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.

So I've been trying to get back into 40k since 6th. I picked up the Tau army when they came out (before knowing the full extent of the rules and realising they were a bit OP at that point).
I've been steadily building/painting models and stuff with the idea of having a reasonably TAC list (nigh on impossible in the game).

Anyway I cant hep but notice that things are just getting (IMO) too ridiculous for words. I mean i thought the Rippy was pretty bad (although nice model) then we had a steady and perpetual increase in new 'big seller' models and their rules.
The latest being the space wolves brandishing endless frost related weapons designed to 'murder' everything and almost all being high strength and AP.
Its got me to a point where i honestly feel the game is going too far. It seems to be very much in favour of certain armies and builds those armies to the highest power in some perpetual (and mindless) arms race.

Does anyone else just feel bored by this design process?

I understand the game is sandbox in nature and up to us to form house rules but it seems to only really support 'entrenched' members and doesn't really help people trying to get into the game.
It leaves too many variable to discuss and issues that can't be rectified for pick up games (IMO).

I mean personally i think making a better game would be more exciting because its gotten a little 'old hat' to me with the arms race.

Is anyone else just find the whole thing a little snore inducing now?

Well, I should point out at the start of this post I'm not saying anyone is doing anything "bad" or "wrong" by buying all the latest releases, and I'm generally a bit of a skinflint...

But I agree. "Arms race" is exactly how I'd describe it. The current release schedule and kitchen-sink approach to list building seem to encourage one-upmanship and grabbing the new heftily-priced "uber" unit. I know businesses have to make money and all the rest of it. But I think that with this edition they've become particularly cynical in their approach.

 Fezman wrote:
Well, I should point out at the start of this post I'm not saying anyone is doing anything "bad" or "wrong" by buying all the latest releases, and I'm generally a bit of a skinflint...

But I agree. "Arms race" is exactly how I'd describe it. The current release schedule and kitchen-sink approach to list building seem to encourage one-upmanship and grabbing the new heftily-priced "uber" unit. I know businesses have to make money and all the rest of it. But I think that with this edition they've become particularly cynical in their approach.

Yeah, something I love still about Necrons, they don't have new, expensive units or a new 7th edition "uber" unit yet. As for Tyranids, I bought an Exocrine used on eBay and saved myself 20 bucks. No way I'm paying their hefty price just for the "new" unit that has access to AP2 shooting...

Eh, Space Wolves trumped all other SM codex's released in 5th, it's pretty typical of them by now.

It suits Games Workshop's objectives to large new models for people to buy. These need to be supported by rules. Who is going to buy small models with weak rules?

It would be better for players if GW would invent some new games rather than keep pumping stuff into 40K.

Its why I'm not a fan of the codex release schedule.

I'd much prefer each codex designed at the same time as the edition, and released either with the new edition, or shortly thereafter.

Then again, that doesn't stop the whole game from amping up, but it at least stops the nonsense of marines, marines +1, and marines +2.

Not a fan of current 40k. Its basically epic now, but at an exponentially higher cost and clunkier gameplay.

I'm expecting the SW rules to be poorly balanced yeah. GW has put out a couple relatively balanced codices lately - SM and IG. Neither are perfect, both could be better in a lot of ways but they're not powerhouses or horrible. There has been an argument that GW intentionally makes some units OP in order to sell models - this argument peaked around the Vendetta/Night scythe/Riptide shenanigans, but there have been counterpoints such as horrible DA new flyers and so on. If GW is really getting desparate moneywise, I wouldn't put it past them to make a concerted effort to ramp up the arms race with new kits or old but underselling kits in order to stimulate sales.

As a general game thing however yes - there has been a large trend to higher str, higher ap and other shenanigans like ignores cover. This has devalued things like termies who just don't have the survivability to warrant their cost due to these gamewide changes. It's one (of the many) reasons a lot of us are calling for a rewrite of 40k as it's pretty much beyond fixing at this point.

Yeah, it could use a re-write. There are quite a few rules I'd like to see changed.

Yup, except are people actually buying the uber units? They added the Wyvern to IG months ago, everyone proxies it with something else, never actually seen a Wyvern or Taurox.

The arms race and rules inflation has gotten crazy.

I don't think they necessarily are amping the power as much as they suck at balancing(on purpose?)

Some of the recent codexes are only side grades of already not the most competitive dexes.

The strongest of the new SW frost weapons are only 24 inch range, they are S8 AP1/Lance(a Multi Melta will be as good/better in most situations).

