Hey guys, the following is meant to open a discussion as to general overall issues that we, "The Gaming Community", are having with the 40k system and more specifically 6th edition.
I believe that it has been an acceptable amount of time to determine the problems we have with 6th ed. Basically that its not just "new edition syndrome" but rather a critique of game mechanics that are just not working or fitting appropriately within the base game structure.
I'll start with my letter to 6th(All tongue in cheek ), then move on to my observations as to basic Game Mechanics issues, will end the opening post with some suggested solutions and then leave the floor open for comments.
Dear 6th ed.,
This is to let you know that after much consideration and self-questioning that I have come to the decision that we need to part ways. Hey, I know that you will miss my steady influx of cash, ....... but realize that it's not me......it's you. You just don't meet my needs and because you are unable to change in any significant manner, there is no reason for me to waste any more time or money on you.
Now don't worry, I will continue to care for and support Tau, Eldar and little DE. They won't be neglected or forgotten. On this subject, you will not be seeing them much. I will not allow them to be forced to to endure your misconcieved and flawed ideas. You will only get to see them when supervised and only on a very limited basis.
I know that this is difficult for you to understand, you believe that you are without flaw and this is part of the problem. You have flaws that are peculiar to you and others that came to you from your ancestors. Thing is that these flaws are fixable but because you believe in your own perfection, they will never be fixed. It is for these reasons that I am ending our association and why I have taken steps to find another who will meet my needs.
Sincerely,
Focusedfire.
Now that is out of my system, I'd like to share some of my personal observations.
When 6th ed hit something felt off. Having played since 2004 and having been around friends who played since the mid-90's I was willing to give this edition time to see if it was just me or if there was some fatal flaw inherent to this edition.
After 7 months I've come to the conclusion that this edition has some inherent fatal flaws and that 40K itself has a flaw that becomes fatal when combined with GW's business model. Note- This is not me bashing GW. They are a corporation trying to make money. I just feel that the business model doesn't fit the game.
What are these flaws, "you ask"?
IMO, they are as follow:
First is the introduction of Flyers as an in game mechanic.
Having aircraft striking your enemies while your forces are engaged on the table top is like shooting into cc or shooting your own troops. It feels very inconsistent and doesn't fit with the roles of aircraft in a battlezone. If GW wanted to make Flyer models then they should have been for their own seperate game and with very limited use in the game of 40K. Really,
Second is how the Allies matrix was set up.
It could have been a great mechanic for faction balance, alas the matrix is too simplified and because of this it leads to exploitation that adds imbalance to the game.
Third is the inherent flaw within 40k that becomes fatal when combined with GW's business model. It can be summed up with one word...."Scale".
28mm is a scale for squad to single platoon battles on 4x6 or 4x8 game tables. A business model that calls for multible platoons to company sized 28mm games on standard game boards creates a game that quickly runs out of table room. Lack of table room means little to no manuvering or tactics and thus gameplay suffers.
Another issue tied to the scale is lack of LoS blocking terrain. Such terrain is rare and due to the scale it is unwieldly, quickly overwhelms the gameboard, and blocks movement beyond what it should.
There are others but these are the big three. Now, what I think could be done to fix these flaws is as follows:
40k Flyers-
They should have been a seperate game that could tie in unobtrusively. If we are going to have them in the basic game of 40k then they should be limited to things like 1st turn only strikes, intercepting reserves, or not allowed to be on the board for 2 consecutive turns unless transport aircraft (at which point they become skimmers).
Allies Matrix-
Having a matrix that wasn't a mirror of itself would have helped. Example would be if IG takes Tau detachment then they are allies of convienence but Tau taking IG would be battle brothers(Gue'vesa). Same thing on Chaos would creat LatD. I admit that this is more of a fluff fix but I do feel more could have been done to create an allies matrix that didn't favor the Imperium factions so much. GK's backed by a squadron of 3 Vendettas is right up their with cron air imo..
Scale-
I've come to the conclusion that 40K played in 10-15mm(Not epic 6mm) would be ideal. You don't have to change any distances in the books and los blocking terrain would be plentiful. Others have also discovered this trick and I must say that just the simple change in scale drastically improves how the game plays. Its easier for me to tell you to play a game using FoW proxies rather than explain everything in detail.
What I will elaborate on is that there is a growing market for 15mm sci-fi and, imo, that it might be in GW's long-term best interest to limit the size of 28mm 40K games and to introduce a 15mm version of the game. Doing such would drop the buy in cost of the game to a point that would likely reverse the current shrinkage in the playerbase. I know GW won't do this and that is their loss. The 15mm 40k player base is growing and there are other companies more than willing to provide beautiful models as proxies.
I now leave it to you guys and what you see as the primary issues with 6th ed. Please be civil and discuss respectfully. Also, pls no GW fanbois complaining those of us who find that 40k no longer meets our gaming needs. Be it because of 6th ed, Fliers, Scale or a variety of other reasons there are many of us whom, for reasons legitimate to us, are moving away from 6th ed.
Having a matrix that wasn't a mirror of itself would have helped. Example would be if IG takes Tau detachment then they are allies of convienence but Tau taking IG would be battle brothers(Gue'vesa). Same thing on Chaos would creat LatD. I admit that this is more of a fluff fix but I do feel more could have been done to create an allies matrix that didn't favor the Imperium factions so much. GK's backed by a squadron of 3 Vendettas is right up their with cron air imo..
You mean IG backed by GK, because by the rules you can only take one vendetta with GK as the primary
Having a matrix that wasn't a mirror of itself would have helped. Example would be if IG takes Tau detachment then they are allies of convienence but Tau taking IG would be battle brothers(Gue'vesa). Same thing on Chaos would creat LatD. I admit that this is more of a fluff fix but I do feel more could have been done to create an allies matrix that didn't favor the Imperium factions so much. GK's backed by a squadron of 3 Vendettas is right up their with cron air imo..
You mean IG backed by GK, because by the rules you can only take one vendetta with GK as the primary
Vendetta are squadronable in units of 1-3 Vendettas.
Vendetta are squadronable in units of 1-3 Vendettas.
Thats right, and having their Storm Ravens being screened by a squadron of Vendettas that happen to be carrying cheap vet squads is what puts it the build up there with the Flying Bakery.
Really, I still maintain that the issue is how fliers were crammed into 6th ed. Every faction getting a flier won't fix the flaw of how this game mechanic was executed.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:I'm sorry, but where is this 15mm 40k community?
First, I said that 15mm sci-fi is taking off with the intent that there are plenty of models available to use as proxies. They can be found in Britain, France, U.S.A. and plenty of other places. Quickest answer is google 15mm sci-fi minatures.
Second, there are people realizing that 15mm 40 is a great way to alleviate the scale problem. For info, google 15mm 40k.
phatonic wrote: i play warhamer as a part to paint too, im not fond of 15mm. and less qq and mann up, every eddition is diffrent you just gotta adapt.
Really? Rua trollz? I ask because of your spelling and the mann up comment.
Dude, focusedfire is man enough to stop playing a game/edition that no longer works for him. "Manning up" the way you suggest is the path of the weak who won't stand up for themselves.
Go back and read the op. He clearly states that this is not new edition blues but something deeper. That the games basic flaws have reached the point that he is taking his business elswhere. If more players stopped rewarding gw's bad behaviour with their money the game and the models might actually improve.
Its the compulsive addict types that act as if the game is a freakin mandatory necessity that are why the game is suffering.
@ff-
Dude, you nailed it on the fliers needing to be more limited or not being in the game all together. There really wasn't a need for the models as far as 40k went
Having the fliers as a seperate game that could join 40k in a limited manner(campain maybe?) would be a vast improvement.
Don't know what should be done with the allies matrix. Anyone got ideas????
15mm 40k sounds like a blast. Have you seen any of the rebel minis??
There are some amazing 15mm sci-fi minis out there right now.
Anyone got ideas as to whom to proxy for each faction??
i ment as take it as a challange, i like flyers and if i meet them i can counter them with units ot ignore em and get into cc as fast as possible, yes he took the step thats a good thing.
and GW seems to be more of a MOdel company first rather than gaming. i agree at some parts of this post. sorry that i pressed enter to early on my first post, i didnt have my morning coffee.
I don't really feel that fliers themselves are the problem, but rather the piecemeal way in which they have been rolled out to the various armies. In addition, I don't think the allies matrix is a source of huge imbalance, more that it's just rather boring.
In my mind the things which let 6th ed down are:
1) massive reduction in viability of CC 2) Focus on randomness
3) poor standard missions
4) this notion of cinematicicy. Overwatch is unneeded. it simply takes time and has no real tactical factor. Likewise, warlord traits are random, imbalanced and pointless as a result.
I strongly believe that tactics revolve around having a good understanding of what you're troops can do. Randomness is ok, sure. In large enough numbers you can expect a roughly average result. However, it is the situations where the numbers involved are so small that it will always be random (such as warlord traits) and similarly for overwatch, where the rule is mainly for effect as it has little impact on the game.
I love the idea of warlord traits, but I think they should've just been a list of equally balanced traits of which you just pick one when you pick your list. Likewise, the danger of assaulting a squad of shooting enemy soldiers could be portrayed simply by the random charge distance, rather than having two ways to punish CC troops.
I won't even go into the missions and deployment zones, suffice to say that less than half of them are actually good for balanced play.
The scenarios are not all created equal, that's a given. Kill points are still pretty stupid. There's a certain race to the bottom vibe to 6th ed like the need for fortifications/allies in every game, the lack of AA for some armies and access to flyers, the fact that plenty of people don't play with much terrain (los blockers) and every battle just ending up being a bit static and dull with both sides having their aegis lines and landing pads that nothing ever seems to land on. The movement phase tends to be less important, especially without any real gradient for hitting vehicles in cc anymore, even if moving at insane speeds like 24-36 inches.
Because the rules are really permissive it's difficult to say no to someone using fortifications/allies without risking a great reduction in prospective opponents and I think that leads to the "well if everyone is going to do it I may as well too" response by many which in turn leads to the whole race to the bottom thing. I remember when you'd look over at another table and see a bunch of seemingly random models and think "oh they must be playing apoc or something" and recently without fail it ends up that the game you mistook for apoc was actually just 6th ed 40k. There's a certain GI JOE vibe to it all, right down to the cobra mega battle fortress err.. fortress of redemption. I remember seeing someone comment on a blog postings about how a 6th ed tournament shouldn't call itself that without allowing attendees to bring a fortress of redemption? Really? Like all those less than genuine 5th ed tournaments that had the audacity to not allow players to bring their own terrain. Overly permissive rules breed overly entitled players.
I’m by no means throwing in the towel but I do find I have to be more selective about my opponents and be on the same page with how often we want to “forge a narrative”. A lot of that is also terrain rules and preference for slightly more involved and specific terrain rules. I feel for a game that has real los the terrain rules are utilized far too often in needlessly abstract ways, some that often detract from the movement phase and tactical play overall.
1.) I have never seen a 15mm 40k player (yes I googled them, but unless that is your area...no dice)
2.) The LOS blocking terrain is a you and your area issue, most events I play in (and run) have a decent amount of LOS blocking terrain (and I am working to construct more). In reality this is an issue of lazyness in your area not an issue with the scale of the game.
3.) If GW changed the scale the same problem would remain because they would just make you buy more small minis to play the game, rather than making the game actually cost less.
In the end everyone is entitled to their opinion (I love 6th, though I agree some parts could have been implemented better), but if you are not digging it, move on to other games or if your playing 15mm (which presumably is with a small local group) you could also just stick with the old rules and 5th ed and call it a day.
Terrain should be part of the table, not your army list.
Warlord traits could be chosen and paid for in points, as should spells.
Charges should be fixed length not random.
I'll be brutally honest: LULWUT?
If you don't like the game, well, you do the right choice quitting, but the solutions you propose are... well... simply unappropriate.
We all have issues with flyers but saying they're a bad addition is IMHO totally wrong... Flyers give a little bit more futuristic feel to 40K (which was badly needed) and are a very nice new range of models. Graudally, with more anti-air options things will get better.
And about 15mm scale... I really didn't even imagine someone thought about that and whn I googled it I only obtained 2 threads on dakka with some seriously silly proposals for count as...
And about the randomness of this edition I actually like it: It doesn't impair tactics, it impairs power-list building, which is IMHO a good thing...
Here's a fact: 40k is a game of pew pew lazorz for kids, rules and releases are driven by profits. The sooner you realise this the sooner you can stop crying about how you don't like it and move on to a balanced game system that was created with balance and community in mind.
My only comment would be that 6th edition is still in its infancy. We only have 2 army books that have been written for it, and the edition/meta has not had enough time to fall into place. I think once more army books start coming out (not too mention, what I believe have so far been pretty balanced books). I think the new edition will start coming into its own.
As far as the cost, and "money grab". I feel ya, this hobby definitely hits the wallet, but I'll still dish it out cause its the one I love.
I hope you find what you are looking for or that we will see you back soon.
Generally, I've warmed to 6ed - I thought it was a bit over the top with tables whe it was first released, but over the last few months I've started to really like it - more than 5ed.
Third is the inherent flaw within 40k that becomes fatal when combined with GW's business model. It can be summed up with one word...."Scale". 28mm is a scale for squad to single platoon battles on 4x6 or 4x8 game tables. A business model that calls for multible platoons to company sized 28mm games on standard game boards creates a game that quickly runs out of table room. Lack of table room means little to no manuvering or tactics and thus gameplay suffers.
Another issue tied to the scale is lack of LoS blocking terrain. Such terrain is rare and due to the scale it is unwieldly, quickly overwhelms the gameboard, and blocks movement beyond what it should.
We rarely have a problem with scale, because we play at the standard size of 1500pts, just like we always have.
It's the slow creep up in points levels that seems to be causing the problem. People want to play with all their toys at once, and so we end up with 1850pts being normal and 2000pts being common.
Try playing at 1500pts and there really isn't a problem.
EDIT: Agree with the point on flyers, though. Unless we're talking about dropships/gunships, which are sorta believable - fighter aircraft have no place on a game that scale....
Mycatdied wrote: My only comment would be that 6th edition is still in its infancy. We only have 2 army books that have been written for it, and the edition/meta has not had enough time to fall into place. I think once more army books start coming out (not too mention, what I believe have so far been pretty balanced books). I think the new edition will start coming into its own.
The problem is by the time all the armies are updated to 6th the chances are we will be playing 7th ed (8th or nineth if you include Black templars ).
Multiple "supersonic" fliers in a game board that translates to 80m (more like 60m when heroic scale is taken into account) across is always going to look forced and silly.
Most of what you have said pretty much sums up my minor gripes with 40k. I do think that it is very easy for game boards to look very cramped, particularly with horde armies. And a bit more LOS blocking terrain is always nice.
I also agree that the Flyers need a little tweaking, but I must admit I do actually like having them in the game.
As for the 15mm scale, it would certainly be interesting to see. I may have to google this and look into it.
The allies matrix is fairly terrible due to: The crippling disadvantage it forces on tyranids, the massive advantage it affords imperium armies - many of whom are already dominant powers with well maintained and updated codices, the slightly less crippling disadvantage it forces on several other xenos lists, the bizarre 'well it's based on background argument vs the 'tau with marines' team ups or necrons brofisting marines combos. It was badly constructed and wide open to abuse.
Every single vehicle should have +1 hull point. Just add 1 for every vehicle's value and you change up the current weakness without the parking lots of the previous edition (which were a fault of the codices not the rules btw).
Wound allocation and overwatch have hosed assault armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, my two armies, are really struggling in this edition. I had my orks to a fine art in the previous and was comfortable taking on any number of opponents and now they fail to a stiff breeze. The DE are decimated due to being lightly armored and few in numbers, despite a high Initiative, whilst the orks are mown down in numbers before they get into combat and then shredded before they get to strike.
Flyers are currently over the top powerful and the flyer spam necron army is ridiculous.
Terrain set up is nonsensical, you place your bought fortification and then the opponent sets up a LOS blocking ruin in front of it... Just daft.
Look, all the additional stuff, the terrain rules and such would have been great as 'optional' and we should have been presented with a refined version of 5th with all these add-ons as 'narrative options' for friendly games.
I think the design team is not in touch with the reality for many which is that you play pick up games with strangers at stores or clubs rather than some established bunch of reasonable and spam avoiding chums who agree to be gentlemanly before the game.
The entire ruleset reads as a big step backwards for me and I mourn the loss of Alessio from the studio, he came there as a tournament winner and fought to have streamlined and faster play, now a game is back to 2nd edition timescales and that means sacrificing serious time.
Messy, cluttered, illogical progression, far worsening balance issues to many armies and disproportionate, overly complicated added rules.
I think the design team is not in touch with the reality for many which is that you play pick up games with strangers at stores or clubs rather than some established bunch of reasonable and spam avoiding chums who agree to be gentlemanly before the game.
I think organised games around friends' houses where everyone plays pretty casually is actually the VAST majority of 40k players, and GW are right to concentrate on them. Even in the (very few) pick up games I play with strangers, the general mood has been casual and friendly (so no fortification/LOS fun occuring).
Maybe that's why I haven't had any problems?
EDIT: I agree about the weird allies rules, though.
I believe the randomness of some things just kills it. I believe random effects should be introduced when the models are already on the table, And only for things that people wouldn't really be able to control. For instance, random run distance is silly. I know how far I can run, why is it random? because of the rock in my way? What, I'm not athletic enough to jump over it? Then what am I doing in a military force?
Random charging is the same unless the opponent has set up something like a hidden minefield.
Random things should never have been in the army building stage either. Random Warlord traits, random spells, random objectives, random missions. These things should be known to a military force, not randomly figured out right before a battle.
Now the random distance a vehicle blows up, or the random number of shots that hit, or the random flee distance of troops, that sort of random I can understand.
I think a good question is why do we have armies that are so focused on assault? Its a pew pew game, warhamer is the hack hack game! Overwatch was needed because without it the game was turning into a close combat game, that was getting out of hand. Too many units just suicide charging around the field to get into CC or melta range. It just felt weird.
People really need to play smaller games, when I see so many vehicles and infantry that the board is just cluttered.....how does that even work.
I know, I know don't look for reality in 40k. I think that mantra has let the game really just get out of hand. Here is to the new Warzone Resurrection, may it be the game that I have been waiting for, and the competition that GW needs to start making 40k better.
Roadkill Zombie wrote: I believe the randomness of some things just kills it. I believe random effects should be introduced when the models are already on the table, And only for things that people wouldn't really be able to control. For instance, random run distance is silly. I know how far I can run, why is it random? because of the rock in my way? What, I'm not athletic enough to jump over it? Then what am I doing in a military force?
