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.

Well there you are, it proves the point.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well there you are, it proves the point.

It's not my fault I don't want to play games against lists that table me from 60" away with little to no effort or risk.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Warhammer 40k just doesn't really work well as a "pick up and play" sort of game. You have to know the group of people you're playing and what kind of games you can expect in that group. I compare it to tabletop RPGs, in that you need to be familiar with the DM and the kind of group you'll be joining.

To paraphrase what I said earlier in the thread...

I suggest you educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 6th edition came along it was a (fairly) balanced rules set that was suitable for tournament play. GW also fostered this part of the game with their own sponsored tournaments such a Throne of Skulls and 'Ard Boyz.

These two pieces of anecdotal evidence seem to contradict each other. And yes, some of the senior players at the FLGSs that I frequent have told me about the history of their experience with the game. From what they've told me and from what I've read about previous editions (especially 5th), I'm going to have to go with Sarigar's word. No offense.

You see where I said "fairly". Compared to what is happening in the game nowadays 5th (and prior editions), whilst they had their share of problems were far more suitable and balanced rulesets. In the grand scheme of wargaming they were not great. Ever, especially when put up against things like Malifaux and WMH. But we're comparing 40k to 40k.

Martel732 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well there you are, it proves the point.

It's not my fault I don't want to play games against lists that table me from 60" away with little to no effort or risk.

Exactly...you're proving his point.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well there you are, it proves the point.

It's not my fault I don't want to play games against lists that table me from 60" away with little to no effort or risk.

Exactly...you're proving his point.

Tell GW to give BA something that can actually do something to Tau and then you won't have this problem.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not my fault I don't want to play games against lists that table me from 60" away with little to no effort or risk.

You're getting soft in your old age Martel

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not my fault I don't want to play games against lists that table me from 60" away with little to no effort or risk.

You're getting soft in your old age Martel

Nah, I just already played that game in 2nd. New Tau = old CSM.

Seriously; the Riptide doesn't give a feth about any unit in my codex. Zero feths given. If I wanted to feel so helpless, I'd go play Starcraft on the Korean server. But even then, they are doing it with skill, not because GW says so.

Martel732 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well there you are, it proves the point.

It's not my fault I don't want to play games against lists that table me from 60" away with little to no effort or risk.

It's GW's fault that they wrote a codex for Tau who had spent 11 years in the wilderness that was grossly overpowered, with fab new models any Tau player was eager to get their hands on.

The unholy alliance of Taudar didn't help, either.

Caused by the ill-judged Allies rules.

Akiasura wrote:

While I agree that Salous could use some work with how he approaches people who disagree with him (which is cutting off his social skills argument at the knees), I doubt it's lack of knowledge. Some of the people here have vast experience with table top gaming outside of 40k, and it involves many different ways of playing. He's just started this year.

As you say - some do. Some probably don't. All I'm saying is that not everyone is familiar with different directions.

Akiasura wrote:

Myself, I've played Mordenheim, Blood Bowl (not a fan), Necromunda, and Gorka morka. All of these games are narrative games that involve a league creating some house rules and creating stories. They are excellent games that involve an agreed upon contract, especially since the game is no longer supported.
For larger games, I play 40k since 3rd dropped, and Fantasy since 4th. I own, between the two, over 10 armies. I tried infinity and own 4 armies in WMH.
For Role playing games, I've played every dnd ever, BESM, d20 modern, Exalted 1e/2e (which requires more house rules than anything known to man), all of nWOD and oWOD, and too many others to think of.

The point is, I've played many games. No game has been as difficult to play as 40k has become lately (though fantasy comes close, I think that was my local player base being elf/VC heavy). Exalted and the specialist games don't work without a series of house rules and social contracts, and I've had no problem doing that. I've run a DnD amazing race style game that included 20+ players in teams of 4, and didn't have an issue, even though the teams often attacked each other (which was hilarious, since it was in 3rd edition and that game had horrible balance).

That's.. A lot of games. Wish I had the time to do this.

Akiasura wrote:

I still have yet to get an answer to my simple question about the Riptide, from anyone. This is starting to suggest it can not be answered with anything other than "don't take it", which for an expensive centerpiece seems odd.

With respect, what was the question? I'm sorry - it wasn't originally directed at me.