Compare that to much longer range AP 1 firepower of Tau and Necrons. Then consider Necrons are 3 yearsish old and still considered one of the most competative dexes.

The new SW dex is, most likely, stronger than it currently is, though it is worth considering lack of air power in general was their big problem and any flier was destined to amp them.

It doesn't help GW if players buy alternative models for anything but if people do, it does not invalidate the theory that GW want to make "powerful models&rules" to tempt people to buy them.

I think... well... yes and no. Bigger guns and more powerful toys means more dakka to throw around, making battles even more over the top.

On the other hand, using them in a battle (to me at least) feels like mindlessly beating the opposition with a club slowly and as hard as possible instead of crossing swords with them, relying on speed, precision, a touch of strength, and psychological analysis of the opponent.

 SkavenLord wrote:
I think... well... yes and no. Bigger guns and more powerful toys means more dakka to throw around, making battles even more over the top.

On the other hand, using them in a battle (to me at least) feels like mindlessly beating the opposition with a club slowly and as hard as possible instead of crossing swords with them, relying on speed, precision, a touch of strength, and psychological analysis of the opponent.

Yeah, very few games I've played actually came down to actual objectives and strategy. It's mostly who can table the other person first.

I stopped caring after they started pushing out fliers.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I stopped caring after they started pushing out fliers.

Yeah, Flyers kinda ruined balance. They came out, and then GW came out with ways to fight back, which pretty much then made fliers useless. That's my main concern. Then again, 7th did quite a bit to make flyers harder to kill again.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I stopped caring after they started pushing out fliers.

Yeah, Flyers kinda ruined balance. They came out, and then GW came out with ways to fight back, which pretty much then made fliers useless. That's my main concern. Then again, 7th did quite a bit to make flyers harder to kill again.

And people wonder why I think GW is incompetent when it comes to making games.

Hence why I making my own addition.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I stopped caring after they started pushing out fliers.

Yeah, Flyers kinda ruined balance. They came out, and then GW came out with ways to fight back, which pretty much then made fliers useless. That's my main concern. Then again, 7th did quite a bit to make flyers harder to kill again.

And people wonder why I think GW is incompetent when it comes to making games.

Hence why I making my own addition.

I've actually been working on my own game system as well. Similar to 40k in the fact that it uses d6s and you have to make skill checks, but not going to have obnoxious rules.

I too dislike the recent direction of 40k.

Fliers and other big models just seem too large for the game.

It probably doesn't help that the whole 'huge robot battling either huge monsters or different huge robots' thing just never appealed to me.

I'm also not a fan of the 'screw the FoC and use whatever you want' approach. Nor, for that matter, the 'random = balance' approach.

I think one of the biggest problems is that basic weapons are being made more and more useless. I'd like infantry that can actually accomplish something - rather than having squads of 1 special weapon and 9 ablative wounds.

 vipoid wrote:

I think one of the biggest problems is that basic weapons are being made more and more useless. I'd like infantry that can actually accomplish something - rather than having squads of 1 special weapon and 9 ablative wounds.

This^ Fleshborers, Las guns, Shootas, and Bolt Guns just don't really DO much. The only standard guns that are actually worth taking are Eldar guns for Bladestorm, Dark Eldar guns because of poison, Necron's Gauss, because they have special rules. It usually comes down to who has the biggest guns. Hence why people don't take many troops anymore. There's no need.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I stopped caring after they started pushing out fliers.

Yeah, Flyers kinda ruined balance. They came out, and then GW came out with ways to fight back, which pretty much then made fliers useless. That's my main concern. Then again, 7th did quite a bit to make flyers harder to kill again.

And people wonder why I think GW is incompetent when it comes to making games.

Hence why I making my own addition.

I've actually been working on my own game system as well. Similar to 40k in the fact that it uses d6s and you have to make skill checks, but not going to have obnoxious rules.

While I wish GW made better rules, I still admire rules designers in general. I think in almost all cases, rules made by gaming companies would be better than rules I make up myself. Of course I'm probably not as skilled as some of you.

 krodarklorr wrote:

This^ Fleshborers, Las guns, Shootas, and Bolt Guns just don't really DO much.

But *why* don't they do much?

None are unreasonable against infantry - especially in the numbers the former 3 can achieve.

 krodarklorr wrote:
The only standard guns that are actually worth taking are Eldar guns for Bladestorm, Dark Eldar guns because of poison, Necron's Gauss, because they have special rules.

