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.

The balance is all over the place with some codecies, there are a few too many special rules in my opinion, but it's still a really fun game with great fluff.

Dozer Blades wrote:I love 40k straight out of the rulebook - really hate to see people making major rule mods that others have no choice but to accept or not play.

If you've actually read the rulebook, you should know that the rules as written flat-out don't work. Fortunately GW has given us permission to Forge The Narrative i.e. fudge the rules. For gameplay purposes clarification is needed, which is why Tournament FAQs exist.

Also, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a game of 40k that has been played where every rule was followed exactly to the letter. I know I haven't.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As I see it, 40k is self-conflicted.

On the one hand, it wants to be this light, fluffy game in which we bring fluff-thematic formations of things that look good together. You know, casual play in which we whip out our big shiny stuff to amaze and impress one another with.

On the other hand, everything (units, formations, Maelstrom) is overloaded with a boatload of special rules that cross reference all over the Codex and rulebook, to the point that it requires GW official play aids to use. Nebbish, book-lawyerly stuff that flat out detracts from the fun of pushing toys around and making "pew, pew" noises.

GW tailoring rules to competitive types, is completely counter to the "just bring it!" joy for casuals it encourages at the sales counter.

GW has more huge models than ever before, and that's actually a very good thing, because it's easier to play 1,000 points of Knights than it is to wrangle 1,000 points of Guard, to say nothing of 1,000 points of footy Orky Boyz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
7th is my least favorite edition so far.

The main rule mod I suggest is dropping the how to allocate wounds and simply let the player choose which model takes the hit. Every player I've encountered loves the idea. The other is simply a matter of not playing Maelstrom missions. Again another change that never seems to disappoint anyone.

Not playing is always a better choice than playing a game you won't enjoy.

Thinking about it, I think I have to agree with hating 7E most of all, simply because it added Maelstrom, which is a major fething PITA, while still keeping 6E's Challenges and "Closest First" bullgak. Having played multiple Maelstrom missions, I do not enjoy the random for random's sake. As for wounds, I still allocate wounds a la 4E "owner chooses", and flat out refuse to play 6E/7E closest first.

I think GW has been pretty clear what kind of game Warhammer 40,000 is: a giant sandbox that's what the players themselves make of it and choose to use, like an RPG sourcebook. They don't directly support the rules or balance the game in a top-down manner because they assume that the players themselves are responsible for that. I can choose to play casual or narrative-focused games, and you can choose to play at tournaments. Just don't go thinking that your choice is any more or less legitimate than mine.

I actually like Maelstrom. I find it balances out a lot of the otherwise suffering armies by giving them another factor that will aid them: the luck of the draw. Sure, the execution isn't great, and you have to agree to house rules just to make it playable, but there's a reason most tournaments have added some sort of modified version of Maelstrom. It puts a renewed emphasis on mobility instead of the static gunlines that Eternal War missions degenerate into for some armies. And if you don't like Maelstrom, you can still play the standard missions.

Challenges in 7th are a lot better than they were in 6th. It isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for characters now that wounds spill into them, and CC characters aren't wasted now that wounds spill out of them.

"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition, and it seems like it's open to too much abuse. You could have a giant squad and allocate wounds from shooting onto the models in back, meaning that you'd have to be 100 percent dead or 100 percent stupid not to end up in CC. It's even more abusable with multiwound models. You think Decurion Wraiths are bad now? Imagine if you had to deal five wounds to a five-strong unit before the Necron player even started removing models. "Closest First" does slow the game down, and gets tricky when multiple different saves come into play, but only the most colossal rules lawyer would literally make you take one saving throw at a time.

Ugh I can't stand Maelstrom. I've never found it to be any good balancing mechanism, and the armies that usually are on top can take best advantage of it (particularly Eldar, Necrons, and SM's with bikes/jetbikes and podding). It's also just a ton of extra rolling and record keeping, and actively detracts from any narrative sense with constantly shifting arbitrary demands that are typically disconnected from the tactical realities of the table.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:As I see it, 40k is self-conflicted.