Random charging is the same unless the opponent has set up something like a hidden minefield.
Random things should never have been in the army building stage either. Random Warlord traits, random spells, random objectives, random missions. These things should be known to a military force, not randomly figured out right before a battle.
Now the random distance a vehicle blows up, or the random number of shots that hit, or the random flee distance of troops, that sort of random I can understand.
Watch some war movies, like Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates.
Mycatdied wrote: My only comment would be that 6th edition is still in its infancy. We only have 2 army books that have been written for it, and the edition/meta has not had enough time to fall into place. I think once more army books start coming out (not too mention, what I believe have so far been pretty balanced books). I think the new edition will start coming into its own.
The problem is by the time all the armies are updated to 6th the chances are we will be playing 7th ed (8th or nineth if you include Black templars ).
Multiple "supersonic" fliers in a game board that translates to 80m (more like 60m when heroic scale is taken into account) across is always going to look forced and silly.
And there were people saying this in 5th edition, as well, and some in 4th. Codex lag is going to happen. We can either deal with it and move on or endlessly complain about it. Only one outcome is actually useful.
I think the design team is not in touch with the reality for many which is that you play pick up games with strangers at stores or clubs rather than some established bunch of reasonable and spam avoiding chums who agree to be gentlemanly before the game.
I think organised games around friends' houses where everyone plays pretty casually is actually the VAST majority of 40k players, and GW are right to concentrate on them. Even in the (very few) pick up games I play with strangers, the general mood has been casual and friendly (so no fortification/LOS fun occuring).
Maybe that's why I haven't had any problems?
EDIT: I agree about the weird allies rules, though.
I'd agree it's likely the majority for the UK (but that's been changing for a while gradually) but in the US the absolute reverse is true, people game in stores to a huge extent.
Having lived in Bristol for a few years and gamed there, there was a sizable club/store playing presence there and coming to the US, store games are the great majority.
Roadkill Zombie wrote: I believe the randomness of some things just kills it. I believe random effects should be introduced when the models are already on the table, And only for things that people wouldn't really be able to control. For instance, random run distance is silly. I know how far I can run, why is it random? because of the rock in my way? What, I'm not athletic enough to jump over it? Then what am I doing in a military force?
Random charging is the same unless the opponent has set up something like a hidden minefield.
Random things should never have been in the army building stage either. Random Warlord traits, random spells, random objectives, random missions. These things should be known to a military force, not randomly figured out right before a battle.
Now the random distance a vehicle blows up, or the random number of shots that hit, or the random flee distance of troops, that sort of random I can understand.
Watch some war movies, like Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates.
Mycatdied wrote: My only comment would be that 6th edition is still in its infancy. We only have 2 army books that have been written for it, and the edition/meta has not had enough time to fall into place. I think once more army books start coming out (not too mention, what I believe have so far been pretty balanced books). I think the new edition will start coming into its own.
The problem is by the time all the armies are updated to 6th the chances are we will be playing 7th ed (8th or nineth if you include Black templars ).
Multiple "supersonic" fliers in a game board that translates to 80m (more like 60m when heroic scale is taken into account) across is always going to look forced and silly.
And there were people saying this in 5th edition, as well, and some in 4th. Codex lag is going to happen. We can either deal with it and move on or endlessly complain about it. Only one outcome is actually useful.
I've seen plenty of war movies. And I've been in the Military. I know that no sane military force would send a general to a warzone as the leader of the entire war effort not knowing what he's capable of (and random warlord traits means you don't know what your general is capable of until the start of the battle). Nor do they go into battle not knowing what their objectives are until they get on the battlefield. That's what scouts and intelligence gathering is all about. Do you honestly think they would leave that stuff up to randomness?
I've seen plenty of war movies. And I've been in the Military. I know that no sane military force would send a general to a warzone as the leader of the entire war effort not knowing what he's capable of (and random warlord traits means you don't know what your general is capable of until the start of the battle). Nor do they go into battle not knowing what their objectives are until they get on the battlefield. That's what scouts and intelligence gathering is all about. Do you honestly think they would leave that stuff up to randomness?
I'm sure any military would love to have the luxury of always being able to dictate the set up of any battle. It rarely happens that way. You go to war with the army you have, not necessarily the one you want.
So the military always has the right guy in the right position? Historically I can think of plenty of situations where the wrong guy was in charge or brought the wrong formations for a specific battle. I know of whole wars where armies seamed to have little grasp of what their objectives were.
Randomness happens in battles all the time. Planning is essential but the best laid plans do not survive the first encounter with the enemy.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The allies matrix is fairly terrible due to: The crippling disadvantage it forces on tyranids, the massive advantage it affords imperium armies - many of whom are already dominant powers with well maintained and updated codices, the slightly less crippling disadvantage it forces on several other xenos lists, the bizarre 'well it's based on background argument vs the 'tau with marines' team ups or necrons brofisting marines combos. It was badly constructed and wide open to abuse.
Allies aren't nearly as abusable as normal codex options actually. I find them to be so constrained that it's cheese or go home. There are few fluffy allies combos, but I've settled on a squad of horrors with a herald deep-striking.
Every single vehicle should have +1 hull point. Just add 1 for every vehicle's value and you change up the current weakness without the parking lots of the previous edition (which were a fault of the codices not the rules btw).
Hahahahahahaha. Oh you're a funny one. No, my mech guard do not need +1 hull point each
Wound allocation and overwatch have hosed assault armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, my two armies, are really struggling in this edition. I had my orks to a fine art in the previous and was comfortable taking on any number of opponents and now they fail to a stiff breeze. The DE are decimated due to being lightly armored and few in numbers, despite a high Initiative, whilst the orks are mown down in numbers before they get into combat and then shredded before they get to strike.
Wound allocation I have sympathy for, but I think many people over-state the effectiveness of overwatch. 5th edition wound allocation was just absurd though.
Look, all the additional stuff, the terrain rules and such would have been great as 'optional' and we should have been presented with a refined version of 5th with all these add-ons as 'narrative options' for friendly games.
I think they are optional? Most of the time my friends and I just shimmy some terrain onto the board until we think it looks right.
I think the design team is not in touch with the reality for many which is that you play pick up games with strangers at stores or clubs rather than some established bunch of reasonable and spam avoiding chums who agree to be gentlemanly before the game.
The entire ruleset reads as a big step backwards for me and I mourn the loss of Alessio from the studio, he came there as a tournament winner and fought to have streamlined and faster play, now a game is back to 2nd edition timescales and that means sacrificing serious time.
Messy, cluttered, illogical progression, far worsening balance issues to many armies and disproportionate, overly complicated added rules.
Also the best damn ruleset we've had make of that what you will, I guess.
I've seen plenty of war movies. And I've been in the Military. I know that no sane military force would send a general to a warzone as the leader of the entire war effort not knowing what he's capable of (and random warlord traits means you don't know what your general is capable of until the start of the battle). Nor do they go into battle not knowing what their objectives are until they get on the battlefield. That's what scouts and intelligence gathering is all about. Do you honestly think they would leave that stuff up to randomness?
I'm sure any military would love to have the luxury of always being able to dictate the set up of any battle. It rarely happens that way. You go to war with the army you have, not necessarily the one you want.
So the military always has the right guy in the right position? Historically I can think of plenty of situations where the wrong guy was in charge or brought the wrong formations for a specific battle. I know of whole wars where armies seamed to have little grasp of what their objectives were.
Randomness happens in battles all the time. Planning is essential but the best laid plans do not survive the first encounter with the enemy.
So can I, but you know what? most of that was from the time before things like satellites to show enemy dispositions, Warships that could see hundreds of miles away, Jet Aircraft with smart missile systems. etc. A lot of the military mess ups were from an era long gone. When people barely knew how to read, much less plan military tactics or put generals in the right positions.
Warhammer 40k is in a time where they DO have the luxury of being able to plan their battles. To put Generals with the right abilities in the right positions. To know what their objectives are because they have planned it right down to the last detail. After all, some of these wars have been going on for generations. If you can't plan for battles in that amount of time you have no business going to war.
I'd agree it's likely the majority for the UK (but that's been changing for a while gradually) but in the US the absolute reverse is true, people game in stores to a huge extent.
That simply is not true anywhere I've played. I've never even met a single person who enjoys playing in a store, including all of the people I've only ever talked to in a gaming store.
I'm all for a serious competitor to GW to step up.
That said. I think my issues with 6th have been for the most part stated.
I want to pick my warlord's trait (like the traits given but not the randomness)
I want to pick my pskyer's powers (Like Warp Charge points though, as ultra powerful abilities will take very high level and expensive models to pull off)
Random charge is absolutly a horrible idea. It's was stupid and fun killing in fantasy, it's stupid and fun killing in 40K.
Being able to buy buildings...day one I was screaming with rage at this idea. But...and there is a but. If they had given more non Imperial armies a few options, it'd have a place. Sure you could 'refluff' an Aegis for Tau and call it something 'Tauish' but I think giving them something more 'approperiate' would be interesting. And Nids could have Spore chimney's and bioacid lakes, and other things that fit thier modus operadi. The examples could go on and on.
But still the 'massive' buildings are bull**** the gun line thing and 'quick set up' buildings I can dig. Real world troops dig thier own trenches and set up quick walls and bunkers, so futuristic I can imagine a small bunker can be 'dropped' into place. A fortress...not so much.
The allies matrix is also bull, yes they nerfed the Nids, but they messed up the other armies horribly to. But for TLDR Eldar and Dark Eldar are not battle brothers, never have been, never will be. Desperate Allies...maybe. Hell come the Apocalypse...much more likely.
Running was stupid in 5th, it's stupid in 6th.
And all units, even tanks should be able to capture objectives. I mean really are you going to tell me the crew of Space Marine Land Raider can't open a hatch, reach out and take something? Or that a Tau is going to just take that 'intel breifcase' out away from a Grey Knight Terminator? Really? He is just going to hand it over because "Here blue skin, your a troop choice you should have this."
And though it's been a rule for some time, why can't I assault out of Rhino, or a Chimera? Or Eldar Falcon?
I'm going to still have reservations playing against people using allies, or buildings for right now. Maybe some errata will clean it up, but otherwise just not going to play with people using them.
Now that the negatives are out of the way, it's time for a bit of positives.
I like the 'above' 2K points list expansion, as for larger battles I can tailor my forces to the style I like to play for that army.
I thought Flyers got a bit of a needed nerf in 6th. Not a major one, but having to always start in reserve is a kick in the pants to some, but really aircraft aren't an 'on demand' service in real life so I'm cool with it. Though I do wonder how you can even get a flyer into some 40K battlefields. (One of my favorites when GW was at Concord Mills in Charlotte was the inside of a space ship.)
I like Overwatch, as it's hit on 6s not the model's BS skill for the "Oh Emperor save me, a Zerker! Kill it! Kill it! Kill it! Kill it!" *guardsmen firing with his eyes closed* effect.
The new special rules they added are going to take me some time to get used to, but so far I think they are neat.
AP on melee weapons is another thing I like.
Final Thought:
3rd edition is still the best edition IMHO, but 6th isn't too bad, it's complicated, but I'm wanting to play it. It's got some great ideas, but the Commissar's bullet missed it's mark on the execution. I expect to see a lot of house ruling to come into play. (For me it's no allies and no buildings, and fixed charge ranges.) It's truly a YMMV game now.
I've seen plenty of war movies. And I've been in the Military. I know that no sane military force would send a general to a warzone as the leader of the entire war effort not knowing what he's capable of (and random warlord traits means you don't know what your general is capable of until the start of the battle). Nor do they go into battle not knowing what their objectives are until they get on the battlefield. That's what scouts and intelligence gathering is all about. Do you honestly think they would leave that stuff up to randomness?
I'm sure any military would love to have the luxury of always being able to dictate the set up of any battle. It rarely happens that way. You go to war with the army you have, not necessarily the one you want.
So the military always has the right guy in the right position? Historically I can think of plenty of situations where the wrong guy was in charge or brought the wrong formations for a specific battle. I know of whole wars where armies seamed to have little grasp of what their objectives were.
Randomness happens in battles all the time. Planning is essential but the best laid plans do not survive the first encounter with the enemy.
So can I, but you know what? most of that was from the time before things like satellites to show enemy dispositions, Warships that could see hundreds of miles away, Jet Aircraft with smart missile systems. etc. A lot of the military mess ups were from an era long gone. When people barely knew how to read, much less plan military tactics or put generals in the right positions.
Warhammer 40k is in a time where they DO have the luxury of being able to plan their battles. To put Generals with the right abilities in the right positions. To know what their objectives are because they have planned it right down to the last detail. After all, some of these wars have been going on for generations. If you can't plan for battles in that amount of time you have no business going to war.
Even so, war is chaotic, rarely are armies afforded such luxuries. Intel is inaccurate or fails at times. You don't always get to pick your battles, because sometimes the enemy does. The perfect battle field DOES NOT EXIST. The technological edge has been removed for the most part in 40K, that's just how 40k is. If armies were actually able to use their technology properly, well most of this combat would be reduced to air strikes and orbital bombardments, which would not make the game much fun.
No, the technological edge has been removed from the Imperium. Necrons have it just fine. As do Eldar. Those two armies don't plan a single battle nor fight one unless everything is in place and ready to go. If they get caught with their pants down they withdraw. and fight the battle right at a later date. They never have random generals leading their armies, and they certainly know what their objectives are before they go to war.
It's the stupid Imperials that fit the description of how you see 40k battles fought.
Roadkill Zombie wrote: No, the technological edge has been removed from the Imperium. Necrons have it just fine. As do Eldar. Those two armies don't plan a single battle nor fight one unless everything is in place and ready to go. If they get caught with their pants down they withdraw. and fight the battle right at a later date. They never have random generals leading their armies, and they certainly know what their objectives are before they go to war.
It's the stupid Imperials that fit the description of how you see 40k battles fought.
Meh, The logistics of those two armies pale in compared to the nightmare that imperial logistics would be. The Guard in many ways is so large they have very little opportunity to shift commanders, much less whole armies around to fit a specific purpose.
Necrons have their own hampering as their tech conceivably would destroy everyone if they really wanted, but they just seam to fight for whatever reason.
Eldar are hampered by having the most advanced technology that sucks! Seriously the shurikan catapult has to be one of the worst weapons in the game....and it used to be the best.
Right now warlord traits are free, I guess if you wanted to pay for something specific you should be able to, but it should be at a premium, while others who don't want to pay still get the free roll. I suppose you could do the same with psyker abilities.
I come from the days where 40k was very very random, you just had to adapt and overcome. It made the game more fun, people didn't take losses so hard, you just did the best you could. Which is actually more realistic, rarely in the real world do two evenly matched armies come to battle. I really liked the game more when it was not so competitive.
Oh certainly. Blood Angels moving 18" in a Rhino, deploying 2", shooting twice, then charging at S5 I5, killing a unit, then moving 6" into assault with another unit was clearly the best edition?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The allies matrix is fairly terrible due to: The crippling disadvantage it forces on tyranids, the massive advantage it affords imperium armies - many of whom are already dominant powers with well maintained and updated codices, the slightly less crippling disadvantage it forces on several other xenos lists, the bizarre 'well it's based on background argument vs the 'tau with marines' team ups or necrons brofisting marines combos. It was badly constructed and wide open to abuse.
Allies aren't nearly as abusable as normal codex options actually. I find them to be so constrained that it's cheese or go home. There are few fluffy allies combos, but I've settled on a squad of horrors with a herald deep-striking.
If Dark Eldar are mistrusted allies by everyone but Eldar, who are fairly similar as a glass cannon army, but all MEQ armies can gap fill with Imperial Guard massed infantry and Artillery squadrons, then you can couple already existing codex abuse with the addition of what your army lacks, as long as it's imperials, you can put a marine character into a huge imperial guard blob and use wargear to ensure funtimes for the whole mob of them. It's a sliding scale of terrible ideas and abuse potential. There is no 0/1 to this, it's a long series of escalating combos and abuses allowing you to cherrypick the best bits of the various codices.
Every single vehicle should have +1 hull point. Just add 1 for every vehicle's value and you change up the current weakness without the parking lots of the previous edition (which were a fault of the codices not the rules btw).
Hahahahahahaha. Oh you're a funny one. No, my mech guard do not need +1 hull point each
Ok, well my Battlewagons sure as hell do, as do my Dark Eldar raiders and venoms. I guess you don't fight necrons much?
Wound allocation and overwatch have hosed assault armies, Dark Eldar and Orks, my two armies, are really struggling in this edition. I had my orks to a fine art in the previous and was comfortable taking on any number of opponents and now they fail to a stiff breeze. The DE are decimated due to being lightly armored and few in numbers, despite a high Initiative, whilst the orks are mown down in numbers before they get into combat and then shredded before they get to strike.
Wound allocation I have sympathy for, but I think many people over-state the effectiveness of overwatch. 5th edition wound allocation was just absurd though.
Dark eldar principally revolved around small assault units that relied on getting into combat before they were shot into pieces on the table, the combo of vehicle nerf and overwatch fire is punishing that new army badly. Orks losing an entire front row to overwatch is causing them to miss getting into assault. Please expound on 'absurd' for 5th's wound allocation? If you say 'cinematically', I will hunt you down and fashion a nice coat from your flayed skin...
Look, all the additional stuff, the terrain rules and such would have been great as 'optional' and we should have been presented with a refined version of 5th with all these add-ons as 'narrative options' for friendly games.
I think they are optional? Most of the time my friends and I just shimmy some terrain onto the board until we think it looks right.
Most people do, I do with friends. At stores or clubs with people I don't know, the expectation would be to follow the rules for placement etc. The rulebook states on page 91 that you and your opponent may agree what type of mysterious terrain rivers and jungles etc are but again, in cases of pick up games or tournaments you'll be looking at rolling rather than arbitrary choice. All this peripheral stuff should have been in a separate section at the back and the prime rules presented in a suitable fashion for tournaments.
I think the design team is not in touch with the reality for many which is that you play pick up games with strangers at stores or clubs rather than some established bunch of reasonable and spam avoiding chums who agree to be gentlemanly before the game.
Hm no. I want casual rules thanks.
By casual, you mean poorly defined? Because a clear and fluid ruleset for tournament play, with the additional peripheral rules provided as optional, would serve both our churches.
The entire ruleset reads as a big step backwards for me and I mourn the loss of Alessio from the studio, he came there as a tournament winner and fought to have streamlined and faster play, now a game is back to 2nd edition timescales and that means sacrificing serious time.
