of the unit taking all of the incoming fire until he dies, and then the next nearest model becoming the bullet magnet.
Allowing the owning player to choose the casualties allows you to incorporate multiple abstract ideas in there - the guy who catches the shot isn't always the closest guy to the enemy, the special weapon doesn't always get disintegrated when the guy carrying it cops a bullet and can be picked up by other squad members, and the static models don't actually represent a bunch of guys standing around in frozen poses with their feet nailed to big round circles... they're a unit of guys who are potentially constantly in motion.
All of those abstracts go away when you force casualties on the nearest model.
I don't see a problem with special weapons being picked up or passed around. That doesn't seem like a terrible idea, but one I'd rarely incorporate anyways because Orks don't have very many special weapons in our groups. I could go either way. I think the wound allocation has never been a big issue for me because my models usually come off the table in droves anyways
I'd say more, but I think Blacksail said basically what I meant to say.
And I make error trying to put IRL logic to any of this.
dracpanzer wrote: Would a better system be to take casualties from the front and replace the look out sir rule with a "pick up his kit" rule where a special, heavy, power sword etc, could be picked up on a 3+ by survivors in the gory aftermath?
That's actually a pretty cool idea. If you fail the roll, doesn't mean you didn't pick up the weapon, just means it was destroyed and couldn't be used anymore.
No, it's a terrible idea because it adds even more pointless dice rolling. Why is it so important to have a chance of failure? Just let the owning player choose their casualties and significantly reduce the complexity of the wound allocation process.
No, it's a terrible idea because it adds even more pointless dice rolling. Why is it so important to have a chance of failure? Just let the owning player choose their casualties and significantly reduce the complexity of the wound allocation process.
This.
Because picking up 1 single die and rolling once adds soo much extra work.
With all the banter back and forth about where to take models from and who gets to pick which models to remove and should it be random and on and on and on, this seems like a quick easy solution that fits all those scenarios.
Yeah, I used to be a blob Guard player, I know what you mean about picking up models by the dozen.
Trying to apply logic to any wargame, 40k especially, can be problematic. Wargames, by necessity, are abstractions of the real thing. Things like morale, casualties, and movement are all zoomed out, simplified and streamlined versions of the real/logical thing to make the game playable.
For incredibly specific actions and micro management, you have RPGs to turn to, who will make you roll to jump something or check to see if you're winded after running a distance. If you had to do that for all 180 of your Orks or my 100 Guardsmen, we'd have to play a turn over a week.
Point is, both the current system and old system are abstractions. Both have failings at some sort of logical level, but such is the nature of abstractions and wargames. Given that, the simplest method is more often than not the best method.
Because picking up 1 single die and rolling once adds soo much extra work.
In isolation, sure, its simple.
Doing over and over and over again presents the same issue the current system does.
Why not just not have to roll at all? What is there really to gain from this proposal? Its not any more narrative oriented, its not any more tactical, and its certainly not faster. What advantages are there?
With all the banter back and forth about where to take models from and who gets to pick which models to remove and should it be random and on and on and on, this seems like a quick easy solution that fits all those scenarios.
No, its not a solution, its just another alternative that includes more random dice rolls for no gain in gameplay.
Certain things should be random though. That's why the word "chance" exists, because there's a "chance" something could happen.
In this case, there's a chance a bullet could pierce the rocket launcher making it unusable, but there's a chance it will be untouched able to be picked up by another.
How many mobs are you going to have in a battle, and how many of those mobs are going to have a heavy weapon? Also I think just a single roll for the whole squad would suffice, not a roll for each member of the squad as that would be ridiculous.
kaotkbliss wrote: Certain things should be random though. That's why the word "chance" exists, because there's a "chance" something could happen.
In this case, there's a chance a bullet could pierce the rocket launcher making it unusable, but there's a chance it will be untouched able to be picked up by another.
How many mobs are you going to have in a battle, and how many of those mobs are going to have a heavy weapon? Also I think just a single roll for the whole squad would suffice, not a roll for each member of the squad as that would be ridiculous.
But that's the thing - this can be more easily represented using the old torrent of fire rule, without the need for a separate roll at all.
The solution "Role a dice to see if a model picks up their special weapon" would not work and would be confusing to implement.