On the one hand, it wants to be this light, fluffy game in which we bring fluff-thematic formations of things that look good together. You know, casual play in which we whip out our big shiny stuff to amaze and impress one another with.

On the other hand, everything (units, formations, Maelstrom) is overloaded with a boatload of special rules that cross reference all over the Codex and rulebook, to the point that it requires GW official play aids to use. Nebbish, book-lawyerly stuff that flat out detracts from the fun of pushing toys around and making "pew, pew" noises.

GW tailoring rules to competitive types, is completely counter to the "just bring it!" joy for casuals it encourages at the sales counter.

GW has more huge models than ever before, and that's actually a very good thing, because it's easier to play 1,000 points of Knights than it is to wrangle 1,000 points of Guard, to say nothing of 1,000 points of footy Orky Boyz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
7th is my least favorite edition so far.

The main rule mod I suggest is dropping the how to allocate wounds and simply let the player choose which model takes the hit. Every player I've encountered loves the idea. The other is simply a matter of not playing Maelstrom missions. Again another change that never seems to disappoint anyone.

Not playing is always a better choice than playing a game you won't enjoy.

Thinking about it, I think I have to agree with hating 7E most of all, simply because it added Maelstrom, which is a major fething PITA, while still keeping 6E's Challenges and "Closest First" bullgak. Having played multiple Maelstrom missions, I do not enjoy the random for random's sake. As for wounds, I still allocate wounds a la 4E "owner chooses", and flat out refuse to play 6E/7E closest first.

I think GW has been pretty clear what kind of game Warhammer 40,000 is: a giant sandbox that's what the players themselves make of it and choose to use, like an RPG sourcebook.

I actually like Maelstrom. And if you don't like Maelstrom, you can still play the standard missions.

Challenges in 7th are a lot better than they were in 6th. It isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for characters now that wounds spill into them, and CC characters aren't wasted now that wounds spill out of them.

"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition,

As a sandbox, 40k 7E is an abject failure, simply because the sheer number of special rules and such actually limits what the player can do. The presence of detail detracts from creativity, whereas a blank canvas leaves room for creation. It's not at all like a RPG sourcebook, because RPGs are all about developing your character, and 40k has relatively little options in its current form. If you were to go back to 4E(?), Guard had a variety of Doctrines to choose from so you could theme the army more directly in the rules itself, as opposed to merely model and weapon selection.

I'm glad that you like Maelstrom. For me, it's an excess of recordskeeping, and anti-narrative in the sense that High Command has no fething clue what they want the army to do. Go Left! No, kill those guys. No, go Right! No, go Left again. It's pure nonsense.

Challenges still slow the game down for no obvious reason.

Owner chooses is an excellent method. It's cinematic, in that Heroic and special models survive to the very end. It's also tactical, in that owner can choose to increase or maintain distance to the opponent. Finally, it treats the unit as a unit. And multi-wound is trivially solved simply by requiring the owner to remove the maximum number of models possible, resulting with no more than one partially-wounded model in any unit.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition, and it seems like it's open to too much abuse. You could have a giant squad and allocate wounds from shooting onto the models in back, meaning that you'd have to be 100 percent dead or 100 percent stupid not to end up in CC. It's even more abusable with multiwound models. You think Decurion Wraiths are bad now? Imagine if you had to deal five wounds to a five-strong unit before the Necron player even started removing models. "Closest First" does slow the game down, and gets tricky when multiple different saves come into play, but only the most colossal rules lawyer would literally make you take one saving throw at a time.

So go one more edition back. It had things like torrent of fire. In which case if your attacking unit did more wounds than the target unit you got to allocate specific models to make saves. Many a heavy weapon trooper was lost this way. Other Units (snipers mostly) could force a specific model to take a save when 6s to hit were rolled. It was also possible to snipe specific models out due to blocking LOS. By putting a LOS blocking vehicle in front of a unit you could reduce the number of models that could be removed as a casualty. Thus sniping out the heavy weapon or sarg. Some people saw this a cheesy, but what it was in fact was skill and tactics. It actually made vehicle positioning matter. It made unit placement important. Another one of those skils that is just missing from todays game.