Messy, cluttered, illogical progression, far worsening balance issues to many armies and disproportionate, overly complicated added rules.
Also the best damn ruleset we've had make of that what you will, I guess.
That you like fiddly rulesets, have more available free time than I do and don't mind having to relearn basic gameplay of the system, also that you don't own armies that got the hose from this edition? Oh, you have Imperial Guard, 6th certainly didn't do them any harm...
I'll still be playing it, but I'll say this again clearly, it was a step backwards from 5th.
Oh certainly. Blood Angels moving 18" in a Rhino, deploying 2", shooting twice, then charging at S5 I5, killing a unit, then moving 6" into assault with another unit was clearly the best edition?
When I had my Eldar army back then, my Wraithlords and masses of Starcannon fire made Rhinos go boom, and force all of that to walk. Rhino rush was one of very few abusable tactics. It's baby food weak sauce compared to Grey Knights and Necrons of today.
The DE are decimated due to being lightly armored and few in numbers, despite a high Initiative ...
Not entirely true (well, ok, yeah, our armor save still sucks. lol). DE armies that relied on MSU and CC are getting smakced around, but I retooled my list to be large squads of shooty kabalites in Raiders with a very small Haemy contingent with a lot of FA and a maxed Heavy slot and I'm doing way better than I did in 5th. Especially since the local meta has shifted to foot-sloggers. It's almost abusive how much easier it's become. I still have some issues with tank heavy lists, but that's something DE were always going to struggle with.
Also, to your point about Orks, there aren't many Ork players here, but the ones we do have are kicking serious tail as well. Dakka jets on a WAAAGH are brutal! lol Maybe you just need to retool your lists a little?
As for everything else:
ALLIES:
I agree that the Allies matrix, and the handling of Allies in general is clumsy and heavy handed, but I haven't seen anyone propose a better (or even a different system), and I don't have any fixes myself so I can't really complain about it too much beyond what I've already said.
FLYERS:
Including flyers in a game of this scale is perfectly fine unless you're looking for an ultra-realistic representation (and if that's the case you are playing the wrong game anyway). I just think that, much like the allies matrix, the rules for them are a little awkward. Starship Troopers was the same scale (if I'm not mistaken) and flyers worked perfectly fine. I think if GW maybe just tweaks things ever so slightly and gets all the other fliers released, the will be fine. I am excited by their inclusion as I can remember playing Rogue Trader as a little kid with my friends and talking about how cool it would be to have them in a game. They are not perfectly integrated (yet), but I prefer the game WITH them.
SCALE:
IMO no sense in even bothering with complaining about it now. It's been a goofy issue since RT (yes, that's how long I've played - GET OFF MY LAWN! lol/jk). It was an issue the second they decided that a pistol fired 6" while the tank the model was sitting next to was 7-8". lol This has nothing to do what-so-ever with the "GW Business Model". Again, if you're looking to have something perfectly accurate, or more truly representational of the "real world" then you're just playing the wrong game.
I looked up 15mm 40k, and, like the others, didn't find much. Personally, I would NOT be interested in playing at that scale. It's just not as fun to me. I'm sure there's plenty of people who like that scale and more power to them, but in my area, no one really plays/paints at that scale.
I dislike things like the terrain placement system and all of the random rolling you need to do. That being said though, I mainly play friendly games at my FLGS and for the most part we just ignore a lot of those rules. In a tournament setting I can see a lot of that getting in the way, but then, most of the local tourney's I've seen just don't use those either.
Purchasing buildings as part of your army IS something I'm not super thrilled with. Combined with the general nerfing of vehicles, and the extreme nurfing of CC (especially where it pretains to reserves and deep striking) I think that purchasing buildings just creates a game that becomes increasingly more static. Sure, they've added little bits and pieces to encourage movement, and yeah, you still have to move to capture objectives, but the game feels like it's becoming increasingly more static. My gun line fires at your gun line and then at the last second we all rush out towards objectives.
3rd edition is still the best edition
To each his own, but I stopped playing for years because of 3rd. I think 6th could use a little more streamlining, but going back to something like third would kill it for me.
It's baby food weak sauce compared to Grey Knights and Necrons of today.
Which is more a factor of the codexes than the rules themselves.
If you like the game, play it. If you don't.... don't.
I personally think Flyers destroyed the feel of 40k. Not an argument I know... but the game does carry a certain feel to it. It's not just any wargame like FoW or WM... it's 40k. It's grimdark (or was) and that is the bulk of it's appeal for me (and I assume some others). It also opens up a MASSIVE rift in the suspense of reality for the game.
(Oh look, it's a hell drake swooping down to rake at my scouts... ON THE GROUND! Maybe those Assault Marines with fething jump packs should leap up plant a damn melta bomb on it. or hell, just chop at with a sword...But no... that would make sense and thereby has no place being involved with Flyers.
Power weapons with AP values are .... meh, I'll get used to that. Not sure I agree on which ones have which values, but I'll overlook that.
The randomness is absurd. This game is already played with freakin' DICE. They've condensed centuries of pitched grueling battles and jaw dropping violence that is the life of a Space Marine (used only for reference) and called it a WS4 BS4. Oh, but hell, a few months of basic training or being fething conscript to the IG and hell, you're at a 3. Or better yes, Millenia old Eldar who have been fighting for survival since before the other races were in their diapers are a what? 3 also? Thanks GW...
But since that wasn't RANDOM enough, now you can't choose powers, warlord traits, etc.
They are taking control away from the players, marking the prices of all items, and adding even more expensive items into army lists that DEMAND further purchases to even play with.
Yet... for all the nonsense, I still play. I just play with folks that don't "play to win at all costs" we have fun by just playing in a fashion that doesn't always abuse the new stuff
My friends and I simply choose our traits/powers/whatever.
The randomness is a HUGE killer of this game. The more random, the less control the player has, and the moment you start taking control away from the player it becomes less of a game and more of a chore.
For those who like the randomness, cool. I think you should be able to play the game exactly how you want, with the traits you want, with the powers you want. I mean really, what does a Librarian do before a battle? Pick a book of spells, close his eyes, point at a random spell? No, he learns his gak before the battle and doesn't waste time learning stupid spells that are ineffective or useless.
The D6 system (and the system of 10) that GW uses is bad. Simply bad. Using greater values allows more freedom, however the greater freedom complicates things. I do think GW could find a middle ground, but at this point they're just sucking money too hard and fast to care at all.
Hooo boy! where to start? Sixth ed. 40K. Here goes on the subject of 'randomness'. If we take the time we can explain it away, but that won't satisfy us geek types. I'd be down for it, but some thinks-he-knows-it-all comes around and furiously stabs your perfectly reasonable excuse for a games lack or presence of 'realisticness' with a +5 vorpal logic bane ugly stick which, turns out guys, is SUPER EFFECTIVE! at killing the mood and preventing the resolution of your dispute. In science, we call these faux-logic wielders 'that guy', or TFGs for short. Please don't be one.
It is a game drawn out of a book written by a few who knew how THEY thought of it, played by millions who are not privy to these internal reasoning's. Therefore we simply MUST generalize where we can. So far everyone has mentioned something about the new randomness. I want to talk/write about that. Because to me the entire concept of a 40k battle was initially dumb sounding. Why? Let me say this. I'm going to put it on a seperate line and I want you to read it three times and think about it before reading further. Ready? Remember three times you need to read this. Kay, here it is:
You and your opponent....showed up to a battle....get this....with roughly equivalent armies!
Did you read it three times? GOOD! So after some reflection you should all be thinking 'wait a sec, we brought about the same amount of stuff?' YEP! Neither one of you, for some mysterious reason was able to bring that one more tank or infantry platoon to seal the deal. So the first thing we have to consider is that this curious lack of material superiority is a factor. Yes, I knooow, a good build makes one list better then another, or the number of actual models will vary and 'outnumber', blah blah blah. But you cant deny that you each started with the same point limit. Nuf said. So thats Factor ONE: Material Equivalence. Moving on.
Factor two is Blind Table/Blind list. Most games you set your table up right as you get started. Then you lay out objectives. But what you have to work with is already decided by your list you should have already made! Well if I knew one objective was going to be in a fire corridor, I would have brought a unit optimized to that! Then you see your opponent spam a unit type, and say: Well if I knew he was using all those I would have brought this other unit/weapon load out! So we can call Factor TWO: Super Fog of War.
Then off of these two factors we extrapolate how in the bloody heck we got into this. If this is grim dark, and we fight battles on planets with lines of dudes fighting all the way up and down miles of terrain, after all the intelligence, positioning, gear prep, and whatever else, then I can conclude that on this 100 mile long front line packed with dudes, I'm playing the critical point in the line where it is truly undecided. Because every where else there is some tactical/numerical/technological/etc advantage that essentially decides every other section of that battle line. So zoom in on this tiny 1500 point game because THIS is where the day is won or lost. So randomness in this light is somewhat reasonable. I wouldn't know where per se that critical struggle might take place. My long winded point is this: The very concept of setup for an even game is tactically absurd. Has been since before this random stuff came in and made it obvious. The answer is house rules. Make them. You haz da power. I belivez in you
Beachhead Assault(Rough v0.01, something I want to do for a friend of mine):
Choose an attacker and defender. The defender designs the board and his list, chooses his deployment zone(s), and places three objectives. Then shows the board to the attacker, half his list in unit type and numbers and primary gear but not auxillary gear(like grenades/markerlights/psyker powers that he chose) and deployment zones. Play around with how you choose to reveal the defender list(how much is revealed, how randomly). The defender also points out two objectives that hes placed on the board, not the third, that will have to be revealed on turn one of the game. The attacker then takes a week to prepare a list and decide on his deployment zone maintaining some distance from the defenders as you see fit, and where to place one additional objective.
There, now weve made it an official Proposed rule thread!
KnuckleWolf wrote: If this is grim dark, and we fight battles on planets with lines of dudes fighting all the way up and down miles of terrain, after all the intelligence, positioning, gear prep, and whatever else, then I can conclude that on this 100 mile long front line packed with dudes, I'm playing the critical point in the line where it is truly undecided. Because every where else there is some tactical/numerical/technological/etc advantage that essentially decides every other section of that battle line. So zoom in on this tiny 1500 point game because THIS is where the day is won or lost. So randomness in this light is somewhat reasonable. I wouldn't know where per se that critical struggle might take place.
This was actually the setup to 40k games in many editions.
Roadkill Zombie wrote: I believe the randomness of some things just kills it. I believe random effects should be introduced when the models are already on the table, And only for things that people wouldn't really be able to control. For instance, random run distance is silly. I know how far I can run, why is it random? because of the rock in my way? What, I'm not athletic enough to jump over it? Then what am I doing in a military force?
Random charging is the same unless the opponent has set up something like a hidden minefield.
Random things should never have been in the army building stage either. Random Warlord traits, random spells, random objectives, random missions. These things should be known to a military force, not randomly figured out right before a battle.
Now the random distance a vehicle blows up, or the random number of shots that hit, or the random flee distance of troops, that sort of random I can understand.
Watch some war movies, like Saving Private Ryan or Enemy at the Gates.
Mycatdied wrote: My only comment would be that 6th edition is still in its infancy. We only have 2 army books that have been written for it, and the edition/meta has not had enough time to fall into place. I think once more army books start coming out (not too mention, what I believe have so far been pretty balanced books). I think the new edition will start coming into its own.
The problem is by the time all the armies are updated to 6th the chances are we will be playing 7th ed (8th or nineth if you include Black templars ).
Multiple "supersonic" fliers in a game board that translates to 80m (more like 60m when heroic scale is taken into account) across is always going to look forced and silly.
And there were people saying this in 5th edition, as well, and some in 4th. Codex lag is going to happen. We can either deal with it and move on or endlessly complain about it. Only one outcome is actually useful.
Given that I'm replying to a post suggesting to wait for the codexes to be updated I don't see how that can be considered dealing with it. Don't judge the game on a fictional state with a complete edition with updated codexes since it won't happen, you need to judge it on what you actually get and thats some armies tucking into a second steak while others are still in the workhouse. By deal with it do you really mean just ignore the problem?
Having 5+ fliers manouvering over a battlefield the size of a football pitch come across to me at least like top gun in hot air ballons.
6th edition is 'OK' I guess, I find it slightly better than 5th in most areas but I have to admit that to me the flyer/FMC rules suck.
Epic was the best PvP tabletop system GW ever did imho, it was far more reliant on enacting an overall grand strategy. A modern version based around a heavily streamlined 40k ruleset would be incredible.
Imagine a proper drop-pod assault as dozens of pods rain down for surgical strikes in critical locations, or emplacements of Hydras providing interlocking fields of fire against flyers.
It won't ever happen though, not enough profit in it. :(
The following is my edit from the first page. I had lost an edit before posting. Am reposting here for clarification.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:I'm sorry, but where is this 15mm 40k community?
First, I said that 15mm sci-fi is taking off with the intent that there are plenty of models available to use as proxies. They can be found in Britain, France, U.S.A. and plenty of other places. Quickest answer is google 15mm sci-fi minatures.
Second, there are people realizing that 15mm 40 is a great way to alleviate the scale problem. For info, google 15mm 40k.
Now for some replies
Breng77 wrote:Just a few things.
1.) I have never seen a 15mm 40k player (yes I googled them, but unless that is your area...no dice)
Is not having seen someone doing it a reason to not try it yourself?
Breng77 wrote:2.)
The LOS blocking terrain is a you and your area issue, most events I play in (and run) have a decent amount of LOS blocking terrain (and I am working to construct more). In reality this is an issue of lazyness in your area not an issue with the scale of the game.
Your slightly hostile and insulting post is amusing in that you don't know where I play. (Hint)One of the places is Fat Ogres in houston which has rediculous amounts of terrain. They have Bastions, A Fortress of redemption, 4 large boxes of Gale force 9 terrain, at least another 5-6 boxes of assorted (GW, FoW and Fantasy) and enough homemade terrain to cover 2 of the stores 6 dedicated game tables. Oh yeah, the store has its own homebuilt Space Hulk table.
The problem is that there are little to no natual terrain features available that hide a Tank completely. The ruins hide troops so-so but not vehicles, especially considering these later editions movement and shooting rates . When real los blocking terrain is made it crowds the board so much that players don't use it.
We try the fix of calling certain terrain as los blocking but arguments always seem to ensue over which piece and how elevated units are affected
Breng77 wrote:
3.) If GW changed the scale the same problem would remain because they would just make you buy more small minis to play the game, rather than making the game actually cost less.
It might seem that way but in truth it doesn't happen that way. Ask FoW players. Most players know how long a game takes and settle for the 1500 to 2000 point levels because that is a good game that usually lasts 2-3 hours. A board flooded with 4000 points of 15mm figures playing with current 40k rules would be a 5+ hour game. Most players wouldn't try that for a casual pick-up game.
Also, 4000+ point games would be apoc level and would be played on a 8-12 foot apoc table. If the points level ever got to the point of crowding the apoc tables then you are playing a weekend campain that would allow for reserve rules to control table crowding..
Breng77 wrote:
In the end everyone is entitled to their opinion (I love 6th, though I agree some parts could have been implemented better), but if you are not digging it, move on to other games or if your playing 15mm (which presumably is with a small local group) you could also just stick with the old rules and 5th ed and call it a day.
And this is what I said in the op. I'm dropping 6th ed for now and am focusing on other systems/editions/different scale.
punkow wrote:I'll be brutally honest: LULWUT?
If you don't like the game, well, you do the right choice quitting, but the solutions you propose are... well... simply unappropriate.
We all have issues with flyers but saying they're a bad addition is IMHO totally wrong... Flyers give a little bit more futuristic feel to 40K (which was badly needed) and are a very nice new range of models. Graudally, with more anti-air options things will get better.
And about 15mm scale... I really didn't even imagine someone thought about that and whn I googled it I only obtained 2 threads on dakka with some seriously silly proposals for count as...
And about the randomness of this edition I actually like it: It doesn't impair tactics, it impairs power-list building, which is IMHO a good thing.
A)How are my suggestions "unappropriate"(think the word you are looking for here is inappropriate)? Seriously, instead of coming from a "they are different so they are bad" or a "I don't like them so they are wrong" position, discuss the issues that you have with what "I" have proposed.
B)Fliers "are" bad. At least to me they are. They create to much of a logic break that just ruins the game for me. Note, I never said get rid of them, just that they should have been implemented differently.
Now, What I did say is that, "they should have been in a seperate system that tied in loosely to the base game. That Fighters have no place over a Battlefield once the shooting starts."
Again, note I said fighters. IMO, Transport fliers are ok but IMO any that stays for a second turn should automatically switch to skimmer mode.Fighters staying on the board a second turn if they should suffer a stall that forces a roll to see if they recover.
C)I corrected the editing error in my previous post. Google 15mm sci-fi mininatures and you will find some fairly nice models that would be suitable for proxy-ing. You just can't take one faction and change over but rather you have to hunt through all of the manufacturers to find a decent army.
I admit its not for everyone but after a proy game I was sold. It turned the small hills that most stores have into mountains that could hide a colum of tanks. The shooting and movement ranges just felt more natural/intuitive.
D)Randomness??? I don't think that was one of my primary complaints
lordofthegophers wrote:Here's a fact: 40k is a game of pew pew lazorz for kids, rules and releases are driven by profits. The sooner you realise this the sooner you can stop crying about how you don't like it and move on to a balanced game system that was created with balance and community in mind.
*Cute*. I was probably aware of 40K being a money grab before your mom bought you your first battleforce. Also, you might want to reread my OP...no crying there, some satire, yes...crying, no.
Now I do agree that there are other more balanced systems out there(Can't wait for WM's Convergence of Cyriss to hit the shelves ).
Third is the inherent flaw within 40k that becomes fatal when combined with GW's business model. It can be summed up with one word...."Scale".
28mm is a scale for squad to single platoon battles on 4x6 or 4x8 game tables. A business model that calls for multible platoons to company sized 28mm games on standard game boards creates a game that quickly runs out of table room. Lack of table room means little to no manuvering or tactics and thus gameplay suffers.
Another issue tied to the scale is lack of LoS blocking terrain. Such terrain is rare and due to the scale it is unwieldly, quickly overwhelms the gameboard, and blocks movement beyond what it should.
We rarely have a problem with scale, because we play at the standard size of 1500pts, just like we always have.
It's the slow creep up in points levels that seems to be causing the problem. People want to play with all their toys at once, and so we end up with 1850pts being normal and 2000pts being common.
Try playing at 1500pts and there really isn't a problem.
EDIT: Agree with the point on flyers, though. Unless we're talking about dropships/gunships, which are sorta believable - fighter aircraft have no place on a game that scale....