For example, with a squad of 30 orks with 2 big shootas and a nob (an ork with higher strength and more wounds) with a power klaw (power fist) in the front of the unit, a round of shooting using closest model first removes both big shootas and the nob. The player makes his pick up the weapon roles, succeeding with one of the big shoota roles and the nob role. So, what happens now?
Does the rule remain faithful to "another model picked it up", meaning that he would need to remove all of his casualties, including the big shootas and the nob, and then remove surviving models and replace them with models with the equipment modeled onto them? This would be time consuming and result in people needing to buy and model things like "ork boy with shokk attack gun" or "gaunt with twin bone swords and wings", it's not an ideal solution.
Do the models not get removed and normal boyz get removed, meaning that now I have a nob and big shoota an entire movement phase outside of unit coherency? Also, at picking up his bosses equipment, an ork boy suddenly finds himself bigger and tougher? That makes no sense.
The chance for picking up the special weapon rule does not work with models that have different statistics and rules. A fire warrior will not gain the abilities of an ethereal just because he picked up their staff. A conscript does not become a heroic leader because he put on his dead commissar's hat.
I support the old "owner's choice" method of model removal. I have yet to see the new method do anything for an experienced player besides double the length of the movement phase as players ensure that their shields are in place, which results in several minutes after they moved of tweaking the position of sergeants and grunts.
kaotkbliss wrote: Certain things should be random though. That's why the word "chance" exists, because there's a "chance" something could happen.
In this case, there's a chance a bullet could pierce the rocket launcher making it unusable, but there's a chance it will be untouched able to be picked up by another.
The "chance" factor is adequately represented by things like rolling to hit. When you have potentially 400+ models on the table dice rolling should be limited to things that really matter, not nitpicking whether or not a particular model of a unit survives. In fact, individual models shouldn't even matter much at this scale, everything should be based around whole units and the models should just define the unit's footprint and number of wounds.
This, of course, is one of the biggest problems of 40k: it's a bloated mess of special rules and exceptions to special rules and exceptions to the exceptions, and rolling dice to see how many dice you roll on a random table where most of the results involve rolling even more dice. You could cut out 90% of the rules involving random dice and you'd probably still have a functioning game. And that's really poor game design.
But that's the thing - this can be more easily represented using the old torrent of fire rule, without the need for a separate roll at all.
What is the torrent of fire rule? I honestly don't know.
If a unit suffered more wounding hits than it had models, the shooter was allowed to choose one specific model from the unit to make a save against one of those wounding hits.
It basically let the shooter bypass wound allocation for one of their shots, provided the unit was hit with enough firepower.
With all the talk about shooting casualties... are there any other games systems that have the same issue as 40k here?
That is, 40k allows:
1. Multiple Hero models in a unit
2. Multiple Character models in a unit
3. Multiple non-character but still special models in a unit
4. Every model in a unit may have different saving throws
5. Every model in a unit may have multiple wounds
6. Some models in a unit may have special rules than confer on to other models in the unit
GW has been through multiple iterations of these rules and still not found a good solution.
Given that unit composition is more complicated than any other wargame I've experienced, what GOOD solutions are there that don't open up another abusive mechanic?
- At the moment, we've got 'take the closest model, except if Look Out Sir'. This leads to micro-managing positioning to either protect characters or use characters as bullet catchers. But it does have the tactical advantage that you can shoot back the first rank of the oncoming enemy to give your army another turn of safety.
- We've tried 'owning player chooses' - this leads to 'hidden powerfists', with no risk of failing Look Out Sir; it means casualties are nearly always taken from the back rank or least important models. It guarantees that when you're getting shot at, EVERYTHING goes exactly the way the target wishes. This is definitely the QUICKEST way to play... but conceptually it sucks that the shooter gets literally the worst possible result.
- We've tried separate wound pools for each differently equipped model... and saw Nob Bikers, Paladins and other multi-wound multi-equipment squads become invincible.
I'm more in favor of the current system, with caveats that you make only ONE roll for Look out Sir (rather than one per hit)
Trasvi wrote: GW has been through multiple iterations of these rules and still not found a good solution.
Yes, they have. Then they changed it to 'remove the closest guy first'...
- We've tried 'owning player chooses' - this leads to 'hidden powerfists', with no risk of failing Look Out Sir; it means casualties are nearly always taken from the back rank or least important models. It guarantees that when you're getting shot at, EVERYTHING goes exactly the way the target wishes. This is definitely the QUICKEST way to play... but conceptually it sucks that the shooter gets literally the worst possible result.