Also in 4th with multi wound models in units you had to remove entire models when possible. There was not the spreading around of wounds which is what made TWC and Nob Bikers stupidly powerful in 5th edition. So as soon as you put one wound onto a multi wound model, you had to continue putting wounds onto that model until it died, then moved on to the next one.

I really do think that 4th edition core rules was the most tactical game where the player decisions mattered the most. Pretty much just rip out the vehicle entanglement rules and it was a great mini war game. Now like always not all codexs were created equal, but that wasn't a problem with the core rules. Just Matt Ward.

I did like 4E's wound allocation best. I was never bothered by the heavy weapon guy being the last one in the squad (the weapon can always be picked up by someone else). 4E had some solid mechanics that were unnecessarily messed with.

Other aspects of 4E however...I did not like so much.

i think that this is the last hoorah for 40k and next edition we will be lucky to have army rules at all, codecies will simply stop being printed and new model waes will have in box rules. in addition after that at some point 40k will stop having rules period and be a model range with a set of storybooks cause thats where GW wants to take their entire company one day

 ionusx wrote:
i think that this is the last hoorah for 40k and next edition we will be lucky to have army rules at all, codecies will simply stop being printed and new model waes will have in box rules. in addition after that at some point 40k will stop having rules period and be a model range with a set of storybooks cause thats where GW wants to take their entire company one day

WHFB introduced random charges and random terrain.
GW added those into 40k.
40k introduced unbound.
GW slipped unbound into WHFB end times.
Age of Sigmar hit, taking that to an extreme.


I'd be surprised if the next edition of 40k doesn't follow the same trend of adding more random and removing more restrictions. It might even get Age of Sigmar'd.

 jonolikespie wrote:


I'd be surprised if the next edition of 40k doesn't follow the same trend of adding more random and removing more restrictions. It might even get Age of Sigmar'd.

And bruva alfabusa's TTS series will become canon.

Personally I hope 40K does get AoSed.

I have a heap of figures I don't play with because the rules and codexes are too expensive. I would be all over free rules and codexes.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
Been playing for 16 years and this is my favorite version of the game. A lot of people claim that the system is broken or some other such comment - hopefully you take that as the extreme exaggeration that it is. It became quite fashionable to pick on GW and pray for its destruction over the last couple years.

I wouldn't call it fashionable. Here in this thread you see a lot of people saying the game is fine with house rules, and some saying it doesn't work. There isn't a majority trend unless you count passive aggressive snipes at others. That is pretty fashionable

 Grumblewartz wrote:
ome complaints were valid, but the majority have just been...well, an internet fad. Take, for instance, people complaining that GW releases codices that make certain units less viable and others greatly more so. They have been doing that from the start, haha.

The complaints have not been that certain units are becoming less viable, its become that certain factions are completely unplayable. The factions on either end of the spectrum have a very hard time playing against each other without list tailoring both lists, which is something long time 40k players are loathe to do. List tailoring is still a dirty word to most.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

Does it help sales - heck yeah - but it also makes the game dynamic, interesting, promotes new unit combinations, etc.

Sales are down, and the largest complaints you see are about these new dynamic combinations that produce rerollable 2+ cover saves. Compared to earlier editions, where the best deathstar was the seer star (rerollable 4++ save, T4, weak attacks without mind war), death stars have become incredibly strong and are often the best thing on the table outside of GMCs. But they aren't fun to play against.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

The death of Warhammer Fantasy in large part occurred because units rarely changed and few were added over the span of years. Apocalyptic minded people claim the sky is falling and 40k is dying, but GW's drop in sales can in large part be attributed to the fact that 40k is dependent on people having disposable income and a lot fewer people have that these days.

I don't think you played Warhammer Fantasy.