Akiasura wrote:

I find your travel analogy suspicious as well. I've been to many countries across the board, and have more stomach issues than a diabetic grandmother, and always sample the local cuisine exclusively. Any group I've toured with, everyone has done the same. I can't imagine going to Japan and eating McDonalds.
;

Plenty people aren't you though.

Akiasura wrote:

No one will argue the setting isn't fantastic. That and the money we all have invested is most likely the reason any of us are here today.
What we are suggesting is that you can put in way less effort, focus on having fun, and have a same result.
Have you tried Death Watch, DH, or any of those games? They are excellent, and deliver the setting in a way the 40k does not. They require relatively few house rules (and some great ones are freely available on the forums and have been extensively playtested by the community).

I've not tried any of the RPGs. I walked away from gw in a big way - my last stronghold is an appreciation for forgeworlds imperial armour and Horus heresy books. To be honest, most of my gaming focus is warmachine/infinity with some historicals on the side.

Akiasura wrote:

When the rule books are expensive, you expect something of value out of them. Old specialist games, and fantasy back in the day, had narrative league style rules that were excellent. It serves as a good jumping off point for people to set up games and modify them.

True. They were helpful.

Akiasura wrote:

There is not a single game out there that doesn't place players in the driving seat. If you and your friends want to create house rules and league games, that's not a problem. But if I am spending that much for a game, I shouldn't have to do so just to play.

You are right - and I've said as much. I play this way with a multitude of games.

Akiasura wrote:

I didn't get that from him at all. Table top gaming isn't super common, I imagine most people who do it play games like DND, other board games, or even other table top games nowadays. Not many people jump into the ocean before dipping their tool in a pool, in terms of finances.

The question isn't about 'how many games they play', it's the mentality behind how they play - it's about 'do they play different games, but in the same way', or 'do they play the same game. But in different ways'.

Akiasura wrote:

I disagree about it adding nothing. It’s an attitude shift. (1) Playing a scenario out of the book does not let me be creative. (2) It does not let me add my own touches, to write my own script or bring my ideas to life. (3) It does not allow for imaginative and clever scenarios. (4) It also means that you’re more likely to end up playing against like minded opponents who want the same things out of their games as you.

1) You can modify the scenario to be creative, if you wanted to. Any group that'll agree to a scenario made up now should agree to a modified one. Or a new one, so it doesn't detract from anything at all.
2) Sure it does. You can easily create your own scenarios or narrative elements based on what they wrote, and even improve upon it. This isn't a game, where a knowledge of modding is required. Just people willing to agree with you, which you'd need anyway.
3) Again, it does. Either the ones provided are clever or imaginative (maybe you've never played a game where those existed?) or you create your own.
4) I don't see how scenarios in a book makes it any harder/easier to find like minded gamers. It might make it easier, since you all bought the same book, but I doubt it makes it harder.

I'm still havin' fun with 40k. The recipe is to avoid competitive tourneys.

Are you talking about pug dogs or is it some modern acronym?

To me the thing about current 40K is that I could invest large amounts of time, money and energy in trying to get the game work well, but for the same amount of resources I can get several other games all to work well and have more varied and just better wargaming experiences.

Yoyoyo wrote:
You guys know that 40k works for both competitive play, narrative play, and casual play?

What 40k doesn't do is auto-filter its playerbase so you end up playing with the right people.

Competitive play needs a balanced set of rules that can't be rendered down to a handful of Best options and armies. Casual play needs a low buy-in and rules that can be quickly understood with a minimum of quibbling or confusion. Narrative play needs rules for consistently advancing a story (rather than one where warlords might be feeling like a master of infiltration one day and fearsome the next).

Martel732 wrote:


Tell GW to give BA something that can actually do something to Tau and then you won't have this problem.

Well, yes? And several other armies too.

The issue is bigger than just BA and Tau.

 Blacksails wrote:

Salous wrote:

Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.

People might be inclined to take you seriously if you didn't act like an ass. Straight up man, your post above adds nothing of any value to the conversation. None. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.

This discussion is about the state of 40k. That state is one of unbalanced mess that is only getting more complicated and more expensive while also not being particularly good for competitive games, casual games, and any shade in between. Yes, players can invest tons of effort and compromises to make something work in 40k. But, if that's the case, wouldn't it be incredibly obvious that the state of 40k is flat out bad? If you need to put in that much effort to make the game work when nearly every other game currently on the market works out of the box the way its intended to, it means 40k is not in a good position.