This was balanced out by torrent of fire. I never saw the 'hidden powerfist' as a problem. There's nothing worse than paying all those points for upgrades for your units, and then not getting to use them.
This system is quick and easy, and removes the need for extra rolls, or rolling for everything one at a time.
Trasvi wrote: - We've tried 'owning player chooses' - this leads to 'hidden powerfists', with no risk of failing Look Out Sir; it means casualties are nearly always taken from the back rank or least important models. It guarantees that when you're getting shot at, EVERYTHING goes exactly the way the target wishes. This is definitely the QUICKEST way to play... but conceptually it sucks that the shooter gets literally the worst possible result.
But how much does it really matter? Just finish off the unit and kill the powerfist/melta gun/whatever. Even removing weak models is still bringing a unit closer to death, and you're probably removing those same weak models with any other allocation system anyway. So it's a slight improvement maybe, but is it really worth the cost of having a more complex wound allocation system with 400+ models on the table? Is it so important that you'd sacrifice complexity/depth in some other area to keep the overall complexity of the game under control?
These are the questions you have to ask with a large-scale game like 40k. Part of the price of putting huge armies on the table is accepting that your rules need to have a lot of abstraction to make the game play at a reasonable pace. Unfortunately GW seems to believe that the principles of good game design don't apply to them.
Trasvi wrote: - We've tried 'owning player chooses' - this leads to 'hidden powerfists', with no risk of failing Look Out Sir; it means casualties are nearly always taken from the back rank or least important models. It guarantees that when you're getting shot at, EVERYTHING goes exactly the way the target wishes. This is definitely the QUICKEST way to play... but conceptually it sucks that the shooter gets literally the worst possible result.
But how much does it really matter? Just finish off the unit and kill the powerfist/melta gun/whatever. Even removing weak models is still bringing a unit closer to death, and you're probably removing those same weak models with any other allocation system anyway. So it's a slight improvement maybe, but is it really worth the cost of having a more complex wound allocation system with 400+ models on the table? Is it so important that you'd sacrifice complexity/depth in some other area to keep the overall complexity of the game under control?
These are the questions you have to ask with a large-scale game like 40k. Part of the price of putting huge armies on the table is accepting that your rules need to have a lot of abstraction to make the game play at a reasonable pace. Unfortunately GW seems to believe that the principles of good game design don't apply to them.
Trasvi wrote: - We've tried 'owning player chooses' - this leads to 'hidden powerfists', with no risk of failing Look Out Sir; it means casualties are nearly always taken from the back rank or least important models. It guarantees that when you're getting shot at, EVERYTHING goes exactly the way the target wishes. This is definitely the QUICKEST way to play... but conceptually it sucks that the shooter gets literally the worst possible result.
But how much does it really matter? Just finish off the unit and kill the powerfist/melta gun/whatever. Even removing weak models is still bringing a unit closer to death, and you're probably removing those same weak models with any other allocation system anyway. So it's a slight improvement maybe, but is it really worth the cost of having a more complex wound allocation system with 400+ models on the table? Is it so important that you'd sacrifice complexity/depth in some other area to keep the overall complexity of the game under control?
These are the questions you have to ask with a large-scale game like 40k. Part of the price of putting huge armies on the table is accepting that your rules need to have a lot of abstraction to make the game play at a reasonable pace. Unfortunately GW seems to believe that the principles of good game design don't apply to them.
Everybody knows 40k has grown into some horrible abomination of battle and skirmish rules that features none of the benefits of either. Targeting out specific models works well in games designed for it, like Warmachine. And even then, there are specific rules for "take-up" on key pieces like standards and special weapons. The game is basically bad Epic at 28mm scale making it terribly expensive. Add in the ever increasing codex/edition churn, and you'll also see an increase in player churn. The bad part for GW is that us unhappy folks will be sticking around in the real hobby, wargaming, and letting new players know what a train wreck 40k currently is and continues to be.
Just as they rose through positive word of mouth, so too will they suffer to negative word of mouth.
insaniak wrote: Personally, I'm advocating for a return to the 'owner chooses, coupled with Torrent of Fire' system used previously. So the owner generally chooses, but excessive firepower (and precision shots) would allow the shooter to choose the casualty.
