Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 azreal13 wrote:
But even that list would be just your list of stuff you don't like in the main.

No, it would be a list of things that are wrong according to pretty much anyone who understands how game design works. For example, 40k is full of rules with conflicting objectives, where the game is pulled in opposite directions and the end result doesn't accomplish either objective very well. Consider the rules for special characters/challenges/etc that were added in 6th edition: it's very clearly an attempt to make characters matter and tell the story of these glorious heroes. But then the same edition also added rules for barrage sniping, allowing a Basilisk to be the ultimate sniper rifle and kill these very important characters from across the table. And GW even recognized the problem and added the LOS rule to "fix" it by declaring that characters are special and you can't really snipe them after all. The only conclusion here is that GW doesn't have any kind of guiding principles for new rules, and just threw in a bunch of stuff that sounded cool at the time without bothering to think about the consequences.

And the sad thing is that's just one example of one kind of flaw.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
Though it's not as bad as people make it out to be.

You're right. It's actually worse than most people make it out to be. The conventional opinion is that the rules are bad, but only in ways that are fairly easy to fix (nerf Riptides, clear up a few YMDC questions, etc) and the game itself is pretty good. In reality the entire game is broken, from the fundamental turn structure all the way up to the bloated mess of special rules, and fixing it means deleting everything and starting over.

But stuff like LoW's if not one of the "utter fusterclucks".

Oh, it really is a disaster. LoW balance is terrible, you have a full range from "only take it if you want to go easy on a newbie" units like the Malcador to "why do I even bother deploying my army" titans. It's just slightly less terrible than the situation where LoW exist, but you have to beg your opponent to let you use them and the answer is almost always no.

But they are not all leaving because of the rules.

Not all of them, but a lot are.

I would dare to claim that most people are leaving due to the price-increase.

But that's the same thing really. Very few people who quit over price increases can't afford the new prices, what really happens is that they don't feel that the quality of the game justifies the high prices. And that depends greatly on the rules.

In that case, please do us all a favour and go play another game if you think it can only be fixed by "deleting everything and starting over".
My only issue with 40k are the fluffy written rules that often cause a confusion and their lack of consequential use of certain words.

Have you played against a Titan in 7th edition?
And do you have any data on why people quit with GW?
Because the only data I have is from my friends, whom all stopped because they thought it was too expensive for a simple hobby.
And no, it's not the same. Because even with perfect rules it wouldn't be worth the 50% price-increase all over their product-line.

But please, we get it. You hate the game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse.

except the people who paid over a hundred bucks for a bane blade and rarely got a chance to use it because most people didn't play apocylpse, not because of the super heavies but not a lotta people had huge sized armies. now there is an option to use it in a regular 40k game.

Kangodo wrote:
In that case, please do us all a favour and go play another game if you think it can only be fixed by "deleting everything and starting over".

"If you don't like it then geeeet oouuut" is never a good argument.

And do you have any data on why people quit with GW?

This 8 page thread on "Why I left GW and what I went to instead" is a pretty good start.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse.

except the people who paid over a hundred bucks for a bane blade and rarely got a chance to use it because most people didn't play apocylpse, not because of the super heavies but not a lotta people had huge sized armies. now there is an option to use it in a regular 40k game.

About as good a reason for unbound as "well some people bought 6 riptides for apocalypse so why can't they play them in normal games".

 Yonan wrote:
About as good a reason for unbound as "well some people bought 6 riptides for apocalypse so why can't they play them in normal games".

Actually it is. One of the few good things 7th edition did is remove the idea of having armies be legal in one kind of game but banned in another. Unbound fixes this problem and removes the need to get your opponent to agree to play the special kind of game where your chosen army is legal.

The problem with the 6-Riptide army isn't the unbound rules, it's the fact that the Riptide is so blatantly overpowered that it needs a limit on how many you can take. If GW did a better job of unit balance this wouldn't be a problem, and unbound Riptide spam armies would be no scarier than a battle-forged list with six tactical squads. And don't forget that you could take five Riptides (one of them a powerful IC) in a normal 6th edition list already, and few people did. Adding another Riptide is one of those things that is kind of scary on paper, but doesn't really matter in a real game.