You can like it all you want, and that's fine, but again, seeing as this thread is about the state of 40k, most people agree its not good or at least could be dramatically improved. Your own arguments support that statement too. If the game needs tons of compromising and only playing with close friends and ensuring you're all on the same power level and developing your own sets of FAQs and other houserules, that pretty much makes the game, well, bad.

Oh, posting politely might help your case. Right now, its been a lot of personal attacks and snide remarks with no backing.

I don't think anyone would argue that the core rules are good - no scenario support, not balanced, not supported by GW post release (no FAQ/Errata). GW themselves state over and over that they're a company for collectors and the rules aren't a priority.

It really is a game for the 'collector' target audience now - people who get fun from collecting Citadel minis and occasionally putting them on a table. Some people may spend time to tighten up the rules or create scenarios, but that's secondary to the fun they get from collecting Citadel minis.
If you're one of these players it's probably never been a better time to play GW games - little or no restrictions on what of your collection you can plonk on the tabletop.

What'll be interesting is if GW can sustain itself in the long term with this plan. Players who liked a tighter ruleset have left or are leaving, and at the moment GW don't seem to be recruiting enough collectors to replace those leaving

If I'm not mistaken, GW has stated on record that their core audience are the 'collectors'. I put that in quotes because its a rather vague and nebulous term that I don't think even GW knows what it really means for them, besides 'a person who buys whatever we sell'.

As for the game being designed for them, sure, I suppose, but even then its still poor. The RPGs by FFG are probably better suited for something like that really.

I think the issue is that the game is just not good at doing anything in particular. Its not good for competitive play due to the balance and vague rules. Its not a casual game because of the money and time investment, and even here, balance and poor rules writing hurts. Its not good for narrative play due to a lack of scenarios, campaign backing, rules that work at odds against the fluff, and again, poor balance and writing.

The advantaged the game has really boils down to its ubiquity. Its also supported by some cool models that have cool backgrounds. That's about it. Now, for anyone who says that putting in 'X' amount of effort can fix the game, they might as well put in the same effort to simply port over their models into another system that doesn't have these problems.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Then along comes the 6th edition codex and makes them awesome, and suddenly Tau players are supposed to leave all the awesome units at home?!?!?

That's what certain people are suggesting Eldar players do.

Screw that.

If you have a "non-competitive" Codex, simply step up and ask for a points handicap when you're playing a stronger Codex.

Or just L2P.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, GW has stated on record that their core audience are the 'collectors'. I put that in quotes because its a rather vague and nebulous term that I don't think even GW knows what it really means for them, besides 'a person who buys whatever we sell'.

GW gaming *IS* for hobbyist collectors, as opposed to gamers.

Consider that 40k is completely playable with generic units, yet what is this whole push for bitz customization, parts swaps and so forth. The whole business of personalizing a unique army and and scratchbuilding and so on is collector behavior. Why else the fetish for the original RT / 2E models or Forgeworld. That's all collector mentality.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


GW gaming *IS* for hobbyist collectors, as opposed to gamers.

A bit of a contradiction eh? Wouldn't gaming by its nature be for gamers?

Regardless, the issue becomes since when has this been a thing? When I started 40k, it was very much supportive of 'gamers' or whatever vague term you'd like to use.

Now, it doesn't know what it wants to be. Which is the issue.

Consider that 40k is completely playable with generic units, yet what is this whole push for bitz customization, parts swaps and so forth. The whole business of personalizing a unique army and and scratchbuilding and so on is collector behavior. Why else the fetish for the original RT / 2E models or Forgeworld. That's all collector mentality.

Isn't every non-historical wargame about creating a unique and personalized army? From what I've seen, conversions and scratch builds are encouraged in many other games.

Point is, its hard to nail down what a collector really is, and it also neglects that people can be a part of many of these vague definitions people like to try and pigeon-hole other hobbyists in.

Sort of. The other part of the collector mentality that GW doesn't seem to understand are those who collect things for the perceived value they may one day have, such as comic collectors.

When you have scratch-built, or modified, the original model? It now has no collector value.

