So, trying to keep the drama to a minimum. Anyone with any time in the hobby has had the rules go south on him, seen his favorite army/build/unit turned to to crap. I wasn't the first, won't be the last.

But...

And this is an important 'but' here. Sometimes you have to pause for a bit and wonder if the hobby is treating you properly.

Rewind a year and change. I had finished purchasing my CSM army (hadn't played a game yet) and had just ordered my first batch of Dark eldar from Maelstrom. My local meta was a SM-fest and I wanted a seocnf force to keep me from getting bored with my own MeQs, and the De models were sleek, gorgeous, the army fast and deadly in a way my traitors...weren't.

Hit me until I love it

Then the embargo hit. Games Worshop apparently got fed up with losing sales to stores with actual good shipping policies and insane practices like buyback or (gasp!) the occasional sale. So we on the southern hemisphere got shafted. Bear in mind that one of the main reasons wargaming even achieved any presence here in Brazil was due to the appearance of good online stores with free shipping.

Still, I was invested. I started playing my CSM, having great fun along the way, and slowly ordering my DE forces when I had some cash left. The price increases along the way didn't help.

Then, Finecast. When it was time to buy my Incubi and HQs, metal was no longer an option. I ordered the models. The Incubi came withweird little resin feelers on their legs instead os spikes, and the haemonculi misisng the backpack/spine piece. Being a naice kind, I only took a pic of the haemi defect and mailed it to them, thinking I could fix the incubi myself and not trouble them. They mailed me another hameonculi. Or they say thay did. Two months later, it hasn't arrived.

It could have been worse. You could have picked nids...

In a way, it was a good thing that I 'downsized' my DE army with the embargo and the price increase. The countdown to 6th Edition began, and I was optimistic. GW is a big studio. They have top talent and the feedback of hundreds of thousands. They've had years to work on this.

Except...not. Love or hate the allies system, it basically is a game development shrig. "We can't balance the armies with out codex release schedule. So have this chart and fix it up yourselves while buying more of our stuff. Except you, bugs". That's the message I got. That they didn't even bother to give armies that choose to stay 'pure' a reward for doing so clinches it.

The implementation of overwatch, assault for non-TeQ and MeQ, acces to skyfire weaponry and even the Warlord trait table makes me wonder if they even understand the dynamic of their own games. Some of the FAQ's show less effort than I put into my Street Fighter IV game when I'm letting my GF beat me (yeah, I'm a chauvinist pig.).

How to turn RNG into bad design

Let's take the Warlord table as a minor example. It's not the core issue but it is revealing.

You have offensive, defensive and terrain abilities sharing the same table. Your charge-forward assault HQ can end up with a defensive power that only applies if he camps back in his home turf. Your base-sitting sniper HQ can get furious charge if he ever strolls to the enmy deploy zone, which he won't. You may gain a bonus in ruins playing a forest or desert table with nary a ruin in sight. You can gain Acute senses when not having a single outflanker on the table.

In -good- games, the tables would have been better, or allow some player input. In the RPG Deathwatch, for instance, you roll your power armor's special abilities on a similar table. Except they actually know a bit about game design and let you always pick the options above or below the one you rolled if you wan, because they know it's dumb to expect a Devastator to get an armor that gives CC bonuses and say it's fine.

"Bah, you should just adapt!". That lazy excuse making. you can toss a swimming person a cinderblock; no amount of improvisation or tactics will turn it into a flotation device. And it's especially harmful when the other guy just might roll well and get a jet ski. "You got a spork, you got a chainsaw...balance checks out. Now fight, you two!"

Now what?

So now I'm sitting here pondering what to do. I could just shelve my incubi, Archon, Wyches and all and get more venoms and blastern, maybe a plane or two. Put night shields on everything since flickerfields are almost pointless now and play shooty keep away game after game while praying for a night fighting turn.

But it's not the kind of game I wanted to play with my DE, not by a long shot. I've seen pure Venomspam in action at a tournament and it seemed utterly boring (the fact that it was being fielded by TFG didn't help).

Do I eBay it and channel the funds to my Infinity army and an IG addition to my CSM? Do I just play it for fun since it's nearly done, knowing full well how sub-optimal it is now and hoping the dice gods will reward me for my principles?

I've gone from anger to bargaining to acceptance to cynicism, and now I just feel disappointed. It may be a bit silly to go on so much about a game, but we all know this is an investement of time and money. There is such a thing as 'psychic capital'; when your favorite team loses an important game, it doesn't pick your pocket or break your leg, but you still -have- been affected, and not lightly. When it wins, it also puts no money in your pocket, health in your body or anything of the kind, but you have gained something real.

I can't think of a good way to finish this little rant, so I'll just stop it here. Please feel free to share your opinions, good and bad.

Find likeminded people and play the edition that brings you all the most joy. We still play a slightly tweaked form of 2nd.

Yeah, GW does seem pretty competent at disappointing/aggravating me more than anything. I was drawn into wh40k 15 years ago with all the fantastc models and fluff. The models are still fantastic, the fluff . . . eh, the game system, meh. But the way GW treats its customers overall just grates on me badly enough that buying their stuff feels shameful

You should leave the hobby altogether seems like it sucks for you. As far as shipping stuff to brazil goes good luck, i have to deal with their a-hole customs agents constantly nothing like an 60% tax to make you love them.

tgf wrote:You should leave the hobby altogether seems like it sucks for you.

Oh, do shut up and go sit in the corner.

Now, Sephyr. If you enjoy the models, and you enjoy the fluff, but not the rules, I'd say your best bet is to change the rules.

Check out Tomorrow's War, a set of sci-fi rules made by Osprey Publishing. While it has its own 'in-universe' fluff, the ruleset is made to be adaptable to anything. It allows you to create your own troops and vehicles. I've seen quite a few threads in various forums where people were looking to adapt 40k to TW.

infinite_array wrote:

tgf wrote:You should leave the hobby altogether seems like it sucks for you.

Oh, do shut up and go sit in the corner.

Now, Sephyr. If you enjoy the models, and you enjoy the fluff, but not the rules, I'd say your best bet is to change the rules.

Check out Tomorrow's War, a set of sci-fi rules made by Osprey Publishing. While it has its own 'in-universe' fluff, the ruleset is made to be adaptable to anything. It allows you to create your own troops and vehicles. I've seen quite a few threads in various forums where people were looking to adapt 40k to TW.

That actually seems interesting. I'll give it a good read and see if I can get the group interested. Thanks for the tip!

Unfortunately I agree with you sephyr, and I live in the UK... the hobby is expensive, the fluff that I love keeps getting sh!t on by games developers like Phil Kelly, Matt Ward and the likes and the rules system is good so long as you NEVER EVER EVER EVER compare it to some of the ways it used to be. All I have to say to GW about it is.... I QUIT. I've had enough. The yearly price hikes are a joke, the website runs an offer of spend over £10 get your shipping free.... its almost IMPOSSIBLE to NOT spend £10 so really thats just sh!t to make you feel good about it and I'm sick of the flavour of the month way of armies. If your not the latest codex or army your already at a disadvantage before the game has even started. And if your a die hard for one army (like me) then you go to the top of the pile for a while and work your way down again. Can't we just have balanced armies all round? Can't we just be on equal footing all the time? Can't we have codex releases nearer together than an 6 month gap which leads to a 5 year cycle till your next edition?

I hope GW goes under...

GW is a good concept, unfortunately it has very bad management. There are many companies who make bad business decisions, but sometimes you can even hear the cracking of the cloth as GW wrings the worth out of its playerbase.

In fact I'm going to go so far as to say within 10 years GW will be no more. Maybe even 5...

EDIT: Damn you share holders... damn you and your profit demands... damnit all...

I understand where you're coming from.

I have a friend who paints incredibly. He paints day in and day out and basically mastered the art.

He like to collect a strongly themed army that also will perform well on the tabletop.

He just finished his Ultramarine dreadnaught army and his Grey Knights with tons of paladins and all my old metal PAGKs.

He just finished them! And now both those armies have taken a huge hit (in reguards to HIS lists).

Luckily he has a gigantic chaos force of traitor guard, thousand sons, chaos demons and the lost and the damned mutants.

He's excited that his chaos army is now awesome and viable and even combinable.

He's beside himself with greif that GW has ruined his awesome dreadnought idea and his Grey Knight list is now garbage.

Thousands of dollars gone to waste... until codecies are re-written.

I personally don't care about the changes. I have an ork army that's almost entirely still on sprue. I can still buy/trade/sell my stuff and tailor my lists.

I really do feel bad for the people that have seen their ideas/dreams/plans come crashing down. However, like others have said, there's nothing stopping you from playing how you want with friends.

Yeah it felt good to get that rant out of my system, problem is my local gaming store IS a GW... I have no choice but to play 6th ed...

EDIT: and my local gaming group boycotted 40k... they refuse to play it now... and the only one who does is TFG... and I don't like him regardless of him being TFG so that'll never happen...

One aside that should be pointed out is that these rules are changing every 4 years. In 4 years time someones army is going to be in your situation.

Every Tau and Eldar player got a fairly healthy lease on life with these new rules while every GK player saw every unit they own get nerfed slightly, its the nature of new rules. I feel that in all probability you should look to find a way to be happy with your purchases and your time. If this takes the form of Ebay or finding like minded people to play your armies your way or whatnot. What you should not do is be naive in thinking this wasnt coming.

I don't think there was any naivety in it, more that its quite a large fundamental change in the assault phase that wasn't expected. Random assault distances and overwatch fire is quite a huge change for the assault phase. I'm just fed up with GW overall really, I feel like they've sold themselves to the devil... its very disappointing and frustrating for me personally considering I've been into it from childhood. I've grown up with it. And now its not the 'friend I know and love' any more.

DeffDred wrote:I understand where you're coming from.

I have a friend who paints incredibly. He paints day in and day out and basically mastered the art.

He like to collect a strongly themed army that also will perform well on the tabletop.

He just finished his Ultramarine dreadnaught army and his Grey Knights with tons of paladins and all my old metal PAGKs.

He just finished them! And now both those armies have taken a huge hit (in reguards to HIS lists).

Luckily he has a gigantic chaos force of traitor guard, thousand sons, chaos demons and the lost and the damned mutants.

He's excited that his chaos army is now awesome and viable and even combinable.

He's beside himself with greif that GW has ruined his awesome dreadnought idea and his Grey Knight list is now garbage.

Thousands of dollars gone to waste... until codecies are re-written.

I personally don't care about the changes. I have an ork army that's almost entirely still on sprue. I can still buy/trade/sell my stuff and tailor my lists.

I really do feel bad for the people that have seen their ideas/dreams/plans come crashing down. However, like others have said, there's nothing stopping you from playing how you want with friends.

Although Paladins aren't the best example, being largely based around the exploitation of a single rule...
... It does baffle me how GW manage to invalidate armies and play-styles with every edition/Codex or overlook player feedback (e.g. for Pancake Edition). I would've hoped that a company like GW could build upon existing rules to allow all and existing armies to remain usable and interesting, rather than rework the rules to often invalidate them.

Annoyingly, 6th Edition does seem to be more about - or more obviously about - generating sales.

I know where you are coming from man. If the new Chaos dex doesn't impress me enough to make me want to keep playing then my army will get sent to Ebay.

Its a shame really because I want to keep playing like I have for the last 12 years but to be honest this game is a money pit that I really can't afford. I haven't bought a new model in years just because I didn't have the extra cash to spend on the models.

One thing that does irk me is that GW's prices go up even when the economy of a lot of countries is in the dirt across the world.

Stormravens cost them anywhere near $82.50 to make....sure and I'm next in line for the throne of England too...LOL

JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:In fact I'm going to go so far as to say within 10 years GW will be no more. Maybe even 5...

EDIT: Damn you share holders... damn you and your profit demands... damnit all...

This is a stupid prediction.
There are plenty of people who don't really give a stuff about the rules and naively play the game no matter what, for example: little kiddies. They will play no matter what and always will. Then there are other people who just love the hobby too much to stop buying from GW, where some (few) stores actually do have helpful staff! Edinburgh is one such store.
To say they will go down in 10 years is a wild statement fuelled by your dislike. It's not going to happen at current rates. If there was some oil shortage that affected the price of plastic...then they might have a problem on their hands. We have just had a big recession. In the UK, while most highstreet stores' sales were dropping GW had decent mark ups...one of the few companies to do so showing that even in low spending climates they carry on strongly.
Please think before you post nonsense.

Imperial Monkey wrote:

JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:In fact I'm going to go so far as to say within 10 years GW will be no more. Maybe even 5...

EDIT: Damn you share holders... damn you and your profit demands... damnit all...

This is a stupid prediction.
There are plenty of people who don't really give a stuff about the rules and naively play the game no matter what, for example: little kiddies. They will play no matter what and always will. Then there are other people who just love the hobby too much to stop buying from GW, where some (few) stores actually do have helpful staff! Edinburgh is one such store.
To say they will go down in 10 years is a wild statement fuelled by your dislike. It's not going to happen at current rates. If there was some oil shortage that affected the price of plastic...then they might have a problem on their hands. We have just had a big recession. In the UK, while most highstreet stores' sales were dropping GW had decent mark ups...one of the few companies to do so showing that even in low spending climates they carry on strongly.
Please think before you post nonsense.

Hell yeah! Edinburgh is a great store! So was Livingston... And so is glasgow. Tbh, people complaining about stores has never made sense to me, they have always been good for me.

And it's a new rules system. Adapt, change. Try win with your list that isn't as good anymore.

Oh, and people complaining about grey knights... seriously? You have the audacity to complain about arguably THEE most broken army in 5th edition? It got nerfed slightly. Draigowing isn't a near insta-win anymore. Live with it. I play Eldar, and I shall be enjoying my AP3 witchblades tyvm 'bout time I got a buff


Von Chogg

JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:In fact I'm going to go so far as to say within 10 years GW will be no more. Maybe even 5...

EDIT: Damn you share holders... damn you and your profit demands... damnit all...

Shareholders want sustained, long term profit. They don't want companies to make massive profits for a few years, then go under.

Joey wrote:

JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:In fact I'm going to go so far as to say within 10 years GW will be no more. Maybe even 5...

EDIT: Damn you share holders... damn you and your profit demands... damnit all...

Shareholders want sustained, long term profit. They don't want companies to make massive profits for a few years, then go under.

That's a dangerous generalization. I work in economic journalism (which is why I do NOT engage in 'GW is gidding its grave' futurology), and trust me, the average shareholder -will- tolerate a lot of predatory, unsound management in exchange for short term profit. It's actually more common for responsible CEOs to get booted out for wanting to grow the cake slowly and surely than for greedy jerks who bleed the company white to get their comeuppance.

But I digress. At this point, I think there is no excuse for the time between updates (or at least solid FAQs that really make an army stay viable) other than army obsolescence being a feature and not a bug for them. If they improve a crappy old army before the codex, it means someone with the old models will only buy 1-3 boxes and keep a working army. But if he quits and jumps into, say, the BA razorspam bandwagon,m the cash flow is a lot better...especially when a new edition arrives and suddenly even that no longer works that good.

Admitedly, it's a complicated hobby. We wargamers are not the easiest folks to deal with. But there are companies out there that seem to be doing a way better job with a far smaller staff, budget and reputation than GW: good models, rules that get updated anf fixed frequently (there's this thing called the intrawebs, you know...), a greater focus on balance and so on.

Part of my disappointment is that I really thought GW was moving in that direction. I mean, they surely looked into the Dawn of War series, the Space Marine series and even the Deathwatch RPG. They should have known the chance they had to both capture new players and clear a big hurdle when it came to keeping things on a sound, even footing.

Maybe they can stay afloat just by wowing kiddies with new space marine armies owning face across the board with their Tau and Guard friends. But I believe that if they want to compete with video games, flashy cell-phone apps and other fun things (like, say...girls), they ought to look ino nurturing the hobby more carefully.