Yeah sadly everything has to be taken in the current context of ridiculous balance so any balance problems are just exacerbated by unbound, multiple detachments etc. much like allying yourself did in 6th for those 5 riptides you mentioned. It's the same reason (I find) LoWs objectable despite loving baneblades and the general idea of a single large unit like that, there's just too many imbalances in gameplay due to the basic mechanics of the game through to specific unit imbalances due to obviously broken units.

If LoW aren't allowed, it's deathstar 40k or don't bother to play.

Replacing one big bad with another big bad does not a fun game make sadly. This is part of why a number of us are adamant that the game is fundamentally broken at a basic rules design level and needs to be completely redone.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Everyone was happy when they were in Apocalypse.

except the people who paid over a hundred bucks for a bane blade and rarely got a chance to use it because most people didn't play apocylpse, not because of the super heavies but not a lotta people had huge sized armies. now there is an option to use it in a regular 40k game.

See...................not everyone pays hundreds of bucks for a big tank or what not. If the pro-LoW crowd wants to use them so bad, teach people they aren't bad, let them borrow yours to show them, etc. This is a GAME and is supposed to be FUN for BOTH people. Man o man...Plastic and resin toy soldiers people. Talk toy our opponent and have a fun game not a shouting match over who can or can't bring their biggest hunk or resin/plastic...

 Yonan wrote:
Replacing one big bad with another big bad does not a fun game make sadly. This is part of why a number of us are adamant that the game is fundamentally broken at a basic rules design level and needs to be completely redone.

Fear of one discourages the bringing of the other. LoW>deathstar>msu>LoW. This is the only balance you can have, have had or will ever have in Warhammer 40k, only instead of it being codexes trumping each other, we now have a more level playing field where several, if not all factions have a similarly equal chance of competing in a competitive environment.

 Sigvatr wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes I am being forced to play lists that potentially include FOW which didn't use to happen.

So you're ignoring the rules stating you must agree on what models etch you will play with?

* You don't have a choice if you want to participate in a tournament that allows them.

Yes you do. You refuse to play that game. Noone can force you to play a game against them, no matter if it is atournament.

Or, you accept that JUST as you may face deathstar armies, or flyer spam crons, or whatever, that you have already agreed to play them, before the game even happens.

Again: this has increased the number of options available, not reduced them. That is factual. Now it is a different question if the meta will end up with fewer viable armies, and thus less chosen options, but that is a different thing entirely.

You absolutely, 100% have greater options now than previously.

 ashikenshin wrote:
hehe well you have the option to man up?

Also the option to not participate is there. You may want to do something but wanting and doing are two different things.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yes you do. You refuse to play that game. Noone can force you to play a game against them, no matter if it is atournament.

If you decide to not participate in the tournament, then you no longer want to do so either...

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Again: this has increased the number of options available, not reduced them. That is factual. Now it is a different question if the meta will end up with fewer viable armies, and thus less chosen options, but that is a different thing entirely.

You absolutely, 100% have greater options now than previously.

I hear this pretty often on internet forums, but I just don't get why. Why are there more options than before? Tournaments will always have special rules, it's been like this forever, and no BRB has a saying here. And, at least in out experience, pickup games haven't been different either in the past. I mean...if I played someone and I saw that he fields a lame no-fun list, I refused the match, nicely (!) saying that I don't think it's something I would like to play with / against.

I'm genuinely (!) interested in knowing why some people keep saying that there are more options.

Previoulsy if you played a game of 40k, BRB, you couldnt include:

Lords of war

Prior to 6th, you couldnt have
foritfications, allies

Just have a look at the basic "FOC" now - noticed the extra options that you did not have before?

Not participating in that game does not mean you are not participating in the tournament. You may have, however, reduced your chances of winning if you decline a game.

text removed.

Reds8n

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Previoulsy if you played a game of 40k, BRB, you couldnt include:

Lords of war

But Escalation already allowed the use of LoW in 6th as far as I can see? Isn't 7th basically using the same Force Org chart with added double CAD?

/e: Ah, you mentioned only the BRB. I referred to the game as a whole. I don't think just using the BRB is sufficient as you would also exclude FW.

