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.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO this is the wrong direction. The game was designed as a hybrid skirmish game/WHFB-in-space, but 40k's awkward core rules are one of its biggest problems. GW needs to scrap the entire structure of the current game and start over from the beginning, and that means asking what 40k should be. And the answer is a large-scale game, not a skirmish game. The market is already full of skirmish games, and GW's biggest advantage (other than the fluff) is that they have a full range of models with tanks/aircraft/etc, not just infantry. A proper 40k game needs to take advantage of that, not scale everything back and abandon it.

Sure, but a complete overhaul of the game to the point where it barely resembles the current game is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion.

Multiple armies.

Isn't an incentive. There has to be an intrinsic value to something in order for it to be an incentive.

The possibility of owning multiple armies only appeals to people... who want multiple armies.

I mean hell. I play Guard, SM, CSM/Daemons and maybe some Tyranids- I have no desire to use any other armies, despite the fact that I have access to every army for free.

You already own 5 armies, that's not much of an argument against people owning multiple armies ; p

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
As 40K was designed as a skirmish game, it would work best as one, and thus the optimal solution would be to scale back the game.

IMO this is the wrong direction. The game was designed as a hybrid skirmish game/WHFB-in-space, but 40k's awkward core rules are one of its biggest problems. GW needs to scrap the entire structure of the current game and start over from the beginning, and that means asking what 40k should be. And the answer is a large-scale game, not a skirmish game. The market is already full of skirmish games, and GW's biggest advantage (other than the fluff) is that they have a full range of models with tanks/aircraft/etc, not just infantry. A proper 40k game needs to take advantage of that, not scale everything back and abandon it.

The main problem I see with embiggening 40k is that 28mm scale just doesn't work well for it.

28mm scale wouldn't be too bad at large quantities of models if it included optional movement trays. I can see that working well to increase the scale without dragging down gameplay, especially if things like mitigation of AoE were included to make it worthwhile. Horde armies could use them to field 100+ models, smaller elite armies could still avoid them. The position of each individual guardsmen really doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things ; p

 Yonan wrote:
28mm scale wouldn't be too bad at large quantities of models if it included optional movement trays. I can see that working well to increase the scale without dragging down gameplay, especially if things like mitigation of AoE were included to make it worthwhile. Horde armies could use them to field 100+ models, smaller elite armies could still avoid them. The position of each individual guardsmen really doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things ; p

I've been thinking for a long while now 40k would play so much better if individual models positions meant nothing and everything was based off the unit leader. Measure ranges from him, measure movement distance for him and just place the rest around him, if he is in cover or has LOS everyone is/does, etc.

Video games will often basically do things like that to simplify things on the processing end too. If you ever get AI followers, they're heavily leashed to your character and it works well. Tabletop wargaming is an abstraction, even more-so at higher model counts. If it speeds up gameplay and makes for a more fun game I'm deffo willing to accept compromises like that. I *do* like large model counts, but there has to be a trade off to keep it from being 3 hours of zzzz.

 Yonan wrote:
28mm scale wouldn't be too bad at large quantities of models if it included optional movement trays. I can see that working well to increase the scale without dragging down gameplay, especially if things like mitigation of AoE were included to make it worthwhile. Horde armies could use them to field 100+ models, smaller elite armies could still avoid them. The position of each individual guardsmen really doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things ; p

I already use movement trays for my 'nids

But still 28 mm scale I don't think is well suited to large battles. 2 wraithknight sized models sitting in their deployment zones looks like 2 dudes standing in my lounge room (ie. a 4 x whatever table is too small for such large toys... I mean miniatures ).

Also, people already complain that WHFB is just like a front rank with a bunch of wound counters, I think many people would be sad to lose the significance of all their expensive and hard painted troops.

That's why 10mm, 15mm, 1/72, etc are better scales for a larger battle. The battlefield is more reasonably sized and since the models are faster to paint, it doesn't feel like a travesty when they amount to nothing more than wound counters.