Sephyr wrote:
That's a dangerous generalization. I work in economic journalism (which is why I do NOT engage in 'GW is gidding its grave' futurology), and trust me, the average shareholder -will- tolerate a lot of predatory, unsound management in exchange for short term profit. It's actually more common for responsible CEOs to get booted out for wanting to grow the cake slowly and surely than for greedy jerks who bleed the company white to get their comeuppance.

Given the average shareholder is a pension fund or local council, I find that very difficult to beleive.

Joey wrote:

Sephyr wrote:
That's a dangerous generalization. I work in economic journalism (which is why I do NOT engage in 'GW is gidding its grave' futurology), and trust me, the average shareholder -will- tolerate a lot of predatory, unsound management in exchange for short term profit. It's actually more common for responsible CEOs to get booted out for wanting to grow the cake slowly and surely than for greedy jerks who bleed the company white to get their comeuppance.

Given the average shareholder is a pension fund or local council, I find that very difficult to beleive.

This is derailing the thread, but do you want me to toss a list of municipal and pension funds currently sueing JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and other financial giants for the colossal losses they suffered in the latest bust? They sure didn't ask questions when the cash was rolling in, mind.

Sephyr wrote:

Joey wrote:

Sephyr wrote:
That's a dangerous generalization. I work in economic journalism (which is why I do NOT engage in 'GW is gidding its grave' futurology), and trust me, the average shareholder -will- tolerate a lot of predatory, unsound management in exchange for short term profit. It's actually more common for responsible CEOs to get booted out for wanting to grow the cake slowly and surely than for greedy jerks who bleed the company white to get their comeuppance.

Given the average shareholder is a pension fund or local council, I find that very difficult to beleive.

This is derailing the thread, but do you want me to toss a list of municipal and pension funds currently sueing JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and other financial giants for the colossal losses they suffered in the latest bust? They sure didn't ask questions when the cash was rolling in, mind.

Nope. They definitely weren't asking any questions. The gross underestimations of human greed are a huge part of what caused the latest global economic meltdowns.

I imagine when 40k started it was made with passion by people whp wanted it to succeed not for the money but to make others happy and somewhere along the line they lost the passion and sold out the entire point for GW now is to make money thats why the newest codex will alaways be the best army so it sells the allies system is there to sell mpre models. In answer to your original question you should adapt and perservere and hope the FAQs and new dex's sort your problems or give it up sell your minis and never think of 40k again if you dont enjoy playing the game dont keep giving your money to GW

Yeah I know where you're coming from. I've barely played a game of 40k since 3rd edition. Started playing Space Wolves back in 2nd edition as a kid, and when 3rd edition came out it was all down hill from there. I played quite a bit in 3rd edition because the new plastics made the hobby cheaper (at least for me personally), but always thought the game itself was inferior to 2nd edition. Funnily enough, with all the price hikes a box of plastic models now costs more than a box of metal models back in the day anyway!

Saying "get used to it and adapt" is fine, but there reaches a point where you're just like "what the hell GW" when the rules new are actually less fun AND they take your preciously painted models and make them useless. I had a decent sized army in 5th edition fantasy, then when it changed to 6th edition a lot of it was rendered terrible because they were equipped with things that were no longer good or too expensive or whatever... so I painstakingly converted the army to suit the new rules. Then they release the bloody army books and it all changes again, grr. 40k is so much worse though.

I've pretty much given up gaming. I do still like the models and so still paint things, and I TRY to paint a proper army but never get it done. Once in a blue moon I'll play a game of 40k and remind myself how good things were back in the day and don't play another game for another few years, lol. I always know if I start an army now, regardless of what army it is and how much planning I put in to construct it carefully, by the time I finish painting it the rules would have changed to make them awful.

Things I'll never forgive GW for doing...
1. Bringing in the stupid AP armour save system in 40k. Terrible idea and I don't know why they persist with it.
2. Universal movement distances in 40k and removing the old 4" walk and 8" run
3. Randomising movement distances. The whole game is about movement, don't friggin randomise it.
4. Constantly changing rules in such a way that requires remodelling your painstakingly constructed and painted miniatures.
5. "Simplifying" rules to make them less logical/realistic/fun for no good reason.

I'll probably think of more later

Sephyr wrote:

Admitedly, it's a complicated hobby. We wargamers are not the easiest folks to deal with. But there are companies out there that seem to be doing a way better job with a far smaller staff, budget and reputation than GW: good models, rules that get updated anf fixed frequently (there's this thing called the intrawebs, you know...), a greater focus on balance and so on.

Part of my disappointment is that I really thought GW was moving in that direction.

This is exactly how I felt as 5th edition was released. I believed things that needed changing would get addressed and the game would continue to improve. Instead it was changed for it's own sake, improving some things, making other things just as nonsensical and somethings outright ridiculous. A lateral move for it's own sake; an engine to generate sales in a cycle without regard for lasting quality. I get it; the company is trying to make money. I just don't think making money and pleasing customers has to be mutually exclusive to the degree GW works it.

It's like the 2nd trilogy of Star Wars movies. Wheeeeeee!! Yay, STAR WARS!! Er... huh? You have such high expectations and...oh wait, it actually sucks.

I'm not saying 6th Ed. is a bust, so don't rave about "ya haven't played X # of games so how do you know, blah blah blah?" I'm just saying for all 40K's hype and promise GW will stumble along and people will stumble along with it.

I think it's a bit early to compare 6th Edition to the Star Wars Prequels.

That's just mean.

I really don't get much of these complaints. True, Grey Knights got nerfed slightly. For any sane person, that is considered a GOOD thing. "Slight nerf" hardly equates "army becoming a waste", does it? Apparently, some people completely lack any perspective.

Now, I can see that if you have invested on Wych army, Overwatch does somewhat hose it. How much, remains to be seen. Ditto for Eldar assault units like Striking Scorpions etc. But other than that, it's way way too early - or completely unfounded - to complain about "armies becoming unviable".

Now, I can see that if you have invested on Wych army, Overwatch does somewhat hose it

No, I am sorry but please people, the math aint hard here.

You'll lose 2.44 wychs on the charge, with FNP it drops to 1.33. BS1 really doesn't help perfectly!

Ditto for Eldar assault units like Striking Scorpions etc.

With the 3+ save, they do far better.

I feel that this version of 40k is the most blatant at feeling like its a model sales business first and a game 2nd.

Allies, 2nd FOC at 2k, Flyers, Aegis defence line etc..

All points me to this conclusion.

Thi version could be called Moneyhammer, since it will cost tons to be competitive.

Backfire wrote:
Now, I can see that if you have invested on Wych army, Overwatch does somewhat hose it. How much, remains to be seen. Ditto for Eldar assault units like Striking Scorpions etc. But other than that, it's way way too early - or completely unfounded - to complain about "armies becoming unviable".

I'm sorry, but this is not enough anymore. There is a limit to how much someone can be jerked around.

First there were rumors about overwatch and AP values in CC, and people made noises. They heard "Oh, the book is not even out yet, you're fretting for no reason!"

Then the book was out and we got aprehensive, and it was "Wait now, the FAQs are coming to set it all straight. Stop the doom and gloom."

Now the FAQs are in and there are a ton of holes, conflicts and units made crap, and it's "Much remains to be seen. Play some 30 games before you for an opinion. It's too early."

In a few months it'll be "Sure, it sucks now. Toughen up and wait for the next codex, it's only a few years!"

We are rational being, you know. We can make reasonable predictions based on data. For instance: It's a mathematical certainty that Kharn the Betrayer is awful now. His dynamics are -completely- changed. It's actually even a joke to give assault grenades to a model now stuck at Ini 1.

Another prediction: Many units that relied upon assaulting coming in from reserves lost their hats. Their costs were factored including that ability. They gained -nothing- in return. It will be years before there is even an attempt at fixing it.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Now, I can see that if you have invested on Wych army, Overwatch does somewhat hose it

No, I am sorry but please people, the math aint hard here.

You'll lose 2.44 wychs on the charge, with FNP it drops to 1.33. BS1 really doesn't help perfectly!

Depends who you're assaulting. If you're assaulting say, mob of 20 Ork Shoota boyz, it's worse...

I remain puzzled at the complaints how Ally rule is a cynical plot to sell more models.

First, allies rule is one of the oldest in the game. Designed during the time when "game was designed to make people happy, not to make money".

Second, most people's reaction has been that it is now easier for them to start build a new army, because they DON'T have to buy craploads of stuff to put together a legal army.

Depends who you're assaulting. If you're assaulting say, mob of 20 Ork Shoota boyz, it's worse...

4.444 models.

2.963 otherwise with FNP

Though you may just want to charge with two squads than, one squad soaks the overwatch and than the other helps out in the killing.

Sephyr wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Now, I can see that if you have invested on Wych army, Overwatch does somewhat hose it. How much, remains to be seen. Ditto for Eldar assault units like Striking Scorpions etc. But other than that, it's way way too early - or completely unfounded - to complain about "armies becoming unviable".

I'm sorry, but this is not enough anymore. There is a limit to how much someone can be jerked around.

First there were rumors about overwatch and AP values in CC, and people made noises. They heard "Oh, the book is not even out yet, you're fretting for no reason!"

Well, that's not what I heard. I heard "Hmm, that sounds like a good thing".

I dont see how adding Allies DOSENT make people BUY MORE stuff?

Of course it does. Thats what GW want, people to go WOW I can buff my crappy Tau with some TH/SS! WOOOOT.

Rush to store buy said models, all the while GW sits back cackling with laughter.

Milisim wrote:I dont see how adding Allies DOSENT make people BUY MORE stuff?

Of course it does. Thats what GW want, people to go WOW I can buff my crappy Tau with some TH/SS! WOOOOT.

Rush to store buy said models, all the while GW sits back cackling with laughter.

No, it means that if I want to say, paint some Deathwing, I don't have to buy 1500 points worth of stuff to get them on the field. I can buy just couple of squads and add them to my other Imperial armies. So I have to buy LESS to be able to play.

I repeat, Ally rules were in the game almost from the beginning, largely removed in newer editions. So I guess GW was cynical money making machine from the start.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Though you may just want to charge with two squads than, one squad soaks the overwatch and than the other helps out in the killing.

Hey, I did just that on my first 6th edition game!

Anyways. Good or bad, 40k is still a strategy game, not a Korean MMORPG. Money won't win games for you.

Out of interest, has anyone here tried to make their feelings about it known to GW? Or simply ranted on forums...

Imperial Monkey wrote:Out of interest, has anyone here tried to make their feelings about it known to GW? Or simply ranted on forums...

I entertained sending something like the OP to them, only in more polite terms, but:

1-) I wouldn't know how to. Just tossing a mail to some secretary or clerk in their office is likely going straight to the delete bin, after maybe generating some chuckles about the nerds and all their nerdy nerdraging nerdness.

2-) Not sure they care. GW is only slightly less impermeable to communication and feedback than, say, the North Korean CP. They'll take your money for the nice models, yes, but they'll cross the street to avoid having to trade words with their crusty consumer base.

Ok well fair enough a lot of you are probably thinking 'your just being a wet blanket and acting like a p!ssy little child' really fair enough I can see why you would think that. But if that really was the case I would say something like Matt Ward is TFG of GW....


Off-topic again the company cannot sustain its rate of inflation, 10 years ago a box of 6 marines was a fiver... thats £5. A box of 5 now is £15.50 or in otherwords a 300% price rise in 10 years so in the next 10 years IF the rate stays constant that'll be over £30 for 5 marines. God knows what Termies will be.... You gona pay that?

Allies = More Models.


My Tau force is 100% finished in my mind. Well it was for 5th.

With Allies Im now looking at adding better CC stuff since mine is useless. Everyone is now looking at other armies wondering how to add to their current lists.

That equals sales pure and simple.

Its all about money. This is moneyhammer.

Imperial Monkey wrote:Out of interest, has anyone here tried to make their feelings about it known to GW? Or simply ranted on forums...

Yes repeated emails over the years with suggestions for rule changes, FAQs to codex, problems in mechanics, grammar errors, poor wording for rules, rules easily abused, stupid box sets (like the Chaos Space Marine box with 8 marines in it and a special weapon and heavy bolter... that you couldn't use under the rules because they weren't at least 10 models... go figure...) the list goes on and on and on.

Imperial Monkey wrote:Out of interest, has anyone here tried to make their feelings about it known to GW? Or simply ranted on forums...

They used to have an official forum that the developers would occasionally glance over. They closed it down years ago for some strange reason. Too many gamer opinions perhaps?

Also with allies, are they now officially allowed in any game? Back in the day you could take allies, but it was always a "discuss with opponent" thing, I don't know of anyone who actually integrated allies into their armies.

SInce I'm very new, I've only played two games total. I have to say that its partly about making money. If they are not able to make money, they are unable to update rules and continue production of models. They wouldn't be able to produce new Codexes. They wouldn't be able to pay the people who do the original sculps for any new models. So money is important. However, from what I've been reading, there were many problems with 5th edition and some armies before 6th edition. They may be my noobish talking, but it sounds like they took some very OP armies and made them beatable.

I for one, look forward to all the fresh warmachine/hordes, malifaux, and heavy gear opponents I'll have.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Now, I can see that if you have invested on Wych army, Overwatch does somewhat hose it

No, I am sorry but please people, the math aint hard here.

You'll lose 2.44 wychs on the charge, with FNP it drops to 1.33. BS1 really doesn't help perfectly!

Ditto for Eldar assault units like Striking Scorpions etc.

With the 3+ save, they do far better.

That's one Wych and three attacks. Or 2 wyches and 6 attacks. Fewer attacks means fewer dead marines before they get to swing, which means more dead Wyches AFTER they swing (along with the FNP nerf). This means the narrow margin to win on the charge just got narrower. If you win this turn and they run, you get rapid fired and die. If you win NEXT turn, you've probably lost so many Wyches that charging again into a fresh unit is just throwing them away, so now you have to go after a chewed up unit: if one is around. But since we cant fleet into combat anymore... problem.

Or, I could throw two Wych units at one squad of marines, which means at best I threw 260pts of Wyches at 150pts of Marines just to win. Not assault marines, mind you. That's if I DIDN'T have raiders and Haemonculi purchased too in order to buff them. So now that 200pt (with a rhino or RB maybe) took on 500pts of Wyches. Sure, those Wyches won. Nice! And then they get rapid fired and die.

Keep it coming guys, this thread is pure comedy gold.

I can afford the hobby, I dont give a damn about the fluff when I play games. And as far as people who feel its too hard due to shipping, find another hobby or sukck it and astop moaning.

There are two extremes. One side is absolute and unshakeable fanboy/girlism. This is when the subject in question will gush over the amazingness of something simply because it is connected to their fandom.

There is the other side. This side is full of the people who automatically despise the new system of what they call their fandom, for no better reason than it's slightly different (even if it isn't) to the thing they say they love. D&D players who play 3E because they hate, hate, hate 4E even though they've never played it.

However, it is not a line. People can remain fans while disliking content. I, for one, am a very strong Metroid fan - and I hate Other M not only because it is terrible, but also because of its character-destroying portrayal of Samus Aran. Does this make me a non-fan, am I not allowed my opinion? No. I am. In this case, people are allowed legitimate complaints about GW - they do this crap all the time. Almost every single update brings joy to some and pain to others. As each army functions differently and everything is part of the same system, this is to be expected.

There's no "suck it up or leave". There's no "you are not a 40k fan because you dislike this trend or whatever else your complaint is about." There is also no "SHUT UP OMG 6E is the most amazing thing ever!!! Stop complaining because it's awesome!!".

I would like to say to the people who state the above, in any form; please do not reply to this topic if you have nothing to say other than bashing people for forwarding their legitimate complaints. Granted, some of them are silly, but that's besides the point.

Now that that's out of the way - I don't really care. My Tyranids might be nerfed, they might be buffed - either way, I'm going to play them regardless. For me, at least, the game isn't about winning, it's about fun. Fun is... it's kinda... sorta like a... should I spell it for ya?

Frozen Ocean wrote:There are two extremes. One side is absolute and unshakeable fanboy/girlism. This is when the subject in question will gush over the amazingness of something simply because it is connected to their fandom.