Warhammer fantasy died because Demons couldn't be beaten by any army. They flat out broke the games back, and it lasted an entire edition. Nothing could take on a demon army.
Later on, demons got toned done but magic got brought way up. The strongest thing in the game became taking a single mage on a flyer, having him move up, and cast Purple Sun or another overpowered spell across the entire enemy army. Elves and VC become insanely strong since they could do this for very cheap. Ogres (who got a ton of new units, including a new cavarly piece, 2 new siege pieces, among others) couldn't fight any army that could do this, since on a 3+ you just removed the model from play and could do it to my entire army. Certain armies were guaranteed to start with those spells due to special items or rules too, so it really was impossible to stop.

Removing guessing ranges from siege weapons made monsters much worse, since Empire just auto-killed anything big (lame). Random charge distances made knights a lot worse, and units becoming more killy made generating CR through breaking ranks nearly pointless. The power increase in the game made tactics less valuable than just spamming one really good spell.

So yeah, a lot of what we are seeing in 40k currently.

Also, while TT games are overall doing better than they have been, 40k is dropping. It is unique in this regard among its peers.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

Anyways, the game has changed quite a bit over the last few editions with the introduction of flyers, fortifications, and super heavy vehicles/gargantuan creatures in normal games. IMO this has just added to complexity of the game, which, for me, means that it is more interesting than ever. The game is expensive to get into. On the plus side, the game has been around for such a long time that it is quite easy to buy unpainted models 2nd hand at an affordable cost.

You can get the old stuff that is often not great for cheap, but the newer better models like GMCs are not easy to find.
40k was already needlessly complex and expensive to get into. Now just the rule book and formations can easily run you 200, especially if you play with allies (and according to some posters here, you better be!). In other games, 200 dollars will buy me an entire army if they have a deal going (the all in one battle box for WMH, for example, is 100 for a 35 point list that is usually pretty competitive).

Many of the complaints about 40k, and fantasy, are valid. The setting and models are still excellent, which is why I push new players to proxy games and try out Necromunda instead. That game is, at most, 50 to get into and is a blast to play. You still get to detail about 15 models as well.

Proving my point, aren't you?

1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.
3. Yes, there are a couple overpowered builds...let's ignore the fact that bike armies are a thing again, flyers have completely changed the dynamic of the game, etc. Please, setup another straw man won't you?
4. I never played fantasy huh? I got into fantasy when you could still buy the product catalogs containing all new pewter models, boxed sets, etc. I started Lizardmen when the army was first released and still have an insane number of single cast skink archers and the saurus warrios with no-glue peg-and-hole right arms. I also have battlefleet gothic chaos fleet, a Lizardmen warmaster army, and Gorka Morka units and books...but, no, because my opinion differs from you I must have never played fantasy. Please, do educate me on why it is that every person got out of the game...after all, our points about why fantasy declined in popularity must be mutually exclusive, right? Go on again about how random charges have ruined the game though, that must be it. Or was it that that one army couldn't be beaten? Like Chaos Warriors in 4th edition when a five man unit could just run through unit after unit because they had such high initiative and could kill your front line before anyone could attack back. It isn't as if there aren't a whole series of other armies to play against...
5. Are you really saying that you cannot find used models online for well below new models? This is just getting ludicrous now.

Is 7th edition 40k broke and unplayable? No. Absolutely no. Did they introduce changes that had a serious impact on tournament play. Yes. Absolutely yes. Are there two universally known types of players and gaming communities - casual and competitive? Surprise answer, yes. Does the decline of the latter herald an end times of 40k? Unbelievably and this may indeed shock you, but no. A lot of us who have played the game for 15+ years are actually getting back into the game because of the new diversity of army builds, the increased number of codices, the ability to more easily customize an army using allies. Is that a large enough number to replace those who rage quit the game because they bought an all-flyer Necron army when no one had anti-air and are suddenly shocked, SHOCKED, that they can't just annihilate their foes with impunity anymore? Who knows. But what is known is that every edition has been accompanied by rage quitters, old timers dropping out because they can't keep up with the changes, etc. It is the nature of the gaming community and it has quite literally always been that way. I still remember players lamenting the end of the Squats when I first started playing and them claiming that the game had lost its soul, it is going to fail, blah blah blah.