Agreed on the others, but trust me - if I could take something else on my DE, I would. Poison is about 10% as effective as people seem to think it is.

 krodarklorr wrote:
It usually comes down to who has the biggest guns. Hence why people don't take many troops anymore. There's no need.

Which is a very sad state of affairs (7th basically killed all the good work 5th had done in encouraging people to take troops), and not a good situation for any game.

Troops should be the core of an army - not just taken as minimum squads to satisfy the FoC.

 vipoid wrote:
I too dislike the recent direction of 40k.

Fliers and other big models just seem too large for the game.

It probably doesn't help that the whole 'huge robot battling either huge monsters or different huge robots' thing just never appealed to me.

I'm also not a fan of the 'screw the FoC and use whatever you want' approach. Nor, for that matter, the 'random = balance' approach.

I think one of the biggest problems is that basic weapons are being made more and more useless. I'd like infantry that can actually accomplish something - rather than having squads of 1 special weapon and 9 ablative wounds.

I REALLY dislike unbound. I dont understand the point to it AT ALL.. except for the pure.. "lets see how this would work out" in a fun/friendly noncompetitive environment. however an unbound list should never be able to fight a battleforged list in any game! It should be only unbound vs unbound and battleforged vs battleforged.

 vipoid wrote:

But *why* don't they do much?

None are unreasonable against infantry - especially in the numbers the former 3 can achieve.

Agreed on the others, but trust me - if I could take something else on my DE, I would. Poison is about 10% as effective as people seem to think it is.

Which is a very sad state of affairs (7th basically killed all the good work 5th had done in encouraging people to take troops), and not a good situation for any game.

Troops should be the core of an army - not just taken as minimum squads to satisfy the FoC.

Well, people don't field as many troops, even horde armies now don't use that much actual infantry, so large amount of weak firepower does less and less.

And yeah, Poison isn't the best, but against certain armies (My two, Necrons and Tyranids in particular) are vunerable to it. When poison is good against something, it's pretty damn good.

Also a reason why I've started taking more of a liking to Fantasy. Love how a lot of the rules work instead of 40k, love the FoC equivalent, and overall seems a tad more balanced. It feels like, even if you use the "worst" army out there, if you play right and play strategically, you can overcome most opponents. 40k is about "I have this big gun. Well I have THIS big gun. Well, I went first. Well f*ck."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Random Dude wrote:


While I wish GW made better rules, I still admire rules designers in general. I think in almost all cases, rules made by gaming companies would be better than rules I make up myself. Of course I'm probably not as skilled as some of you.

Well, sometimes I still don't understand what the game designers think when making some of these rules. Which is why I'm taking the broad concept of a d6 system, and swapping it around a bit, and coming up with my own rules that I feel make more sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:


I REALLY dislike unbound. I dont understand the point to it AT ALL.. except for the pure.. "lets see how this would work out" in a fun/friendly noncompetitive environment. however an unbound list should never be able to fight a battleforged list in any game! It should be only unbound vs unbound and battleforged vs battleforged.

Well, I don't care for it either, but I think they've added a lot of rules like this so people can do the whole "Forge a Narrative" thing. Like, for a narrative campaign? Yeah, unbound sounds awesome, and could make some pretty cool themed lists. Heck, when I start my narrative Fantasy campaign, I'm gonna be using "unbound" lists, just for fluff.

I don't see much of an arms-race going on after the release of Codex: Eldar last year.

Space Marines got buffed from their previous book, but remain well below the Tau and Eldar.

Tyranids remained weak.

Imperial Knights were frightening for a few months, but lost a lot of their advantages with 7th edition nerfing their D weapons and letting everyone run multiple super-heavies.

Imperial Guard had their most abusive builds nerfed hard and received little in compensation. Their internal balance looks a lot better than it used to (although it still isn't that great).

Orks are not really any stronger than they were before and now have really good internal balance (with a couple of terrible exceptions, like killa kans).

It seems like Space Wolves are going to lose their free CCWs with no points drop, bringing their basic units in line with most other armies'. Their flyer looks like it will be no more scary than the Storm Raven.

 Sal4m4nd3r wrote:

I REALLY dislike unbound. I dont understand the point to it AT ALL.. except for the pure.. "lets see how this would work out" in a fun/friendly noncompetitive environment. however an unbound list should never be able to fight a battleforged list in any game! It should be only unbound vs unbound and battleforged vs battleforged.