There is the other side. This side is full of the people who automatically despise the new system of what they call their fandom, for no better reason than it's slightly different (even if it isn't) to the thing they say they love. D&D players who play 3E because they hate, hate, hate 4E even though they've never played it.

However, it is not a line. People can remain fans while disliking content. I, for one, am a very strong Metroid fan - and I hate Other M not only because it is terrible, but also because of its character-destroying portrayal of Samus Aran. Does this make me a non-fan, am I not allowed my opinion? No. I am. In this case, people are allowed legitimate complaints about GW - they do this crap all the time. Almost every single update brings joy to some and pain to others. As each army functions differently and everything is part of the same system, this is to be expected.

There's no "suck it up or leave". There's no "you are not a 40k fan because you dislike this trend or whatever else your complaint is about." There is also no "SHUT UP OMG 6E is the most amazing thing ever!!! Stop complaining because it's awesome!!".

I would like to say to the people who state the above, in any form; please do not reply to this topic if you have nothing to say other than bashing people for forwarding their legitimate complaints. Granted, some of them are silly, but that's besides the point.

Now that that's out of the way - I don't really care. My Tyranids might be nerfed, they might be buffed - either way, I'm going to play them regardless. For me, at least, the game isn't about winning, it's about fun. Fun is... it's kinda... sorta like a... should I spell it for ya?

Are there really two extremes? Or is it a false dichotomy?

For me, it's always been fluff first, hobby second, gameplay third. I fell in love with the universe. While Necrons/GK fluff was god-awful, 6th Edition just feels so stagnant. It isn't bad, it isn't good, there's nothing there fluff wise.

Hobbying has gotten worse with price hikes and failcast, though I've rarely bought from GW directly since I began as even then the prices were ridiculous.

I'm less concerned about gameplay, but for someone who is hardly a veteran (got into this about a year ago) and concerned with thematics over substance or wargaming, I can probably tolerate them.

Yes, there are. Your earlier comment - about this thread being 'pure comedy gold' - indicates that you are disregarding those who are complaining as the latter extreme, that they are whining about 6E simply because it is 6E. Your post also added absolutely nothing to the thread, save to deride those people.

I was pointing out that, while the extremes exist, the people of this thread are not part of it. Legitimate complaints can exist without the general response being "play something else".

EDIT: "it" referring to the "hate new things because they're new" category.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Imperial Monkey wrote:Out of interest, has anyone here tried to make their feelings about it known to GW? Or simply ranted on forums...

They used to have an official forum that the developers would occasionally glance over. They closed it down years ago for some strange reason. Too many gamer opinions perhaps?

Also with allies, are they now officially allowed in any game? Back in the day you could take allies, but it was always a "discuss with opponent" thing, I don't know of anyone who actually integrated allies into their armies.

You are right, they had forums but they took them down as they were using to much 'website and staff resources and time'.
Also my old gaming group 4ed days we had a house rule you could take any one unit from a different codex but it cost double the options on the FOC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I can imagine a very Rome:Total War mechanic play out of the battles of 6E. You know when your roman legionnaires run right up to your opponent, stop (within charging distance) and start throwing spears at them... just with no charge following it. Unless your not a MEQ then your actually safer IN close combat (so long as you make it through the overwatch shots AND roll high enough for the charge AND the enemy don't have power weapons of any kind OR more Initiative than you) where you'll be perfectly fine with those 5+ saves.

I think the best way to get through would be to have a message sent from lots of people, say on the forum here. One complaining nerd is not going to sway distanced executives/run-of-the-mill GW employee. If it was a concerted move from the largest wargaming forum on the internet on the other hand.....

GW are a company.

What do companies do? Make money, lots of money, especially for shareholders and execs.

Enjoy the ride and play. Don't enjoy it anymore? Then step off the ride and find something else to do.

Because simply giving up years if not decades of time and obscene amounts of money one has put into this hobby is just something that can be done flippantly simply because the new rules are a bit meh.

Ugh.

Well; one has five other editions to potentially play and use. Don't like 6th? Retreat to one of the above five, devise house-rules or jump the ship. Not much else one can do in such a situation, no? GW are a public trading company. I'm going to wave a guess to the wind and say that they'll only ever really listen to shareholders and profit in terms of large directional changes. Not entirely sure what one would plan to achieve with a 'public petition' or any other form of online campaign. We all know how dire GW's relationship with the internet is.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. There will always be new blood coming into 40k, spending money where others have stopped. If you're not willing to find an alternative to 'meh rules' and you're not willing to stop playing, you don't have much to stand on.

Whatever; 6th Edition is great for me. I can finally jump into the hobby and catch up with the ruleset. There'll be many more just like me beyond the internet. The online population are only ever a vocal minority.

I love people complaining about GW changing the rules to make moar profit.
What was, by far and away, the most powerful build of 5th (and still pretty potent in 6th)?
Draigowing.
What was the cheapest army to collect, money wise?
Draigowing.
People need to grow up and view the rules for what they are - rules for a tabletop game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eiríkr wrote:Well; one has five other editions to potentially play and use. Don't like 6th? Retreat to one of the above five, devise house-rules or jump the ship. Not much else one can do in such a situation, no? GW are a public trading company. I'm going to wave a guess to the wind and say that they'll only ever really listen to shareholders and profit in terms of large directional changes. Not entirely sure what one would plan to achieve with a 'public petition' or any other form of online campaign. We all know how dire GW's relationship with the internet is.

No company cares about the internet. They might pretend to, so they can get stories in the newspapers and the national media about how much they care about public opinion. But GW won't. If GW change the rules due to public opinion, they won't get a single inch of newspaper coverage, so what would they have to gain?

6th is a considerable improvement over 5th but still far from perfect, so I understand that people have qualms about it. What bugs me most is people equaling cost to competitivity. Like, "Hey, I've spent 2000+ dollars in my army, it MUST be competitive!" or the variant "GW is making you pay more to remain competitive!".

The former is plain bonkers oil sheik attitude, but the latter actually makes sense. YES, GW is making you pay to remain competitive... If your idea of competitivity involves putting no more thought into the game than whats needed to type "GK list 1500 competitive" in Google. If your ability to compete begins and ends on listbuilding, the game is going to become a REALLY expensive hobby for you. Rules will be revised, codices will be written, FOTM armies won't stay strong forever. It's the way the game works.

I admit, though, that listbuilding is an important part of the game, but not exclusively so. I've seen the universally reviled Eldar, Tau and Wazdakka Ork armies win (or do reasonably well in) tournaments all through 5th. Examples here on Dakka abound, but still some people think that list and list only wins games.

Agent_Tremolo wrote:6th is a considerable improvement over 5th but still far from perfect, so I understand that people have qualms about it. What bugs me most is people equaling cost to competitivity. Like, "Hey, I've spent 2000+ dollars in my army, it MUST be competitive!" or the variant "GW is making you pay more to remain competitive!".

The former is plain bonkers oil sheik attitude, but the latter actually makes sense. YES, GW is making you pay to remain competitive... If your idea of competitivity involves putting no more thought into the game than whats needed to type "GK list 1500 competitive" in Google. If your ability to compete begins and ends on listbuilding, the game is going to become a REALLY expensive hobby for you. Rules will be revised, codices will be written, FOTM armies won't stay strong forever. It's the way the game works.

I admit, though, that listbuilding is an important part of the game, but not exclusively so. I've seen the universally reviled Eldar, Tau and Wazdakka Ork armies win (or do reasonably well in) tournaments all through 5th. Examples here on Dakka abound, but still some people think that list and list only wins games.

Yeah, complains about change in competativeness only really matter in tournaments. If you're playing with friends it's all fun and games, unless it's something drastic.

I wondered where all of the nerd rage was.
I've actually played a couple of games of 6th ed, and I've actually really enjoyed them, I personally prefer it to 5th ed.

However, for the allies thing, I've just completed my new Space Wolves army, I've got enough cheese as it is, no need to go out and spend money on more.

Plus, yes DE got a bit of hurt, a prime example being GW severely battering the WWP via the inability to charge out of reserve, but at least you can have access to some psychic defence now via allying with Eldar.

marielle wrote:Keep it coming guys, this thread is pure comedy gold.

Indeed.

Q: How would you react to a foreign occupation?
A: I'd complain loudly on the internet. Maybe sign an online petition.

I don't see the issue. Assaulting was somewhat overpowered in 5ed. Plus, it's not THAT much worse now. Even charging a squad of 20 shoota boyz (which was an example someone gave here) isn't THAT dangerous. Hitting on 6s makes that, what, 6,6 hits? My math-fu is terrible so that's probably wrong, but it's not WAY off. 6 hits with str 4 is usually 3 wounds. On MEQ, that translates into maybe 1 wound if you're unlucky.

And random charges, meh. It's not that bad. You'll average out half an inch further than 5ed. Sure SOMETIMES you'll fall short, but just walk closer if you're scared.

This comes from someone who JUST finished a wysiwyg 2000p assaulty blood angels list a week before 6ed came out. What kinda got to me personally was the nerfing of FNP, but even that won't stop me playing the army. It's still a fun game.

Personally I think the new stand and shoot rule is great. Makes it much more realistic for a squad of guys to shoot at a bunch of wackos charging across an open field to attack with hand weapons. Just watch any war movie and the new rule makes sense. Guys arnt gonna sit there acting all shocked and in awe while they get charged.

As far as the rest of the rules go, I'm indifferent. It's the same old really, and I've been in this hobby for 16 years or so now. Rules change and go back to the same, or stay the same.

The only thing I'm concerned about is allies. I think it's s great idea to allow people to buy specific units they like and in a way, it can cut down costs so you don't need to buy a whole force to use a couple units you like. My concern comes with game imbalance. Tau can now be shooty and assaulty. Orks can now get good shooty units. Grey knights can overcome numbers problem and throw in some guard. Although it makes the game much more interesting, I think certain weaknesses in forces no longer matter. It makes the game much more open ended to people who wanna play for fun and still win some games, and Waac or tourney players can build some nasty lists. For me though, I prefer to face one enemy on a board when facing one player.

This could be way off, but a part of me wonders if they implemented allies to perhaps take away stress from writing new codecs to be balanced? Who cares if the players like it or not or if one unit or several get nerfed....just take allies and you make up for a bad codex.

Just my two cents. For what it's worth.

EPIC-NEW-EDITION-WHINE-DETECTOR-INITIATED

Can I haz your stuffs?

The game changes; live with it. Noone knows exactly how 6th ed. will play and won't until it's been extrensively tested.

I only read the first few posts; after that my whinometer went crazy.

I literally lol'd at someone moaning that their all paladin list is now broken... The whole concept of that netlist was based upon one abuse of a rule. I for one am extremely glad GW have amended the abuse of wound allocation.

For those who have played a long time, this happens every edition. Things change, meta changes and people go on.

People should not be surprised their FOTM army is suddenly not the face-eating monster it used to be.

The internet has been fantastic for developing painting and modelling. FOTM netlists, and hearing unsupported whining about how your broken list is suddenly unbroken is, however, a big price to pay.

Here's my advice: Play a few games, amend your armies, sell stuff you don't like and if you still don't like the rules, play 5th edition. Easy.

Eiríkr wrote:GW are a company.

What do companies do? Make money, lots of money, especially for shareholders and execs.

Enjoy the ride and play. Don't enjoy it anymore? Then step off the ride and find something else to do.

Well derr. I'm not sure why you feel the need to say this, it's not like people are oblivious to the fact they can quit. I've been gaming GW games for about 16 years and still know a lot of the people I gamed with back in the day and only a couple are still playing, and I myself rarely actually game any more.

The problem is, it's not an on/off switch for most people. People just don't pack up and say "well it's not fun any more, I quit". People can still enjoy the hobby but be frustrated at the moves GW makes. Personally I still love almost all the GW models and despite rarely gaming still buy and paint models and don't really get involved in the gaming aspect... but that doesn't mean I don't pay attention to it and aren't frustrated by it at times. Unfortunately 40k has fluff and armies that I'm really interested in, over the years I've collected about 6 different 40k armies yet have probably only played a dozen actual games since 3rd edition, each edition hoping GW will fix their friggin slowed moves and make 40k (from a gameplay perspective) entertaining again.

Comments like "If you don't enjoy it don't play" are obvious and about as useful as "the sky is falling" comments. The world is not black and white, this is a discussion forum, if you don't like the discussion you can always leave and find another thread more to your liking

Since this is the complaining thread, ill make my complaint about GW. dont worry though, ill back up my arguments and ill skip the super obvious ones (like cost increases in the last 10 years)

My biggest complaint with GW is an unawareness of their majority player base. If you think about the individuals who play WH40k it really breaks down into 3 groups, that can spill over: the tournament group, the local hobby store group/official GW store group, and the people who play at home with their buddies.

The Tournament group is a no hold barred, take full advantage of rules and lists to win. This is a competitive world where you are expected to abuse your options to do well. People see crazy annoying armies and dont complain, because thier army is just as crazy and they are expecting it.

The local store group is generally more friendly, there is nothing really on the line during their games except pride, and the biggest issue they face is that they dont always know whos gonna set up on the table across from them.

The friend/home group (I generally fit in here, though i do local store sometimes) is generally a more fluffy, fun group where your playing with friends and usually those friendships are more important than dropping 3 flyers on the table against an orc army (or someone else without skyfire options)

The problem that GW really has not done anything to address is that they need to build their game to cater to all three groups. Now the friend/home group is generally pretty safe, your not gonna see much list/rules abuse their and they tend to go with the flow. alot of those people collect armies based on what they like and the concept of money is power does not come into effect much here (the money is power idea is that i have a pretty good surplus income so i could build pretty much the strongest army i wanted and roll some 15 year old who cant even afford to pick up transports for all his troops).

So basically the problem is tourneys vs local store gaming. The fact that certian builds are so much stronger than others makes it problematic for people like me who need the local store to provide opponents, but dont really want to face off against some triple land raider triple flyer list. its just not fun for the weaker army and the chance of winning is painfully slim.

An example would be me and my friend who were fooling around at the local store doing a 1000pts battle w/ my DE against his black templar. we were having fun and some dude comes in and asks to play. Were totally cool with it but dont have a ton of models with us so we ask for 2v1 at 2000 points, with each of us having 1000pts. Both our armies are assulty oriented with him being mostly foot slogging melee guys and me being a wych/raider army. we tell this dude that we just play for fun and we would rather he played a list that was good, but more for fun than anything else. he seems agreeable, but then puts down 2 stormravens, 3 land raiders(w/ termies), 2 5 man tac squads and i think his name is mephiston (the blood angels dude). there was a few other things but it was a 100% legal list. The problem was that it was something id expect to see at a tournament, not something just for fun. my buddy and i are pretty laid back so we go with it. Long story short we got tabled. just crushed. We killed like a land raider, a marine squad and maybe one other thing. thats it. we just couldnt compete.

The point of that story is this: his army was totally cool, and totally fine, and probably around 400 bucks. it was a list that maximized the strengths of his codex while our list (now mind you we both come from 3rd edition and remember a time when SC did not exist/were very much frowned upon) was for fun, and fluffy. i love my wyches, but they dont stand a chance against alot of armies without flyer support or various other DE junk. But i dont want to take those things because its not fluffy.

Now both fluffy lists and tournament lists have a place in the game but when the majority of players are in a situation where they are playing against a stranger, and have no idea if the opponent understands the game is for fun or if the guy just wants to win the vast disparity GW has created in army strenght really comes out.

Im not saying the GW way is totally wrong, there should be a competitive scene in warhammer but it should not create situations where armies just cant deal with certian threats. Back in the good old day (before flyers) every army could put out an answer to any problem. yea, there were still horrible match ups, but generally all lists could answer all threats in some way. Nowadays it seems that is no longer the case. my wyches cant stop flyers. they quite simply have 0% chance of winning. same with termie heavy armies now. Yea, i can still lance them to death but i have zero way to stop them in cc anymore beyond huge attack dice and hoping for failed saves. yet i play a 100% cc oriented army.

Every codex has multiple ways to play thier army that are hugely different. every army can field pretty serious shooting, and most can field strong cc and the ones that cant tend to have good kiting alternatives. However alot of those variant army lists are dying out now and its leaving us with really one way to play each codex which for those of us who like themed armies that fit our personality, thats really sad.