 Elemental wrote:
Competitive play needs a balanced set of rules that can't be rendered down to a handful of Best options and armies. Casual play needs a low buy-in and rules that can be quickly understood with a minimum of quibbling or confusion. Narrative play needs rules for consistently advancing a story (rather than one where warlords might be feeling like a master of infiltration one day and fearsome the next).

Hence ITC-style tournament environments with active management, low-points chill games between friends with simple units and a more relaxed attitude to rules, and campaign managers who ensure logical progression over multiple games.

You are 100% right in your assessment but all of these options are out there if you take the time to explore!

Though ITC and other groups basically nerf the more-powerful units/armies/builds which doesn't actually address problems, it just moves them around.

What else can they really do? They just try pulling the top tier stuff down a bit. Aside from just re-writing the basic rules, I don't see how they could do anything else.

Because what it basically does is punish people for wanting to play the army as-written and, moreso, simply creates other problems with power-builds in other areas, rather than attempting make all armies balanced, internally and externally, because that is a major, major undertaking.

But again, aside from writing everything from scratch there isn't much they can do. It's a lot of work just to get the competitive aspects of subpar armies up to the competitive level, much less attempting to bring balance as a whole.

If anyone would have the means to do this, it would be the TO since they may have means to play test the rules with a large community.

The game has bloated to a point where it just isn't a reasonable undertaking to do that. In 6th I was able to make an army list using 6 books. Now with the Codex: Imperium of Man I'm sure it's even more insane to try and just touch the army books without making massive overhauls to the BRB.

But again, this is something that GW should have done. If they want to say they aren't a game company then they shouldn't make so many fething rule books.

Kind of my point. The ITC rules, and those from other tournament organizers and such, are bandaids on a sucking chest wound. The game, fundamentally, is broken, and broken badly. There should not be the "learning curve" there is to 40K. One should not expect to drop $500+ for a game to play with one's friends and then expect to have to lose a dozen (or more) times just to kind of get an inkling of an idea of what it is you're doing... or find out that the $500 you spent on those pieces of plastic will *never* win a game against the $500 your friend spent on his other pieces of plastic.

Ok, so I've read all the comments, as well as done some research, and this is the way I see it (objectively, since I haven't played in 10 years).


• People have been complaining that the sky is going to fall in on GW since 2009. Complaining that it'll go bust within the year, etc: It's still open, and doing reasonably well. True, there are some areas they can do better in such as dialogue with the customers (who aren't just customers, but members of a community), as well as bearing in mind the psychological needs of the customers (which is community - people play 40k for fun, and for the sense of community that comes with it).

• AoS: Mixed reviews, but overall it seems to be selling quite well, and most people I speak to say that they enjoy it once they tried it.

• Tryrannid players spend a lot of time washing the tears off their models.

Myc wrote:
Ok, so I've read all the comments, as well as done some research, and this is the way I see it (objectively, since I haven't played in 10 years).


• People have been complaining that the sky is going to fall in on GW since 2009. Complaining that it'll go bust within the year, etc: It's still open, and doing reasonably well. True, there are some areas they can do better in such as dialogue with the customers (who aren't just customers, but members of a community), as well as bearing in mind the psychological needs of the customers (which is community - people play 40k for fun, and for the sense of community that comes with it).

• AoS: Mixed reviews, but overall it seems to be selling quite well, and most people I speak to say that they enjoy it once they tried it.

• Tryrannid players spend a lot of time washing the tears off their models.

I think that depends on how you define a couple of things.
Is GW doing 'reasonably' well if they are still pulling a profit but if sales have been falling year on year for a long time now? It is a controlled slide but it will inevitably end at a point where you can't raise prices or cut costs enough to actually turn a profit.
As for AoS, there is a lot of talk of the starter set selling, but the sigmarines that followed seem to be gathering dust on the shelves and they are then 90% of the actual AoS products released now. I tried to find some painted up on CoolMini and in like 10 pages worth of sigmarine pics there were about 6 of them that weren't from the starter set models and store owners here on Dakka are saying the same. Starter sold, nothing since.

Myc wrote:
Ok, so I've read all the comments, as well as done some research, and this is the way I see it (objectively, since I haven't played in 10 years).