So how many hits do I need to get on a blob of 50 guardsmen loaded up with commissar friends until I get to drop ONE extra shot on the model of my choice?
So how many hits do I need to get on a blob of 50 guardsmen loaded up with commissar friends until I get to drop ONE extra shot on the model of my choice?
A lot.
But hey, you can put all those tactics to use to use over the course of the game to make sure you can do that in the last few turns to stop those last minute objective grabs. You have ~6 turns to put enough wounds down to have that opportunity, so you'll have to plan and prioritize what to shoot and when to shoot it.
I'm all for 5th wound allocation system but only if you can't allocate to models not visible to the firer, it was the most off putting thing for me in 5th ,,tolerance for abstraction has limits too. Some system for universal precision shots would be welcomed ie you pick up as many dice as you want (or faction/ unit limited) from succesful to hit rolls pool and test BS on them, succes is a precision shot and failure is a miss. Top of my head ofc.
The drawback to the idea of not being able to hit models you can't see is the potential for the shooting player to use their own units to block line of sight to all but a handful of units they want dead. That to me feels gamey and more of an immersion/abstraction issue than the alternative.
InB4 Insaniak explains (again) that EVERY edition of 40k has had TLOS. It was only 4th that added in the area terrain thing, which confused people who treated every terrain piece as area terrain.
If area terrain is what I think it is, then that's been there since 2nd (a dense forest could be represented on the battlefield by a few trees in a group. Models could not see more than 2" into the terrain measured from the terrain's base inwards)
Plumbumbarum wrote: I'm all for 5th wound allocation system but only if you can't allocate to models not visible to the firer, it was the most off putting thing for me in 5th ,,tolerance for abstraction has limits too. Some system for universal precision shots would be welcomed ie you pick up as many dice as you want (or faction/ unit limited) from succesful to hit rolls pool and test BS on them, succes is a precision shot and failure is a miss. Top of my head ofc.
The point of being allocate to models out of LOS was that you drew LOS to and wounded the unit. It was part of the whole 'moving to a unit based game' thing that I mentioned earlier, getting rid of the importance of individual models.
It also helped remove LOS sniping, where careful model placement would allow you to single out specific models in enemy units.
vipoid wrote: Out of interest, does anyone miss abstract LoS?
YES! A million times yes! 4th had LoS and terrain down perfect! No arguments, no lasers, no confusion.
Having been around on the forums during 4th edition, I can confidently say that 4th edition LOS was the most argued over of any edition so far... because so many people misunderstood how it was supposed to work.
As Grimtuff said ( ) ... 4th used TLOS like every other edition. It just had more abstract rules to deal with area terrain and close combats. But so many people thought that those rules were supposed to apply game-wide (ignoring the parts of the rules that specifically said otherwise) and GW never bothered to clarify it, and so for the entire life of 4th edition people were constantly arguing about how it worked.
Plumbumbarum wrote: I'm all for 5th wound allocation system but only if you can't allocate to models not visible to the firer, it was the most off putting thing for me in 5th ,,tolerance for abstraction has limits too. Some system for universal precision shots would be welcomed ie you pick up as many dice as you want (or faction/ unit limited) from succesful to hit rolls pool and test BS on them, succes is a precision shot and failure is a miss. Top of my head ofc.
The point of being allocate to models out of LOS was that you drew LOS to and wounded the unit. It was part of the whole 'moving to a unit based game' thing that I mentioned earlier, getting rid of the importance of individual models.
It also helped remove LOS sniping, where careful model placement would allow you to single out specific models in enemy units.
vipoid wrote: Out of interest, does anyone miss abstract LoS?
YES! A million times yes! 4th had LoS and terrain down perfect! No arguments, no lasers, no confusion.
Having been around on the forums during 4th edition, I can confidently say that 4th edition LOS was the most argued over of any edition so far... because so many people misunderstood how it was supposed to work.
As Grimtuff said ( ) ... 4th used TLOS like every other edition. It just had more abstract rules to deal with area terrain and close combats. But so many people thought that those rules were supposed to apply game-wide (ignoring the parts of the rules that specifically said otherwise) and GW never bothered to clarify it, and so for the entire life of 4th edition people were constantly arguing about how it worked.