Examples of this would be...DE cc is pretty much dead due to overwatch and wwp nerfs (and dont say overwatch only kills 2-3 wyches, when you only got 10 in each transport 2-3 is a huge blow to cc power). Tau kiting is pretty much dead due to flyers and flying MCs. vanilla marines cant cc or shoot better than any of their offshoot codexes, so you might as well use those.

I could go on but the TLDR is basically that new rules and new allies and flyers is making the gap between strong codexes and weak codexes so huge that the possibility of those players who play for fun to have a good game is going way, way down and that ruins the game for people like me. Yea, i can shrug off a loss, and if i get my butt kicked im ok with it as long as the game was epic and felt cool but going against armies that i cannot touch in cc or shooting is just depressing.

Frozen Ocean wrote:I was pointing out that, while the extremes exist, the people of this thread are not part of it. Legitimate complaints can exist without the general response being "play something else".

The problem that comes in for me is the phrase "legitimate complaints". Anyone who has played this game for a while knows that a new edition comes out and everything changes. It has *always* been that way. GW has never been a company that improves and fixes its rules. They instead change them to remove problems, introducing new problems instead. The only difference is who is complaining the loudest about the changes in a new version. This is how GW does things and has done things for a long time. People complaining about how GW doesn't care about them need to get over it. GW showed that a long time ago, and to still be here expecting to be different and complaining that it isn't is just pointless. If this is the first time someone has dealt with a version change then their complaints a bit more valid to me. If the complaint comes from someone who has been playing since 3rd edition I just don't care. It is no different than being in an abusive romantic relationship and you keep telling yourself that things will change and get better. It isn't a matter of be a fan boy or get out. It is a matter of be a smart consumer. Hate the company and the way they continue to do business over the last decade plus of years? Then stop giving them your business. What will likely happen, though, is the same usual passive aggressive patterns: GW screwed me over with the new edition again and my army is useless. Guess I'll go out and buy a new army to play instead. Yeah that is a brilliant solution right there. Reward the company that just angered you greatly by buying an entirely new army from them...

I expect GW to provide me with a game and the minis to play that game with for my dollars. That is exactly what I get. I never build my armies based on what is hard hitting and rockin' in the rules. I build my armies based on interest in the minis and the story behind the army. So drastic changes to the rules don't change my armies at all because the reasons I chose to play them in the first place are still completely valid despite a change to the rules and I will still have just as much fun. I have little sympathy for folks who are only about the rules and winning at all costs being upset when the constraints for winning at all costs changes. Don't focus on winning and the "perfect" army and you can be just as laid back and unbothered by a new edition as I am. I play with supposedly "useless" units all the time and still have fun playing the game when I do.

I have to say as I read through the 6th edition rulebook that I continue to be pleasantly surprised that the rules are well spelled out and detailed. That is a first for a version of 40k in my lifetime, and I've been playing since Rogue Trader. 6th edition isn't perfect by any means, but I given GW's past methods my expectations have been fulfilled. I know what I would have *liked* to see, but what we got is more what I *expected* to see.

Skriker

Frozen Ocean wrote:Yes, there are. Your earlier comment - about this thread being 'pure comedy gold' - indicates that you are disregarding those who are complaining as the latter extreme, that they are whining about 6E simply because it is 6E. Your post also added absolutely nothing to the thread, save to deride those people.

I was pointing out that, while the extremes exist, the people of this thread are not part of it. Legitimate complaints can exist without the general response being "play something else".

EDIT: "it" referring to the "hate new things because they're new" category.

I'm not disregarding anybody. What makes it comedy gold is that the memes they espouse can be demonstrated as fallacious with minimal amounts of research.

Demonstrate, then. Don't just post something that implies "You are all fools! Hahaha!". Demonstrate your point - with minimal amounts of research - if you do, in fact, have a point.

It would be nice to see "My Ork list is totally crap now, bla bla" that isn't followed by "lol don't play Orks then, durrr". While the person (in this example) who is complaining about their Orks isn't reacting maybe how they should, it doesn't call for so much of the feedback to be "suck it up".

I'm not agreeing with all the statements made here. I don't agree that GW added flyers or allies to force people to spend more money. Even if I did, I still wouldn't really care. The issue I see here is far too many responses being crude and unhelpful, even downright derisive.

Maybe it's because I'm a forum admin, I don't know, but this is not how discussions are done.

Adapt to the new rules changes with your army, start a different army, play an older, or tweaked (Houseruled) version of the rules, or stop playing. These are really your only options.

Everyone has had to do this. Adapt or die off. It is the natural way.

Rules changes can hurt, you can either run from it, or learn from it.

Frozen Ocean wrote:Maybe it's because I'm a forum admin, I don't know, but this is not how discussions are done.

I don't know what internet you are a forum admin on, but this is pretty much standard activity for most computer based forums I've been a part of the since the days of BBSs and Usenet all the way to where we are now. Anonymity breeds contempt and rudeness. People say things they'd be afraid to say to others face to face. Of course the internet does not have a monopoly on the "I'm right and I know it and if you don't you suck!" approach either. Some people are just jerks plain and simple.

Real discussions involve back and forth, respect and understanding. I would hazard to say that most internet forum communication does not fall into the category of "real discussions".

Skriker

I have quit. If people don't want to hear a complaint, don't read a complaint thread. If you don't have something to contribute to the thread, don't contribute.
You are quite right there DeathReaper, if you can't beat em join em, and if you don't want to join them then you have to give it up. My circumstances are some what unfortunate in regards to your suggestions though. If I go to my local gaming store I have to play 6th Ed, if I go to my local gaming club they don't play 40k any more, the only other one who does is TFG. And with my mates all having quit 40k an edition back I have no other alternatives. All in all I am still thankful for the time I have had with it and I don't regret (well not all of it) the time, money and effort I have put into it. Though I still must say GW is going to go under sooner or later, it has a shrinking fan base, to compensate for that it increases it's prices, causing a rapider shrink, so on and so on.

Eldarain wrote:Find likeminded people and play the edition that brings you all the most joy. We still play a slightly tweaked form of 2nd.

That's the best advice. I'll repeat my oft-stated suggestion that it's time for a website, Facebook page or the like where people who prefer earlier editions and earlier codices, and aren't plastic-crack addicts or brain-dead GW fanboys, can connect. I'm not much of a website designer or I'd try doing one myself. Or maybe I'll do one anyway . . . .

Games are fun if you make them so. A lot of your fun / bad time, comes from your outlook going into it.

I am personally trying to figure out the new rules and how to enjoy them. I personally loved 5th editions get up the table and get into your opponents type of play (and I used Eldar of all things). What sucks for me is that I just spent the last 6 months buying and painted a GK army.

But hey I'll figure out how to have fun with it or wind up assembling and painting the rest of my Khador.

"Nothing endures but change" - Heraclitus.

Whether it's this silly game we play or the restaurant on the corner taking your favorite meal off of the menu...

The unfortunate thing is that, for the most part, we can't control the shifting sands that we try to stand upon. However, we generally can control our interaction with it.

For some, change is almost unbearable. They wear the same shirt, eat the same food and take the same path to work each day; never bothering to explore outside of their own world.

For others, change is an exiting part of life that adds spice and depth.

I'm not making a value judgement on which camp you fall into. If it's the former, then perhaps sticking with 5th Ed rules for the foreseeable future might be the best bet. If the latter, then embrace 6 and see what happens. At the end of the day, GW moves so slow that a move to 6 now will pretty much guarantee YEARS of working in the new rule system.

clively wrote:"Nothing endures but change" - Heraclitus.

Whether it's this silly game we play or the restaurant on the corner taking your favorite meal off of the menu...

The unfortunate thing is that, for the most part, we can't control the shifting sands that we try to stand upon. However, we generally can control our interaction with it.

For some, change is almost unbearable. They wear the same shirt, eat the same food and take the same path to work each day; never bothering to explore outside of their own world.

For others, change is an exiting part of life that adds spice and depth.

I'm not making a value judgement on which camp you fall into. If it's the former, then perhaps sticking with 5th Ed rules for the foreseeable future might be the best bet. If the latter, then embrace 6 and see what happens. At the end of the day, GW moves so slow that a move to 6 now will pretty much guarantee YEARS of working in the new rule system.

Amen.

Yes, 6th invalidated alot of armies, and I'm not talking about minor shake ups but full scape butt-b***-raping.
It's probably time for them to put the game aside, or at least take a break for a while.
There are many fishes in the sea, cliched I know, and not matter what we have move forward.

Whether that means, rewriting lists for 6th, continuing to play 5th, or jumping ship to another hobby, the choice is yours, and only yours.
I with all of you a bright and hopeful future.

clively wrote:For some, change is almost unbearable. They wear the same shirt, eat the same food and take the same path to work each day; never bothering to explore outside of their own world.

For others, change is an exiting part of life that adds spice and depth.

It's not really that simple though and again is not black and white like that. I'm not adverse to change when that change is indifferent to me or I see it as an improvement. The problem comes when that change is for the negative or remove aspects I previously enjoyed. That's why, after all these years, I STILL hate the AP system for armour because I think it's moronic and inherently unbalanced. I STILL hate the fact they decided to remove guess range weapons because for me it was always fun to see how close I could get my mortar shells to where I wanted them.

I don't hate change, but I do dislike change for no reason and especially when that change is a negative (and a negative would be reducing the usefulness of troops I spent hundreds of dollars buying and hundreds of hours painting).

At the moment I'm pretty indifferent to 6th edition, it has some changes I like and some I don't, though I've felt 40k has been pretty generic and not nearly as entertaining for several editions now anyway.

"GW Fatigue" is a good title for this thread. It's not hating change or whining for the sake of whining, rather it's getting tired of the more frustrating aspects of GW games and their approach.

Doesn't this happen with EVERY edition? I well remember change from 4th to 5th, many balance changes were big - lots of people declared ragequit because of True LOS, Sweeping advance and whatnot.

Backfire wrote:Doesn't this happen with EVERY edition? I well remember change from 4th to 5th, many balance changes were big - lots of people declared ragequit because of True LOS, Sweeping advance and whatnot.

This happens in pretty much every tabletop wargame and pen and paper RPG when they change editions. I have adapted and look forward to new opportunities for building new lists outside the norm of what was 5th Edition.

Of course, I myself ragequit MtG when they changed to 6th Edition, so maybe I am not one to criticize

Funnily enough, lots of time you see people holding MtG as some sort of paragon how GW should run things. I always get a good laugh out of it.

I'm amazed at how anyone could hate 6th without having already quit over 5th. It's a vast improvement in pretty much every way.

Testify wrote:I'm amazed at how anyone could hate 6th without having already quit over 5th. It's a vast improvement in pretty much every way.

It seems to me the people that are quitting are the ones who made their lists very specific in build and now they no longer function as they did, most of these players seem to have only purchased the models for that build and as such can't experiment or come up with new things, so they quit. Example being all the WWP Wyche armies popping up on Ebay, I mean you could put them in Raiders and they have a 14"-24" first turn assault range.

Testify wrote:I'm amazed at how anyone could hate 6th without having already quit over 5th. It's a vast improvement in pretty much every way.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I've been disappointed since 3rd edition Gimme back my save modifiers, S4 Chainswords that gave -1 save modifier, S8 Lightning Claws, auto-wounding Thunder Hammers, movement characteristics, etc etc. It's the models and interesting armies that keep me collecting. If I could find a local group of people still playing 2nd edition I'd join up.

These days I play a lot more Flames of War than 40k, but still buy and collect GW armies/minis because I like them. I have to say that the more I read 6th edition, the more I am inclined to get back to more 40k game play. The rules are clearer and more specific which should remove a lot of the arguements that used to dominate 5th edition games. In 5th edition I felt like many of the games I was fighting more against the rules than my opponent and that got boring after a while.

I am looking forward to playing some more 40k.

It is definitely all about expectations and expecting GW to do something completely different from how they have done them for ages now is just going to lead to disappointment.

Skriker

My 2c:

GW as 'money-whores': they only make 6million pounds a year, less than what the average American CEO receives in yearly bonuses (well they receive 10million so about the same), and sell roughly 1-4million boxes of minis (depending what the average price is) annually.

Unlike every single other wargames manufacturer, they have stores to get you into the hobby (many people 'start when GW was good then moved on', what if there were only these online companies? Wargaming is small enough as it is), at least they're trying to control costs here.

The minis aren't all that expensive compared to other hobbies either; Warmahordes is roughly the same yet they produce extra products like GW without a local presence; Infinity only produce models and rules (not even designing a rulebook to be published) which is how they can keep it in the price range of about $100 for an army (yet having a lot of customisability which is very deceptive) as their games are designed to be played small (think if W40k was based around 500 points instead, probably about $50 for it with as much customisability as infinity).

GW are also issuing more dividends than they are making profit when I glanced at their financial statements, anyone would tell you this is indicative of a sinking ship but I'd have to look deeper to know for certain.

GW and price gouging; lots do it to us, but the price is absurd and I go around it (illegally) so I don't talk about it.

If i'm going to another hobby; Infinity I love the rules, warmahordes the models (rules are a bit iffy for me, I'd have to doublecheck), malifaux hell no, and then there's kings of war (likely as I like big battles).

Thankfully the nearest games store is only 15km away and isn't a GW one (there was a GW one 5mins away but australia is a very spread out country so it went under) and maybe I can convince some of the guys to play kings of war with me, as I also like how it has a painting-only side for those of us who can't get time to play games with it so we can get creative with the extras they provide for display armies and conversions.

Backfire wrote:Of course, I myself ragequit MtG when they changed to 6th Edition, so maybe I am not one to criticize

Funnily enough, lots of time you see people holding MtG as some sort of paragon how GW should run things. I always get a good laugh out of it.

You do realize that the game was barely playable until they introduced the stack that instantly fixed just about every timing issue that could even occur in the game when they revised the rules, right? You ragequitting MtG when they did the rules overhaul is very laughable since they... ya know... fixed the game with it.

As for the new rules in 40K, to the OP: quit. I have not played a game of 40K in a very long time. I started in 5th and quit in 5th. The game is really bad and GW don't give a rat's ass about fixing any of it. Seriously. They don't. The sooner you realize this the sooner you can sell your stuff off and go do other things with your money.

Backfire wrote:Funnily enough, lots of time you see people holding MtG as some sort of paragon how GW should run things. I always get a good laugh out of it.

From a rules standpoint this makes sense. They refined and enhanced their rules to make them better and to resolve problems with the rules. They listened to their player community and implemented improvements to the game that made people happier playing it. Through all of its various incarnations there card verbage has gotten clearer and much more specific and if there are any questions as to how a card plays they usually respond to it with a faq ruling pretty quickly.

This are all things that GW could greatly benefit from. Often they try to reinvent the wheel when they write their rules instead of refining and enhancing them. The shift from 5th to 6th seems less of a dramatic change and maybe they are learning this *finally*. The simple fact is that by improving and continually refining their game, Wizards of the Coast has seen magic continue to be popular and wholly profitable for over 20 years with minimal price increases on the product. They keep coming out with new card sets and people contiue to buy them. That is pretty darn impressive and something other game companies could learn from.

Skriker

This is sounding more and more like 3d edition, De ja vu all over again.


Kinda worried.

I play Tyranids, stealer list. Not only I like Cruddace codex, I'm eager to play 6th edition with my particular nids just to see if I can win with them nerfed so much (no assault the turn you outflank, change to fleet, overwatch, wound allocation from the nearest model). I'm willing to accept changes that make the whole game better, more tactical etc even at the cost of (probably) long time nerf to my current army, uphill battle is fun and rewarding. Allocating wounds is so much better now (apart from "look out sir", not mechanicaly though, rather the silly explanation) that I don't care it hurts my stealers for example. Ofc having the balanced armies is crucial but what I want to say is I can live with and even have fun from nerfing my list in the process of rules change.