My guardsmen are already just wound counters for their heavy weapon so there's not much difference there ; p 40k has moved even further into the "irrelevant troops" area with them being unable to do much of anything in this high str/ap/ignores cover/large blast environment, though that's a problem imo and should be changed in the complete re-write of the rules we all want ; p

When you get to large numbers of a certain type of model they lose all significance anyway imo and with movement trays being optional you can decide yourself where the cutoff would be. If I could put my guardsmen into trays without subjecting them to more wounds from blasts I would, and it would speed games up a lot as I like to run a lot of guard ; p My SMs though, even though I like a lot of bodies, are still much lower body count than IG and so I wouldn't use trays unless we start talking about company level operations (yes I can field more than a company when I finish assembling them -_-)

I do agree that smaller scale models are great for that and I'm *this* close to getting into DZC, but 28mm gives a lot of model detail that's lacking at those sizes so if it can be done... I'd be keen on it ; p

 Yonan wrote:
You already own 5 armies, that's not much of an argument against people owning multiple armies ; p

Heh, I own every army, is my point. I play the game online, via hand-drawn sprites, and I've aquired all of the codices as well, so technically I have access to every single army already. With a few clicks I can choose to play with any faction in the game pretty much. That said, I've never played with Necrons, Sisters etc, and I have zero desire to ever really do so.

So if someone who basically already owns every army can't be bothered to play as most of them, an individual who has to spend actual money to play other armies has very little incentive to branch out to other armies.

 Yonan wrote:
My guardsmen are already just wound counters for their heavy weapon so there's not much difference there ; p 40k has moved even further into the "irrelevant troops" area with them being unable to do much of anything in this high str/ap/ignores cover/large blast environment, though that's a problem imo and should be changed in the complete re-write of the rules we all want ; p

When you get to large numbers of a certain type of model they lose all significance anyway imo and with movement trays being optional you can decide yourself where the cutoff would be. If I could put my guardsmen into trays without subjecting them to more wounds from blasts I would, and it would speed games up a lot as I like to run a lot of guard ; p My SMs though, even though I like a lot of bodies, are still much lower body count than IG and so I wouldn't use trays unless we start talking about company level operations (yes I can field more than a company when I finish assembling them -_-)

I do agree that smaller scale models are great for that and I'm *this* close to getting into DZC, but 28mm gives a lot of model detail that's lacking at those sizes so if it can be done... I'd be keen on it ; p

Well, yeah, I consider my IG platoons wound counters as well, but that's kind of the point of them. They are probably the epitome of wound counters

They are probably close to the least significant and least individualistic troops in the game alongside Tyranid Gaunts. Not really a great troop to base an argument of turning all infantry in to wound counters

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Sure, but a complete overhaul of the game to the point where it barely resembles the current game is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion.

Making 40k balanced would already require a major overhaul. TBH it would probably be easier to just scrap everything and start over than to try to salvage the ugly mess of the current game.

The possibility of owning multiple armies only appeals to people... who want multiple armies.

Yes, and the point is that the huge cost of starting a new army means that many people who do want multiple armies can't afford to have them. If they can afford 1500 points of models then they wouldn't stop at a single 500 point army, they'd buy those other two armies they've been thinking about. And GW should be perfectly happy with this situation, as the customer is still spending the same total amount of money on GW products.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Heh, I own every army, is my point. I play the game online, via hand-drawn sprites, and I've aquired all of the codices as well, so technically I have access to every single army already. With a few clicks I can choose to play with any faction in the game pretty much. That said, I've never played with Necrons, Sisters etc, and I have zero desire to ever really do so.

So if someone who basically already owns every army can't be bothered to play as most of them, an individual who has to spend actual money to play other armies has very little incentive to branch out to other armies.

The key difference here is that you aren't playing 40k, you're playing a weird online-only variant game in the 40k universe. If you consider the modeling and fluff aspects of the hobby instead of just the gameplay then you'll see a lot more reasons to get a second army.