I don't know how anyone could be confused by 4th edition area terrain rules. Simple and laid out clearly in the rule book. They had a size and blocked things of the same or smaller size. You couldn't see all the way through area terrain (blocked LoS up to it's height, regardless of whether or not you could draw a line through it) and it had a depth of vision (was it 4"? It's been a long time).
I never enjoyed 40k more and it was due largely to those rules. Want to hide something? Find area trerrain of the same height and place it behind it. Not fuss, no muss. No worrying about seeing a chestplate through 3 intervening windows, because my laser said so. I hate TLoS for stuff like this. The models are supposed to represent dynamic figures, not static ones. The chances of drawing line of sight in those instances should be nil.
We were always clear on the difference between area and non-area terrain. Of course we chose to focus mostly on area terrain because it was simpler and looked great: Ruins, Trees, Rocky outcroppings, etc.
Blacksails wrote: The drawback to the idea of not being able to hit models you can't see is the potential for the shooting player to use their own units to block line of sight to all but a handful of units they want dead. That to me feels gamey and more of an immersion/abstraction issue than the alternative.
You could limit vehicle sniping by making units that moved in the same turn (yours ofc not enemy's) not count for LoS or sth. I prefer vehicle sniping to shooting throug hills and buildings anyway tbh, I'm not really a cinematic narrative person but this rubbed me wrong for some reason.
@insaniak that is imo going too far into unit based direction game especialy that on your average 2 ruins 5 trees table you couldn't hide anything ever, try playing nids like that. Not a reason I hated it btw, it really broke my immersion when a 18 termagants behind a bunker were shot to pieces because the firer saw two. Model positionioning for a sake of LoS doesn't really strike me as pointless micromanagment tbh.
I find it very telling that GW have gone through 7 editions of the game , and they still have not sorted out issues with the core game mechanics and resolution methods.
Most games get ' what you can shoot at' and 'how casualties are removed ' sorted in the beta rules.
40k 'game development' looks more like changing stuff up for the sake of obvious shifts in meta to drive sales.
Rather than refining the rules to deliver improved game play, and improve sales through genuine joy from using the rules.
GW seem to be trapped into invalidating things that have gone before, to try to force people to by new stuff.
This means having to spend a lot of time and money making new stuff to replace the old product.
Where as getting the game play right , allows the game to be expanded in new ways adding more to it.
But NOT having to invalidate anything.So things can be updated and new models replace old one at a more measured and considered pace.
(This makes customers feel more valued and less like walking wallets.)
Removing special models last , or removing casualties from the front are both equally valid ways of dealing with casualty removal.
They just need the rules to support which ever method is chosen chosen.(Designer notes help players understand the reasoning behind such decisions.)
What I mean by "done" is that I've reached the point where I don't want to be burnt any more. I know I've said this at least twice already during the course of this long and winding thread, but I hated 4th and 5th to the point where I didn't buy anything for them, but with 6th I saw things that were (in my mind) improvements over the previous two editions. So many of my personal "deal-breakers" (especially the ones from the 5th Ed vehicle rules) were removed, and while I still dislike Hull Points and the idiotic method of casualty removal in 6th it was a level of bull gak that I was willing to accept for what was otherwise a better rule set than the previous to. And I bought into it. I got the rulebook, the starter box, Apoc, all the Warzones (other than Damocles, as I didn't know it was limited edition), all the psychic cards even for the armies I didn't play, the Apoc Cards, templates, Escalation, Strongpoint Assault. Everything. I was fully invested and it felt good to be 'back in the game', so to speak.
But now? My cards are invalidated, my rulebook is worthless, my supplement books (Strongpoint and Escalation) aren't worth the paper they're printed on and once again Apoc is a set of rules written for a different edition. And all of this took place within two years of the previous edition. Two years! That's ludicrous. I could almost live with it if 7th Ed was GW making a new edition to fix the problems of 6th - like a 'break glass in case of stupidity' situation where they've seen what 40K has become (allies shenanigans, dataslates, and other nonsense) and they decided the best way to fix it was to tear the Band-Aid off quickly and reset everything with a new edition. But they're not doing that. They're adding more extraneous nonsense. More charts. More things to roll on. More cards (which I refuse to buy now). More dataslates (which are just DLC... and I have real problems with DLC that extend way beyond GW's method of selling them). More blatant disregard for the fluff (now Eldar can summon Slaaneshi Daemons every turn, Inquisitors and Dark Angels are BFFs, Dark Eldar would totally ally with a Slaaneshi Daemon army... but Guard will never ally with Chaos because Traitor Guard and reasons reasons reasons). The game has become "buy all our playsets and toys", where simply buying GW minis is the HHHobby rather than using them. And now we don't even have the certainty that what we have will stick around for any length of time. This edition is to fill a checkbox and make a full year report look better (because the half-year looked bad). It's cynical, and as I said a couple of pages back I am certain that Jervis' team holds an utterly different view of what 40K is and how it operates, and as tired as it is to make fun of the narrative forging and all that you can see how they see it as the most important thing, and that's a shame because they act as is having a balanced game with a tight and consistent set of rules (as opposed to a set of rules one might call unbound - geddit?) is mutually exclusive to forging another bloody narrative.