And here's the trouble, there are so many backwards changes in my eyes. What I hate most in 6th are the additional throws. Throw for warlord abilities, throw for mysterious forsest, throw for mysterious river, throw for mysterious objectives, throw for night fighting etc. So many things totaly out of control that can make the game unfair from the beggining, I can house rule it all out but I'd prefer to play by the book and don't like the adventure game direction it all takes. It's easier for GW to get away with their cheap codex and rules writing with such aproach, I want this game to be as tactical and skill based and possible even playing for fun. That's why it's so important to have the tournament scene and the game makers listening to them, to keep the game as far as possible from random, cheesed affair.

Now someone please explain to me the randomness of 2d6 charges. Is that GWs way around balancing movement and weapon ranges, what's the point? Fun? Serious question, I don't get it.

Now, let's falsly assume for the moment that what I mainly want from 40k is adventure, cinematics, mood - "fun" - this is what I'd have to live with in 6th edition, top of my head:

- there's Calgar walking in the front with 10 tactical marines and they get under fire - it's either 10 man doing nothing but jumping to catch bullets with their bodys or papa smurf doing nothing but ducking and hiding behind their backs and doing tiny jumps from one to another as they get shot

- widely assumming one turn is seconds up to a minute maybe, it takes few minutes tops from pitch black night to fully lighted day

- widely assuming than an inch is 10 meters, the charge distance of an unit varies from 20m to 120m, on the plain field

- warlords, actualy more like warladies have abilities dependable on day or mood or sth

- there are grimdark forests of death everywhere and special units of the Imperium, space marines and their tactical god of war are unable to research said forest before the battle

6th edition looks kind of ridiculous so far for me, and I haven't even played it yet. Hi to all, btw.

Kurce wrote:

Backfire wrote:Of course, I myself ragequit MtG when they changed to 6th Edition, so maybe I am not one to criticize

Funnily enough, lots of time you see people holding MtG as some sort of paragon how GW should run things. I always get a good laugh out of it.

You do realize that the game was barely playable until they introduced the stack that instantly fixed just about every timing issue that could even occur in the game when they revised the rules, right? You ragequitting MtG when they did the rules overhaul is very laughable since they... ya know... fixed the game with it.

That was indeed a good change: it was everything else which went to hell, which is why I quit. Along with all my Magic-playing friends. Note that I did not quit because of 6th ed, timing was coincidental.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skriker wrote:
This are all things that GW could greatly benefit from. Often they try to reinvent the wheel when they write their rules instead of refining and enhancing them. The shift from 5th to 6th seems less of a dramatic change and maybe they are learning this *finally*. The simple fact is that by improving and continually refining their game, Wizards of the Coast has seen magic continue to be popular and wholly profitable for over 20 years with minimal price increases on the product. They keep coming out with new card sets and people contiue to buy them. That is pretty darn impressive and something other game companies could learn from.

Uh, of course MtG is profitable. GW really has NOTHING on WOTC when it comes to milking money from the playerbase. It got really, really cynical after 4th Ed, which is why we quit.

I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Backfire wrote:Uh, of course MtG is profitable. GW really has NOTHING on WOTC when it comes to milking money from the playerbase. It got really, really cynical after 4th Ed, which is why we quit.

Why is the profitability of magic a given? It isn't just because it is there, it is because players like it and continue to buy into it. Whether you found it cynical after 4th or not, plenty of others didn't and still don't. I don't play in official events because I stopped aggressively buying magic cards a long time ago. The cool thing is that nothing in the rules has changed so much that I can't play with any of the cards I still own. Some of them might be a little underpowered compared to some current similar cards, but I can still use them if I want. That backwards compatibility even keeps the players who don't want to buy up a ton of cards from the most current set happy. I can think of at least a dozen games following the same collectible rarity random booster selection of Magic that came out around the same time and not a one of them still exists in the market, except maybe through ebay. The rest haven't been in production for a long time indeed. WotC is certainly doing something right with Magic.

Also it isn't milking money from the playerbase if the players happily buy the product and use it and continue to do so. Some of the ways official events are run are not WotC just wanting to make more money, but a direct result of player feedback wanting official events to focus within a certain subset of cards at any given time to ensure deck parity. You can't blame or insult WotC for giving its players what they asked for.

GW seems to have the mentality that no matter what they do everyone will just love it, despite the existence of tons of resources like Dakka that spell out what a lot of players want and don't want.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Now someone please explain to me the randomness of 2d6 charges. Is that GWs way around balancing movement and weapon ranges, what's the point? Fun? Serious question, I don't get it.

6th edition looks kind of ridiculous so far for me, and I haven't even played it yet. Hi to all, btw.

Random charge is just another aspect of the fog of war. You assault and realize that you weren't as close to their position as you thought, or you get hung up in the terrain or your charge just fizzles due to less enthusiasm. Always being able to charge a specific distance regardless of conditions or situations is kind of silly when you think about it.

You are certainly welcome to consider it ridiculous. I am also at a loss for the need of "mystery" terrain, but some people like it. It is a simple process to just ignore it completely. Doesn't take away from anything and doesn't require much of any effort at all. Mysterious forest= Forest, Mysterious river= river, Mysterious ruins= ruins, and so on and so on.

I fail to understand people who complain that their armies are ruined because of rules that affect every army equally. It isn't as if other forces are doing things that your favorite army can't do anymore. No one is getting the ability to charge after running, or an immunity to overwatch. It is all the same. I also find it funny how much panic overwatch is causing to people who like close combat. A BS 1 is hardly the end of the world. Try playing a game where the comparative overwatch fire is done at the standard abilities for those firing in overwatch and not as limited and nerfed as it is in 40k. The overwatch rules in 40k are laughable at best. A tactical squad of marines should make mincement of anything charging at them with CC weapons in hand. These battles play closer to napoleonics with artillery and some shooting, but ulimtately with units coming into contact with cutlass and bayonet. It really is laughable all things considered.

Skriker

Frozen Ocean wrote:Demonstrate, then. Don't just post something that implies "You are all fools! Hahaha!". Demonstrate your point - with minimal amounts of research - if you do, in fact, have a point.

It would be nice to see "My Ork list is totally crap now, bla bla" that isn't followed by "lol don't play Orks then, durrr". While the person (in this example) who is complaining about their Orks isn't reacting maybe how they should, it doesn't call for so much of the feedback to be "suck it up".

I'm not agreeing with all the statements made here. I don't agree that GW added flyers or allies to force people to spend more money. Even if I did, I still wouldn't really care. The issue I see here is far too many responses being crude and unhelpful, even downright derisive.

Maybe it's because I'm a forum admin, I don't know, but this is not how discussions are done.

I didn't realise there was a discussion occurring. Instead you are creating strawman arguements.

Still...

Take the example of the claim that GW does not respond to the internet/customers that was made earlier in the thread (and is a staple of this meme). A number of podcasts have interviewed games designers - notably Gav Thorpe - about their job and he made the point that large amounts of his time would be spent searching through forums and blogs too find out what people were saying. In his Standard Bearer column Jervis fequently asks people to write to him with his suggestions and concerns. There are plenty of other examples - not the least of which is the subtle ways in which GW leaks rumours - hence my comment about minimal research.

As for derisive comments - including the tone of your contribution (fanboys' etc) - what do people expect when they open threads like this?

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

From my perspective, 6th edition is neither suited for tourneys nor for "adventurous" fun - the randomness spoils the former, suits the latter but the explanations are silly and anti-climatic. I love the 40k world and came to enjoy the hobby aspect a lot but if the game is driven towards a total luckfest, what's the point of FOC, points, heavy rulebook, strict guidelines etc, It's not the matter of tourneys and winning imo but the game having depth, which for me translates into more fun. Random snake in the forest eating the space marine should be left for rpgs, boardgames and such not unit based tactical game, imo. The impact of the new throws might turn out not that significant but still, what's the point? Not to mention all they had to do is make it optional or write some rules for buying the warlord abilities for example.

I love epic, cinematic events on the table in 40k but consider the outcomes of a fierce tactical battle more cinematic than Space Marine drowning by accident in Industrial Ooze.

Skriker wrote:Random charge is just another aspect of the fog of war. You assault and realize that you weren't as close to their position as you thought, or you get hung up in the terrain or your charge just fizzles due to less enthusiasm. Always being able to charge a specific distance regardless of conditions or situations is kind of silly when you think about it.

Thanks for the answer but I'd also like to know if there are mechanical downsizes to a fixed charge distance, or this is just for the reasons you mention. If it was the latter, would be hard to accept just because of the wide results margin, it's kind of unfluffy and not realistic to see hormangaunts making 2 inches assault and terminators making 12. Just when I've come to accept the random running distance in 5th they come up with 2d6 charge, I really try to find a sensible reason for it.

Skriker wrote:You are certainly welcome to consider it ridiculous. I am also at a loss for the need of "mystery" terrain, but some people like it. It is a simple process to just ignore it completely. Doesn't take away from anything and doesn't require much of any effort at all. Mysterious forest= Forest, Mysterious river= river, Mysterious ruins= ruins, and so on and so on.

Yes I know but with 5th edition, the more strictly I followed the guidelines (terrain, missions, objectives, wound allocations) the more it seemed balanced. It's also quite an expensive book to be forced to make house rules before even starting.

I said ridiculous mainly because of Look Out Sir, I know it's not much different than in 5th (mechanicaly better) but the explanation is soo bad... it can only instigate laughs at my table no epic for sure. It won't stop me from playing and possibly enjoying the 6th but the rules should be much much better imo.

Skriker wrote:I fail to understand people who complain that their armies are ruined because of rules that affect every army equally. It isn't as if other forces are doing things that your favorite army can't do anymore. No one is getting the ability to charge after running, or an immunity to overwatch. It is all the same. I also find it funny how much panic overwatch is causing to people who like close combat. A BS 1 is hardly the end of the world. Try playing a game where the comparative overwatch fire is done at the standard abilities for those firing in overwatch and not as limited and nerfed as it is in 40k. The overwatch rules in 40k are laughable at best. A tactical squad of marines should make mincement of anything charging at them with CC weapons in hand. These battles play closer to napoleonics with artillery and some shooting, but ulimtately with units coming into contact with cutlass and bayonet. It really is laughable all things considered.

Skriker

Genestealer based list is hurt a lot, I don't complain but it's a fact. Have to see how it works now, will be harder for sure - the matter is, how much.

Backfire wrote:

Kurce wrote:

Backfire wrote:Of course, I myself ragequit MtG when they changed to 6th Edition, so maybe I am not one to criticize

Funnily enough, lots of time you see people holding MtG as some sort of paragon how GW should run things. I always get a good laugh out of it.

You do realize that the game was barely playable until they introduced the stack that instantly fixed just about every timing issue that could even occur in the game when they revised the rules, right? You ragequitting MtG when they did the rules overhaul is very laughable since they... ya know... fixed the game with it.

That was indeed a good change: it was everything else which went to hell, which is why I quit. Along with all my Magic-playing friends. Note that I did not quit because of 6th ed, timing was coincidental.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skriker wrote:
This are all things that GW could greatly benefit from. Often they try to reinvent the wheel when they write their rules instead of refining and enhancing them. The shift from 5th to 6th seems less of a dramatic change and maybe they are learning this *finally*. The simple fact is that by improving and continually refining their game, Wizards of the Coast has seen magic continue to be popular and wholly profitable for over 20 years with minimal price increases on the product. They keep coming out with new card sets and people contiue to buy them. That is pretty darn impressive and something other game companies could learn from.

Uh, of course MtG is profitable. GW really has NOTHING on WOTC when it comes to milking money from the playerbase. It got really, really cynical after 4th Ed, which is why we quit.

Your post seemed to imply that you quit because of the changes to the rules that came about in 6th. And I do not see how Magic became cynical... I cannot understand how this even applies to Magic. What about Magic became cynical exactly?

Kurce wrote:[
Your post seemed to imply that you quit because of the changes to the rules that came about in 6th. And I do not see how Magic became cynical... I cannot understand how this even applies to Magic. What about Magic became cynical exactly?

Expansion creep became rather insane at around, or after, Alliances. Before that, they really didn't know how to handle expansions. First they were too strong, the designers did not realize players would pick & choose best cards (even though it seems like a no-brainer). Then they went to other extreme and became really weak. After Fallen Empires and Homelands flopped, they realized people did not want to buy weak expansions regardless of how good stories and themes they had. So they began to release expansions which were clearly much more powerful than the base game and most of the earlier editions. And the release schedule became just insanely hectic, tons of new stuff coming out of every few months. Plus the card design got really lazy. What the heck is the point of a card which is exact same as some earlier card, but more powerful? That will just invalidate earlier card, thanks a lot. It was so obvious ripoff scheme that nothing GW has done comes close.

Magic, when I started it at 3rd edition, was fun casual game. At around 5th/6th edition it became a competive tournament game, and those of us, who wanted just to have fun, bailed out. It was no longer the same game, it was no more FUN. Rules changes were actually irrelevant, although my post might imply that (removal of Banding was lame, but I think it happened afterwards). It was a policy change which drove me out.

Now, the lesson here is that I was sure that MtG was going down the drain. EVERYONE I knew had quit, whole scene around me died. So couple of years later I was hugely surprised to find out that MtG was thriving. They had built a new playerbase, the fact that they had driven out most of the old grognards didn't matter. It wasn't the same scene anymore, and there is no way I'd return, but for those involved it didn't matter, that was what they wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skriker wrote:

Backfire wrote:Uh, of course MtG is profitable. GW really has NOTHING on WOTC when it comes to milking money from the playerbase. It got really, really cynical after 4th Ed, which is why we quit.

Why is the profitability of magic a given? It isn't just because it is there, it is because players like it and continue to buy into it. Whether you found it cynical after 4th or not, plenty of others didn't and still don't. I don't play in official events because I stopped aggressively buying magic cards a long time ago. The cool thing is that nothing in the rules has changed so much that I can't play with any of the cards I still own. Some of them might be a little underpowered compared to some current similar cards, but I can still use them if I want. That backwards compatibility even keeps the players who don't want to buy up a ton of cards from the most current set happy. I can think of at least a dozen games following the same collectible rarity random booster selection of Magic that came out around the same time and not a one of them still exists in the market, except maybe through ebay. The rest haven't been in production for a long time indeed. WotC is certainly doing something right with Magic.

Also it isn't milking money from the playerbase if the players happily buy the product and use it and continue to do so. Some of the ways official events are run are not WotC just wanting to make more money, but a direct result of player feedback wanting official events to focus within a certain subset of cards at any given time to ensure deck parity. You can't blame or insult WotC for giving its players what they asked for.

GW seems to have the mentality that no matter what they do everyone will just love it, despite the existence of tons of resources like Dakka that spell out what a lot of players want and don't want.

That has to be most unintentionally hilarious post of the week, providing the very same parallel I drew and exactly proves the point I was making.

I find the new shooting wound allocation rules are kind of needlessly complex and unrealistic, so a space marine/IG squad loses the guy carrying a flamer, meltagun or heavy weapon they are just going to leave the section/platoon weapons on the ground? Derpy derp

Battle hardened space marines reduced to BS 1 "snap fire" (whatever that is?) because the enemy is assaulting them say what? Nice to know space marines of the future have less training then your average infantryman nowadays.

It would be interesting to know if GW actually had anyone whos Military advising them on these rules.

Dont even get me started on challenges, I can understand that in fantasy warhammer but where in modern warfare is your dudes going to hold back while your sergeant is going hand to hand with an enemy commander.

Grunt21 wrote:I find the new shooting wound allocation rules are kind of needlessly complex and unrealistic, so a space marine/IG squad loses the guy carrying a flamer, meltagun or heavy weapon they are just going to leave the section/platoon weapons on the ground? Derpy derp

Battle hardened space marines reduced to BS 1 "snap fire" (whatever that is?) because the enemy is assaulting them say what? Nice to know space marines of the future have less training then your average infantryman nowadays.

It would be interesting to know if GW actually had anyone whos Military advising them on these rules.

Dont even get me started on challenges, I can understand that in fantasy warhammer but where in modern warfare is your dudes going to hold back while your sergeant is going hand to hand with an enemy commander.

