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.

I love how 40K is right now. Only problem I have is balance betweeb shooting and assault and balance between different armies, ptherwise I see no problems.
Change my view?

Question - which army/armies do you play?

My main issues with 40k are:
Formations- I just don't know what's what. Things are being updated faster than I can keep pace, they're spread across 40000 full price books and I don't know what's current and whats now obsolete.

Bigger is better- Super heavies are everywhere. If you can't deal with 3 knights in a 1000pts list you're going to have a bad day.

General army balance- If hearing your opponent say 'I play tau' seriously makes you regret signing up for the match, that's badly unbalanced.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Question - which army/armies do you play?

Space wulf with allied knights if we have to believe his photo's...
But yeah this could be the main reason why 40k is fine in his opinion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matthew wrote:
I Only problem I have is balance betweeb shooting and assault and balance between different armies, ptherwise I see no problems.
Change my view?

Also this....... Isn't close to fine.

I find that most people who think 40K is great have not played a lot of other wargames. It's often a "this is all I know" kind of thing. No one is saying you can't enjoy 40K but a lot of people believe the game to have a lot of fundamental issues.

I find that the more I play other games (and I've played dozens and dozens of alternate miniature rules sets for varying periods from Old West to Gladiators to WW2 to French and Indian War, to Vietnam, to Steampunk etc.) you realize how clunky and poorly written/designed the general rules for 40K are. However, if I'm honest - 40K's shining attraction has never been the rules. It's been the models and the fluff/lore that attracts people. Most folks simply "put up" with the rules in order to enjoy themselves.

I think this sums up 40k up until last year


This seems to be what GW is doing since Kirby stepped down.


Personally I think the game is somewhat ok but has some SERIOUS balance issues and a flawed design for getting new players into the hobby (startup costs are insanely high outside of Dark Vengeance and that is a very uninspiring starter box). GW needs to really sit down and tackle some of the broken game mechanics that make it incredibly hard for people to play a game at a reasonably even playing field.

I play Space wolves, never use my knight. Not sure how my armies would change my opinion.

I'm enjoying it in the main. It could do with better balance between codexes for sure, and I'd like cover, close combat and armour/saving throws reworked

 Matthew wrote:
Only problem I have is balance betweeb shooting and assault and balance between different armies, ptherwise I see no problems.

This is pretty much entirely what is so wrong with 40K.

As for me, I won't touch playing my Tyranids until GW fixes them (instinctive behavior has got to go, Flying Hive Tyrant shenanigans is silly, gaunts, genestealers & carnifex really need help - really, the whole codex needs help).

 Matthew wrote:
I play Space wolves, never use my knight. Not sure how my armies would change my opinion.

Of course it affects your opinion, in an unbalanced ruleset at least. Players who have armies on the better half of the power spectrum are more likely to not notice glaring flaws in the 40k ruleset compared to people who suffer from the ruleset guidelines more.

That does go the other way though - there are a few positives in 40k in terms of rules. However, much like Elbows said, 40k is a poor ruleset compared to a decent number of other popular miniature games in terms of balance, fluidity and properly developed ideas. People will mostly stick about both for the financial and time investment they've made with their collections, alongside having affection for the 40k universe.

G.A

It's not fine, but it is fun. Its balance is whack, but with some talking between players, you can have good matches and, more importantly, a good time.

Does OP have any other experience with other games? Generally having a frame of reference will highlight just how weak of a game 40k is.

Could use improvement? Yeah, sure, who couldn't. But "Fine"? Yeah, it's totally fine! I certainly think we're better off than we were a year or two ago, and a year or two ago I ewas enjoying myself handily.

EDIT: And YES, I have experience with other games. X-wing is a lot of fun, but lacks the scale and the sense of 'epicness' that you get with 40k. My experience with Warmachine is limited, but it too doesn't quite cover the scope I like, among a couple other pet peeves. (Though I haven't played it in years, so take that with a grain of salt.) I cut my teeth on Heroscape, but it got discontinued...

Play as Dark Eldar against a Tau army piloted by someone who's got enough sense to remember how to breathe in and out and then come back and tell us how fine it is.

Probably not but you won't find that sentiment on this forum for the most part.

 Matthew wrote:
I love how 40K is right now. Only problem I have is balance betweeb shooting and assault and balance between different armies, ptherwise I see no problems.
Change my view?

1). This is the only game you play
2). You play Eldar or Space Marine Gladius
3). You have no other experience in table top gaming
4). You don't know how to critically think about the rules
5). You fail to grasp basic play balance
6). You play with your mates and only your mates (never at a tournament or LGS)
7). You drink a lot of beer/hard stuff while playing
8). You play the game as a game, and don't take it seriously
9). You are a hobbyist, and barely play the game
10). You play the game for fun/casually

These are not negatives, these are just possible reasons why you think 40K is fine. More likely, it's a combination of many of these. If you think the game is fine and you enjoy it, then who cares what everyone else thinks. Keep playing the way you like it. We play games to have, and this is a game of little toy soldiers in a make believe universe. It's hard to take it too seriously.