The problem is that not even 1500 points is what it used to be. With the constant points drops 1500 points is crowding the board a lot more than it was in 4th ed.
HerbaciousT wrote:Most of what you have said pretty much sums up my minor gripes with 40k. I do think that it is very easy for game boards to look very cramped, particularly with horde armies. And a bit more LOS blocking terrain is always nice.
I also agree that the Flyers need a little tweaking, but I must admit I do actually like having them in the game.
As for the 15mm scale, it would certainly be interesting to see. I may have to google this and look into it.
I corrected a mistake in my earlier post. Look at 15mm sci fi minis. there are some very nice models for proxying and the cost is pretty easy on the wallet if you shop carefully.
DarknessEternal wrote:
That simply is not true anywhere I've played. I've never even met a single person who enjoys playing in a store, including all of the people I've only ever talked to in a gaming store.
You need to travel to a different store. If no one enjoys playing at that store then move to another. If another is not available let us know where you playing because that store is asking to be put out of business, "if what you are saying is true".
My personal experiece has been that I enjoy playing stores much more than at the average gamers house (Usually, on an unstable piece of plywood). Very few players in the U.S. have a well built 4'x8' game table with quality terrain. I do,...my friends do...yet we all seem to meet up at the store. I think its because it gets us away from the wives.
BTW, Before you snap back with a possibly snarky comment about where I've played, just want to let you know that I travelled the country for the past decade and would play at stores where ever I went.
focusedfire wrote: The following is my edit from the first page. I had lost an edit before posting. Am reposting here for clarification.
[Now for some replies
Breng77 wrote:Just a few things.
1.) I have never seen a 15mm 40k player (yes I googled them, but unless that is your area...no dice)
Is not having seen someone doing it a reason to not try it yourself?
Yes, indeed it is a reason. If I cannot find games, I don't want to spend the money, so if I am liking 40k as is why spend extra money to try to convince people to do something different.
Breng77 wrote:2.)
The LOS blocking terrain is a you and your area issue, most events I play in (and run) have a decent amount of LOS blocking terrain (and I am working to construct more). In reality this is an issue of lazyness in your area not an issue with the scale of the game.
Your slightly hostile and insulting post is amusing in that you don't know where I play. (Hint)One of the places is Fat Ogres in houston which has rediculous amounts of terrain. They have Bastions, A Fortress of redemption, 4 large boxes of Gale force 9 terrain, at least another 5-6 boxes of assorted (GW, FoW and Fantasy) and enough homemade terrain to cover 2 of the stores 6 dedicated game tables. Oh yeah, the store has its own homebuilt Space Hulk table.
The problem is that there are little to no natual terrain features available that hide a Tank completely. The ruins hide troops so-so but not vehicles, especially considering these later editions movement and shooting rates . When real los blocking terrain is made it crowds the board so much that players don't use it.
We try the fix of calling certain terrain as los blocking but arguments always seem to ensue over which piece and how elevated units are affected
Not trying to be insulting, but if the terrain where you play is limited then it is the responsibiltiy of the players to make that change. If you don't like the types of LOS blocking terrain that you can make, I don't know what to tell you. But you were the one saying that there was no LOS blockers where you play, again not a gaming system problem, a location/player choice problem. YOu can make homemade ruins that Block site to everything, tall hills, and other features. If you/the group you play with don't like these things, then they don't like LOS blocking terrain...just seems like one of the gripes you have with the system is not a gripe with the system, but the environment in which you play.
Breng77 wrote:
3.) If GW changed the scale the same problem would remain because they would just make you buy more small minis to play the game, rather than making the game actually cost less.
It might seem that way but in truth it doesn't happen that way. Ask FoW players. Most players know how long a game takes and settle for the 1500 to 2000 point levels because that is a good game that usually lasts 2-3 hours. A board flooded with 4000 points of 15mm figures playing with current 40k rules would be a 5+ hour game. Most players wouldn't try that for a casual pick-up game.
Also, 4000+ point games would be apoc level and would be played on a 8-12 foot apoc table. If the points level ever got to the point of crowding the apoc tables then you are playing a weekend campain that would allow for reserve rules to control table crowding..
Not trying to be insulting, but if the terrain where you play is limited then it is the responsibiltiy of the players to make that change. If you don't like the types of LOS blocking terrain that you can make, I don't know what to tell you. But you were the one saying that there was no LOS blockers where you play, again not a gaming system problem, a location/player choice problem. YOu can make homemade ruins that Block site to everything, tall hills, and other features. If you/the group you play with don't like these things, then they don't like LOS blocking terrain...
Breng77 wrote:
In the end everyone is entitled to their opinion (I love 6th, though I agree some parts could have been implemented better), but if you are not digging it, move on to other games or if your playing 15mm (which presumably is with a small local group) you could also just stick with the old rules and 5th ed and call it a day.
And this is what I said in the op. I'm dropping 6th ed for now and am focusing on other systems/editions/different scale.
Which is your choice, and a fine one. I just don't see the need for everyone (not just directed at you, but I have seen it a lot lately) that decides to quit the game decides they need to deride the gaming system to justify their choice. Not everyone is going to like anything, it is fine to not do so, but it seems like you (and others) feel the need to convince everyone else that the game is bad and everyone should quit.
What games people prefer to play is down to personal choice.
Compared to other games 6th ed 40k rule set IS over complicated, counter intuitive , poorly balanced and random to the point it becomes diffuse.
Most people that play 40k , do so because of the asthetic of the game or their own level of personal investment.(Most play 40k despite the rules, not because of them.)
I can not think of ANY part of the 40k rule set that could not be replaced with a mechanic/resolution method that would make the rules more in synergy with the background, in a more straightforward way.
Because current 40k rules describe how WHFB is played.Then adds on vehicle rules USRs and special rules to mutate the gameplay into 'sort of 40k'.
Rather than start with core rules written for 'actual 40k.'
25 years later 40k STILL uses WHFB game mechanics .Why is that?
Whoah, with all those colors on the screen I ran to the doctor for a toxin screening! Almost swore I was on a trip or something. LOL
I would be ALL THE HECK down with writing core rules from ground up. Cool elements in Flames of War I'd love to see used in 40k. (i.e. Morale/Training chart) And to show enhanced Communication gear, use an action system similar to DnD 3.5 (i.e. Move and shoot in choice of order type stuff). Hell im sure theres something we could pull out of Mechwarrior CLIX battles. But...I are lazy!
I'd agree it's likely the majority for the UK (but that's been changing for a while gradually) but in the US the absolute reverse is true, people game in stores to a huge extent.
That simply is not true anywhere I've played. I've never even met a single person who enjoys playing in a store, including all of the people I've only ever talked to in a gaming store.
I love this. I hate playing pickup games at stores or even playing in stores with my friends. I like to play much more casual with more beer and more fun. I want to be able to pick and choose what rules we want to use without someone telling me i am wrong for doing so. It may come from moving to 40k from D&D but i think the rules are just there as a guideline and if you dont like a certain rule or would like it to be different and you and your friends agree on it then there ya go problem solved. no need to write to a toy company to get the latest rules update so you can use it to your advantage against some stranger. I LOVE 6th edition because it was written with dudes like me in mind. I do however understand how someone would be frustrated if they played purely for competetive reasons, might as well come up with your own ruleset for that since its not really what the guys that made 40k had in mind.
Breng77 wrote:
1.) I have never seen a 15mm 40k player (yes I googled them, but unless that is your area...no dice)
Is not having seen someone doing it a reason to not try it yourself?
Yes, indeed it is a reason. If I cannot find games, I don't want to spend the money, so if I am liking 40k as is why spend extra money to try to convince people to do something different.
Not having seen someone doing it is an excuse, as is your reply about spending money. There is a big difference in trying something and buying in whole sale. I did not say to spend money on it, I suggested for people to try it. This means, do as I did, get together with a friend who has FoW or some other 15mm armies and try a game using them as proxies.
I understand your resistance to the idea. It is an all to common attitude in this day and age of safety first and only take chances in a game, Many people are not comfortable trying new things (especially recent generations) and they will rationalize reasons to not venture into unknown territory. They want the comfort of knowing that others have gone there first and that there will be a crowd when they get there. Basically, they want to belong. If you don't want to try a 15mm proxy game simply because you are not comfortable being the one to break new ground in your area then just say so, rather than making an excuse.
I only suggested for people to try it because, from my perspective it improved the game drastically.
Breng77 wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
The LOS blocking terrain is a you and your area issue, most events I play in (and run) have a decent amount of LOS blocking terrain (and I am working to construct more). In reality this is an issue of lazyness in your area not an issue with the scale of the game.
Your slightly hostile and insulting post is amusing in that you don't know where I play. (Hint)One of the places is Fat Ogres in houston which has rediculous amounts of terrain. They have Bastions, A Fortress of redemption, 4 large boxes of Gale force 9 terrain, at least another 5-6 boxes of assorted (GW, FoW and Fantasy) and enough homemade terrain to cover 2 of the stores 6 dedicated game tables. Oh yeah, the store has its own homebuilt Space Hulk table.
The problem is that there are little to no natual terrain features available that hide a Tank completely. The ruins hide troops so-so but not vehicles, especially considering these later editions movement and shooting rates . When real los blocking terrain is made it crowds the board so much that players don't use it.
We try the fix of calling certain terrain as los blocking but arguments always seem to ensue over which piece and how elevated units are affected
Not trying to be insulting, but if the terrain where you play is limited then it is the responsibiltiy of the players to make that change. If you don't like the types of LOS blocking terrain that you can make, I don't know what to tell you. But you were the one saying that there was no LOS blockers where you play, again not a gaming system problem, a location/player choice problem. YOu can make homemade ruins that Block site to everything, tall hills, and other features. If you/the group you play with don't like these things, then they don't like LOS blocking terrain...just seems like one of the gripes you have with the system is not a gripe with the system, but the environment in which you play.
I invite you to take the time and to actually read what I typed and then look at your reply.
I ask you to do this because while you claim an attempt to not be insulting, this last reply borders on such and also comes across as being intentionally obtuse. I will try to explain with more clarity:
People often have differing views based upon there individual perceptions and understandings. If you note, I said that los blocking terrain is a problem. You think otherwise and then accuse me and my fellow gamers of being lazy.
I then explain that we have loads of terrain but little of it is true los blockers. Also, that what los blockers we have just aggravate the table crowding issue inherent to a 28mm game being played on a larger scale than it was designed for. Again, you say that it is a player choice issue implying that we are somehow doing something wrong.
Note, you have terrain that is fine for you. If I went to where you played I would, quite likely, find your terrain sub-standard and either not really block los or to be so large that it dominates the table. It depends upon perspective. I understand that you feel the terrain is fine and do not insult you for feeling/thinking that. Why can you not extend the same courtesy to those of us who think/feel differently?
I could continue until blue in the face but, you have made your mind set that 40k is pretty much perfect. As such, you will never be able to try a different scale with an open mind nor will you be able to see why others have a problem with the terrain. You will most likely write off the people who disagree as power gamers or haters. So, at this point, I propose that we will have to agree to disagree(a common outcome when dealing with 40k rules ).
Breng77 wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
In the end everyone is entitled to their opinion (I love 6th, though I agree some parts could have been implemented better), but if you are not digging it, move on to other games or if your playing 15mm (which presumably is with a small local group) you could also just stick with the old rules and 5th ed and call it a day.
And this is what I said in the op. I'm dropping 6th ed for now and am focusing on other systems/editions/different scale.
Which is your choice, and a fine one. I just don't see the need for everyone (not just directed at you, but I have seen it a lot lately) that decides to quit the game decides they need to deride the gaming system to justify their choice. Not everyone is going to like anything, it is fine to not do so, but it seems like you (and others) feel the need to convince everyone else that the game is bad and everyone should quit.
OK, here is where I have to point out a few things that seem to have escaped your notice.
A) The most fundamental concept of a forum is a place where ideas and issues are discussed freely. What you see as people deriding the game, is to the rest of us, a discussion about its flaws. The fact that you feel the need to be protective of a game of toy soldiers leads to the next points.
B) You made the choice to come into a thread that clearly stated in the opening post that this was to be a dicussion about what parts of 6th ed are ruining the game for many of us. Basically what does the community feel are the fatal flaws of this edition. Note, the subject was not a call for people to come in and argue that the game is fine. If that is how you feel then a one line post would be all you need to post.
C) Your choice to participate in this (or any thread) is questionable, when you consider that the subject is about flaws of the game, when by your own words are, " I am liking 40k " and "I love 6th". If you love the game, "Then why are you participating in a discussion that the very subject of which you disagree?".
I could understand if GW was paying you to white knight for them(wouldn't agree with such but could at least understand the motivation) but any way one looks at it, you are deliberately putting yourself into situations to argue rather than discuss.
This said, I wish you well and much gaming enjoyment.
I came to this thread purely wondering what you felt was wrong with the rule set. YES! Flyers are great, but that's not a problem with the rules for flyers. The problem is, IMO, that are under-priced. Scale? Whats wrong with the current one? los is only a problem if you want it to be. Go make some hills outa foam or plaster. Worked for me. Allies are a great thing for 40k too. While they do
open up the cheese, they allow many to make the army they want. In 5th, you would see the same kind of thing every time you went out. Now, I play a different list and different combos every week. Don't tell me everyone plays guard and Grey knights. Tomorrow we have a tournament that people form half the country are coming too. The most represented army is eldar, 9 people have them!. Grey knights only show up 4 times (2 as main, 2 as allies) and guard only 4 times too (all main) out of the 38 players.
Why should players HAVE to use LOS blocking terrain , to make up for over an crowded playing area, the game mechanics can not cope with?
When 40k moved from a skirmish game into a battle game-2nd to 3rd ed.WHY did the game mechanics not change to suit the new scale of the game?
GW wanting to sell more toy soldiers is understandable.GW are '..a minatures company first and foremost..' and 'in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children..' T.Kirby CEO and Chairman of the board of directors of GW.
However, I am sure they would sell more to players with a well defined intuitive rule set that was easy to learn and hard to master.(More tactical focus.)
(This is why GWs competitors are growing in support without needing to push their product through expencive B&M stores.)
Becuse of the focus on the easiest to please demoghraphic ,(children and collectors..who don't care about game play that much. )
This means the studio focus on the strategic elements where 'exclusive rules' mean the game progression is dependant on new models being included to expand strategic options.
Which plugs into the mentalitiy of selling toy soldiers , rather than selling a game system.
Objectivley looking at 6th ed, they simply increased the amount of randomness, shoe horned in GW models of flyers and terrain as 'must buy items'.
And what exactly did they 'fix'?
Just shifting the meta game to make buying new models because they are more effective, is not realy game development .Its more of a promoting sales of new releases...
Breng77 wrote:
1.) I have never seen a 15mm 40k player (yes I googled them, but unless that is your area...no dice)
Is not having seen someone doing it a reason to not try it yourself?
Yes, indeed it is a reason. If I cannot find games, I don't want to spend the money, so if I am liking 40k as is why spend extra money to try to convince people to do something different.
Not having seen someone doing it is an excuse, as is your reply about spending money. There is a big difference in trying something and buying in whole sale. I did not say to spend money on it, I suggested for people to try it. This means, do as I did, get together with a friend who has FoW or some other 15mm armies and try a game using them as proxies.
I understand your resistance to the idea. It is an all to common attitude in this day and age of safety first and only take chances in a game, Many people are not comfortable trying new things (especially recent generations) and they will rationalize reasons to not venture into unknown territory. They want the comfort of knowing that others have gone there first and that there will be a crowd when they get there. Basically, they want to belong. If you don't want to try a 15mm proxy game simply because you are not comfortable being the one to break new ground in your area then just say so, rather than making an excuse.
I only suggested for people to try it because, from my perspective it improved the game drastically.
No one in my area plays flames, so yes I would have to buy something to do this. I have done so before, and ended up with lots of stuff I never use and wasted money...so yes I would rather play a game I am enjoying than throw money at fixing things I don't find horribly wrong.
Breng77 wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
The LOS blocking terrain is a you and your area issue, most events I play in (and run) have a decent amount of LOS blocking terrain (and I am working to construct more). In reality this is an issue of lazyness in your area not an issue with the scale of the game.
Your slightly hostile and insulting post is amusing in that you don't know where I play. (Hint)One of the places is Fat Ogres in houston which has rediculous amounts of terrain. They have Bastions, A Fortress of redemption, 4 large boxes of Gale force 9 terrain, at least another 5-6 boxes of assorted (GW, FoW and Fantasy) and enough homemade terrain to cover 2 of the stores 6 dedicated game tables. Oh yeah, the store has its own homebuilt Space Hulk table.
The problem is that there are little to no natual terrain features available that hide a Tank completely. The ruins hide troops so-so but not vehicles, especially considering these later editions movement and shooting rates . When real los blocking terrain is made it crowds the board so much that players don't use it.
We try the fix of calling certain terrain as los blocking but arguments always seem to ensue over which piece and how elevated units are affected
Not trying to be insulting, but if the terrain where you play is limited then it is the responsibiltiy of the players to make that change. If you don't like the types of LOS blocking terrain that you can make, I don't know what to tell you. But you were the one saying that there was no LOS blockers where you play, again not a gaming system problem, a location/player choice problem. YOu can make homemade ruins that Block site to everything, tall hills, and other features. If you/the group you play with don't like these things, then they don't like LOS blocking terrain...just seems like one of the gripes you have with the system is not a gripe with the system, but the environment in which you play.
I invite you to take the time and to actually read what I typed and then look at your reply.
I ask you to do this because while you claim an attempt to not be insulting, this last reply borders on such and also comes across as being intentionally obtuse. I will try to explain with more clarity:
People often have differing views based upon there individual perceptions and understandings. If you note, I said that los blocking terrain is a problem. You think otherwise and then accuse me and my fellow gamers of being lazy.
I then explain that we have loads of terrain but little of it is true los blockers. Also, that what los blockers we have just aggravate the table crowding issue inherent to a 28mm game being played on a larger scale than it was designed for. Again, you say that it is a player choice issue implying that we are somehow doing something wrong.
Note, you have terrain that is fine for you. If I went to where you played I would, quite likely, find your terrain sub-standard and either not really block los or to be so large that it dominates the table. It depends upon perspective. I understand that you feel the terrain is fine and do not insult you for feeling/thinking that. Why can you not extend the same courtesy to those of us who think/feel differently?
I could continue until blue in the face but, you have made your mind set that 40k is pretty much perfect. As such, you will never be able to try a different scale with an open mind nor will you be able to see why others have a problem with the terrain. You will most likely write off the people who disagree as power gamers or haters. So, at this point, I propose that we will have to agree to disagree(a common outcome when dealing with 40k rules ).