 Sigvatr wrote:
But Escalation already allowed the use of LoW in 6th as far as I can see? Isn't 7th basically using the same Force Org chart with added double CAD?

/e: Ah, you mentioned only the BRB. I referred to the game as a whole. I don't think just using the BRB is sufficient as you would also exclude FW.

But Escalation only allowed it if we played by the Escalation-rules, which is more like a special Mission.
The new rulings allow it whenever we want, with a maximum of one.

We are talking about a normal game of WH40k, without special missions and such like Escalation, Planetstrike, Zone Mortalis or Apocalypse.

So basically, the *option* to play Escalation has already been there in 6th

An option means something that is not allowed by default. LoW are no longer an "option" because other than the fact that you don't have to play anyone for any reason in a 2-player game, they are now "included by default" and not an option.

For myself and a lot of people, it's not even necessarily the idea that LOW are overpowered (although some are), it's the fact that LOW represent the shift of 40k to something we don't like. I remember when 40k was a platoon/company level game, and Titans had no place except MAYBE for some huge Games Day-esque mega battle (I recall one WD had a picture of a scratch-built Warlord Titan for some Heresy type of mega battle). Now, those of us who prefer 40k to be a company-level game are told to shut up and deal with the guy who goes and buys a titan and then wants to use it.

In principle I'm in favour of fliers, LoW, fortifications and probably whatever else wants to be thrown in.

For me the problem is that 40k at it's core is a skirmish game trying to pretend it's a battle game. Not only that, it's a skirmish game built on rules that never conceived of units of this scale at their inception. Consequently, trying to fit these "epic" units into the game effectively means dropping in a load of units turned up to 11 in a game that only runs to 10 ("D" is basically a S>10 concept).

If GW built rules appropriate to the scale of game* they want us to buy models for, I suspect there would be less resistance to these units amongst the player base.

*Personally I think instead of 40k and Apocalypse they should have gone for two separate rulesets, a 2nd Ed skirmish-style ruleset and a ruleset somewhere between 5th ed and Epic. *shrugs*

 Sigvatr wrote:
So basically, the *option* to play Escalation has already been there in 6th

Yes, by not playing an Eternal War game and buying a book that is only six months old and was clearly a step-up to Lords of War being included in 7th Edition.
That's like saying I could always play Superheavies, I just needed to play Apocalypse.

Or are you telling me that I could've always house-ruled them into 40k?

 Baragash wrote:
In principle I'm in favour of fliers, LoW, fortifications and probably whatever else wants to be thrown in.

For me the problem is that 40k at it's core is a skirmish game trying to pretend it's a battle game. Not only that, it's a skirmish game built on rules that never conceived of units of this scale at their inception. Consequently, trying to fit these "epic" units into the game effectively means dropping in a load of units turned up to 11 in a game that only runs to 10 ("D" is basically a S>10 concept).

If GW built rules appropriate to the scale of game* they want us to buy models for, I suspect there would be less resistance to these units amongst the player base.

*Personally I think instead of 40k and Apocalypse they should have gone for two separate rulesets, a 2nd Ed skirmish-style ruleset and a ruleset somewhere between 5th ed and Epic. *shrugs*

Exactly this. A large-scale game doesn't need the level of minutiae that 40k has, while a skirmish/company level game does. 40k has basically shoehorned large battles into a rulesset that isn't designed for them, and wonder why there's an issue.

WayneTheGame wrote:
An option means something that is not allowed by default. LoW are no longer an "option" because other than the fact that you don't have to play anyone for any reason in a 2-player game, they are now "included by default" and not an option.

No, an option is anything not mandated. LOS are optional, by definition.

Your definition has nothing to do with reality. For example look at cars - the "options list" are a lot of things not avaialble by default.

I like Lords of War, They can be a bit good in casual play for their points (though if your opponent has said he is/wants to field one you can always go a little heavier on the AT) but for tighter play where the lists are stronger I think they add a nice extreme element to have to take into account when list building.
What if my opponent is rocking a Baneblade, how would I deal? What if it's a formation of Imperial Knights?