In turn...
Maybe the gun was damaged when the guy was shot? Half the weapons in most armies don't leave a lot to bury... Meltaguns and plasmaguns are often described as being as hot as a sun.
Marines are surprised by the sudden rush of troops at their location and fire for effect, trying to stop the rush without having the time to line up a shot (See the Dawn of War intro when the orks charge the marines... some pretty awful shooting there, and even Marines can get worried, they ain't fearless).
You see your buddy and the enemy commander wrestling in a knife fight, while someone else is trying to actively stab you with something sharp. You might wanna help, but there's that sharp thing in the way... or think of it like great heroes whose presence cowers most opponents, and your leader tells you to stay back, that this foe is his as he charges into battle. Hell, that's like half the 40k novels out there.

GW isn't going for realism, they're going for cinematic. They want that epic feel that is supposed to encompass 40k, not foxholes, mud, and trenches... though we have those too, along with rampaging plague demons and space dinos.

Sephyr wrote:

Let's take the Warlord table as a minor example. It's not the core issue but it is revealing.

You have offensive, defensive and terrain abilities sharing the same table. Your charge-forward assault HQ can end up with a defensive power that only applies if he camps back in his home turf. Your base-sitting sniper HQ can get furious charge if he ever strolls to the enmy deploy zone, which he won't. You may gain a bonus in ruins playing a forest or desert table with nary a ruin in sight. You can gain Acute senses when not having a single outflanker on the table.

In -good- games, the tables would have been better, or allow some player input. In the RPG Deathwatch, for instance, you roll your power armor's special abilities on a similar table. Except they actually know a bit about game design and let you always pick the options above or below the one you rolled if you wan, because they know it's dumb to expect a Devastator to get an armor that gives CC bonuses and say it's fine.

House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Backfire wrote:

Kurce wrote:
Your post seemed to imply that you quit because of the changes to the rules that came about in 6th. And I do not see how Magic became cynical... I cannot understand how this even applies to Magic. What about Magic became cynical exactly?

Expansion creep became rather insane at around, or after, Alliances. Before that, they really didn't know how to handle expansions. First they were too strong, the designers did not realize players would pick & choose best cards (even though it seems like a no-brainer). Then they went to other extreme and became really weak. After Fallen Empires and Homelands flopped, they realized people did not want to buy weak expansions regardless of how good stories and themes they had. So they began to release expansions which were clearly much more powerful than the base game and most of the earlier editions. And the release schedule became just insanely hectic, tons of new stuff coming out of every few months. Plus the card design got really lazy. What the heck is the point of a card which is exact same as some earlier card, but more powerful? That will just invalidate earlier card, thanks a lot. It was so obvious ripoff scheme that nothing GW has done comes close.

Magic, when I started it at 3rd edition, was fun casual game. At around 5th/6th edition it became a competive tournament game, and those of us, who wanted just to have fun, bailed out. It was no longer the same game, it was no more FUN. Rules changes were actually irrelevant, although my post might imply that (removal of Banding was lame, but I think it happened afterwards). It was a policy change which drove me out.

Now, the lesson here is that I was sure that MtG was going down the drain. EVERYONE I knew had quit, whole scene around me died. So couple of years later I was hugely surprised to find out that MtG was thriving. They had built a new playerbase, the fact that they had driven out most of the old grognards didn't matter. It wasn't the same scene anymore, and there is no way I'd return, but for those involved it didn't matter, that was what they wanted.

This sounds to me that you took issue with power creep. Not with the rules being changed. I completely understand being irked by power creep. However, I disagree with your stance on printing new things that invalidate old things. If old things are insanely overpowered but the effect was still very cool then a new version could be made so that the power is toned down but the effect remains intact. Likewise, if the old version is very weak but the effect is cool then a new version could be made to power it up some but keep the effect intact.

Now, what I would argue is that the game was still insanely "powerful" back in the day; even during the time in which you played it. Of course, the term "powerful" is relative; powerful then is not powerful now and vice versa. Back in Magic's olden days, spells were EXTREMELY powerful. This was because they did not understand how to balance spells versus creatures. That is why you have a cards like Serra Angel (which is completely unplayable in Magic's current state) and cards like Swords to Plowshares (the single best removal spell ever printed).

That is why in today's current Legacy format (the format where you can play any card in Magic except for those deemed too powerful and meet the ban hammer), you typically see spells from Magic's old days and creatures from Magic's newer sets. The designers of Magic found out that creature permanents needed to be buffed big time or spells needed to be nerfed big time. Around that time that you said you finally quit, they were still tweaking this balance out a lot. Case in point, look at the entire Urza block. It had sick, nasty creatures. Sure. But, it had even sicker spells that would annihilate people on turn 1. Yes. They realized this was a mistake and started banning things left and right and the subsequent sets dropped off in power level quite a bit. But, that is how the game works. Sometimes they let things slip through the cracks and things need to be fixed.

Now, compare this to GW's policies on game rules and game balance. What is their policy?

Their policy is this: We. Don't. Care.

They do not address game imbalance AT ALL. They do not address rules problems AT ALL. And they don't care to. This is why this company irritates me to no end to the point that I just sort of gave up on this game.

It is sort of a shame to because I remember playing this game when I was young and I thought this game was the epitome of badass-ness. I only played a small handful of games with my uncle. I went through school, moved off, went to college, got a job, started making money, and then found out some guys I knew played 40K. I got into 40K during 5th. Sadly, it didn't last very long...

EDIT:

CT GAMER wrote:

House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Why even write rule books? If you are going to modify rules that have problems or rules that you disagree with, then why even use a rule book? Just make up your own rules for the game.

CT GAMER wrote:House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Not seeing the benefit. As with mysterious terrain, part of the intention seems to be to shake up the game by having things happen between list building and deployment , and can alter the flow or strategy of a game - I'm hardly seeing this as a bad thing. If a warlord gets a power counter to his intended role, you need to incorporate that into your battle plan. If suddenly he can hold an objective all on his own, or gives an offensive/defensive/leadership buff you need to be able to account for how this development will affect your plan.

Marrak wrote:
In turn...
Maybe the gun was damaged when the guy was shot? Half the weapons in most armies don't leave a lot to bury... Meltaguns and plasmaguns are often described as being as hot as a sun.
Marines are surprised by the sudden rush of troops at their location and fire for effect, trying to stop the rush without having the time to line up a shot (See the Dawn of War intro when the orks charge the marines... some pretty awful shooting there, and even Marines can get worried, they ain't fearless).
You see your buddy and the enemy commander wrestling in a knife fight, while someone else is trying to actively stab you with something sharp. You might wanna help, but there's that sharp thing in the way... or think of it like great heroes whose presence cowers most opponents, and your leader tells you to stay back, that this foe is his as he charges into battle. Hell, that's like half the 40k novels out there.

GW isn't going for realism, they're going for cinematic. They want that epic feel that is supposed to encompass 40k, not foxholes, mud, and trenches... though we have those too, along with rampaging plague demons and space dinos.

I thought Space Marines were supposed to be pretty close to fearless, ever since I've been playing 40k they've always had some sort of rule that stops them falling back regardless of the circumstances and when you think even the most elite of modern soldiers only have a few years of training and experience compared you your average Marine who has decades if not centuries of conditioning to not get scared despite the horde of Orks bearing down on them. I've never really read too many of the novels aside from the Space Wolf ones though, but ever since I started collecting I've been under the impression "fear" was not an issue for the Adeptus Astartes.

I find that 40k isn't *necessarily* that tactical when it comes to the actual play of the game. Those who use a 'shooty' army shoot and move minimal amounts to line up fire lanes/specific targets etc. Assualt armies run like hell to get to the enemy and chop it to bits. Armies of a balanced nature send their assaulters off on a suicide attack while shooters shoot.

There are far more random elements being added to assaults, which *can* lead to assaults being a redundant endeavour. Where as there isn't as much randomness in shooting, so there's a lower chance of shooting being a redundant effort. I remember in one of the GW teaser releases (it may have been beasts of war actually now I think about it) they were talking about assaults becoming a far more risky move. Was this necessary? Not really. Increase the risks of failure if you don't nerf the effectiveness of assaults, yes. But they have nerfed assaults as well as increased the risk, making shooting a safer and more effective choice.

Over all this doesn't effect most armies as the largest portion of the turn is the shooting phase for most of them. This makes armies with a more *limited* shooting capability less competitive and less effective. The primary example: Tyranids. In 5th ed Tyranids suffered drastically to shooting, now they *can* suffer from it even more. This doesn't of course mean they will as they can charge from huge distances away now though this is of course subjective to luck. And luck has never been a tactical element as it is exactly that, luck. On a real battlefield VERY little is left to luck or chance.

Ok here's my rant...

This is one of the saddest threads ever. The internet has failed all of you!

40k is a niche game that will never go mainstream. GW knows this and markets it as such. Either you like the models, fluff, hobby, game, can afford it (even considering ebay) or not. If not, don't play.

Balance does not mean what you think it means. WH40k is balanced by your meta.
Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

Balance does not mean every troop choice is equal. WH40k has troop choices that are loosely given points based on situations they can be used in. Some choices are good, some bad.

You may think a troop choice is useless but in fact it may be the best most optimized choice to counter a combo that THE INTERNET HAS NOT EVEN THOUGHT OF YET or future rules developments. Or maybe it's there so you can make a less optimized choice for most opponents you may play against. (see above) Nobody said you could just arbitrarily choose your army, cross your fingers and you'd be master of the universe.

6th edition changed the game for EVERYONE. Nobodies tanks work the same. Play some games without your ego on the line. So what if you might have a slight disadvantage now. If you can't have fun while losing maybe playing games isn't your thing. This is a constantly evolving game. It is exactly why people can play for 20 years and still enjoy it.

If you haven't bought a model in 2 years, you're not really playing 40k. At least your missing a huge side of it. Lets say I buy a new finecast HQ for $15. The time I'll spend on that model will be well worth the price. I'll spend at least 2 hours painting it (probably a lot more) and an unlimited amount of time playing it on the battlefield. It can be put in a display (if I'm proud of the job I did on it). Right now I have a stormraven I bought over a year ago. I got it partially assembled just so I can use it in games and have spend an hour or two on it now and then over the last year. The amount of hobby time I've gotten out of it has been well worth the price.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

This is one of the main reasons I haven't liked 40k since 2nd edition. The theme of the game changed to rock-paper-scissors of an AP system. Going up against 'nids? Take lots of cheap heavy bolters and gun them down. Going up against marines? Those same heavy bolters are only worth half of what they were before.

It's why, since 3rd edition, rules wise I prefer Fantasy, because for the most part you can bring any army and through clever deployment and movement of your troops, beat any other army. The troop selection, while important, is a much less significant part of the game. Unfortunately I prefer the 40k armies though, lol.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

This is one of the main reasons I haven't liked 40k since 2nd edition. The theme of the game changed to rock-paper-scissors of an AP system. Going up against 'nids? Take lots of cheap heavy bolters and gun them down. Going up against marines? Those same heavy bolters are only worth half of what they were before.

It's why, since 3rd edition, rules wise I prefer Fantasy, because for the most part you can bring any army and through clever deployment and movement of your troops, beat any other army. The troop selection, while important, is a much less significant part of the game. Unfortunately I prefer the 40k armies though, lol.

I like the AP system because it feels more realistic to me. It makes sense that highly armors targets can shrug off small arms fire.

Games feel much less realistic when your huge armored robot can take 3 missiles or 8 heavy machine gun shots, or 15 pistol shots, or 200 sticks and stones thrown by children before being destroyed.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

This is one of the main reasons I haven't liked 40k since 2nd edition. The theme of the game changed to rock-paper-scissors of an AP system. Going up against 'nids? Take lots of cheap heavy bolters and gun them down. Going up against marines? Those same heavy bolters are only worth half of what they were before.

It's why, since 3rd edition, rules wise I prefer Fantasy, because for the most part you can bring any army and through clever deployment and movement of your troops, beat any other army. The troop selection, while important, is a much less significant part of the game. Unfortunately I prefer the 40k armies though, lol.

I like the AP system because it feels more realistic to me. It makes sense that highly armors targets can shrug off small arms fire.

Games feel much less realistic when your huge armored robot can take 3 missiles or 8 heavy machine gun shots, or 15 pistol shots, or 200 sticks and stones thrown by children before being destroyed.

The main thing I don't like about it is that it creates a balance issue (certain weapons are worth vastly more against certain opponents) and you have this sudden cut off point. A bolter, a storm bolter, a heavy bolter, a combat knife, a chainsword, a guardsman punching with his bare fist all have the same chance of penetrating Space Marine armour, then you have the sudden cut off point of a krak missile and now the Space Marine is no better protected than an armourless Ork, but then a Terminator the krak missile is relegated to the same worth as a heavy bolter. I know the strength and toughness stats somewhat alleviate that, but I still think it's problematic.

I much preferred it when weapon stats were more comprehensive and less generic. So each gun had it's own unique "short range", "long range", "to hit" bonus, "strength", "damage" (how many wounds it'd inflict, opposed to instant death like we have now), "save modifier" rather than AP and "armour penetration" to show that some guns are better at penetrating vehicle armour than others.

It made the game less about the rock-paper-scissors of army selection and more about what you actually did with the weapons you had chosen, how you moved your troops, how you selected targets, etc.

Kurce wrote:
EDIT:

CT GAMER wrote:

House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Why even write rule books? If you are going to modify rules that have problems or rules that you disagree with, then why even use a rule book? Just make up your own rules for the game.

You apparently havent read the rulebook then because they mention multiple times to modify the rules as you and your opponrnt see fit.

They also talk about using custom scenarios and terrain rules.



Now go to the tournament discussion section here on Dakka Dakka. The sportshammer players are already discussing how they plan to alter the rules for their events.

WH40K is rarely played 100% as written by anybody. It wasnt in previous editions, and it won't be in sixth...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bookwrack wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Not seeing the benefit.

The person I replied to was complaining about getting a random power that doesnt jive.

The obvious solution is to pick instead.

It was a response and solution to his specific gripe.

I like the randomness, he apparently didnt, but it is easily solved.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Marrak wrote:
In turn...
Maybe the gun was damaged when the guy was shot? Half the weapons in most armies don't leave a lot to bury... Meltaguns and plasmaguns are often described as being as hot as a sun.
Marines are surprised by the sudden rush of troops at their location and fire for effect, trying to stop the rush without having the time to line up a shot (See the Dawn of War intro when the orks charge the marines... some pretty awful shooting there, and even Marines can get worried, they ain't fearless).
You see your buddy and the enemy commander wrestling in a knife fight, while someone else is trying to actively stab you with something sharp. You might wanna help, but there's that sharp thing in the way... or think of it like great heroes whose presence cowers most opponents, and your leader tells you to stay back, that this foe is his as he charges into battle. Hell, that's like half the 40k novels out there.

GW isn't going for realism, they're going for cinematic. They want that epic feel that is supposed to encompass 40k, not foxholes, mud, and trenches... though we have those too, along with rampaging plague demons and space dinos.

I thought Space Marines were supposed to be pretty close to fearless, ever since I've been playing 40k they've always had some sort of rule that stops them falling back regardless of the circumstances and when you think even the most elite of modern soldiers only have a few years of training and experience compared you your average Marine who has decades if not centuries of conditioning to not get scared despite the horde of Orks bearing down on them. I've never really read too many of the novels aside from the Space Wolf ones though, but ever since I started collecting I've been under the impression "fear" was not an issue for the Adeptus Astartes.

They may be close, but consider what usually does have fearless in 40k: rambling mindless monsters, or outright fanatics or lunatics with no sense of self preservation. Marines can get unnerved, disillusioned, or simply overwhelmed... hence why they can fall back, but they usually get it together just as fast... hence the auto-rally, unless they have an enemy too close, at which point they'll keep moving back... look at it like a tactical withdrawal because the enemy is too close to let them properly set up without getting wiped out.

A space marine is more than willing to die to get the job done. He's not so willing to die for no good reason, or to simply be a pointless sacrifice when he can fall back, get into a better position, and go about killing more enemies of the Emperor.