Also, for all you people complaining about Maelstrom, what in the literal are you whining about? All the old missions are still there in the book...no one is forcing you to play Maelstrom...what am I missing here?

I would love 40k to get the AoS treatment, with fewer, more characterful Special Rules, everything on one page. Then fill the rest of the books on background, stories and artwork. Win!

 Grumblewartz wrote:

Spoiler:

Akiasura wrote:

 Grumblewartz wrote:
Been playing for 16 years and this is my favorite version of the game. A lot of people claim that the system is broken or some other such comment - hopefully you take that as the extreme exaggeration that it is. It became quite fashionable to pick on GW and pray for its destruction over the last couple years.

I wouldn't call it fashionable. Here in this thread you see a lot of people saying the game is fine with house rules, and some saying it doesn't work. There isn't a majority trend unless you count passive aggressive snipes at others. That is pretty fashionable

 Grumblewartz wrote:
ome complaints were valid, but the majority have just been...well, an internet fad. Take, for instance, people complaining that GW releases codices that make certain units less viable and others greatly more so. They have been doing that from the start, haha.

The complaints have not been that certain units are becoming less viable, its become that certain factions are completely unplayable. The factions on either end of the spectrum have a very hard time playing against each other without list tailoring both lists, which is something long time 40k players are loathe to do. List tailoring is still a dirty word to most.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

Does it help sales - heck yeah - but it also makes the game dynamic, interesting, promotes new unit combinations, etc.

Sales are down, and the largest complaints you see are about these new dynamic combinations that produce rerollable 2+ cover saves. Compared to earlier editions, where the best deathstar was the seer star (rerollable 4++ save, T4, weak attacks without mind war), death stars have become incredibly strong and are often the best thing on the table outside of GMCs. But they aren't fun to play against.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

The death of Warhammer Fantasy in large part occurred because units rarely changed and few were added over the span of years. Apocalyptic minded people claim the sky is falling and 40k is dying, but GW's drop in sales can in large part be attributed to the fact that 40k is dependent on people having disposable income and a lot fewer people have that these days.

I don't think you played Warhammer Fantasy.

Warhammer fantasy died because Demons couldn't be beaten by any army. They flat out broke the games back, and it lasted an entire edition. Nothing could take on a demon army.
Later on, demons got toned done but magic got brought way up. The strongest thing in the game became taking a single mage on a flyer, having him move up, and cast Purple Sun or another overpowered spell across the entire enemy army. Elves and VC become insanely strong since they could do this for very cheap. Ogres (who got a ton of new units, including a new cavarly piece, 2 new siege pieces, among others) couldn't fight any army that could do this, since on a 3+ you just removed the model from play and could do it to my entire army. Certain armies were guaranteed to start with those spells due to special items or rules too, so it really was impossible to stop.

Removing guessing ranges from siege weapons made monsters much worse, since Empire just auto-killed anything big (lame). Random charge distances made knights a lot worse, and units becoming more killy made generating CR through breaking ranks nearly pointless. The power increase in the game made tactics less valuable than just spamming one really good spell.

So yeah, a lot of what we are seeing in 40k currently.

Also, while TT games are overall doing better than they have been, 40k is dropping. It is unique in this regard among its peers.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

Anyways, the game has changed quite a bit over the last few editions with the introduction of flyers, fortifications, and super heavy vehicles/gargantuan creatures in normal games. IMO this has just added to complexity of the game, which, for me, means that it is more interesting than ever. The game is expensive to get into. On the plus side, the game has been around for such a long time that it is quite easy to buy unpainted models 2nd hand at an affordable cost.

You can get the old stuff that is often not great for cheap, but the newer better models like GMCs are not easy to find.
40k was already needlessly complex and expensive to get into. Now just the rule book and formations can easily run you 200, especially if you play with allies (and according to some posters here, you better be!). In other games, 200 dollars will buy me an entire army if they have a deal going (the all in one battle box for WMH, for example, is 100 for a 35 point list that is usually pretty competitive).

Many of the complaints about 40k, and fantasy, are valid. The setting and models are still excellent, which is why I push new players to proxy games and try out Necromunda instead. That game is, at most, 50 to get into and is a blast to play. You still get to detail about 15 models as well.