It adds even more diversity to an already diverse potential set of opponents.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
An option means something that is not allowed by default. LoW are no longer an "option" because other than the fact that you don't have to play anyone for any reason in a 2-player game, they are now "included by default" and not an option.

No, an option is anything not mandated. LOS are optional, by definition.

Your definition has nothing to do with reality. For example look at cars - the "options list" are a lot of things not avaialble by default.

Oh yay, another awesome(ly fail) car analogy. Things that are options on cars are called options because the manufacturer gives them as options.

LOW are optional the same way door skins are optional on a car. The car is sold with them, but you are welcome to remove them if you so desire.

Of course, it's a terrible analogy because cars are big mechanical objects and removing things takes physical effort compared to a wargame which is just a bunch of written rules.

Seems there is a difference of opinion on what the word "options" means. Let's see what the opposite of optional is: required, compulsory, forced.

Going with that, are LoWs and Fortifications required in normal games? not really, you can play games without removing rules with people who don't have lists with neither of those options.

Can you play a game of normal 40k with LoWs? yes because it's an option now. Can you play a normal game of 40k without LoWs? yup, if neither you nor your opponent brought a LoW you would, in fact, be playing without LoWs.

So, are LoWs optional?

 ashikenshin wrote:
So, are LoWs optional?

It's optional in the same way playing with/against tactical marines is optional.

 ashikenshin wrote:
Seems there is a difference of opinion on what the word "options" means. Let's see what the opposite of optional is: required, compulsory, forced.

Going with that, are LoWs and Fortifications required in normal games? not really, you can play games without removing rules with people who don't have lists with neither of those options.

Yes, they are.

If you opponent brought one of those and you wan't to play a game of 40k, then you have to play with them or not play the game at all.

 ashikenshin wrote:

Can you play a game of normal 40k with LoWs? yes because it's an option now. Can you play a normal game of 40k without LoWs? yup, if neither you nor your opponent brought a LoW you would, in fact, be playing without LoWs.

So, are LoWs optional?

No, they aren't optional. They are one of the options of your army so you can use them in your army or not, but since a game requires two people to play and you can't control your opponents army (other than deciding not to play), that makes them mandatory instead of optional.

Previously you had options. People that liked to play with LoWs could play them in Escalation or Apocalypse. People that didn't like to play with LoWs played using just the core 40k rules. That option was removed for the people that didn't like to play with LoWs in 7th edition, hence those people have fewer options now.

PhantomViper wrote:

 ashikenshin wrote:
Seems there is a difference of opinion on what the word "options" means. Let's see what the opposite of optional is: required, compulsory, forced.

Going with that, are LoWs and Fortifications required in normal games? not really, you can play games without removing rules with people who don't have lists with neither of those options.

Yes, they are.

If you opponent brought one of those and you wan't to play a game of 40k, then you have to play with them or not play the game at all.

you listed two options there, play the game or not play. But, there is another option: tell your opponent you don't want to play against him if he uses a LoW.

 ashikenshin wrote:

Can you play a game of normal 40k with LoWs? yes because it's an option now. Can you play a normal game of 40k without LoWs? yup, if neither you nor your opponent brought a LoW you would, in fact, be playing without LoWs.

So, are LoWs optional?

No, they aren't optional. They are one of the options of your army so you can use them in your army or not, but since a game requires two people to play and you can't control your opponents army (other than deciding not to play), that makes them mandatory instead of optional.

Previously you had options. People that liked to play with LoWs could play them in Escalation or Apocalypse. People that didn't like to play with LoWs played using just the core 40k rules. That option was removed for the people that didn't like to play with LoWs in 7th edition, hence those people have fewer options now.

but they are optional, HQ and Troops are mandatory in battle forged lists. Not everybody has to have a LoW in order to play.

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.

Kangodo wrote:

That's like saying I could always play Superheavies, I just needed to play Apocalypse.

Nope, it's not. Apocalypse was clearly seperated from Standard 40k whereas Escalation was designed to be an add-on to the game.

 ashikenshin wrote:

Seems the meaning of optional and mandatory are really not understood here.

Thats what I'm getting here too

The only Mandatory part of the Force Org is 1 HQ and 2 Troops, or if unbound, nothing.

Hence anything you add on to that list, is an option.