Perhaps you would not like the terrain I typically play with. This begs the question how is this a 6th ed problem? Wasn't scale the same in 5th? Why was this not an issue then? Furthermore I hardly think 40k is perfect, no game is nor will it ever be. There are plenty of problems, I just happen not to agree with most of yours as being problems with the game system. My issues with 40k 6th ed: Double force org is heavy handed and could have been handled better to allow for better expansion as points increase (try adding one slot at a time not another army.), Allies matrix could have been more balanced, it fits fluff(somewhat) but as such heavily favors imperial armies(forces of Order, Neurtality, and Disorder, would have been more balanced depending on how you break it up.), ATSKNF confering to any squad, True line of sight is now and has always been a poor gameplay mechanic(abstract terrain makes for a better game), I also have small issues with the WS chart (high WS is relatively meaningless after a point), the cover save mechanic, (cover should go back to being a modifier not a save, less saves = shorter games). There are more, none of them however have me wanting to quit the game (elsewise I would have done so long ago, and not felt the need to vent about it on the internet trying to convince others how bad the game is.
Breng77 wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
In the end everyone is entitled to their opinion (I love 6th, though I agree some parts could have been implemented better), but if you are not digging it, move on to other games or if your playing 15mm (which presumably is with a small local group) you could also just stick with the old rules and 5th ed and call it a day.
And this is what I said in the op. I'm dropping 6th ed for now and am focusing on other systems/editions/different scale.
Which is your choice, and a fine one. I just don't see the need for everyone (not just directed at you, but I have seen it a lot lately) that decides to quit the game decides they need to deride the gaming system to justify their choice. Not everyone is going to like anything, it is fine to not do so, but it seems like you (and others) feel the need to convince everyone else that the game is bad and everyone should quit.
OK, here is where I have to point out a few things that seem to have escaped your notice.
A) The most fundamental concept of a forum is a place where ideas and issues are discussed freely. What you see as people deriding the game, is to the rest of us, a discussion about its flaws. The fact that you feel the need to be protective of a game of toy soldiers leads to the next points.
B) You made the choice to come into a thread that clearly stated in the opening post that this was to be a dicussion about what parts of 6th ed are ruining the game for many of us. Basically what does the community feel are the fatal flaws of this edition. Note, the subject was not a call for people to come in and argue that the game is fine. If that is how you feel then a one line post would be all you need to post.
C) Your choice to participate in this (or any thread) is questionable, when you consider that the subject is about flaws of the game, when by your own words are, " I am liking 40k " and "I love 6th". If you love the game, "Then why are you participating in a discussion that the very subject of which you disagree?".
I could understand if GW was paying you to white knight for them(wouldn't agree with such but could at least understand the motivation) but any way one looks at it, you are deliberately putting yourself into situations to argue rather than discuss.
This said, I wish you well and much gaming enjoyment.
A.) A discusson that begins talking about at "fatal" flaw indicates that the flaw is something that is true for every one and that the game is inherently bad because of it. Maybe had you phrased it as, I felt like something felt wrong about the game to me....and figured out what was bothering me.... Instead you make wholesale statements about that the scale makes for non-tactical play (I disagree), and state that LOS blocking terrain is an issue (your opinion.). Which you do caption prior to stating them.
B.) So you are allowed to express your opinions and if I disagree, then I should not say a word..ok got it.
c.)Perhaps you are right, then again this is about the 10th such thread I have seen, and it gets tiresome to have people constantly bitch about things, it is bad for the community at large. What it comes down to is that is sounds like you wanted a thread...just listing negative things about the game (something I consider bad for the community.), having not disagreement with your opinions, and just having people agree. But maybe I'm way off.
I think instead of framing this discussion as an "I'm quitting 40k because of 6th ed discussion, and I feel the need to share why" You would, assuming you are enjoying 15mm 40k. Have been better framing it as a 15mm 40k discussion. How it works, why you think it is better than the normal game, and other rules tweaks you are making to the system that you feel improve the feel of the game.
Not everyone needs to enjoy the same things, I would just rather see the changes framed in a postive constructive manner (hey, I am creating my own 40k spin off of sorts, and really enjoying it), than a negative one (40k sucks, its no fun, and here is why.)
Beachhead Assault(Rough v0.01, something I want to do for a friend of mine):
Choose an attacker and defender. The defender designs the board and his list, chooses his deployment zone(s), and places three objectives. Then shows the board to the attacker, half his list in unit type and numbers and primary gear but not auxillary gear(like grenades/markerlights/psyker powers that he chose) and deployment zones. Play around with how you choose to reveal the defender list(how much is revealed, how randomly). The defender also points out two objectives that hes placed on the board, not the third, that will have to be revealed on turn one of the game. The attacker then takes a week to prepare a list and decide on his deployment zone maintaining some distance from the defenders as you see fit, and where to place one additional objective.
There, now weve made it an official Proposed rule thread!
This sounds awesome. I am going to try it sometime.
6th edition is an acceptable set of rules. Comparing them to other games is pretty silly, since GW exists to profit and produce models. If you are playing 40k for the gameplay and not the fluff or modeling, then yes you're going to be disappointed. The game is not "real" enough for some. That's fine. It's created to be a casual game played with friends where the rules are fluid and people have a good time. If you can't muster a casual gaming group that agrees to these stipulations, it will be difficult for you to enjoy any war game. If you enjoy something else, feel free to play it, but everyone still playing 6th are not lost sheep looking for guidance. Many, many people enjoy the comradery of a rousing game of shenanigans.
I will continue playing 6th edition and buying my models from eBay to avoid price spikes. I genuinely hope you enjoy whatever 15mm thing you're talking about.
Hi hubbsey.
You say 6th ed is an 'acceptable' set of rules.(By what definition do you use the term acceptable?)
Then saying comparing these rules to other rules is pointless, as they are not written for game play but short term sale of the latest minature releases?
Where as other rule sets that ARE written for game play attract more long term gamers who generate more interest and grow the game system long term ..
And then go on to say that the MAIN FUNCTION of a rule set, to deliver quality game play , does NOT apply somehow to 40k.
Lots of games are 'not real' eg based on reality, but flights of fantasy and science fiction.But they still manage to be written with clarity brevity and elegance.
6th ed rules ARE NOT FLUID , they are over complicated and diffuse.(Comparitively )
IF you and you mates are prepared to ignore the issues and put the work in to enjoy 40k, or lower your expectation to suit , that is absolutely fine.Enjoy the game your way.
But please do not say people pointing out the flaws in the rule set are wrong , simply because you choose to ignore them.
Imagine a rule set for 40k that was written for 40ks game play.A well defined intuitive elegant rule set...That MORE people could enjoy...Why would this be bad?
Everything plays the same or better, but the rules do not get in the way...Perhaps if more people played 40k, GW would NOT have to hike prices to make up for FALLING sales volumes?
Accepting 'product promotion' instead of 'actual rules development ' is only going to kill off 40k eventually.
As more and more players switch to other game systems that actualy have game development.
MOST people complaining about 40k rules WANT THEM TO IMPROVE.The others just quit and move to another game system.(As its a lot less effort.)
Oh certainly. Blood Angels moving 18" in a Rhino, deploying 2", shooting twice, then charging at S5 I5, killing a unit, then moving 6" into assault with another unit was clearly the best edition?
Bolters/Bolt Pistols shot once on the move in v3. If you couldn't blunt the rhino rush, you could certainly deny the charge by not deploying up to the edge of the deployment zone. Sure, rhino rush was prevalent, but so were ways of stopping it. Heck... Anything other than shaking the vehicle blunted this tactic, and if you didn't have enough firepower, remember that tactic REFUSED FLANK?
Ledabot wrote:I came to this thread purely wondering what you felt was wrong with the rule set. YES! Flyers are great, but that's not a problem with the rules for flyers. The problem is, IMO, that are under-priced. Scale? Whats wrong with the current one? los is only a problem if you want it to be. Go make some hills outa foam or plaster. Worked for me. Allies are a great thing for 40k too. While they do
open up the cheese, they allow many to make the army they want. In 5th, you would see the same kind of thing every time you went out. Now, I play a different list and different combos every week. Don't tell me everyone plays guard and Grey knights. Tomorrow we have a tournament that people form half the country are coming too. The most represented army is eldar, 9 people have them!. Grey knights only show up 4 times (2 as main, 2 as allies) and guard only 4 times too (all main) out of the 38 players.
A)Welcome to the thread. We will probably have opposing points of view, which seems to be the norm for us, and thats ok. I just hope you bring the thought provoking arguments that I know you are capable of rather than the off the cuff reply above.
B)You say,"YES! Flyers are great", which seems to imply that my main problem with them is that they are "too" good. This is not the primary cause for my dislike of the fliers. Yes they are powerful and due to how GW buggers things up with its release system there is definitely a power imbalance that is an obvious ploy to get the community to "buy moar stuff". This is not what kills it for me.
As I've already stated earlier in this thread, the fliers create a logic break that I just can't ignore. It breaks the suspension of disbelief and for a game that is billed as cinematic this is the ultimate sin. In cinema you don't ever want to do something that makes the watcher acutely aware that they are watching a movie. The only exception to this is for comedic purposes. Now different people have different thresholds for what will break suspension of disbelief and my limits were already stretched pretty far by the scale issues in the game. An aircraft circling an area smaller than a football field at supersonic speeds doesn't just break the threshold, it shatters it.
Yes, the game is set way in the future but there is just to much conflict with the gothic dark age of technology abilities of the ground units.
C)The problem with the scale is that GW has increased the average army size and on table speed to the point that it has slowed the level of gameplay. What I am getting at is that the game was originally designed to be played at the rogue trader 500 to 1,250 point level. Thing is that a rogue trader 1,250 point army is would be about a 900 point 5th/6th ed army. Used to be, only the Eldar/DE factions had enough speed to cross the majority of the board in a single turn, that was no longer true after the 5th ed codices started to arrive.
The combination of Cheaper units, avg game size increasing and the majority of the IoM getting Eldar speed. has effectively shrunk the table to the point that the game now has one primary tactic. The tactic of choosing which of the newest codices to use. Hence my comment about retarding the level of game play. In 3rd and 4th ed a canny tactician could, to some extent, make up for having an outmatched force.
To describe the differences between the 3rd-4th ed and 5th-6th ed gameplay I'll use a playground analogy;
3rd-4th ed were like two kids playing tag, hide & seek and war all in one.
5th-6th ed is like 2 kids sitting in a sand box slamming their Tonka trucks into one another head on.
D)We will just have to disagree about the los blocking terrain. If you cannot admit that 40k is being played on a larger scale than originally designed or intended, then discussion about how the table crowding and scale issues make for problems with los blocking terrain will be pointless.
E)Never tried to tell you that everyone plays IG and Grey Knights. And yes, 6th ed has reduced the eldar to being the ally of choice so the number signed up for the tourney is no surprise. What is odd is that 3 armies make up 15-17 out of 38 armies in the tourney you mentioned. Be interesting to find out how many 'Crons are in that list. Would also be interesting to see which armies are not being represented.
Breng77 wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
I ask you to do this because while you claim an attempt to not be insulting, this last reply borders on such and also comes across as being intentionally obtuse. I will try to explain with more clarity:
People often have differing views based upon there individual perceptions and understandings. If you note, I said that los blocking terrain is a problem. You think otherwise and then accuse me and my fellow gamers of being lazy.
I then explain that we have loads of terrain but little of it is true los blockers. Also, that what los blockers we have just aggravate the table crowding issue inherent to a 28mm game being played on a larger scale than it was designed for. Again, you say that it is a player choice issue implying that we are somehow doing something wrong.
Note, you have terrain that is fine for you. If I went to where you played I would, quite likely, find your terrain sub-standard and either not really block los or to be so large that it dominates the table. It depends upon perspective. I understand that you feel the terrain is fine and do not insult you for feeling/thinking that. Why can you not extend the same courtesy to those of us who think/feel differently?
I could continue until blue in the face but, you have made your mind set that 40k is pretty much perfect. As such, you will never be able to try a different scale with an open mind nor will you be able to see why others have a problem with the terrain. You will most likely write off the people who disagree as power gamers or haters. So, at this point, I propose that we will have to agree to disagree(a common outcome when dealing with 40k rules ).
Perhaps you would not like the terrain I typically play with. This begs the question how is this a 6th ed problem? Wasn't scale the same in 5th? Why was this not an issue then? Furthermore I hardly think 40k is perfect, no game is nor will it ever be. There are plenty of problems, I just happen not to agree with most of yours as being problems with the game system. My issues with 40k 6th ed: Double force org is heavy handed and could have been handled better to allow for better expansion as points increase (try adding one slot at a time not another army.), Allies matrix could have been more balanced, it fits fluff(somewhat) but as such heavily favors imperial armies(forces of Order, Neurtality, and Disorder, would have been more balanced depending on how you break it up.), ATSKNF confering to any squad, True line of sight is now and has always been a poor gameplay mechanic(abstract terrain makes for a better game), I also have small issues with the WS chart (high WS is relatively meaningless after a point), the cover save mechanic, (cover should go back to being a modifier not a save, less saves = shorter games). There are more, none of them however have me wanting to quit the game (elsewise I would have done so long ago, and not felt the need to vent about it on the internet trying to convince others how bad the game is.
1)Yes, for me, the scale was a problem in 5th ed. I laboured through 5th ed with my Tau and Eldar patiently awaiting for the GW pendulum to swing back the other way. I had a lot of hope for 6th ed. My Tau were getting new life and at first glance it looked like tatical game play was returning. Then I played some games...and something just wasn't sitting right. The more I played the more I disliked the new system.
The list of things that I disliked grew to include:
The little kids slamming toy trucks together level of tactics/gameplay(Scale).
KP's still being around.
The rediculousness of a fighter aircraft performing low altitude strikes while the units are in close proximity.
Same aircraft circling a 72 yd by 48 yd space at supersonic speeds.
Inability to put appropriat amounts of terrain on board without choking off movement due to model interference with terrain pieces.
Faction imbalance being intentionally the worst in the history of the game inan effort to force "allies" sales.
The decline in both player base and game quality around the whole country
And finally, Notepad/markerhammer- too many new things requiring markers or notes to keep track of.(Game long effects, Hull points just to name a couple). The extra markers are crowding the table even more. Just the shear number of minor things that constantly interupt and prevent the game from being immersive. Between the book keeping and the interuptions the game is becoming like the job that I am trying to get away from by playing the game.
2)Thank you for finally contributing to the discussion. While I disagree with your view on true los I agree with most of the other issues you posted. ATSKNF, Double FOC, Allies matrix I absolutely agree need work.
3)See point number 2? That is discussing. If we could bring back this lost art then the player base might be able to come to a consensus and then use another lost art (snail mail complaint letters) to encourage a positive change in game and the company. The internet is a wonderful tool for discussing things but for some reason companies don't take email comlaints nearly as seriously as the written/typed letter sent through the mail.
You see, I don't hate GW or the game, just don't like this edition.
Breng77 wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
A) The most fundamental concept of a forum is a place where ideas and issues are discussed freely. What you see as people deriding the game, is to the rest of us, a discussion about its flaws. The fact that you feel the need to be protective of a game of toy soldiers leads to the next points.
B) You made the choice to come into a thread that clearly stated in the opening post that this was to be a dicussion about what parts of 6th ed are ruining the game for many of us. Basically what does the community feel are the fatal flaws of this edition. Note, the subject was not a call for people to come in and argue that the game is fine. If that is how you feel then a one line post would be all you need to post.
C) Your choice to participate in this (or any thread) is questionable, when you consider that the subject is about flaws of the game, when by your own words are, " I am liking 40k " and "I love 6th". If you love the game, "Then why are you participating in a discussion that the very subject of which you disagree?".
I could understand if GW was paying you to white knight for them(wouldn't agree with such but could at least understand the motivation) but any way one looks at it, you are deliberately putting yourself into situations to argue rather than discuss.
This said, I wish you well and much gaming enjoyment.
A.) A discusson that begins talking about at "fatal" flaw indicates that the flaw is something that is true for every one and that the game is inherently bad because of it. Maybe had you phrased it as, I felt like something felt wrong about the game to me....and figured out what was bothering me.... Instead you make wholesale statements about that the scale makes for non-tactical play (I disagree), and state that LOS blocking terrain is an issue (your opinion.). Which you do caption prior to stating them.
B.) So you are allowed to express your opinions and if I disagree, then I should not say a word..ok got it.
c.)Perhaps you are right, then again this is about the 10th such thread I have seen, and it gets tiresome to have people constantly bitch about things, it is bad for the community at large. What it comes down to is that is sounds like you wanted a thread...just listing negative things about the game (something I consider bad for the community.), having not disagreement with your opinions, and just having people agree. But maybe I'm way off.
I think instead of framing this discussion as an "I'm quitting 40k because of 6th ed discussion, and I feel the need to share why" You would, assuming you are enjoying 15mm 40k. Have been better framing it as a 15mm 40k discussion. How it works, why you think it is better than the normal game, and other rules tweaks you are making to the system that you feel improve the feel of the game.
Not everyone needs to enjoy the same things, I would just rather see the changes framed in a postive constructive manner (hey, I am creating my own 40k spin off of sorts, and really enjoying it), than a negative one (40k sucks, its no fun, and here is why.)
A)Actually the discussion opened with a call for an open discussion about the issues/flaws (not fatal flaws)that players are having. The fatal flaws line came later in the post and was properly prefaced with "IMO" or some other qualifier expressing that this was a personal issue that I had with the system. Go back and re-read the op again. It seems that you are so busy being protective of the game that you are seeing what is not there. If you are getting that my opening post was a dictation of what others should belive then the problem lies with what you are inferring, not what was written.
B)A swing and a miss. The point was that in a discussion about various issues players might be having you either contribute with an issue yourself and participate in the discussion or you post once saying that you are fine with the game and leave off. To constantly post saying that the topic is wrong and that posters are wrong and whining is to make yourself appear trollish. This is because you are not on-topic nor are you contributing to the discussion.
If you don't like the discussion....then you always have the freedom to not perticipate in or read the thread.
C)Again, if you don't like theads like this then why are you getting involved with them. Is it because you believe that if you don't agree then those who do are wrong and need to be quieted/corrected?
*Your sweeping statement that such threads are, "bad for the community at large' is amusingly ironic. You wrongfully accuse me of making such statement then turn around and actually make one yourself.