Agreed - I'd much prefer a tighter core ruleset, with nonsense like Unbound saved for friendly games.

To be honest, even Allies rubs me the wrong way. I'd like to field units just from my own book - without feeling that I'm at a big disadvantage as a result.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Well, people don't field as many troops, even horde armies now don't use that much actual infantry, so large amount of weak firepower does less and less.

Indeed, and I think that's part of the problem.

Anyway, i think it would help if infantry had something along the lines of the 'combined ranged attack' rule in Warmachine - whereby a unit can reduce its number of shots to increase the strength of those shots. So, infantry wouldn't be utterly worthless against vehicles and MCs.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Also a reason why I've started taking more of a liking to Fantasy. Love how a lot of the rules work instead of 40k, love the FoC equivalent, and overall seems a tad more balanced. It feels like, even if you use the "worst" army out there, if you play right and play strategically, you can overcome most opponents. 40k is about "I have this big gun. Well I have THIS big gun. Well, I went first. Well f*ck."

I wonder how it will look when 9th comes out...

 krodarklorr wrote:

Also a reason why I've started taking more of a liking to Fantasy. Love how a lot of the rules work instead of 40k, love the FoC equivalent, and overall seems a tad more balanced. It feels like, even if you use the "worst" army out there, if you play right and play strategically, you can overcome most opponents. 40k is about "I have this big gun. Well I have THIS big gun. Well, I went first. Well f*ck."

I think what you mean is "even if you use the "worst" army out there, if you have an max level wizard and manage to cast your uber spell, you can overcome most opponents". Because Fantasy is about "I have this uber spell. Well I have THIS uber spell. Well, I managed to cast it first. Well f*ck."

I like large models and fliers even, but I agree that it's a bit silly that 'basic' weapons like the lasgun, boltgun, shoota, etc. have become sort of useless. I wish there was a rule that allowed even these weapons a chance at killing the larger models. Sure, a single lasgun isn't going to do much against a knight, but a hundred lasguns just might damage it.

 vipoid wrote:


To be honest, even Allies rubs me the wrong way. I'd like to field units just from my own book - without feeling that I'm at a big disadvantage as a result.

Indeed, and I think that's part of the problem.

Anyway, i think it would help if infantry had something along the lines of the 'combined ranged attack' rule in Warmachine - whereby a unit can reduce its number of shots to increase the strength of those shots. So, infantry wouldn't be utterly worthless against vehicles and MCs.

I wonder how it will look when 9th comes out...

Allies was a cool idea, and kinda works in some situations, and I think it got more reasonable with 7th (I fought Taudar once. I'm glad it no longer exists.) But it does offer a big disadvantage for some armies. Like Necrons. We lack some things, and can't really effectively ally with anyone.

I've never played Warmachine, but at my local store, a lot of people have converted over to it, which makes me sad.

And don't speak such things. Just take 8th edition and change cannons. Everything else is fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:


I think what you mean is "even if you use the "worst" army out there, if you have an max level wizard and manage to cast your uber spell, you can overcome most opponents". Because Fantasy is about "I have this uber spell. Well I have THIS uber spell. Well, I managed to cast it first. Well f*ck."

Well, yes and no. I can't really argue that too much. Honestly, I saw one guy just spend an entire 2500 pt game trying to 6-dice a large Purple Sun. That's no fun for anyone, but at the same time, the magic phase is a tad more balanced that 40k. You can fight back against most spells evenly, and even when they cast "irresistibly" they still have to roll a miscast, which I've seen tear wizards apart, so yeah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mumblez wrote:
I like large models and fliers even, but I agree that it's a bit silly that 'basic' weapons like the lasgun, boltgun, shoota, etc. have become sort of useless. I wish there was a rule that allowed even these weapons a chance at killing the larger models. Sure, a single lasgun isn't going to do much against a knight, but a hundred lasguns just might damage it.

Yet another concept from Fantasy I love. S3 bows can take down a Necrosphinx, which realistically, if you shoot enough, it would work. Whereas my Gauss rifles, which can kill a Land Raider, can't touch a Wraithknight.

The game defo needs some reworking to make it better.
I hate that there is less strategy to the game and more buy the biggest things.

Also does anyone feel that this edition was made to the benefit of a few 'best selling armies' or rather boost sales of some armies further?

In the end sad to say Pandora's box has been opened. Once you open the box there is no going back.
That said I have already pretty much quit 40k and am now playing Warmahordes. It was a fun darn near twenty year run but now on to new adventures.