And of course this also brings up the question of why you'd play 40k without the models. If all you're doing is moving sprites around on a digital map then why not play a game with much better rules instead?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They are probably close to the least significant and least individualistic troops in the game alongside Tyranid Gaunts. Not really a great troop to base an argument of turning all infantry in to wound counters

Even "good" troops are still just wound counters. If you have a standard 10-man tactical squad exactly three of those models matter: the sergeant, the heavy weapon, and the special weapon. The seven bolter marines are just extra wound counters that contribute a few bolter shots or chainsword swings. If you abstract them away and just have the sergeant fire X bolter shots where X is twice the number of wounds left on the unit the only thing that would be lost is the occasional situation where some models are out of range and/or LOS. Yes, that would be a sacrifice, but IMO it would be justified by the massive reduction in complexity.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Heh, I own every army, is my point. I play the game online, via hand-drawn sprites, and I've aquired all of the codices as well, so technically I have access to every single army already. With a few clicks I can choose to play with any faction in the game pretty much. That said, I've never played with Necrons, Sisters etc, and I have zero desire to ever really do so.

So if someone who basically already owns every army can't be bothered to play as most of them, an individual who has to spend actual money to play other armies has very little incentive to branch out to other armies.

The key difference here is that you aren't playing 40k, you're playing a weird online-only variant game in the 40k universe. If you consider the modeling and fluff aspects of the hobby instead of just the gameplay then you'll see a lot more reasons to get a second army.

And of course this also brings up the question of why you'd play 40k without the models. If all you're doing is moving sprites around on a digital map then why not play a game with much better rules instead?

If the only reason to play 40k were the rules, playing with sprites and what not, I can safely say I would have quit after a couple of years (that is, I probably would have quit when I was 12 ).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They are probably close to the least significant and least individualistic troops in the game alongside Tyranid Gaunts. Not really a great troop to base an argument of turning all infantry in to wound counters

Even "good" troops are still just wound counters. If you have a standard 10-man tactical squad exactly three of those models matter: the sergeant, the heavy weapon, and the special weapon. The seven bolter marines are just extra wound counters that contribute a few bolter shots or chainsword swings. If you abstract them away and just have the sergeant fire X bolter shots where X is twice the number of wounds left on the unit the only thing that would be lost is the occasional situation where some models are out of range and/or LOS. Yes, that would be a sacrifice, but IMO it would be justified by the massive reduction in complexity.

I don't disagree you could turn 40k in to a larger scale game (which it is becoming anyway with all the lord of war, fliers, fortifications, etc)... I just tend to think if you further abstracted the 40k rules to infantry being meaningless, the game would not be appealing, at least not to me.

I don't really want to pay the amount GW charge for models (or even from discounters) then spend a couple of hours painting each wound counter to then play a game which is inappropriately scaled anyway (playing a large scale battle on a 6x4 board with 28mm models).

Just doesn't appeal to me, I'd rather GW brought back Epic or just create a 15mm game a million times over than have 40k turn in to 28mm scale Epic.

 Peregrine wrote:
The key difference here is that you aren't playing 40k, you're playing a weird online-only variant game in the 40k universe. If you consider the modeling and fluff aspects of the hobby instead of just the gameplay then you'll see a lot more reasons to get a second army.

And of course this also brings up the question of why you'd play 40k without the models. If all you're doing is moving sprites around on a digital map then why not play a game with much better rules instead?

That's not a key difference, those are two different things. The "hobbyist" and the "wargamer" are not mutual- you can be both or you can be either one.

Don't waste my time with that elitist "real 40K" nonsense. I'm playing "real 40K" just as much as you or anyone else. There's absolutely nothing about the game that requires me to use combat barbie-dolls in order for the experience to be "authentic"- that's an arbitrary distinction made by betas.

As for why I play? Because it's fun. I don't need a game to be objectively good in order to enjoy it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That's not a key difference, those are two different things. The "hobbyist" and the "wargamer" are not mutual- you can be both or you can be either one.

Yes, but pure gamers aren't GW's target market (which is probably a good thing, because if GW was depending on pure gamers playing their shameful trainwreck of a game they'd be out of business by now), and pure gamers who are only interested in playing a single army are even less relevant. GW might lose a handful of sales from pure gamers who would never expand their single 500 point army, but most of their customers would buy at least 1500-2000 points in the long run.

And remember, this was the whole point of adding allies to the game: lower the barrier to entry for a second army to encourage people to start them.

Don't waste my time with that elitist "real 40K" nonsense. I'm playing "real 40K" just as much as you or anyone else. There's absolutely nothing about the game that requires me to use combat barbie-dolls in order for the experience to be "authentic"- that's an arbitrary distinction made by betas.