**I disagree that players discussing their greivances with the edition is bad. As I stated in point #3 up above, such discussions can be very helpful if people actually discuss and then act when a concensus is reached.
D)I agree that not everyone needs to enjoy the same things. My question is, "If you really feel that way then why are you trying so hard to convince me that I am wrong for my reason in moving to something different? Why are you trying so hard to say that I am discussing wrong?".
Note- I played my Tau all through 5th and now, right on the eve of getting a new codex, I'm quitting the edition that is suppossed to be favorable for them. I have 12000+ points in Tau alone, more in Eldar and feel that I have a right to discuss with the community at large why I am dropping this edition at this time. Also, I have been on this forum long enough to know that, as long as it is not in violation of Dakka Dakka's rules, I have the right to start and frame my threads in any manner I damn well please.
Thanks for finally contributing with some of the issues that you have with 6th ed.
Hi focusedfire.
Just read you post and realised I felt exactly the same as you , but 2 editions before!
Rt and 2nd ed were originaly a RPG/ skirmish game hybrid , which got streamlined a bit ,(still over complicated and fussy , but characterful,) into a larger Skirmish game.
And the characterful fun , sort of made up for the over complication... (ref books Ere We Go and Waaagh The orks!)
3rd ed and 4th ed seemed to just cram more models on the table and reduce the character of the game, to a 'bland battle game'.
5th and 6th edition carried on increasing the model count until' the bland battle game' turned into a 'diffuse dice rollathon.'
To use your analogy..
To describe the differences between the Rt-2nd ed and 5th-6th ed gameplay I'll use a playground analogy;
Rt and 2nd ed were like two kids playing tag, hide & seek and war all in one.
3rd-4th ed is like 2 kids sitting in a sand box slamming their Tonka trucks into one another head on.
5th -6th is like 2 kids showing each other more and more 'shiney new toys' until one runs out.(A game of top trumps with minis.)
40k needs a rule set written specificaly for it IMO.
(We are trying to do this in the 40k in 40 pages thread.)
Ledabot wrote:I came to this thread purely wondering what you felt was wrong with the rule set. YES! Flyers are great, but that's not a problem with the rules for flyers. The problem is, IMO, that are under-priced. Scale? Whats wrong with the current one? los is only a problem if you want it to be. Go make some hills outa foam or plaster. Worked for me. Allies are a great thing for 40k too. While they do
open up the cheese, they allow many to make the army they want. In 5th, you would see the same kind of thing every time you went out. Now, I play a different list and different combos every week. Don't tell me everyone plays guard and Grey knights. Tomorrow we have a tournament that people form half the country are coming too. The most represented army is eldar, 9 people have them!. Grey knights only show up 4 times (2 as main, 2 as allies) and guard only 4 times too (all main) out of the 38 players.
A)Welcome to the thread. We will probably have opposing points of view, which seems to be the norm for us, and thats ok. I just hope you bring the thought provoking arguments that I know you are capable of rather than the off the cuff reply above.
B)You say,"YES! Flyers are great", which seems to imply that my main problem with them is that they are "too" good. This is not the primary cause for my dislike of the fliers. Yes they are powerful and due to how GW buggers things up with its release system there is definitely a power imbalance that is an obvious ploy to get the community to "buy moar stuff". This is not what kills it for me.
As I've already stated earlier in this thread, the fliers create a logic break that I just can't ignore. It breaks the suspension of disbelief and for a game that is billed as cinematic this is the ultimate sin. In cinema you don't ever want to do something that makes the watcher acutely aware that they are watching a movie. The only exception to this is for comedic purposes. Now different people have different thresholds for what will break suspension of disbelief and my limits were already stretched pretty far by the scale issues in the game. An aircraft circling an area smaller than a football field at supersonic speeds doesn't just break the threshold, it shatters it.
Yes, the game is set way in the future but there is just to much conflict with the gothic dark age of technology abilities of the ground units.
C)The problem with the scale is that GW has increased the average army size and on table speed to the point that it has slowed the level of gameplay. What I am getting at is that the game was originally designed to be played at the rogue trader 500 to 1,250 point level. Thing is that a rogue trader 1,250 point army is would be about a 900 point 5th/6th ed army. Used to be, only the Eldar/DE factions had enough speed to cross the majority of the board in a single turn, that was no longer true after the 5th ed codices started to arrive.
The combination of Cheaper units, avg game size increasing and the majority of the IoM getting Eldar speed. has effectively shrunk the table to the point that the game now has one primary tactic. The tactic of choosing which of the newest codices to use. Hence my comment about retarding the level of game play. In 3rd and 4th ed a canny tactician could, to some extent, make up for having an outmatched force.
To describe the differences between the 3rd-4th ed and 5th-6th ed gameplay I'll use a playground analogy;
3rd-4th ed were like two kids playing tag, hide & seek and war all in one.
5th-6th ed is like 2 kids sitting in a sand box slamming their Tonka trucks into one another head on.
D)We will just have to disagree about the los blocking terrain. If you cannot admit that 40k is being played on a larger scale than originally designed or intended, then discussion about how the table crowding and scale issues make for problems with los blocking terrain will be pointless.
E)Never tried to tell you that everyone plays IG and Grey Knights. And yes, 6th ed has reduced the eldar to being the ally of choice so the number signed up for the tourney is no surprise. What is odd is that 3 armies make up 15-17 out of 38 armies in the tourney you mentioned. Be interesting to find out how many 'Crons are in that list. Would also be interesting to see which armies are not being represented.
Breng77 wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
I ask you to do this because while you claim an attempt to not be insulting, this last reply borders on such and also comes across as being intentionally obtuse. I will try to explain with more clarity:
People often have differing views based upon there individual perceptions and understandings. If you note, I said that los blocking terrain is a problem. You think otherwise and then accuse me and my fellow gamers of being lazy.
I then explain that we have loads of terrain but little of it is true los blockers. Also, that what los blockers we have just aggravate the table crowding issue inherent to a 28mm game being played on a larger scale than it was designed for. Again, you say that it is a player choice issue implying that we are somehow doing something wrong.
Note, you have terrain that is fine for you. If I went to where you played I would, quite likely, find your terrain sub-standard and either not really block los or to be so large that it dominates the table. It depends upon perspective. I understand that you feel the terrain is fine and do not insult you for feeling/thinking that. Why can you not extend the same courtesy to those of us who think/feel differently?
I could continue until blue in the face but, you have made your mind set that 40k is pretty much perfect. As such, you will never be able to try a different scale with an open mind nor will you be able to see why others have a problem with the terrain. You will most likely write off the people who disagree as power gamers or haters. So, at this point, I propose that we will have to agree to disagree(a common outcome when dealing with 40k rules ).
Perhaps you would not like the terrain I typically play with. This begs the question how is this a 6th ed problem? Wasn't scale the same in 5th? Why was this not an issue then? Furthermore I hardly think 40k is perfect, no game is nor will it ever be. There are plenty of problems, I just happen not to agree with most of yours as being problems with the game system. My issues with 40k 6th ed: Double force org is heavy handed and could have been handled better to allow for better expansion as points increase (try adding one slot at a time not another army.), Allies matrix could have been more balanced, it fits fluff(somewhat) but as such heavily favors imperial armies(forces of Order, Neurtality, and Disorder, would have been more balanced depending on how you break it up.), ATSKNF confering to any squad, True line of sight is now and has always been a poor gameplay mechanic(abstract terrain makes for a better game), I also have small issues with the WS chart (high WS is relatively meaningless after a point), the cover save mechanic, (cover should go back to being a modifier not a save, less saves = shorter games). There are more, none of them however have me wanting to quit the game (elsewise I would have done so long ago, and not felt the need to vent about it on the internet trying to convince others how bad the game is.
1)Yes, for me, the scale was a problem in 5th ed. I laboured through 5th ed with my Tau and Eldar patiently awaiting for the GW pendulum to swing back the other way. I had a lot of hope for 6th ed. My Tau were getting new life and at first glance it looked like tatical game play was returning. Then I played some games...and something just wasn't sitting right. The more I played the more I disliked the new system.
The list of things that I disliked grew to include:
The little kids slamming toy trucks together level of tactics/gameplay(Scale).
KP's still being around.
The rediculousness of a fighter aircraft performing low altitude strikes while the units are in close proximity.
Same aircraft circling a 72 yd by 48 yd space at supersonic speeds.
Inability to put appropriat amounts of terrain on board without choking off movement due to model interference with terrain pieces.
Faction imbalance being intentionally the worst in the history of the game inan effort to force "allies" sales.
The decline in both player base and game quality around the whole country
And finally, Notepad/markerhammer- too many new things requiring markers or notes to keep track of.(Game long effects, Hull points just to name a couple). The extra markers are crowding the table even more. Just the shear number of minor things that constantly interupt and prevent the game from being immersive. Between the book keeping and the interuptions the game is becoming like the job that I am trying to get away from by playing the game.
2)Thank you for finally contributing to the discussion. While I disagree with your view on true los I agree with most of the other issues you posted. ATSKNF, Double FOC, Allies matrix I absolutely agree need work.
3)See point number 2? That is discussing. If we could bring back this lost art then the player base might be able to come to a consensus and then use another lost art (snail mail complaint letters) to encourage a positive change in game and the company. The internet is a wonderful tool for discussing things but for some reason companies don't take email comlaints nearly as seriously as the written/typed letter sent through the mail.
You see, I don't hate GW or the game, just don't like this edition.
Breng77 wrote:
focusedfire wrote:
A) The most fundamental concept of a forum is a place where ideas and issues are discussed freely. What you see as people deriding the game, is to the rest of us, a discussion about its flaws. The fact that you feel the need to be protective of a game of toy soldiers leads to the next points.
B) You made the choice to come into a thread that clearly stated in the opening post that this was to be a dicussion about what parts of 6th ed are ruining the game for many of us. Basically what does the community feel are the fatal flaws of this edition. Note, the subject was not a call for people to come in and argue that the game is fine. If that is how you feel then a one line post would be all you need to post.
C) Your choice to participate in this (or any thread) is questionable, when you consider that the subject is about flaws of the game, when by your own words are, " I am liking 40k " and "I love 6th". If you love the game, "Then why are you participating in a discussion that the very subject of which you disagree?".
I could understand if GW was paying you to white knight for them(wouldn't agree with such but could at least understand the motivation) but any way one looks at it, you are deliberately putting yourself into situations to argue rather than discuss.
This said, I wish you well and much gaming enjoyment.
A.) A discusson that begins talking about at "fatal" flaw indicates that the flaw is something that is true for every one and that the game is inherently bad because of it. Maybe had you phrased it as, I felt like something felt wrong about the game to me....and figured out what was bothering me.... Instead you make wholesale statements about that the scale makes for non-tactical play (I disagree), and state that LOS blocking terrain is an issue (your opinion.). Which you do caption prior to stating them.
B.) So you are allowed to express your opinions and if I disagree, then I should not say a word..ok got it.
c.)Perhaps you are right, then again this is about the 10th such thread I have seen, and it gets tiresome to have people constantly bitch about things, it is bad for the community at large. What it comes down to is that is sounds like you wanted a thread...just listing negative things about the game (something I consider bad for the community.), having not disagreement with your opinions, and just having people agree. But maybe I'm way off.
I think instead of framing this discussion as an "I'm quitting 40k because of 6th ed discussion, and I feel the need to share why" You would, assuming you are enjoying 15mm 40k. Have been better framing it as a 15mm 40k discussion. How it works, why you think it is better than the normal game, and other rules tweaks you are making to the system that you feel improve the feel of the game.
Not everyone needs to enjoy the same things, I would just rather see the changes framed in a postive constructive manner (hey, I am creating my own 40k spin off of sorts, and really enjoying it), than a negative one (40k sucks, its no fun, and here is why.)
A)Actually the discussion opened with a call for an open discussion about the issues/flaws (not fatal flaws)that players are having. The fatal flaws line came later in the post and was properly prefaced with "IMO" or some other qualifier expressing that this was a personal issue that I had with the system. Go back and re-read the op again. It seems that you are so busy being protective of the game that you are seeing what is not there. If you are getting that my opening post was a dictation of what others should belive then the problem lies with what you are inferring, not what was written.
B)A swing and a miss. The point was that in a discussion about various issues players might be having you either contribute with an issue yourself and participate in the discussion or you post once saying that you are fine with the game and leave off. To constantly post saying that the topic is wrong and that posters are wrong and whining is to make yourself appear trollish. This is because you are not on-topic nor are you contributing to the discussion.
If you don't like the discussion....then you always have the freedom to not perticipate in or read the thread.
C)Again, if you don't like theads like this then why are you getting involved with them. Is it because you believe that if you don't agree then those who do are wrong and need to be quieted/corrected?
Your sweeping statement that such threads are, "bad for the community at large' is amusingly ironic. You wrongfully accuse me of making such statement then turn around and actually make one yourself.
I disagree that players discussing their greivances with the edition is bad. As I stated in point #3 up above, such discussions can be very helpful if people actually discuss and then act when a concensus is reached.
D)I agree that not everyone needs to enjoy the same things. My question is, "If you really feel that way then why are you trying so hard to convince me that I am wrong for my reason in moving to something different? Why are you trying so hard to say that I am discussing wrong?".
Note- I played my Tau all through 5th and now, right on the eve of getting a new codex, I'm quitting the edition that is suppossed to be favorable for them. I have 12000+ points in Tau alone, more in Eldar and feel that I have a right to discuss with the community at large why I am dropping this edition at this time. Also, I have been on this forum long enough to know that, as it is not in violation of Dakka Dakka's rules, I have the right to start and frame my threads in any manner I damn well please.
Thanks for finally contributing with some of the issues that you have with 6th ed.
May the dice gods be fair to you,
ff
It is not so much that I feel that you need to agree it is more that when many people post negative arguments I feel the need to present the other side. Like I said I prefer discussions to be....here is an issue I have here is my proposed solution(which you have some of.)...rather than here is my laundry list of issues. Just a difference of opinion, that if I do ever choose to quit I won't feel he need to justify myself. But to each their own. You are correct, you are not breaking my forum rules, and are entitled to do as you please.
Roadkill Zombie wrote: No, the technological edge has been removed from the Imperium. Necrons have it just fine. As do Eldar. Those two armies don't plan a single battle nor fight one unless everything is in place and ready to go. If they get caught with their pants down they withdraw. and fight the battle right at a later date. They never have random generals leading their armies, and they certainly know what their objectives are before they go to war.
It's the stupid Imperials that fit the description of how you see 40k battles fought.
Meh, The logistics of those two armies pale in compared to the nightmare that imperial logistics would be. The Guard in many ways is so large they have very little opportunity to shift commanders, much less whole armies around to fit a specific purpose.
Necrons have their own hampering as their tech conceivably would destroy everyone if they really wanted, but they just seam to fight for whatever reason.
Eldar are hampered by having the most advanced technology that sucks! Seriously the shurikan catapult has to be one of the worst weapons in the game....and it used to be the best.
Right now warlord traits are free, I guess if you wanted to pay for something specific you should be able to, but it should be at a premium, while others who don't want to pay still get the free roll. I suppose you could do the same with psyker abilities.
I come from the days where 40k was very very random, you just had to adapt and overcome. It made the game more fun, people didn't take losses so hard, you just did the best you could. Which is actually more realistic, rarely in the real world do two evenly matched armies come to battle. I really liked the game more when it was not so competitive.
I agree with Andrew here - comparing it to the (presumably US) military, fighting on one small planet which it can circumnavigate in hours, is ridiculous. The Imperium has a huge issue with distance, and also with the 'honour' of various factions. The invasion of Fortress Planet X requires overwhelming firepower and siege tactics to break? Sorry, all that's available are 10 regiments of Teeshirtian Light Infantry and the only Space Marines within a squillion space-miles are the Crazy-Screaming-Chainsword Marines. Honour demands that Chapter Master Mental take command of the invasion. Go Imperium!
Even factions like the Eldar are limited by millenia of tradition and dwindling numbers. Again, the assault of Magic Crystal Planet requires overwhelming firepower, but Saim Hann only has two Fire Dragons left in it's temple so the Wild Riders want to have a go....
McNinja wrote:I mean really, what does a Librarian do before a battle? Pick a book of spells, close his eyes, point at a random spell? No, he learns his gak before the battle and doesn't waste time learning stupid spells that are ineffective or useless.
Well, in pretty much all the fluff, psykers don't 'learn their spells' at all. A psyker has a few intrinsic abilities, which they hone, but they don't 'learn' the same ones. If your regiment of IG is assigned a telepath, then that's that - they can't switch to a pyromancer before the battle.
The game rules actually allow you MORE control over this than is 'realistic' in the setting by allowing you to pick deck. If you were the Captain of the 2nd company of Generic Marines, you can't just pick what Librarian you have assigned to you - it's beyond your control.
Maybe it's not the 6th edition rules that are wrong (okay, maybe the way fliers and warlord traits work, but psykers are the dark god's bitches- it's their playing field after all. If you want to choose your powers, get the codex stuff.), maybe it's that we're playing it wrong.
I find the 6th ed rules to be quite fun on the small scale (ten marines, a razorback and and librarian for lolz), anywhere between 250-750 points works out quite well for "narrative" gameplay. At that scale it's boring without some of the flavor 6th provides.
For anything over 1,000 pts, yes it is kinda silly that roughly 50% of the rulebook needs house ruling to work properly.
I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.
If you want large games, you may want to consider trying Epic Armageddon (or epic 40k), the rules of which are free PDF files, and you can have a space marine battle company of 160 marines for £15 (GBP). Admittedly, it is still way overpriced, and retardedly small, but the rules are quite balanced. Plus it's awesome to spend only £30 and then be able to have 300+ troops all perfectly lined up and ready to be massacred.
On a side note:
Andrew1975 wrote: I think a good question is why do we have armies that are so focused on assault? Its a pew pew game, warhamer is the hack hack game! Overwatch was needed because without it the game was turning into a close combat game, that was getting out of hand. Too many units just suicide charging around the field to get into CC or melta range. It just felt weird.
Khorne demands slaughter, you can't stick an axe in someone half a kilometre away.
I can relate to the randomness of warlord traits, on more than one occasion I've had one of my friends roll for a trait only to get one that did absolutely nothing either because he had some special rule that already gave him the warlord trait or because my army made his trait useless, in which case I allowed him to re-roll his trait, I always play home games and we are pretty lax when it comes to stuff like that. we have tossed the idea around of allowing each other to hand pick their warlord trait but haven't tried it out yet. I also feel that rolling for charge distance could use some revising because I think it sucks when you fail your charge roll, then have to stand there unable to move and take a bunch of overwatch shots to the face, I think you should at least be able to move the charge distance you rolled but that's just my opinion
COOL! Some one was interested in Beachhead! Thanks H!