And I can't do it anymore!
I'm not a kid any more, playing 40K with his friends during school holidays or on weekends while at Uni. There are far better representations of 40K out there (the RPGs, which I adored before my personal bias of writing the RPG's became a factor), and they don't require wrestling with GW's inability to write a coherent and consistent set of rules. And that's before we even get into the questionable ethics of their bullying business practices, embargos, pricing structure, secrecy and all that other nonsense that sits beneath the surface.
And then this is exacerbated by the White Knights and their clueless "everything is fine, nothing is broken" attitute towards everything...
Haven't played since 5th. Really want to but game isn't what I want. It probably could be but I would have to go through the hassle of haggling over how to tweak the game so I could like it. Bleh. My kids are getting older. Maybe I can start to play 4th edition with them soon.
--
Loved area terrain rules of 4th. My store never had debates and what not over them, though people didn't really understand the rules; everything was area terrain all the time. Tried a few times to play the right way but mostly got confused looks. Still thought it was way better than 5th's terrain rules.
I still play but in all honesty I torrent my stuff. In fact, at my local club I am building a name as the go to person when GW releases yet another Codex update at ludicrous prices. Take the new SM codex for instance, I may not play but two of my friends do so I just torrented it for them and stuck it on their pendrives. I did the same for another friends DA codex.
But enough of my potentially illegal activities.
The main reason as to why I still play 40K is because it is the easiest system to find a game for in my area. But I dont like it and I have been backing out ever since the ridiculous price hikes and the terrible rules started.
Hull Points on vehicles essentially negating there existence and making a tank essentially an MC without any of the benefits.
Casualty allocation which forces me to keep my important stuff right at the back of the unit, forcing me to spend an age organising my infantry sections each turn to ensure that the important models are sufficiently bubble wrapped.
TLOS that really pisses me off. "I can see a 1MM square of that tanks hull through three buildings and a stack of rusty girders, so I can blitz it with my Devestators" or "I can see that mans foot/arm/leg/head/etc, I can shoot that squad".
Codex updates that are so fething biased it is un-bloody-believable. I mean, compare the IG codex to the SM codex. Everything the Space Turd forces have is underpriced and hideously powerful where as there are about 5 viable choices in the entire Imperial Guard codex.
Formations. Bloody damnable formations. "I have this this and this, free models/special rules for me".
Shoddy rule writing - in a game I had yesterday my friend brought that triple Vindicator squadron. Despite one of them being stunned and thus snapfiring and thus unable to fire its main gun the RAW still allowed him to fire that S10 board cleanser. Because all three where still alive and rolling.
The price. ARGH, CRITICAL HIT TO MY WALLET!!!! And that was just one 10 man Guard section.
Random Hammer. Do. Not. Get. Me. Started.
Blatantly overpowered crap like Invisibility which essentially makes units under its effect all but immune to everything.
A completely broken psychic phase. Sure if no one has more than 1 to 2 focus points per thousand points it can be quite relaxed. But then you get the minmax WAAC powergamers whom bring 20+ to a 1.5K game and the psychic phase basically becomes This for the player without butt feth tons of psykers And many other problems I can not be bothered to list here.
Long story short, I am trying to get the Warmachine/Bolt Action scene restartedand when I do it will be GG 40K.
Warhammer 40k died with the introduction of the 6th edition rules in my opinion. They began to revive it with 7th but it pales in comparison to 5th.
It was complicated with 5th edition but not overly so. I can't say that for 7th edition.
. I see so much more insane stuff on here than I ever see in real life!
)