How exactly are you playing with TLOS in a top-down sprite game? You aren't? I'd say that's a pretty good sign that you aren't playing 40k.

As for why I play? Because it's fun. I don't need a game to be objectively good in order to enjoy it.

*shrugs*

Some people are just masochists I guess.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, but pure gamers aren't GW's target market

GW by admission does zero market research and their target audience by admission is "whoever gives us money"- ergo what they think is entirely irrelevant.

How exactly are you playing with TLOS in a top-down sprite game? You aren't? I'd say that's a pretty good sign that you aren't playing 40k.

We use TLOS with our programs- it takes more abstraction and pre-game agreement on what can be seen through and what can't, but it still works.

Your argument's subjective nonsense anyway, even if we didn't use TLOS in our games. What objective metric are you using to define what's considered "real 40K"? Humor me and list all your silly statutes. This'll be funny to see, considering we're talking about a game where the rules as written actively encourage you to house rule gak for convenience.

*shrugs*

Some people are just masochists I guess.

Much like you. Why are you wasting your life playing wargames and getting destroyed by strangers in debates on the internet? There's always something better that a person could be doing. I guess everyone's a masochist then.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yes, but pure gamers aren't GW's target market

GW's target audience by their own admission is "whoever buys our stuff"- ergo what they think is irrelevant.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They are probably close to the least significant and least individualistic troops in the game alongside Tyranid Gaunts. Not really a great troop to base an argument of turning all infantry in to wound counters

Guard, 'nids, Orks all run horde armies. Those armies would benefit from optional movement trays. The fewer model count ones like SM for example wouldn't want to use them as each basic troop is 3x as capable as the horde armies troops so you get more benefit to micro managing them. I'm not arguing that all should be treated as wound counters - but when some already basically are then they really don't need as much control as something 5x their cost.

 Yonan wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
They are probably close to the least significant and least individualistic troops in the game alongside Tyranid Gaunts. Not really a great troop to base an argument of turning all infantry in to wound counters

Guard, 'nids, Orks all run horde armies. Those armies would benefit from optional movement trays. The fewer model count ones like SM for example wouldn't want to use them as each basic troop is 3x as capable as the horde armies troops so you get more benefit to micro managing them. I'm not arguing that all should be treated as wound counters - but when some already basically are then they really don't need as much control as something 5x their cost.

Movement trays are one thing, I don't really have a problem with movement trays for anything, be they expensive elites or cheap pawns, I for one hate moving my models 1 by 1 regardless of which army I'm playing. I thought we were talking about unit rules that treat units more abstract as a single entity which is more appropriate to games of a scale where titans and such are walking around.

 Peregrine wrote:
You have to understand that there is a difference between what GW thinks and the idiotic propaganda comments they make to their shareholders. If GW genuinely believed that they have no target audience beyond "whoever is currently buying what we produce" then they would have gone out of business a long time ago. The truth is that GW does have a target market in mind, and it's a target market that emphasizes the collecting and modeling aspects of the hobby and neglects the actual game and its rules. This is incredibly obvious in how they run the company, they put a lot of effort into making things to collect and paint, and very little effort into making rules.

That's basically what I'm saying. But the point is that what GW considers to be their target customer is irrelevant to defining who can be considered "real" customers. Games Workshop might cater to hobbyists, but that doesn't mean that the only people who play the game are hobbyists.

And frankly I'd argue that they don't cater to hobbyists either. The same way that they alienate people who enjoy a well-made game with their gakky rules, they also alienate hobbyists with their overpriced models. The value you get from GW minis is vastly disproportionate to what you're paying for them.

TLOS =/= abstraction, by definition.

It's absolutely an abstraction, though a dumb one. That 20 guys can shoot a unit of 10 soldiers because the 20 guys have line-of-sight to half of one of the soldier's heads through a window from the other side of a map is a massive of abstraction.

The game as published by GW. If you're playing a modified version with your own LOS rules then you aren't playing 40k. This isn't some trivial thing like arguing over which units are "cheesy" and should be banned, TLOS is a fundamental game mechanic. If you remove it then you've significantly altered how the game works.