CT GAMER wrote:

Kurce wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Why even write rule books? If you are going to modify rules that have problems or rules that you disagree with, then why even use a rule book? Just make up your own rules for the game.

You apparently havent read the rulebook then because they mention multiple times to modify the rules as you and your opponrnt see fit.

They also talk about using custom scenarios and terrain rules.

The point is that we're discussing the rules as they were written; that we can make house rules doesn't make ill-balanced and unwanted changes any less disappointing.

Except the warlord powers aren't unbalanced they're just underwealming. I skip my roll altogether usually.

Shaozun wrote:
*SNIP* Infinity only produce models and rules (not even designing a rulebook to be published) which is how they can keep it in the price range of about $100 for an army (yet having a lot of customisability which is very deceptive) as their games are designed to be played small (think if W40k was based around 500 points instead, probably about $50 for it with as much customisability as infinity). *SNIP*

To be fair, Corvus Belli does produce deadtree rulebooks; however, the only difference between them and the free downloadable rules is the inclusion of fluff. The ruleset also gets errata'd / FAQ'd within days / weeks, not months / never. See, they not only have a web forum presence, they listen to feedback. Crazy, huh?

I'd also dispute the 'GW could do Infinity at half the price', because GW would sell them at SC rates, not line troops rates. Also, you're paying for sculpts that look more in-scale than the 'hydrocephalic-Rambo' look of many GW figs. Plus, you can be competitive in early play with the $36 starter box; your $100 example is a big Infinity army. The system is far more dependant on the commander than it is the commander's charge card.

So, I'll keep my 40K and WFB armies for modelling, but as far as fun, I'll go with Infinity, Dropzone Commander, and Sedition Wars.

Testify wrote:Except the warlord powers aren't unbalanced they're just underwealming. I skip my roll altogether usually.

Firstly, I disagree: the warlord traits have the capacity to be very powerful when a coincidentally useful trait is rolled for the right character in the right match-up; conversely, a good number of them will be nigh-useless or of negligible benefit for most characters in most lists and circumstances. That is not well-balanced game design, and not a system designed to reward good generalship; a criticism which is even more applicable to the random psychic powers and terrain rules. Secondly, I'll reiterate since you missed it the first time: we're discussing the rules as written, not your house rules. Otherwise I might as well claim that Codex: Space Wolves is perfectly-balanced... provided you increase the costs of Grey Hunters and Long Fangs.

Haha, it's funny, I play world of warcraft, and what people are saying in this thread is very familiar to what my wow buddies we're talking about onnce cataclysm came out after wrath of the lich king. Balance concerns, gameplay changes, lore changes, these were all talked about.

I quit wow though.

Remulus wrote: Haha, it's funny, I play world of warcraft, and what people are saying in this thread is very familiar to what my wow buddies we're talking about onnce cataclysm came out after wrath of the lich king. Balance concerns, gameplay changes, lore changes, these were all talked about.

I quit wow though.

It happens in every facet of nerd-dom, be it table top games or video games. Usually people have legitimate concerns over degradation, some people don't care either way, some people like the change, some people endure the change and reminisce for the good old days and for some reason there can't be a discussion about it without people flaming each other because everyone takes things personally even though almost none of it is actually levelled at people.

Simply put a random warlord trait is just stupid, example: Why would Creed have a trait for close combat? I'm not saying it wouldn't be useful to him, I'm saying it doesn't fit in with his 'meta' or his style. Yes I know this is a wild example but you get the point. Next up why would your 'horde killing deathray psyker' have a spell that makes him invisible? etc.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Balance does not mean what you think it means. WH40k is balanced by your meta.
Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

Balance does not mean every troop choice is equal. WH40k has troop choices that are loosely given points based on situations they can be used in. Some choices are good, some bad.

Actually balance DOES mean what we think it does. You don't know what your opponent will take. Therefore you select your armies with certain tasks in mind for each unit/character/vehicle. Yeah sure you can build an entirely close combat army, but then as soon as you run into an entirely low AP shooting army your screwed. The system GW uses for its strategy games is based on a dice roll with no modifiers to that dice roll, so its just as easy for a bolter to punch through a space marines armour as it is for a heavy bolter. Something with a higher calibre shell causes as much damage to the armour as something with a lower calibre shell? That's not balanced...

EDIT: The point I'm making in that example is that EVERYTHING can be measured out of 6, but there are more than just 6 chances of a bolter hitting its target in a logical situation. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 on a die thats all there is to it.

English Assassin wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kurce wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Why even write rule books? If you are going to modify rules that have problems or rules that you disagree with, then why even use a rule book? Just make up your own rules for the game.

You apparently havent read the rulebook then because they mention multiple times to modify the rules as you and your opponrnt see fit.

They also talk about using custom scenarios and terrain rules.

The point is that we're discussing the rules as they were written; that we can make house rules doesn't make ill-balanced and unwanted changes any less disappointing.

Yes I understand the need for some to bitch about something they just as easily coud fix themselves.

It is an internet tradition, and on Dakka it is almost mandetory.

Carry on...

CT GAMER wrote:Yes I understand the need for some to bitch about something they just as easily coud fix themselves.

It is an internet tradition, and on Dakka it is almost mandetory.

Carry on...

The problem is it's not always easy to fix. You have to get the person you're gaming with to agree to the change and personally I mostly play against people I really don't know that well in impromptu games to go throwing rule changes around.

An easy fix for me in 40k would be to play a modified version of 2nd edition, as that was my favourite edition. However finding people to play it with me is the not quite so easy bit.

Grunt21 wrote:Battle hardened space marines reduced to BS 1 "snap fire" (whatever that is?) because the enemy is assaulting them say what? Nice to know space marines of the future have less training then your average infantryman nowadays.

Dont even get me started on challenges, I can understand that in fantasy warhammer but where in modern warfare is your dudes going to hold back while your sergeant is going hand to hand with an enemy commander.

The simple reason for that BS 1 overwatch is that if they made overwatch realistic there would be no close combat in 40k. A unit with rapid firing mini-rocket launchers supported by a flame thrower and a heavy mini-rocket launcher shooting at a unit assaulting them should wipe them out without breaking a sweat. It was discovered in WWI that assaulting machine guns was suicidal and the weapons of 40k are supposed to be that much more impressive than that. The BS 1 overwatch is a bone thrown to people who complained that they could do nothing when charged, because if they got a real overwatch it would completely remove close combat from the game, except in very rare circumstances.

I definitely agree that the challanges rule is a pretty stupid addition to 40k. I can see a chaos warlord or an ork warload kicking his support to the side to take on the other side's boss, but no sensible real military officer would be doing that. It is also an easy way to make a less than capable hero, but who might have a dangerous weapon have no effect on the combat which is just silly. Oh your warlord challanges my sergeant with a power fist? Oh yeah that is going to go well for the sergeant...

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:That has to be most unintentionally hilarious post of the week, providing the very same parallel I drew and exactly proves the point I was making.

How is Wotc providing what the players want the same as GW no really caring what they want and expecting people to buy it anyway? Not even the same ballpark...

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marrak wrote:Maybe the gun was damaged when the guy was shot? Half the weapons in most armies don't leave a lot to bury... Meltaguns and plasmaguns are often described as being as hot as a sun.
Marines are surprised by the sudden rush of troops at their location and fire for effect, trying to stop the rush without having the time to line up a shot (See the Dawn of War intro when the orks charge the marines... some pretty awful shooting there, and even Marines can get worried, they ain't fearless).

Actually according to the new wording of They Shall Show no Fear, Marines actually *are* now fearless.

Skriker

I definitely agree that the challanges rule is a pretty stupid addition to 40k. I can see a chaos warlord or an ork warload kicking his support to the side to take on the other side's boss, but no sensible real military officer would be doing that. It is also an easy way to make a less than capable hero, but who might have a dangerous weapon have no effect on the combat which is just silly. Oh your warlord challanges my sergeant with a power fist? Oh yeah that is going to go well for the sergeant...

Real military commander?.... Seriously?

I'm pretty sure that it has been said a million times but comparng 40k to real life is silly.

In 40k heroes lead from the front. That's how it's always been.

If a space marine captain wasn't trying to take the warboss' head in single combat he wouldn't have made the rank of captain.

DeffDred wrote:Real military commander?.... Seriously?

I'm pretty sure that it has been said a million times but comparng 40k to real life is silly.

In 40k heroes lead from the front. That's how it's always been.

If a space marine captain wasn't trying to take the warboss' head in single combat he wouldn't have made the rank of captain.

This does work for Space Marine Captains, but what about IG sergeants? One doesn't usually become a squad leader by doing stupid things like calling out ork warbosses or chaos lords on the battlefield. Also this is an annoying way for characters to have even greater impact on fights which is just annoying. Don't want to worry about your character being hurt by a power fist on a lower powered character? Just challange them and watch them have to run away because they have no chance in a challange. Pretty much means any weapon in a lower powered unit that could really hurt a big name character will now have zero effect on the combat as if uber characters aren't already hard enough to take down in melee.

Skriker

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Everyone should listen to the voice of reason.

DarknessEternal wrote:

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Everyone should listen to the voice of reason.

Whilst I can scarcely argue with the assertion that people want to have fun, I'm not entirely convinced that more randomness and less balance necessarily equates with more fun, nor that fun and tactical depth need be mutually exclusive.

Your opinion of balance and tactical depth is just that though. To me, this edition has more of both.

English Assassin wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Everyone should listen to the voice of reason.

Whilst I can scarcely argue with the assertion that people want to have fun, I'm not entirely convinced that more randomness and less balance necessarily equates with more fun, nor that fun and tactical depth need be mutually exclusive.

Everyone keeps harping about "more randomness", yet 6th Ed has also two changes which signifantly reduce role of luck compared to 5th: vehicle damage and reserve rolls.

DarknessEternal wrote:Your opinion of balance and tactical depth is just that though. To me, this edition has more of both.

Most statements in this world are opinions, you know. But there is still a sizable difference between an informed opinion and just making an assertion.

After the commercials: Necron player joins our panel to say that the nerfing of CC and xenos assault builds is 'just a theory', only on Baal News Network!

Backfire wrote:

English Assassin wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Everyone should listen to the voice of reason.

Whilst I can scarcely argue with the assertion that people want to have fun, I'm not entirely convinced that more randomness and less balance necessarily equates with more fun, nor that fun and tactical depth need be mutually exclusive.

Everyone keeps harping about "more randomness", yet 6th Ed has also two changes which signifantly reduce role of luck compared to 5th: vehicle damage and reserve rolls.

Be fair; those two changes (one of which is, to be frank, marginal in its effects) scarcely balance out random charges, random psychic powers, mysterious terrain and warlord traits all added in the name of "narrative" and "cinematic" games, and all of which increase the role of luck (and thus decrease that of generalship) on the battlefield.

English Assassin wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Everyone keeps harping about "more randomness", yet 6th Ed has also two changes which signifantly reduce role of luck compared to 5th: vehicle damage and reserve rolls.

Be fair; those two changes (one of which is, to be frank, marginal in its effects) scarcely balance out random charges, random psychic powers, mysterious terrain and warlord traits all added in the name of "narrative" and "cinematic" games, and all of which increase the role of luck (and thus decrease that of generalship) on the battlefield.

Huh? Both of those changes are much bigger than any of those you mentioned, except maybe random charge distance. Random psychic powers you don't have to take, Warlord trait has little effect most of the time, mysterious terrain is optional rule.

DarknessEternal wrote:

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Everyone should listen to the voice of reason.

Casual players opinion of balance is not all that relevant.

Well I'm not going to read the whole thread, but I just wanted to say a few things.

I don't think GW has top people working for them in the writing department. I think the best people in that department left GW for other companies. Now we have people like Matt Ward writing books and the main rules. The guy's writing is just awful and yet they left him write whole armies? Hm ....

I don't think GW will go under anytime soon. People keep saying they will, but GW is more resilient than that I think. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, if you're sick of GW look into other games. Have you looked into Warmachine/Hordes, Flames of War, Infinity, Mailifaux, Heavy Gear, Uncharted Seas, Firestorm Armada, Dsytopian Wars, Mercs, or Helldorado? Just to name a few ...

I have played 40k for 8 years and consider myself frimly enamoured with the fluff (the old, fundamental fluff - not the army specific fluff) yet I have not even purchased the 6th edition rulebook, and I don't feel very inclined to do so.

My reason? Hello, it's 90 bucks. How much was the rulebook for Infinity, the game I have now played for 3 years? Oh, it was a free PDF downloaded off their official sight. I think GW could learn alot from a game like Infinity, because CB (Corvus Belli) seem to know how to make a game that is affordable, very fun, very satisfying, does not suffer from codex creep, and sells better looking models for less money.
In 40k I play(ed) a foot-based Eldar list and Sisters of Battle (I own other armies, but those are the two I played most in the latter days of 5th). These are two armies, I think, that have been repeatedly hosed by the company yet have some of the most dedicated fan-bases, and I - as a player - feel punished for playing these armies the way I want.
Some people can be heard saying "Of course you didn't win - look at your list!"
To which I say "Why the F*** should my list have anything to do with it?!?" I take Howling Banshees because I like the models and the unit, yet I am penalized because they are a 'sub-optimal' unit? To hell with that! "Oh, but this edition makes X unit good again!" Well to hell with that too! Because until GW gets it that making imbalanced units isn't a good idea, then why should I pay more money for a game where I CAN'T play the way I want when I can pay less money for a game where I CAN?

Needless to say, I've gone over to Infinity. It is a game where all my models actually play a part in the game other than simply being removed as casualties. It is a game that is fast paced, well designed, and well executed, and does not leave us scrounging through the tattered remains of our armies to see how we can adapt to their changes instead of the other way around.
I'll be keeping my 40k armies because I invested so much that it would be a shame not to, but I don't expect they will see use any time soon.

To be fair, I don't think that GW could learn much from CB.

Corvus Belli produce a single game system of squad based combat.

GW produce three major systems, each with a host of factions, as well as several other specialist games.

I'm not saying CB don't do their job better than GW, just that it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

Negator80 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Everyone should listen to the voice of reason.

Casual players opinion of balance is not all that relevant.

Don't you guys get it? Its a game! Its supposed to be FUN! Don't look at the bad rules, look at this! ohh pretty.

Negator80 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Everyone should listen to the voice of reason.

Casual players opinion of balance is not all that relevant.

You only have 100 posts. Clearly you are a casual poster and your opinion is irrelevant.

See how incredibly useless of an argument yours is?

Lady_Canoness wrote:
Some people can be heard saying "Of course you didn't win - look at your list!"
To which I say "Why the F*** should my list have anything to do with it?!?" I take Howling Banshees because I like the models and the unit, yet I am penalized because they are a 'sub-optimal' unit? To hell with that! "Oh, but this edition makes X unit good again!" Well to hell with that too! Because until GW gets it that making imbalanced units isn't a good idea, then why should I pay more money for a game where I CAN'T play the way I want when I can pay less money for a game where I CAN?

I hear you, I've played a few games wtih this edition, and yes I will say the games are more dramatic in the events that take place in them. But that doesn't necessarily make it more fun, a guy who puts down a horde army just spends more time picking up models off the board after they get the absolute sh!t shot out of them. Simply put this edition is all about shooting, assaults are dangerous and risky affairs now, so rather than get into position to charge you get into position to create crossfire. Assaults aren't a scary thing any more (unless your the one doing the assaulting). Why shouldn't I have a competitive assault based army?

Yeah so it's into the box under the bed with my CSM and hello warmahordes circle...

CSM as an assault based army..I'm sorry but I'm kinda laughing a bit at that, because the only decent assault units we had is terminators (still useful in a fight), and beserkers (gained a buff to fearless wounds and nerf to FC)

ZebioLizard2 wrote:CSM as an assault based army..I'm sorry but I'm kinda laughing a bit at that, because the only decent assault units we had is terminators (still useful in a fight), and beserkers (gained a buff to fearless wounds and nerf to FC)

Case in point: to me, CSM are an aggressive, in-your-face army - always have been - but suddenly the only "decent" units we have are terminators and berzerkers, and anyone who plays the way I would like to is playing it 'wrong'? What the hell GW??? Why?