Out of curiosity, since my group has always been pretty much Gentlemanus Maximus about rules, (for instance, the necron player has self banned his one flyer in our ~500-750pt games) on average just chime in with how many houserule and equivalent you have. Any and all things you do to this already "Beer and Pretzels" game to tweak it. Just throw a number down. Like for us it's like five(?) in general and 1-3(90%sure) each in codex. This isn't a contest now so keep your answers tame please. Also want to say this is my FAV game to sandbox houserule in.
HondaTuning wrote: I can relate to the randomness of warlord traits, on more than one occasion I've had one of my friends roll for a trait only to get one that did absolutely nothing either because he had some special rule that already gave him the warlord trait or because my army made his trait useless, in which case I allowed him to re-roll his trait, I always play home games and we are pretty lax when it comes to stuff like that. we have tossed the idea around of allowing each other to hand pick their warlord trait but haven't tried it out yet. I also feel that rolling for charge distance could use some revising because I think it sucks when you fail your charge roll, then have to stand there unable to move and take a bunch of overwatch shots to the face, I think you should at least be able to move the charge distance you rolled but that's just my opinion
We've been playing it the following way. You roll your D6 and then pick from the options that number provides. They seem to be far less useless this way.
I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.
Dear gods, i hope not, i'm allready at a 40models count in a 2k game..., and i'm allready under the impression of having nothing on the table, so a 1k game?, gods allmighty, even has a newb i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...
Also, personnaly while i agree that there is bad rules designe with 6th, to me the LoS and Scale, is just a trivial matter, they are not gamebreaking, and gods knows that i allready struggle to paint 28mm models due to bad eyesight, but 15mm?, it would like being blind!
The Real flaws are elsewhere and far more lets say atainable, then redoing the whole game scale.
-The Nerfbat that CC has gotten, why the hell is nearly every CCUSR gimped if you assault 2 units?, even by just entering in contact because you don't have a choice, and don't start me on FC...
-Stupid HP rule, while i'm aware that wasting firepower on a rhino to see the thing survive a whole game, just because your foe rolled Shaken and Stunned for every Pen hit, is frustrating, having a rule that litteraly says" IF 5 Gobs spit on it, it is destroyed" is way more frustrating...
Was so difficult to NOT add the "0HP=Destroyed" line?, and just say that when at 0HP, you roll the damages, even if you make Glancings Hits on it?
-Disembarkment rules, boy was that a stupid choice they made, killed 40% of the armies efficientcy.
-Randomness all over the place!, why 2D6 assault range?, why not like Battle?, 6"+1D6" ?
-Focus Fire rule...
-Challengs
-Scenarios&Missions
ANd so much else who just doesn't make little sens
which is an issue with the release design of GW. Unless they were to release all books at the start of an edition, having a grenade rule that is not limited to 1 per squad, leads to them needing to errata every book to make it fair points wise. (All marines get Krak and frag for free (except templars). What about an IG blob throwing 50 S6 shots for 1 point per model...
I agree if they had balanced the grenades with that intent, having all models throw grenades would be fine. But they did not so throwing one is a good balance.
Just wanted to add my two pence to this as our gaming community of 6 friends have all switched back to WHFB because of the state of 40k.
We as casual gamers enjoy having a nice background or lore to many of the games we play but have found that as soon as we started playing more, people began naturally moving towards power and cookie cutter lists just to remain competitive.
When you are staring at an army book and only 1 or 2 units of it are honestly viable (especially as we do by banning named characters to forge our own narrative), the games become immensely frustrating. As a Necron player before, I started with multitudes of units to try them all out and see how they played, a few months down the line into 6th and all I have left that I find can play against most armies are solid blocks of Immortals and Anni Barges + the occasional doom scythe (we limit flyer use).
There's too much stuff that gets railed off the board within the first turn in 40k. it is truly Shoothammer this edition. It has seemed that all of us in our community have gone through some natural cycle of optimising a high number of weapons at lower AP's or just spamming a large number of high shot weapons and standing in lines and shooting 3 levels of hell out of each other.
Firstly, this is asbolutely boring to us. CC is where the game really begins to throw the random turns of event that you end up talking about for weeks in the future. Secondly, CC seems just about impossible to press unless you have a very fortunate deployment.
When things do get into CC, those armies that were once kings of it come up short. As a Necron player, my friends faces drop everytime MSS gets used. Then at the same time, I love the look of Lychguards and Triarch Praetorians, yet they are just an immense waste of points when I could have more Immortals.
Our transition back to WHFB has seemed timely and we much further enjoy it over the turn system of 40k. We are just not willing to entertain the exorbitant prices of 40k and GW's methodology for releasing new 40K armies.
We end up with months on end of inbalance and by the time a few more armies come out, your collected army suddenly has most of it's viable tactics stripped away in an instant. I'll tell you now, after removing the standard Croissant spam, necrons are an immensely boring army to play, however they have the potential to be one of the most exciting if even 30% of the codex was in some way usable.
Now they have at least errata'd the OP stuff, what's left is Croissants.
Bring on more WHFB is the message you get from our little community. 40K has just not been good to us as casual gamers since 6th Ed.
KnuckleWolf wrote: COOL! Some one was interested in Beachhead! Thanks H!
Out of curiosity, since my group has always been pretty much Gentlemanus Maximus about rules, (for instance, the necron player has self banned his one flyer in our ~500-750pt games) on average just chime in with how many houserule and equivalent you have. Any and all things you do to this already "Beer and Pretzels" game to tweak it. Just throw a number down. Like for us it's like five(?) in general and 1-3(90%sure) each in codex. This isn't a contest now so keep your answers tame please. Also want to say this is my FAV game to sandbox houserule in.
Yeah I like the cinematic opportunities and stories that can come out of games like that.
We houserule anything can ally with each other (so we can play BAGK Orks v Tyranids 3000), fortifications after terrain deployment, hand pick warlord traits, BAO missions, and are generally fairly relaxed about the strict rules. We just look to have fun and get a little day buzz going.
I say bring on 7th edition. 6th is a series of minigames. Deployment is a game, reserves are a game, warlord traits are a game, Look Out Sir! is a game, challenges are a game, dogfighting with aircraft is now a game thanks to Crusade of Fire, and Assault continues to be a game. I think that 6th ed is a perfect example of the whole being less than the sum of all of its parts. Now, I am enjoying it, and I love the new DA codex and models, but...6th ed imho shows how long-in-the-tooth 40k is as a system. It needs a ground-up redesign; a totally new ruleset. Love the fluff, love my models, don't even mind paying high prices (new job ftw) but the game mechanics lack any and all elegance.
p.s. I think fliers are a perfect example of GW understanding that they have a big, big problem. Push higher end models to pre-existing armies because we know that fewer and fewer people are starting new armies. Look for GW $200 single model units in the next 2 years that are not FW.
On the talk of 6th ed rules, me and a friend have decided on playing a campaign, with the following ideas:
Any battle played with the 6th ed ruleset should be roughly 1000 points, preferably less. This is because in small doses (read: low points) the 6th ruleset is actually quite good, by giving more flavour to a game. For example, Warboss Zrug and his band of drunken gun nuts are rather characterless under fith ed, being a warboss with twin shoota and powerklaw sitting with two groups of 10 shooty boyz. They move up, a heavy bolter SM tactical squad in cover shoots down one unit, and a small unit of assault marines takes out the rest. simple, straightforward, boring.
Under 6th, you get a game of:
What slowed strategy has this numskull of an ork conceived this time?
Warlord traits: What random acts of behavior shall this boss exhibit today?
Random charges: "WHO PUT STONES IN MY BOOTZ?" Random terrain: "Why did that ork choose to fight here?" Shooting when charged: Them boyz got some balls charging that gunline, or they're having a hilarious time spewing shots at those squishy humies!
Although I do have to admit that it only works if you're there to have a laugh, and you can explain away the randomness with orkoid illogicality.
For the larger battles, with an apocalyptic feel, we're planning on using Epic Armageddon, because the 6th ed rules become increasingly unwieldy and unbalanced the more points you put into a game. However, the opposite is true when you get into epic 40k games, where 1 formation vs 1 formation will be pretty unfair, but once you shove those points up skywards, there are all sorts of tactics, ploys, bluffs, counter-attacks to use, assault is still valid, and having a warlord titan on your sided costs only £30.75 GBP.
We as casual gamers enjoy having a nice background or lore to many of the games we play but have found that as soon as we started playing more, people began naturally moving towards power and cookie cutter lists just to remain competitive.
When you are staring at an army book and only 1 or 2 units of it are honestly viable (especially as we do by banning named characters to forge our own narrative), the games become immensely frustrating. As a Necron player before, I started with multitudes of units to try them all out and see how they played, a few months down the line into 6th and all I have left that I find can play against most armies are solid blocks of Immortals and Anni Barges + the occasional doom scythe (we limit flyer use).
These two statements are in direct conflict with each other. You and your group are clearly not as casual as you claim.
We as casual gamers enjoy having a nice background or lore to many of the games we play but have found that as soon as we started playing more, people began naturally moving towards power and cookie cutter lists just to remain competitive.
When you are staring at an army book and only 1 or 2 units of it are honestly viable (especially as we do by banning named characters to forge our own narrative), the games become immensely frustrating. As a Necron player before, I started with multitudes of units to try them all out and see how they played, a few months down the line into 6th and all I have left that I find can play against most armies are solid blocks of Immortals and Anni Barges + the occasional doom scythe (we limit flyer use).
These two statements are in direct conflict with each other. You and your group are clearly not as casual as you claim.
I do not believe casual gaming and liking to also be able to win occasionally are directly conflicting.
There's only so many times you will play 40k if you field cool units which always lead you to losing.
I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.
Dear gods, i hope not, i'm allready at a 40models count in a 2k game..., and i'm allready under the impression of having nothing on the table, so a 1k game?, gods allmighty, even has a newb i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...
-The Nerfbat that CC has gotten, why the hell is nearly every CCUSR gimped if you assault 2 units?, even by just entering in contact because you don't have a choice, and don't start me on FC...
-Stupid HP rule, while i'm aware that wasting firepower on a rhino to see the thing survive a whole game, just because your foe rolled Shaken and Stunned for every Pen hit, is frustrating, having a rule that litteraly says" IF 5 Gobs spit on it, it is destroyed" is way more frustrating...
-Was so difficult to NOT add the "0HP=Destroyed" line?, and just say that when at 0HP, you roll the damages, even if you make Glancings Hits on it?
To Selym, absolutely, but I like the challenge of small games. I see these bigger games(like 2k+) and can't personally(please note, personally) understand why you'd play a game that crammed full of stuff. It just looks like a shooting gallery/dice bath. I see no strategic maneuvering or notably clever positioning because you filled the whole board with stuff! It's like looking at a football game where both teams have thirty players on the field at once. There is nowhere to go! Nowhere to kick/throw the ball thats 'open'! It looks like a tactical blunder from the get go because no matter where you go there's just more bad guys. But that's just me.
But to Slayer...Huh? I think I understand your first sentence, but it's hard to tell. I just played an 850pt game with 34 models on the board as Tau against 30-35 models on the Eldar side.(epic game btw, fantastic duel between a lone 'insane heroism' Dire Avenger and an equally alone Gun Drone ) So I'm gonna guess your running like Grey knights or some equally point intensive army. So its this feeling you have of not having anything on the board that confounds me. Do you mean in relation to your opponent? Any commander is going to want more tools at his disposal, for sure. But I can't fathom this feeling of yours. Like, lets say you bring 3k points and your opponent does too, you net about anther 10-15 models, more clutter, and would you still feel like you don't have anything on the board? Just by comparison of your opponent having equally more? Please elaborate my good sir. To the other things you say I really dig your idea on hull points. But I feel like any game that has guns in it should hose CC by default. I love the idea of a game that has Chainswords and Power axes and whatnot. But seriously folks, remember Indianna Jones reaction to crazy sword guy!?
Shandara wrote:The weirdest:
Throwing Grenades, why can only 1 dude throw one?
I know right? At least now they can actually throw the thing! But yeah, that's totally a balance-to-cinematic thing. Allows for potential special rules that throw multiple grenades to come in the future though. Still funky as funk
Jedziah wrote:We as casual gamers enjoy having a nice background or lore to many of the games we play but have found that as soon as we started playing more, people began naturally moving towards power and cookie cutter lists just to remain competitive.
-When you are staring at an army book and only 1 or 2 units of it are honestly viable (especially as we do by banning named characters to forge our own narrative), the games become immensely frustrating. As a Necron player before, I started with multitudes of units to try them all out and see how they played, a few months down the line into 6th and all I have left that I find can play against most armies are solid blocks of Immortals and Anni Barges + the occasional doom scythe (we limit flyer use).
-There's too much stuff that gets railed off the board within the first turn in 40k. it is truly Shoothammer this edition. It has seemed that all of us in our community have gone through some natural cycle of optimising a high number of weapons at lower AP's or just spamming a large number of high shot weapons and standing in lines and shooting 3 levels of hell out of each other.
-Firstly, this is asbolutely boring to us. CC is where the game really begins to throw the random turns of event that you end up talking about for weeks in the future. Secondly, CC seems just about impossible to press unless you have a very fortunate deployment.
-We end up with months on end of inbalance and by the time a few more armies come out, your collected army suddenly has most of it's viable tactics stripped away in an instant. I'll tell you now, after removing the standard Croissant spam, necrons are an immensely boring army to play, however they have the potential to be one of the most exciting if even 30% of the codex was in some way usable.
Its the forty-first millennium. We have guns. This is natural to shoot things. The answer that good soldiers have developed since the American Civil War(or so, input oppinion here) is to keep your goram head down. Pro tip: Start in cover. I did lol a bit there because you said get 'railed' off the board and I play Tau. Again, Indianna Jones vs. Crazy Sword Guy! Despite it being the most manliest weapon ever, you still might want to question bringing a Chain Axe to a Melta fight. As to your now 'boring' Necrons, be proud that you refined your game down to that point man! Thats like when a Magic or other TCG/CCG player gets a deck tuned just right, its the reward for all that work. And notably the time they move on to start a new deck, or in your case army.
DarknessEternal wrote:
Jedziah wrote: Stuff. first two paragraphs notably. See above. I'm commenting on the reply.
These two statements are in direct conflict with each other. You and your group are clearly not as casual as you claim.
These two statements are not contradictory. It is not mutually exclusive to be a casual gamer and to want to weed out units/models that you don't have fun playing with because they are sub-par to another available option. That's just natural evolution to any game meta. It's that funky line between the initial "this model looks awesome!" reflex and the "This thing never does what I want it to" discovery. Interesting that you think otherwise. Now we agree to move on. (ACK! ninja'd lol)
Its the forty-first millennium. We have guns. This is natural to shoot things. The answer that good soldiers have developed since the American Civil War(or so, input oppinion here) is to keep your goram head down. Pro tip: Start in cover. I did lol a bit there because you said get 'railed' off the board and I play Tau. Again, Indianna Jones vs. Crazy Sword Guy! Despite it being the most manliest weapon ever, you still might want to question bringing a Chain Axe to a Melta fight. As to your now 'boring' Necrons, be proud that you refined your game down to that point man! Thats like when a Magic or other TCG/CCG player gets a deck tuned just right, its the reward for all that work. And notably the time they move on to start a new deck, or in your case army.
Glad you are laughing You make some very good points, however I don't see how the Necron Codex or 40k can be fun to collect and play if I am reduced to buying boxes of Immortals and Anni Barges. It makes no diversity for me to play, nor friends to play against.
I think I saw it in a post on WHFB that someone was quoted as saying 'The thing that makes a great and balanced army book is one which allows the gamer to field multiple army lists and combinations from a single book'
I am normally one that tries to field something a bit different, a bit 'new' and I've been the same whilst playing MTG too so I know that pain too
The Necron codex is one of those shining examples of something which could have been tremendous. Instead what we ended up with was for a long time, some seriously OP stuff which finally got erratad on one end and then some stuff on the other end which in use, simply doesn't add up to weight of its parts.
I used to have a tremendously fun Necron list to play during 5th which was almost entirely CC oriented. It was quirky, you didn't know the outcome but it made for some great fun battles we still talk about 5 months down the line. Under 6th edition , the army list can't get half way up the board or into combat before most of the squads are running and that is with some monstrously tough Necrons so I absolutely feel the pain of the Tyranid players out there.
I honestly can't put my finger on it, but something is just inherently wrong with how 6th Ed plays. We are not the first nor the last to feel that way. Anyways, we'll be over in WHFB kicking 6 flavours of Franz out of each other until we get an urge to play 40K again ;-)
I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.
Dear gods, i hope not, i'm allready at a 40models count in a 2k game..., and i'm allready under the impression of having nothing on the table, so a 1k game?, gods allmighty, even has a newb i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...
-The Nerfbat that CC has gotten, why the hell is nearly every CCUSR gimped if you assault 2 units?, even by just entering in contact because you don't have a choice, and don't start me on FC...
-Stupid HP rule, while i'm aware that wasting firepower on a rhino to see the thing survive a whole game, just because your foe rolled Shaken and Stunned for every Pen hit, is frustrating, having a rule that litteraly says" IF 5 Gobs spit on it, it is destroyed" is way more frustrating...
-Was so difficult to NOT add the "0HP=Destroyed" line?, and just say that when at 0HP, you roll the damages, even if you make Glancings Hits on it?
To Selym, absolutely, but I like the challenge of small games. I see these bigger games(like 2k+) and can't personally(please note, personally) understand why you'd play a game that crammed full of stuff. It just looks like a shooting gallery/dice bath. I see no strategic maneuvering or notably clever positioning because you filled the whole board with stuff! It's like looking at a football game where both teams have thirty players on the field at once. There is nowhere to go! Nowhere to kick/throw the ball thats 'open'! It looks like a tactical blunder from the get go because no matter where you go there's just more bad guys. But that's just me.
I was actually advocating the use of smaller games, as opposed to larger ones, for the same reasons you mentioned Hence "stopping armies at 1000 points", as an upper limit.
When i say that i have a 40-ish models count at 2k pts, i'm not kidding.
I run a classic World Eater list.
Kharn
Jugger Lord
16 Zerkers
10 Khorne CSM 2 Rhinos OR 2 Dreadclaws
5 Bikes
1 Heldrake
1 Mauler
1 Defiler
1 Land raider OR 1 Stormeagle
Now i have over 9kpts of WE & Demons(check my sig link), but lately we din't play much Apoc games.