A house rule is a house rule. Saying "feth TLOS" is objectively not any different from saying "an IC can bestow Infiltrate to a squad" like the BAO does, or "you're not allowed to use Riptides." Games Workshop encourages you in their 40K rules to make any of those changes. They shouldn't encourage you to do that, they should instead have rules that aren't gak, but they do.

There really isn't. If I enjoy playing wargames then I'm going to play wargames even if someone else considers it a waste.

Exactly- if you're enjoying yourself then how it's not "masochism". I play 40K because I enjoy the aesthetic and the fluff- there are better games out there, like Warmachine, but after having played ~10 or so games of it I realized that it's just... not very interesting to me. I don't care about the setting, I don't care for the aesthetic (though Khador are pretty badass looking), and the gameplay, though objectively more balanced than 40K's, lacks its charm imo.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You have to understand that there is a difference between what GW thinks and the idiotic propaganda comments they make to their shareholders. If GW genuinely believed that they have no target audience beyond "whoever is currently buying what we produce" then they would have gone out of business a long time ago. The truth is that GW does have a target market in mind, and it's a target market that emphasizes the collecting and modeling aspects of the hobby and neglects the actual game and its rules. This is incredibly obvious in how they run the company, they put a lot of effort into making things to collect and paint, and very little effort into making rules.

That's basically what I'm saying. But the point is that what GW considers to be their target customer is irrelevant to defining who can be considered "real" customers. Games Workshop might cater to hobbyists, but that doesn't mean that the only people who play the game are hobbyists.

And frankly I'd argue that they don't cater to hobbyists either. The same way that they alienate people who enjoy a well-made game with their gakky rules, they also alienate hobbyists with their overpriced models. The value you get from GW minis is vastly disproportionate to what you're paying for them.

TLOS =/= abstraction, by definition.

It's absolutely an abstraction, though a dumb one. That 20 guys can shoot a unit of 10 soldiers because the 20 guys have line-of-sight to half of one of the soldier's heads through a window from the other side of a map is a massive of abstraction.

The game as published by GW. If you're playing a modified version with your own LOS rules then you aren't playing 40k. This isn't some trivial thing like arguing over which units are "cheesy" and should be banned, TLOS is a fundamental game mechanic. If you remove it then you've significantly altered how the game works.

A house rule is a house rule. Saying "feth TLOS" is objectively not any different from saying "an IC can bestow Infiltrate to a squad" like the BAO does, or "you're not allowed to use Riptides." Games Workshop encourages you in their 40K rules to make any of those changes. They shouldn't encourage you to do that, they should instead have rules that aren't gak, but they do.

There really isn't. If I enjoy playing wargames then I'm going to play wargames even if someone else considers it a waste.

Exactly- if you're enjoying yourself then how it's not "masochism". I play 40K because I enjoy the aesthetic and the fluff- there are better games out there, like Warmachine, but after having played ~10 or so games of it I realized that it's just... not very interesting to me. I don't care about the setting, I don't care for the aesthetic (though Khador are pretty badass looking), and the gameplay, though objectively more balanced than 40K's, lacks its charm imo.

Check out the Iron Kingdoms RPG book. The fluff of Warmachine is actually pretty in depth and epic.

In the grim dark future of wh40k there is no balance, only CHEEZE!

 Filch wrote:
In the grim dark future of wh40k there is no balance, only !

ftfy

Balance has never been important for me, some of the best games I have had are games where I am "supposedly" outnumbered and out gunned.
I like to see a wide variety of armies and units, for me its not really important that some are weak against others and some are not, its this variety that has kept me interested all these years.

I can see why people would like to see it more balanced for competitive purposes, It would certainly make for more interesting tourneys when everyone is not rocking the recent meta, but as far as I am concerned, 40k has never really been about an equal fight between two equal armies and the balance does not bother me one iota.

This is coming from someone with a halfling bloodbowl team as well !!!

 Rayvon wrote:
Balance has never been important for me, some of the best games I have had are games where I am "supposedly" outnumbered and out gunned.
I like to see a wide variety of armies and units, for me its not really important that some are weak against others and some are not, its this variety that has kept me interested all these years.

I can see why people would like to see it more balanced for competitive purposes, It would certainly make for more interesting tourneys when everyone is not rocking the recent meta, but as far as I am concerned, 40k has never really been about an equal fight between two equal armies and the balance does not bother me one iota.