• People have been complaining that the sky is going to fall in on GW since 2009. Complaining that it'll go bust within the year, etc: It's still open, and doing reasonably well. True,

Sort of. They remain profitable following some major internal restructuring, but their revenues is basically in continuous decline for the last 11 years. Couple that with the fact that their prices have skyrocketed, and the fundamental conclusion is that they're selling less stuff to fewer people. Doesn't mean they're going bye-bye tomorrow, but it does mean that their player/customer base is shrinking at a steady rate.

• AoS: Mixed reviews, but overall it seems to be selling quite well, and most people I speak to say that they enjoy it once they tried it.

As jonolikespie said, the starter sets seem to have sold fairly well, but after the initial July rush, there's a very large sense of "fizzle out" in a lot of places.

In my own personal experience, the only sales I've seen of AoS Sigmarines and Khrone stuff has been for 40k proxies in BA and KDK armies, but haven't seen anyone actually play AoS recently, basically after the interested people tried a couple games it seems to have largely fallen by the wayside.

Why not? Doing the gaming version of clubbing baby seals isn't fun either, unless you are a socially inept loser with no empathy. If they're the kind of players that just want to roll dice against helpless opponents, they are shallow, mannerless bullying cowards with no shred of decency or morals, and are no better than those bullies on the playground when we were kids - in other words, they aren't worth me giving them the time of day, let along partnering up for a wargame.

But they aren't helpless those that play necron, eldar, tyranid tyrant armies or sm bikers lists are doing fine and they make most of the people playing. Those with BA or IG or CSM are the minority, so they have to do what the majority wants. Specialy as doing something would mean that someone has to buy bad models. Can you imagine 2 CSM , 1 BA and IG player making almost 30 people buy bad units ? Or telling people like GK players that we don't want them to run draigo, cenurion and tigurius. They should buy bad GK units and stop using ally. That will work for sure.

No, I just play with nice people. I don't have to 'force' anyone - I just explain that no, I'm not having fun, and no, I don't like getting roflstomped- I like being a participant in games.

I don't see how forcing others to buy models they don't want is suppose to be nice. People here would think it is crazy.

Course I can. Because I have social skills and can talk to my mates and bring them on side with interesting scenarios and clever mission ideas. 'Wouldn't it be cool if...' Is usually answered with 'yeah, let's do it'. You'd be amazed with how far a simple chat with decent folks can get when organising games. It's just a shame you play with losers and tfg, but really, the fact that you refuse to better yourself, and step beyond that mentality yourself and see how stifling self destructive and narrow minded it is means I have little sympathy for you.

You mean like tournament scenarios? My army sucks at those,in fact my army sucks for 7th, because it was writen as if the rules for winning were the same as they were in 5th or 4th ed. Using tournament scenarios won't help, most people have optimized lists anyway. And if I write something that favors my army, they will just say no.

Why not? I've had no issues selling any of my old taus on Facebook. And yes, you can still use 40k models in other games, assuming they are appropriate stand ins. I'm planning on using my rhinos and kasrkin as generic sci fi human troopers from now on.

Because tau are still ok, and getting a new codex now. No one here plays IG and no one runs IG as ally as there are other armies. Some months ago I could have had sold some of the wyverns, now even those don't sell. If people are ok with you to use w40k models in warmahordes or ifinity, then your more lucky then I am. Here neither the people, not the shop owners supporting those games accepts such stuff.

But in the meantime, assume the truth that my gaming budget is quite small, and the time I can give towards gaming is even more limited, I can just chat to my fellow gamers and bring them onside with playing our games. It's called 'socialising' and it offers some remarkable rewards. You'd be amazed how a chat with decent folks can clear up any amount of grievances and lead to common ground. Maybe you should leave your group and try and find some nicer people, eh?

Our play group is made out of people from the same 2 schools, out of the 4 people I play against 2 are my family and 1 my aunts husbands son and one is my boyfriend. Aside for getting married it is impossible to get more socialized with the 20+people here . And chating will get me nothing. When 7th started I already felt that it is going to suck for me, so I ask If I can use the special characters from the old IG codex . The anwser in every time was "no". Then I tried to play non mealstorm missions, because my army is impossible to win them. The anwser was always "no" too.
And leaving the group is impossible. The other one is in the part of town supported by the other football team from my town, and it is dangerous for me to go there or to take a 3 hour train trip to another city, and that is not counting the time needed to get to the station or it getting late.