 Matthew wrote:
Only problem I have is balance betweeb shooting and assault and balance between different armies

Life in the desert is great. Only problem I have is there's no water and it's so hot your brain boils out.

To the OP: There's a phenomenon by which people who don't have anything to complain about go on with their lives, while the people who have lots of things to complain about wander about the Internet shouting. You're probably not the only person who thinks 40k is absolutely fine but you'll find the people who agree with you at a game store playing 40k rather than on Dakka complaining.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
To the OP: There's a phenomenon by which people who don't have anything to complain about go on with their lives, while the people who have lots of things to complain about wander about the Internet shouting. You're probably not the only person who thinks 40k is absolutely fine but you'll find the people who agree with you at a game store playing 40k rather than on Dakka complaining.

Yep!

There are certainly some issues with 40K once you start digging into it, but overall I find it an enjoyable experience. If I didn't, I'd stop doing it. And complaining about the drawbacks on the Internet isn't actually going to change it, so I don't really get the point.

Any game where different armies fight in fundamentally different ways is always going to have balance issues.

Call it the "Curse of 3rd Edition" which made the armies move faster and close combat more decisive. It created "Close Combat Armies" where there are entire factions that only exist to get in close combat.

Problem is, that's like trying to balance a game where one side is the WW2 Germans and the other side are Medieval French Knights. The guys with the guns should always win. History proved that, which is why we still have guns, but not very many knights and most of them just hit on girls at Renaissance fairs. But it's not fun for the guy playing the French Knights.

Unless 40K re-aligns the armies to fight in a more balanced slash/shoot manner, then the balance problems between shooting and close combat will always exist. There are just too many variables in 40K. Some armies fight in close combat by using lots of expendable troops. Others do it with lots of high-powered, valuable units. Some armies shoot using large numbers of expendable troops. Others do it by using powerful, valuable units. So not only is it trying to balance WW2 Germans vs French Knights, it's also trying to balance WW2 Germans against Gauls.


So, if you play 40K, you're always going to have to accept this. Some armies will always be better than others because their play style fits the edition better than others. Honestly, if the game continues to favor shooting over close combat, eventually things will work themselves out, and maybe the idea of "close combat armies" will go away.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
The guys with the guns should always win. History proved that

ww2 had plenty bayonet charges trumping shooty defences. And we're talking about a fictional universe with lots of things capable of withstanding a gunshot. Not just puny humans.

My experience is that it's fun and not as bad as people say. Not great but not that bad.

So, if you play 40K, you're always going to have to accept this. Some armies will always be better than others because their play style fits the edition better than others. Honestly, if the game continues to favor shooting over close combat, eventually things will work themselves out, and maybe the idea of "close combat armies" will go away.

Why would I ever want close combat to go away?

Thats the reason I like Warhammer, and the reason why this universe appeals to me over others.

I'm not here to play some gakky technology driven sci-fi game. This is Fantasy in space, it always has been. Guns should always be secondary to close combat.

Assault armies should always be competitive.

Guns won out over swords in history yea, but this isn't history. It's a fantasy game.

shooting is king right now, and just look at the state of the game...

In all honesty, close combat was the thing that caught my eye with 40k dow in the first place.

Shooting being king is only proper, down with swords in space, melee combat should be used in utter desperation only.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Shooting being king is only proper, down with swords in space, melee combat should be used in utter desperation only.

If you're part of the Imperial Guard or the Tau expeditions, maybe; a lot of 40k's flavour comes from its theatres of warfare being a hybrid of ranged and close quarters combat. Without it, I think a lot of 40k both as a universe and as a TT game would be very dull.

It's fine to have factions and armies that focus on ranged combat, but I think downplaying melee focused factions and armies is killing a lot of what makes 40k unique.

The only way melee armies are going to survive against gunlines is if the melee troops are damn jedi - for 40K, this is 2++ rerollable saves and AP 2/1 melee weapons.

Decided to re do this post later

Depends who you are playing with really, and what sort of game you're trying to have.

Most recent game here was Apoc, silly points, massive table and frankly the rules are more they as a guideline anyway, the cheese commeth, and gets sliced and served with little sticks through it.

If you're after a tight ruleset your looking in the wrong place, but as an amusing way to while away the odd afternoon with a few friends while you all get very silly, it works.

Find its a good game to have, as long as you also have and play others, the pure over the top silliness makes a wonderful change

Shooting being king is only proper, down with swords in space, melee combat should be used in utter desperation only

I think you are in the wrong universe man, If it doesn't do combat, it doesn't belong in 40K just like tau.