This is coming from someone with a halfling bloodbowl team as well !!!

I was a fluff player and I wanted balance because I didn't want to be the guy behind the 8-ball just because I happened to like a certain army. That's ridiculous. If you want an asymmetrical battle, do it with points, not by shafting someone because he likes Blood Angels or whatever.

 Rayvon wrote:
Balance has never been important for me, some of the best games I have had are games where I am "supposedly" outnumbered and out gunned.
I like to see a wide variety of armies and units, for me its not really important that some are weak against others and some are not, its this variety that has kept me interested all these years.

I can see why people would like to see it more balanced for competitive purposes, It would certainly make for more interesting tourneys when everyone is not rocking the recent meta, but as far as I am concerned, 40k has never really been about an equal fight between two equal armies and the balance does not bother me one iota.

This is coming from someone with a halfling bloodbowl team as well !!!

Better balance means more variety.

I would say that the only balance that really matters is that either side has a chance at winning, and are both able to have fun.

I don't mind playing a game of 400 IG infantry vs a Baneblade as a one-off for some fun, just to see how long it takes for the men to die, or for one lucky Sgt to get a meltabomb on the tank, but when all games turn into a case of "Either I win or you lose", it's not very fun.

Players not being idiots really should regulate the game enough for anyone. It's a big game that allows plenty of scope so some reason must come in if you want a balanced game. Sometimes though it's fun to let rip!

The game developers not being idiots really should regulate the game enough for anyone.
Players imagination and creativity allow them far more freedom to let rip, than poorly defined and implemented sales pamphlets.

ftfy.

Ask 1000 40k players to develop a cool new unit for their army, and a fun scenario or two to use them in.
And you get 100 s of cool new units, and 100 s of cool new scenarios to try out.(Subjectively speaking.)

Ask 1000 40k players to write a clearly defined intuitive and engaging rule set for 40k, and you get 100s of arguments about what a 40k rule set should be.

Any group of competent gamers can make up stuff,(rules and unit profiles,) and play fun narrative games.

Players that rely on random pick up games need a decent level of game balance, that 40k fails to provide.

This is what PV and FOC are supposed to support in 40k.Enough balance to facilitate fun pick up games.

Lanrak wrote:
The game developers not being idiots really should regulate the game enough for anyone.
Players imagination and creativity allow them far more freedom to let rip, than poorly defined and implemented sales pamphlets.

ftfy.

Ask 1000 40k players to develop a cool new unit for their army, and a fun scenario or two to use them in.
And you get 100 s of cool new units, and 100 s of cool new scenarios to try out.(Subjectively speaking.)

Ask 1000 40k players to write a clearly defined intuitive and engaging rule set for 40k, and you get 100s of arguments about what a 40k rule set should be.

Any group of competent gamers can make up stuff,(rules and unit profiles,) and play fun narrative games.

Players that rely on random pick up games need a decent level of game balance, that 40k fails to provide.

This is what PV and FOC are supposed to support in 40k.Enough balance to facilitate fun pick up games.

Except that, having played in 4th and 5th edition 40k, that isn't how it works.

You don't get to make up 'cool, new units and scenarios.' You get to play what's in the rulebook, because it's 'balanced.' So if your faction's precious superheavy tank isn't in the rulebook, then sorry, no go.

EDIT: The idea the competitive players will be happy AND casuals will be happy in a balanced rules-set is bollocks. Casual players get shouted down by the competitive players when they try to develop narrative elements. For example, if you say "In this campaign game, the tau have 2000 points attacking from all sides against 1000 points of fortified Space Marines because of an ambush," then you've made a cool scenario. However, if the Space Marine player is less casual, he will say "No, thanks. I prefer to have a chance of winning." and turn the game down.

So really, casual players get stuck in a corner, were 'you and your little casual friends go to play toy soldiers, while we real men play real 40k real competitive-like!' I do not wish to return to that environment.

The issue here is that 40k isn't balanced at all. Units within a single faction range from outright garbage to insanely good. Factions themselves range from lackluster to OP. The rules are convoluted and bogged down with special rules that don't even need to be there, and the proliferation of random charts and objectives to replace meaningful choices.