My current army of choice is a Biel-tan Eldar. All the Aspects are represented at 1750, and I choose Maugan Ra and Farseer to lead the army with a Falcon in support. I love this army. It gets a 50/50 win ratio, but I love it. In 5th I was already feeling pinched because I was using an army that defied common wisdom, but now in sixth I feel like GW is trying to dictate to me how I should play the army I put together using their own rules ("No! You're using the rules wrong! Don't use them like that!") Flyers? I don't want a flyer - I like my army the way it is. Maxed out units? No thanks - I would rather represent all the Aspects instead of just a few of them. Allies? Are you missing the point? I play BIEL-TAN.

So I won't buy into the new things, and I'll be penalized for it in 6th edition. Flyers will kick my ass. Hull-points make a once impervious Falcon a joke. Wound alocation means that my tooled up Exarchs are now prey to positional shooting. Banshees now bounce off 2+ saves (what I really could use them for) and instead have to pick on 3+ saves (like I ever had trouble with that anyway...) Random assault distances really rock the boat for an army that *RELIES* on precision. Not to mention how useless outflank has become on Striking Scorpions...
Am I wrong to be pissed off that my army (MINE - MY OWN) is now even more behind the curve than it was before because I don't want to compromise what makes it what it is? Am I a bad person for not wanting to keep my army 'up to date' with the meta? Am I selfish for wanting to play the game how I want to?
According to Infinity, I am not.
Infinity lets me play how I want with the models I choose, and does not penalize me fore being 'behind the times'. I think I know the superior game.

Case in point: to me, CSM are an aggressive, in-your-face army - always have been - but suddenly the only "decent" units we have are terminators and berzerkers, and anyone who plays the way I would like to is playing it 'wrong'? What the hell GW??? Why?

Suddenly? This has been the same since friggen 4th, this dex was horrible for true CSM assaulting even back in 4th and 5th! People still substitute blood angels for actual world eaters if they really want an actual assault codex.

curran12 wrote:

Negator80 wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Everyone should listen to the voice of reason.

Casual players opinion of balance is not all that relevant.

You only have 100 posts. Clearly you are a casual poster and your opinion is irrelevant.

See how incredibly useless of an argument yours is?

I see how incredibly useless YOURS is. Do us a favor and actually form a rebuttal to my statement.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Case in point: to me, CSM are an aggressive, in-your-face army - always have been - but suddenly the only "decent" units we have are terminators and berzerkers, and anyone who plays the way I would like to is playing it 'wrong'? What the hell GW??? Why?

Suddenly? This has been the same since friggen 4th, this dex was horrible for true CSM assaulting even back in 4th and 5th! People still substitute blood angels for actual world eaters if they really want an actual assault codex.

Well to be fair you CAN still make amazing csm assault armies, you just have to tailor them to it. A couple of large infantry squads are capable in both shooting and assaults as they have a bolter, pistol and ccw. There's your first building block. Assault terminator champions, chosen, berzerkers, khornate or slaanesh infantry, lords and Deamon Princes, raptors even bikes to a lesser extent can be good assault units. It depends on how you kit them out and how you use them. It's a given that compared to the previous codex this one is total garbage, however I will say it does have a better layout and format for the army list... but that's purely a cosmetic really...

EDIT: I forgot to mention Havocs... they can be a surprisingly good assault unit too...

JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Case in point: to me, CSM are an aggressive, in-your-face army - always have been - but suddenly the only "decent" units we have are terminators and berzerkers, and anyone who plays the way I would like to is playing it 'wrong'? What the hell GW??? Why?

Suddenly? This has been the same since friggen 4th, this dex was horrible for true CSM assaulting even back in 4th and 5th! People still substitute blood angels for actual world eaters if they really want an actual assault codex.

Well to be fair you CAN still make amazing csm assault armies, you just have to tailor them to it. A couple of large infantry squads are capable in both shooting and assaults as they have a bolter, pistol and ccw. There's your first building block. Assault terminator champions, chosen, berzerkers, khornate or slaanesh infantry, lords and Deamon Princes, raptors even bikes to a lesser extent can be good assault units. It depends on how you kit them out and how you use them. It's a given that compared to the previous codex this one is total garbage, however I will say it does have a better layout and format for the army list... but that's purely a cosmetic really...

EDIT: I forgot to mention Havocs... they can be a surprisingly good assault unit too...

The first building block is worthless, even compared to standard marines they don't have the necessary rules to provide them with a decent support. Sure they have double attacks, but that's it, they don't get the special marine rules to keep them from getting swept in combat, they don't have anything good to keep them in combat, icons could die to wound allocation in 5th and now they'll die to targetted attacks in 6th.

Assault terminator champions are the same cost as TH/SS or LC without the survivability or a decent weapon, or even rules to keep them survivable, sure you can do well with them, but they are the only thing worthwhile.

Chosen are not assault units, ever, nobody should ever confuse this with being an actual assault unit, they are more expensive CSM troops that don't even get +1 to attacks oh sure you can give them more expensive options to kit them out in offense, but then you'll have 30+ point power weapon wielders that are more expensive then terminators and don't even get the nice save bonus with it.

Bezerkers are the second best assault units in the dex, useful for it's large number of attacks and decent strength, however they like everything else are overcosted in this slot.

Slaaneshi infantry are in the same boat, except don't get the decent number of attacks or the bonus, take a plague marine, it'll survive longer and fight better.

Lords are even weaker, and more overpriced than standard space marine captains, why would you ever take this over a Daemon Prince unless you were being truly fluffy? (I do myself actually, I just like the unique property of a crap-ton of a khorne lord with daemon weapons, sometimes It'll kill itself, sometimes it'll roll double 6's and make the enemy cry)

Daemon princes are good, they are nice in assault even though they are basically cheap MC's, they honestly aint spectacular in CC, but do rather well at least.

Raptors are more expensive than C:SM assault troops, have less options to them, and actually overall are weaker without the space marine special rules. Even C:SM doesn't take it's assault troops much, you are just gimping yourself a bit with raptors.

Bikes are expensive, but I've begun hearing good things about T6 bikers, so I'll leave them out for now.

EDIT: I forgot to mention Havocs... they can be a surprisingly good assault unit too...

I honestly have to ask, are the local players eldar? Do they try and run storm guardians at your troops? Maybe the local tau is trying to see how well he can manage an effective kroot list?

But to put it bluntly, chaos is not an effective assault list, it is a "Making due with what they have" sort of list.

Negator80 wrote:I see how incredibly useless YOURS is. Do us a favor and actually form a rebuttal to my statement.

Writing off a huge section of the target market, probably the larger section, as being not worthy of consideration is rude. Tournament play revolves around very specific metas, which would rarely come off well against some players' so called 'casual' lists. Dismissing non-tournament players as 'casuals' whose opinions and experiences are valueless speaks of an arrogance that does not do you credit.

The way I look at it is that Games Workshop have not changed anything. 6th Edition is a new game. A different game. Players can play whatever version they want to play.

Sure, 5th Edition Tournament scene is pretty much over now in favour of 6th Edition. Nothing lasts forever. Star Wars miniatures Tournament scene is pretty much dead, support by a mere handful of players. Heroclix actually retire old sets from Tournament play. And where are the D&D Miniatures Tournaments now?

I'd much rather GW bring out a new edition and continue rather than stop production altogether.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Well I'm not going to read the whole thread, but I just wanted to say a few things.

Well, I am not going to read our whole post, but just wanted to point out that I hate when people don't read a thread to then end before posting.

60mm wrote:Yeah, GW does seem pretty competent at disappointing/aggravating me more than anything. I was drawn into wh40k 15 years ago with all the fantastc models and fluff. The models are still fantastic, the fluff . . . eh, the game system, meh. But the way GW treats its customers overall just grates on me badly enough that buying their stuff feels shameful

Look up cycle of abuse.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The first building block is worthless, even compared to standard marines they don't have the necessary rules to provide them with a decent support. Sure they have double attacks, but that's it, they don't get the special marine rules to keep them from getting swept in combat, they don't have anything good to keep them in combat, icons could die to wound allocation in 5th and now they'll die to targetted attacks in 6th.

It is not worthless, yes they don't have know no fear, and yes icons can die just like anything else that is special in any other squad in the entire game because of targeted attacks but they aren't worthless. If your in a position to have your 'anvil' swept off the board then obviously your going wrong somewhere, suffering from a run of bad luck or are just against a better opponent. If a 15-20 man squad of chaos marines is being forced to run away your not positioning them well enough or your standing in front of a shed load of big guns, what could possibly be the cause of that?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Assault terminator champions are the same cost as TH/SS or LC without the survivability or a decent weapon, or even rules to keep them survivable, sure you can do well with them, but they are the only thing worthwhile.

Yes they are the same cost, but what TH/SS lack is options. Seriously you can make a Chaos squad better than their loyalist counterpart, by a long distance. You've gotta spend the points on them though, it's tough but you work with what you've got.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Chosen are not assault units, ever, nobody should ever confuse this with being an actual assault unit, they are more expensive CSM troops that don't even get +1 to attacks oh sure you can give them more expensive options to kit them out in offense, but then you'll have 30+ point power weapon wielders that are more expensive then terminators and don't even get the nice save bonus with it.

So a squad with 4 flamers, or meltaguns, or plasma guns, or powerfists with tzeentch or nurgle icon and a champion with extra equipment is useless too? Yes they will be expensive, that's tough, but that doesn't make them any less effective at what they do.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Bezerkers are the second best assault units in the dex, useful for it's large number of attacks and decent strength, however they like everything else are overcosted in this slot.

Yes Berzerkers are expensive, again how does that make them any less effective at what they do? These guys kick ass. Fact. Set a horde of these on TH/SS Termies and take them down through weight of numbers before they have even attacked. They have better WS, S, I and A... for just over half the points... whats not to like?

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Slaaneshi infantry are in the same boat, except don't get the decent number of attacks or the bonus, take a plague marine, it'll survive longer and fight better.

Ok yeah I'll agree these guys aren't great unless they have a decent ccw, of which there are none as options for them... these guys really are shooters, though again with numbers they can take down anything in cc.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Lords are even weaker, and more overpriced than standard space marine captains, why would you ever take this over a Daemon Prince unless you were being truly fluffy? (I do myself actually, I just like the unique property of a crap-ton of a khorne lord with daemon weapons, sometimes It'll kill itself, sometimes it'll roll double 6's and make the enemy cry)

No arguements here, yes they lack some of the abilities and options of their loyalist counter part. One and only solution though... deamon weapon, especially the khorne or tzeentch ones, yeah they have a risk but still khorne is horde killer tzeentch is a power weapon that can shoot dead marines with just as much ease. These really do often get underestimated because of their ability to 'self harm'.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Daemon princes are good, they are nice in assault even though they are basically cheap MC's, they honestly aint spectacular in CC, but do rather well at least.

This is where its at, and yeah its not a great out look for them to start with, but they can be excellent if used carefully and precisely. These are your character/tank/armour killers. Very susceptible to TH/SS squads though, best answer is to back them up or keep a bulky squad nearby just in case.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Raptors are more expensive than C:SM assault troops, have less options to them, and actually overall are weaker without the space marine special rules. Even C:SM doesn't take it's assault troops much, you are just gimping yourself a bit with raptors.

Yeah these guys do suck when you compare them to Assault Marines. So don't compare them, just slaanesh icon them up and always hit and run against tough cc targets and get stuck in on soft ones. Again making them good costs points, but they are good.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Bikes are expensive, but I've begun hearing good things about T6 bikers, so I'll leave them out for now.

I was running T6 bikers before the rules change, all you had to do was put down some serious speed and get into close combat. Sure enough they did die to S8 weaponry but then most things do... turbo-boost made them invulnerable and once they were in combat they were safe from shooting. And never go anywhere without a champ with a Power Weapon...

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I honestly have to ask, are the local players eldar? Do they try and run storm guardians at your troops? Maybe the local tau is trying to see how well he can manage an effective kroot list?

But to put it bluntly, chaos is not an effective assault list, it is a "Making due with what they have" sort of list.

The havocs can take meltaguns or flamers... I know thats not really assault but 4 flamer templates worth of wounds usually takes down a TH/SS or two (or three) right before a charge in and finish the job with weight of attacks. I know Chaos were seriously nerfed, and yes your right you do have to make do with what you've got. But don't just write em off because their codex sucks, if you know your army inside out and your a good player you can beat anyone or anything. Yes some are very unforgiving of bad luck and mistakes like GK but you CAN beat them. I've done it and that was before the nerfing. If you compare codex your will write them off, but it IS an old codex so you'll have to forgive them for some weaknesses. But if you compare unit to unit, or build to build they aren't out of the fight not by a long way. The way to handle Chaos now is to know their weaknesses inside out and to know what situations will likely produce what results (a simple example is standing in front a blob squad of guardsmen in rapid fire range) remember the dice are fickle. So load the situation into your favour that even bad rolls can be covered for.

Oh and up untill a couple months back (early this year actually) I was regularly playing against GK, BA and SM armies and winning quite resounding victories. Yes some of them were very hard fought and close but they were wins regardless. There was only one Eldar player in my local gaming group and he quit last year some time. I actually had the most trouble dealing with green tide Orks and one particularly tenacious IG player.

EDIT: Really the point I'm making is yes they are expensive, but no that doesn't make them useless. Your fighting an up hill battle from the word go, treat it like one even if you've got the upper hand. Capitalise on your opponents mistakes, be utterly ruthless with your tactics. Throw away an expensive squad if it gets your horde killing character in to contact with a large block of troops or your expensive terminators into a flank attack on vehicles or what ever. Treat everything as though it was expendable as well as priceless. Use one unit as decoy and hit with another, distract and divide. Divide and conquer.

EDIT: Really the point I'm making is yes they are expensive, but no that doesn't make them useless. Your fighting an up hill battle from the word go, treat it like one even if you've got the upper hand. Capitalise on your opponents mistakes, be utterly ruthless with your tactics. Throw away an expensive squad if it gets your horde killing character in to contact with a large block of troops or your expensive terminators into a flank attack on vehicles or what ever. Treat everything as though it was expendable as well as priceless. Use one unit as decoy and hit with another, distract and divide. Divide and conquer.

Oh I know, your points are very valid when it comes to it, I still would play it even it hit complete rock bottem, though right now I'm more interested in a Tsons psyker list now that the psyker powers have gotten interesting in 6th.

Though the whole thing is a bit disappointing to me, but seeing as we'll be seeing chaos sometime soon (a few months maybe) I will hold onto what I have and play around with the new 6th rules.

Negator80 wrote:
I see how incredibly useless YOURS is. Do us a favor and actually form a rebuttal to my statement.

His rebuttal was exactly as valid as your original statement. If anything, casual players are MORE likely to recognize balance, as they aren't playing one of the same 3 netlists in a rock/paper/scissors paradigm and actually trying different things.

htj wrote: just that it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

Oranges and Apples are both fruits.

Oranges and Apples are both roundish, have an outer layer that is barely digestible and all the nutrients locked into the flesh inside. Both are acidic...

couldn't resist the humour, sorry.

I don't really understand all this complaining about 6th. Allies are just a trick to sell more models? Don't use them. Personally, I would like to add a Chaos sorcerer and a rubrik marine squad to my necrons, since I can't use psychic powers and would like to try them. Also, it was in the game since 1st ed. so what's the point.

Then, real players to me aren't the ones who spams the list of the moment, but the ones who play what they like. And those TFG that first mockes that unit but when it kills his paladins it's overpowered are pathethic. Back in 5th, I used to play lots of necron warriors, just because I liked them, even in anyone was telling me that Immortals were stronger. Now in 6th I play exactly the same list I played in 5th, but now it's cheesy. Please stop complaining, play what you like, even if it sucks to hell (like my old loved Destroyers) and you'll be always having fun, even if you lose every single game. There's a guy at my local GW who play CSM, and always loses every match, cause he plays what he likes even if it pretty sucks, but he always has fun.

So what I'm trying to say is: have fun guys, and adapt to the rules, 'cause they're pretty funny indeed.