Proving my point, aren't you?

No, not really.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.

No faction was invincible in the earlier editions. Many factions were strong, and there was a disparity in power sure. But dexes could play against each other in standard formats and expect a chance at winning. Nowadays that is not the case. A decurion force will pretty much auto win against anything chaos marines care to try.
My point is the disparity in power between factions, not builds, is higher than ever in 40k.
When gk could do this against demons it caused an uproar because until then, no faction just upped and auto failed against a faction. Some factions, many in fact, were regulated to mono builds that varied in power. But no faction was flat out unable to play, as is the case now.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

3. Yes, there are a couple overpowered builds...let's ignore the fact that bike armies are a thing again, flyers have completely changed the dynamic of the game, etc. Please, setup another straw man won't you?

It's no strawman. Overpowered units now and back in earlier editions are not comparable. This creates a large power difference than has ever existed before.
Frankly, I can't see how you think this is a strawman, but your response in 2 is not.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

4. I never played fantasy huh? I got into fantasy when you could still buy the product catalogs containing all new pewter models, boxed sets, etc. I started Lizardmen when the army was first released and still have an insane number of single cast skink archers and the saurus warrios with no-glue peg-and-hole right arms. I also have battlefleet gothic chaos fleet, a Lizardmen warmaster army, and Gorka Morka units and books...but, no, because my opinion differs from you I must have never played fantasy. Please, do educate me on why it is that every person got out of the game...after all, our points about why fantasy declined in popularity must be mutually exclusive, right? Go on again about how random charges have ruined the game though, that must be it. Or was it that that one army couldn't be beaten? Like Chaos Warriors in 4th edition when a five man unit could just run through unit after unit because they had such high initiative and could kill your front line before anyone could attack back. It isn't as if there aren't a whole series of other armies to play against...

Chaos warrior in 4th had too little attacks to wipe an entire front line reliably. Even if they did, which is rare but can happen, you could smash the flanks with a large unit and have enough static cr to most likely win the combat. With a small cavalry flanking force you'll probably run them down, and invest similar points in both units as one unit of chaos warriors. Chaos warriors were not invincible in this edition, not like demons later on, if you are comparing the two, then you never experienced demons. I don't think chaos warriors are even as strong as Vc or elves were in later editions, but they didn't dominate as much as demons did, so it's hard to argue that point,
Well since you asked for education...I mainly play ogres, though i own 3 other fantasy armies. Ogres recently got new models (quite a few, which runs counter to your point). Lizzie's got a few new models as well, some of them quite good, which again goes against what you said.
Random charge distances, power creep, and magic suicide heroes becoming broken ruined the game. New models have nothing to do it, since many armies got new models.
So our points aren't mutually exclusive, yours is just wrong.

 Grumblewartz wrote:

5. Are you really saying that you cannot find used models online for well below new models? This is just getting ludicrous now.

I said it is difficult to find the new models for cheaper, which are the stronger ones in many factions. Not all models.
Strawmannned twice now

 Grumblewartz wrote:

Is 7th edition 40k broke and unplayable? No. Absolutely no. Did they introduce changes that had a serious impact on tournament play. Yes. Absolutely yes. Are there two universally known types of players and gaming communities - casual and competitive? Surprise answer, yes. Does the decline of the latter herald an end times of 40k? Unbelievably and this may indeed shock you, but no. A lot of us who have played the game for 15+ years are actually getting back into the game because of the new diversity of army builds, the increased number of codices, the ability to more easily customize an army using allies. Is that a large enough number to replace those who rage quit the game because they bought an all-flyer Necron army when no one had anti-air and are suddenly shocked, SHOCKED, that they can't just annihilate their foes with impunity anymore? Who knows. But what is known is that every edition has been accompanied by rage quitters, old timers dropping out because they can't keep up with the changes, etc. It is the nature of the gaming community and it has quite literally always been that way. I still remember players lamenting the end of the Squats when I first started playing and them claiming that the game had lost its soul, it is going to fail, blah blah blah.

Also, for all you people complaining about Maelstrom, what in the literal are you whining about? All the old missions are still there in the book...no one is forcing you to play Maelstrom...what am I missing here?

I've played the game for over 20 years, most of my local community has. We've mostly moved on, I play about once a month now. That's down from twice a week, which is what I played in 5th. Your anecdotal evidence not withstanding, sales are down.

Does the game still have that weird problem where they want you to treat each individual member of a squad like an individual as if it were a skirmish game but then you fight with a massive number of models that clearly makes it a mass battle game?

I enjoy 40k but I wish there weren't super formations that gave free wargear or whatever. Those are kinda game-breaking and leave a bad taste in everyone's mouths regarding formations, which is a shame since some are really characterful without being overpowered, and some shore up some serious deficiencies in their armies.

So long as you're playing with likeminded people, it's a good time. The background and aesthetics are second to none for me, and the fun games I have far outweigh the bad ones.

Not as much as before. 40k 7E should be sized at 1500 pts, of which roughly 400 goes into a Knight Titan of some sort. So it's really a 1,000 pt game with a Knight tacked on. That keeps the numbers down, so it's OK as a skirmish.

Akiasura wrote:

 Grumblewartz wrote:

1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.

No faction was invincible in the earlier editions. Many factions were strong, and there was a disparity in power sure. But dexes could play against each other in standard formats and expect a chance at winning. Nowadays that is not the case. A decurion force will pretty much auto win against anything chaos marines care to try.
My point is the disparity in power between factions, not builds, is higher than ever in 40k.
When gk could do this against demons it caused an uproar because until then, no faction just upped and auto failed against a faction. Some factions, many in fact, were regulated to mono builds that varied in power. But no faction was flat out unable to play, as is the case now.

There are no unplayable factions in 40k. Chaos, Guard, orks... they can all be played, and they can all win. Hell, I have played CSM numerous times with my Necrons, and guess what? CSM have won most of them.

Was it against the decurion? Using only CSM?

I can't picture them winning tbh. The necrons have too much of an advantage in speed, cc power, toughness and fire power to overcome.

Do you have a list? I've tried using plague marines, cultists with only good models being used, and emperors children to no avail. I can play against necrons with my wolves and ultra marines and do okay.

I don't think guard are unplayable. Orks are borderline. De are in a very bad place however.

Akiasura wrote:
Was it against the decurion? Using only CSM?

I can't picture them winning tbh. The necrons have too much of an advantage in speed, cc power, toughness and fire power to overcome.

Do you have a list? I've tried using plague marines, cultists with only good models being used, and emperors children to no avail. I can play against necrons with my wolves and ultra marines and do okay.

I don't think guard are unplayable. Orks are borderline. De are in a very bad place however.

Unfortunately, it really all depends on how strong your opponent's list is.

In regards to CSM, Khorne Daemonkin lists can do pretty well against Necrons using the Gorepack formation and other units.

Akiasura wrote:
Was it against the decurion? Using only CSM?

I can't picture them winning tbh. The necrons have too much of an advantage in speed, cc power, toughness and fire power to overcome.

Do you have a list? I've tried using plague marines, cultists with only good models being used, and emperors children to no avail. I can play against necrons with my wolves and ultra marines and do okay.

I don't think guard are unplayable. Orks are borderline. De are in a very bad place however.

Don't remember everything he had, but he had basic CSM tac squad, termies, dreadnaughts, and rhinos equivalents, heldrake along with a flying demon prince an a few other stuff that I don't remember. Biggest thing that stood out to me was how in 2 games on turn one he was able to take out my Ghost arks with his Dreadnaughts. The Demon prince was a good tarpit and owned alot of my stuff in psychic phase, and the heldrake was really good as well. In a few of those games I used Decurion.

Salous, I'm not doubting your games but that is a very odd list to beat well...anyone. Helbrutes are really awful...I can't imagine how he destroyed multiple ghost arks turn 1 with any amount.

A prince owning with powers is very expensive and if not nurgle or tzneetch very easy to kill. I don't know of any good offensive powers we get....I usually take biomancy with mine. What power set did he use?

Maybe we play in different metas. I use plague marines with prince and lord on bike with brand as my strongest list. 2 drakes and either termies or mauler fiends/ forge fiends depending on how many tanks I take. I try to eliminate how str 4 and under shooting performs, and weaken str 6 shooting, but against stronger lists it doesn't seem to matter.

I've run an emperors children list with 6 blastmasters and a ton of termies and drakes, but it performs worse against most lists.


I haven't looked at that formation, but isn't the best thing about it the demons?

Salous wrote:
There are no unplayable factions in 40k. Chaos, Guard, orks... they can all be played, and they can all win. Hell, I have played CSM numerous times with my Necrons, and guess what? CSM have won most of them.

Nice anti-humblebrag there.

Normally, we'd expect the reverse. However, if you're up against a very strong player who really knows his list, and you're not rolling well, then, yeah, even Decurion will lose to ordinary CSM.

TheNewBlood wrote:

"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition, and it seems like it's open to too much abuse. You could have a giant squad and allocate wounds from shooting onto the models in back, meaning that you'd have to be 100 percent dead or 100 percent stupid not to end up in CC. It's even more abusable with multiwound models. You think Decurion Wraiths are bad now? Imagine if you had to deal five wounds to a five-strong unit before the Necron player even started removing models. "Closest First" does slow the game down, and gets tricky when multiple different saves come into play, but only the most colossal rules lawyer would literally make you take one saving throw at a time.

It overall saves time and arguments. Multi-wound models are easy; remove whole models. It also allows for your characters to lead from the front. Unless you find it more cinematic for your Marine Captain to be hiding in the back? The current wound allocation are a complete time wasting gak show.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I would love 40k to get the AoS treatment, with fewer, more characterful Special Rules, everything on one page. Then fill the rest of the books on background, stories and artwork. Win!

I'm not looking forward to it. GW will probably make me jump across the table to bite my opponent on the neck to get a charge bonus for my Death Company.

Of course there is very little chance I'll be playing 8th edition anyway if GW remains on its current course.

The game is great, the models are great.
The support sucks no faq's and no rebalancing updates of the older publications is just horrible..

I love it that people have to roll dice individually from large pools these days to allocate wounds/saves to be by the book.

Between Psychic, Unbound, LOW, allies, formations and FW, 7th is the "Do whattevah" edition.
Yet oddly it works as even the most neglected armies (sisters, CSM) have a plethora of options to patch holes in their books.

Caveat being there is no balance and you usually need 2-5 sources to write a cool list so if;
*You play in a GW store and aren't cartoon tophat rich
*Have a venue full of TFG and tournament mentality
*You can't get past being a one book, one army purist
...you will have a terrible time.

For playing scratchbuilt armies with xeroxed rules (loosely followed) in your friends garage, you'll have a great time.

It's still the most popular wargame despite GW's machinations. However more and more people are ignoring GW altogether and playing older editions (especially 5th) with older models. I at least agree with this and find it the best way to play it.

I'm desperate for AoS style treatment for 40k. Until then the AdMech I buy are more likely to see the table in a special Necromunda Scenario than in 40k. I cannot stomach how many books I would have to buy to field a combined Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus force.

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Grumblewartz wrote:

1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.

No faction was invincible in the earlier editions. Many factions were strong, and there was a disparity in power sure. But dexes could play against each other in standard formats and expect a chance at winning. Nowadays that is not the case. A decurion force will pretty much auto win against anything chaos marines care to try.
My point is the disparity in power between factions, not builds, is higher than ever in 40k.
When gk could do this against demons it caused an uproar because until then, no faction just upped and auto failed against a faction. Some factions, many in fact, were regulated to mono builds that varied in power. But no faction was flat out unable to play, as is the case now.

There are no unplayable factions in 40k. Chaos, Guard, orks... they can all be played, and they can all win. Hell, I have played CSM numerous times with my Necrons, and guess what? CSM have won most of them.

BA are pretty damn close to unplayable.