So in our region 2k pts is the bare minimum for playing, we often play 3 to 4k games, so thts why my statement of 2k pts being very low for us.
Heck on the 20 core players of our FGG, 14 of them have over 100k pts armies..., wich lets say 5 of them have 2-3 Full SM Companies, others be Hordes&Hordes of Orks,Nids,Guards and Chaos, one of our player has 6 Warhounds and 2 Reavers, and our FLGS Owner has a Warlord made out of 3 SWAT-AT...
And i think that you have more strategy and manoeuvring to do in a bigger games, only because you have to think how to move your units, because that unit needs to be moved before this one, so that i can move this one, but i must not forget that if i move this one first, it will block the path for that one.
Opposed to smaller games where you don't need to be cautious of that, because you have all the place and freedom to move wherever you like without a worry.
Of course its better to set yourself a limit on how big the game is, otherwise you'll be overburied( well in my case at 4k pts i just have 80 models on the board...)
To Selym: Don't know how you missed it bro but I was backing you. I'm advocating for smaller games too, hence the same reasons, lol.
Back to Slayer:*whistles* Hot damn. Looks like 4 of your units comprise like half of your list! (Drake, Mauler, Defiler, Raider.) And notably those are large imprint-on-board models to boot! While your local collections are impressive of course, lets keep the show and tell discreet. This isn't about the most toys after all, lol. I'll admit I hadn't thought of your logistical nightmare as an outlet of strategy, but I could see your point. And if I may be so bold, despite the illusion of freedom to move anywhere you mentioned, that 850pt game I mentioned earlier, on turn two one unit was boxed in near the deployment zone on each side, and later my command squad (with jetpacks!) got boxed in with no real tactically gainful move available but to stand still and not shoot. So yes, you still have to be cautious. And mindful of your opponents range/movement too, s/he can also go anywhere. I still say having so many units on board that you have to think what order to move them in is too 'Napoleonic' to constitute modern warfare tactics and probably explains some peoples love of WHFB. Whether that constitutes 'more' or 'less' strategy I can't say. I don't believe there is a 'more or less' to strategy, just more in depth or complete strategy than your opponents. In the end I guess we just agree to disagree right? I think you should try a little 750pt game. Might discover something new.
I see what you want to say, i don't say that its something bad really, just that like (i forget his name) said , been limited to 1000pts to have an optimal gaming experience, isn't what i search in 40k.
if i wanted rules that worked, and where fine tuned for a game with like 20 modeles, i would be playing Warmachines or Helldorado or something, you know what i mean?
And yes i played a >1k pts game once, it was a Patrol tournament that we did for a change in 4th, i filled 5 Khorne Chosen, for 400pts..., i runned a Full Aspiring Champs squad, with each of them with MoK,Deamonic Armor&Aura, FnP, Demonic Speed, Khorne's Axe, Talisman of Burning Blood( 1) and 1 Collar of Khorne..., even did modeles specialy for the occasion, but at 400pts the unit, i never played them after.
Or maybe on an occasion or two, to show a new player how to play, but even so we where playing at 1250 or 1500.
Well all of this to say that imo, the points range you play isn't really something that should be in the core rules, its more something of personal tastes and views about the hobby.
But yeah, the advantage about small scale games, is that you can quickly do a rematch.
Lanrak wrote:Hi focusedfire.
Just read you post and realised I felt exactly the same as you , but 2 editions before!
*snip*
To use your analogy..
To describe the differences between the Rt-2nd ed and 5th-6th ed gameplay I'll use a playground analogy;
Rt and 2nd ed were like two kids playing tag, hide & seek and war all in one.
3rd-4th ed is like 2 kids sitting in a sand box slamming their Tonka trucks into one another head on.
5th -6th is like 2 kids showing each other more and more 'shiney new toys' until one runs out.(A game of top trumps with minis.)
40k needs a rule set written specificaly for it IMO.
(We are trying to do this in the 40k in 40 pages thread.)
Thanks for the reply and psuedo invite to the 40k in 40 pages thread. I agree that a ground up redo of 40k is probably GW's best path for 7th ed..
As to the preference between RT/2nd ed and 3rd to 4th ed., I still prefer 3rd-4th ed'.. RT/2nd ed had a little too much "character"for my tastes. I know that the issues were more to do with the rules for the factions than the base rule set. But, c'mon, any ruleset that allowed the mixing of the Solitair with Blind grenades and the Web of Skulls(?? or something much like it) had balance issues.
Thats right, I wasn't playing myself back then but was surrounded by those that did. I waited for 3.5 / 4th ed. to hop in because I felt the game had matured into a better balanced system. Back then the points hadn't dropped so much and the average pick-up game was still more in the 1250 pt range.
Selym wrote:Maybe it's not the 6th edition rules that are wrong (okay, maybe the way fliers and warlord traits work, but psykers are the dark god's bitches- it's their playing field after all. If you want to choose your powers, get the codex stuff.), maybe it's that we're playing it wrong.
I find the 6th ed rules to be quite fun on the small scale (ten marines, a razorback and and librarian for lolz), anywhere between 250-750 points works out quite well for "narrative" gameplay. At that scale it's boring without some of the flavor 6th provides.
So, you agree that 40K is being played on a scale larger than intended. Cool. Your recommendation, which I edited out to save on space, that the player base limit themselves is great and I agree. Only problem is getting other players to reduce their list size.
Larger games are easy for the player in that they don't have to work as hard on unit selection and loadouts. Once they get spoiled by having so many tools to use they have a hard time giving up that crutch for a more tactics oriented squad based game.
I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.
Dear gods, i hope not, i'm allready at a 40models count in a 2k game..., and i'm allready under the impression of having nothing on the table, so a 1k game?, gods allmighty, even has a newb i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...
Imho, 40 models in a 2000 pt game is fine for a Grey Knights build but, with any other 40k army, it would seem that you are making the newb mistake of spending to many points on the wargear and uber units.
Also, try a 500-1000 point game before you knock it. It will be a lot tougher than what you are used to if you play a good tactician and with an appropriate amount of terrain(Mre than what GW currently recommends).
Slayer le boucher wrote:
*snip*
Was so difficult to NOT add the "0HP=Destroyed" line?, and just say that when at 0HP, you roll the damages, even if you make Glancings Hits on it?
-Disembarkment rules, boy was that a stupid choice they made, killed 40% of the armies efficientcy.
-Randomness all over the place!, why 2D6 assault range?, why not like Battle?, 6"+1D6" ?
Though I disagree with the (Pro-cc focus)part of your post that I edited out to save space, I wanted to focus on the part where I agree with you. HP, Disembarkation and the randomness are all issues that need to go back to a previous edition or be reworked.
On the HP rule, how about. "Any glancing hits on a vehicle with 0 HP will inflict a shaken result and any penetrating hit on a vehicle with 0HP rolls on the damage table with a +1 added to any result(This is in addition to any bonuses recieved for high AP weaponry).
Shandara wrote:The weirdest:
Throwing Grenades, why can only 1 dude throw one?
On a real battlefield....One or Two guys throw grenades while the rest of the unit lays down cover/suppression fire. Though, I doubt that GW ever thought of this, They probably wrote the rule this way due to thats how it is shown in the movies.
Breng77 wrote:which is an issue with the release design of GW. Unless they were to release all books at the start of an edition, having a grenade rule that is not limited to 1 per squad, leads to them needing to errata every book to make it fair points wise. (All marines get Krak and frag for free (except templars). What about an IG blob throwing 50 S6 shots for 1 point per model...
I agree if they had balanced the grenades with that intent, having all models throw grenades would be fine. But they did not so throwing one is a good balance.
Absolutely agree. Also, I think that as new codices come out that you might see a "1 in 10" or a "1 in 5" can throw rule showing up for certain units.
Jedziah wrote:Just wanted to add my two pence to this as our gaming community of 6 friends have all switched back to WHFB because of the state of 40k.
*snip*
Firstly, this is asbolutely boring to us. CC is where the game really begins to throw the random turns of event that you end up talking about for weeks in the future. Secondly, CC seems just about impossible to press unless you have a very fortunate deployment.
A well written ruleset and proper scale setting would be very exciting. Also, as some one else said, WHFB is the cc game and 40K "should" be the shooting game.
If the game being shooty doesn't make for exciting game play then, rather than blaming the shooting portion, either it is a matter of personal preference or we need to look at the rules . FoW is an exciting game that revolves primarily around shooting, so I therefore propose that the issue is with the 40K ruleset.
To put it more accurately, the problem with 40K's shooting system is the scale it is played in. It is not as big of a deal with cc based armies because scale doesn't actually effect the cc mechanism. Scale affects los and cover and movement over long distances. CC is only about the last few feet before getting into hth and the melee itself.
Jedziah wrote:
*snip*
Our transition back to WHFB has seemed timely and we much further enjoy it over the turn system of 40k. We are just not willing to entertain the exorbitant prices of 40k and GW's methodology for releasing new 40K armies.
We end up with months on end of inbalance and by the time a few more armies come out, your collected army suddenly has most of it's viable tactics stripped away in an instant. I'll tell you now, after removing the standard Croissant spam, necrons are an immensely boring army to play, however they have the potential to be one of the most exciting if even 30% of the codex was in some way usable.
Now they have at least errata'd the OP stuff, what's left is Croissants.
Bring on more WHFB is the message you get from our little community. 40K has just not been good to us as casual gamers since 6th Ed.
My DE feel your pain. Also pretty much agree with everything above though I do find your last sentence hugely entertaining/ironic. Not because of anything you have said, rather for what the Casual Gamer Mafia said about the randomness and changes when 6th ed launched. The "CGM" all heralded 6th ed and its randomness as the best thing to happen to casual 40k play since beer & pretzels. If others feel as you do then the honeymoon is over and the CGM's contention that randomness = better has been proven wrong.
YakManDoo wrote:I say bring on 7th edition. 6th is a series of minigames. Deployment is a game, reserves are a game, warlord traits are a game, Look Out Sir! is a game, challenges are a game, dogfighting with aircraft is now a game thanks to Crusade of Fire, and Assault continues to be a game. I think that 6th ed is a perfect example of the whole being less than the sum of all of its parts. Now, I am enjoying it, and I love the new DA codex and models, but...6th ed imho shows how long-in-the-tooth 40k is as a system. It needs a ground-up redesign; a totally new ruleset. Love the fluff, love my models, don't even mind paying high prices (new job ftw) but the game mechanics lack any and all elegance.
p.s. I think fliers are a perfect example of GW understanding that they have a big, big problem. Push higher end models to pre-existing armies because we know that fewer and fewer people are starting new armies. Look for GW $200 single model units in the next 2 years that are not FW.
This post if full of win. Consider it exalted.
Slayer le boucher wrote:When i say that i have a 40-ish models count at 2k pts, i'm not kidding.
*snip*
in our region 2k pts is the bare minimum for playing, we often play 3 to 4k games, so thts why my statement of 2k pts being very low for us.
Heck on the 20 core players of our FGG, 14 of them have over 100k pts armies..., wich lets say 5 of them have 2-3 Full SM Companies, others be Hordes&Hordes of Orks,Nids,Guards and Chaos, one of our player has 6 Warhounds and 2 Reavers, and our FLGS Owner has a Warlord made out of 3 SWAT-AT...
More does not equal better.
As to your gaming area having a "bigger" model count.... You playing with Unky Roy, Ripper or Raven?? Wait, you said 100k not 250 k + points. (See how that works). Also the guys I mentioned enjoy the challenge of smaller games as well as the head on bash fest of larger games.
Slayer le boucher wrote:And i think that you have more strategy and manoeuvring to do in a bigger games, only because you have to think how to move your units, because that unit needs to be moved before this one, so that i can move this one, but i must not forget that if i move this one first, it will block the path for that one.
Opposed to smaller games where you don't need to be cautious of that, because you have all the place and freedom to move wherever you like without a worry.
Of course its better to set yourself a limit on how big the game is, otherwise you'll be overburied( well in my case at 4k pts i just have 80 models on the board...)
First) IMHO, What you descride above is being a traffic cop dealing with the gridlock of an over crowded board. This is not the same as tactics nor does it have any more difficulty than playing tetris.
I also find that the overcrowded board you described a tedious imposition upon your opponent who has to wait while you play drill team/marching band with which ever turtle/armour wall you are using.
Second) You said earlier in the thread that you have never played a 1000 point or under game and now you are trying to say that you know it isn't as challenging.
How can you make such a statement without ever having played a low point game on a properly set up board?
That you really haven't played 40K at its originally designed points level becomes even more clear when reading your comment where you say, " Opposed to smaller games where you don't need to be cautious of that, because you have all the place and freedom to move wherever you like without a worry.".
You see, in lower point games the margin of error is much so much smaller that you have to use every bit of the board(terrain and movement) to prevent even the smallest losses. This is because you each have less on the table to work with. Each model lost is much more important because it represents a larger percentage of your overall force than they do in larger games.
Smaller games are less tolerant of poor Generalship at the lower points level. Foolish moves that leave a unit open and wasteful squandering of even one or two models can be a sure path to losing.
Using every bit of cover becomes critical.
Economy in list building is much more of a factor.
The extra room you mention is used to manuover so that the units dance at the edge of weapon range.
Third) Again, Your model counts seem to reflect that you overgear your units. Its easy to load a unit up with a bunch of wargear. Lower point games don't allow such luxury.
The only problem with lower points games these days, aside from the absence of the old style rules that prevent certain models from being taken in games under x points, is that even at lower point levels, the scale/terrain issue is worsening with each new edition. This is due to each edition seeing codices with new "larger" models and generally cheaper basic troops.
----I as a fellow member of the 'Empire of the Rising Good' am hurt that you would commence a tirade of such awesome scale and not conjure forth some form of response to my - if I may be ever so bold and forward - well composed responses on many of the points that you have addressed and in the same breath simultaneously readdressed using the very points I had already put forth in perhaps a less complete manner. (Hows that for a sentence? ) Further, if you would do me the grandiose favor of picking a color other then bright teal for your posts it would be most advantageous to the continued health of my ocular organs as well the future function of my monitors brightness adjustment control mechanism. I believe no color modifications for standard replies is the forum accepted norm. Congratulations are at the least in order on your successful campaign of posting replies against, by my count, eight different posts/fronts in one prodigious swoop. Your victory by keyboard will be etched in the memories of millions. KAP-PLA!
From your brother in sophisticated electro-magnetic accelerated munitions, KnuckleWolf
Poor slayer, getting all beat up in this thread. I noticed your 'never played below 1k'/'played a low point game once' error as well but gave you the benefit of the doubt.
And its not hard to get small point games going. Just challenge them. And don't agree to play any more then what you want. Don't be a jerk about it but still force the issue. Or grab a new player who just got a battleforce box and go at it. All your points on what a small point battle entails are right on though FF, if slightly over enthused. And there is credence to the word strategy being applied to his 'traffic jam' as you call it. After all, in chess six out of your starting six-teen units are land locked until you move a piece out of the way. Please phrase your criticism as an oppinion.
I consider the issue with consolidation into CC to have been a major flaw in 3rd ed. It took until 5th edition to fix it and give the rest of the army a chance.
Third) Again, Your model counts seem to reflect that you overgear your units. Its easy to load a unit up with a bunch of wargear. Lower point games don't allow such luxury.
8 Zerkers with a Champ with a pair of LC and Melta bomb+ Icon, seems like a wargear overload?
Kharn is also the cheapest of the HQ's in the codex.
I only take the bare neccesary, to expressly avoid overload and have a decent model count, wich isn't easy with a CSM army, even if you don't go crazy on options.
NOw i said in another post that i played 1000-ish games a few times, but they where only to show new players how the game went.
----I as a fellow member of the 'Empire of the Rising Good' am hurt that you would commence a tirade of such awesome scale and not conjure forth some form of response to my - if I may be ever so bold and forward - well composed responses on many of the points that you have addressed and in the same breath simultaneously readdressed using the very points I had already put forth in perhaps a less complete manner. (Hows that for a sentence? ) Further, if you would do me the grandiose favor of picking a color other then bright teal for your posts it would be most advantageous to the continued health of my ocular organs as well the future function of my monitors brightness adjustment control mechanism. I believe no color modifications for standard replies is the forum accepted norm. Congratulations are at the least in order on your successful campaign of posting replies against, by my count, eight different posts/fronts in one prodigious swoop. Your victory by keyboard will be etched in the memories of millions. KAP-PLA!
From your brother in sophisticated electro-magnetic accelerated munitions, KnuckleWolf
Kid, I like your style.
A)I apologize for omitting you from my previous reply. It was not intended as a slight but was done to:
1)Prevent from sounding overly self-serving
2)Avoid reaching a word density that generated its own gravitational field and
3) To avoid making the reply longer than a run from the core out to the rim
B)As to the colour....I will see what I can do. It is a tool(and a good one) that is used when catching up a bunch of responses at once. It helps to break up the wall of white so that the reader can see who is sayin what.
C)You mistake my intent. No campain or attemptted victory here. Just one seeking honest points of view rather than justifications, rationalizations and/or excuses.
KnuckleWolf wrote:
*snip*
All your points on what a small point battle entails are right on though FF, if slightly over enthused. And there is credence to the word strategy being applied to his 'traffic jam' as you call it. After all, in chess six out of your starting six-teen units are land locked until you move a piece out of the way. Please phrase your criticism as an oppinion.
A)Mayhap you might restate that "In your opinion" my points are slightly over enthused?
B)There is a difference between chess where your opponent moves one peice at a time and the ugoigo 40K format. I don't deny that it is a skill in spatial relations. Just don't see how it has any strategy above and beyond what is in all games of 40K.
To be more clear, in every game of 40k the player needs to consider what unit is moving where and what armour or unit is going to be left exposed. IMO, the manouvering through gridlock is a seperate solitary spatial skills game that the opponent has to sit idly through until the player finishes his overly long move. Then they go back to playing the game of 40k
C)As to phrasing criticism as opinion??? Please to go back and re-read my post. I prefaced my reply with "Imho".
Now I didn't do such for every sentence but that is proper writing technique. I shouldn't have to open each sentence or even each point with an opinion qulifier if I start my post with one.
Hmm.. Maybe I should have put the IMHO before the word First.
Now to a couple of things that I want to ask Slayer about.
Slayer le boucher wrote:
i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...
OK, noted
Slayerle bouche wrote:
I played once at a 1000 points, it was a tournament that I built......*snip.....and I've played low point games to help new players to learn the game. Even those were 1250-1500 points...
Noticed you edited this out of your second post on this page. Fourtunately, I often copy paste into Word to type my replies. Wonder why you removed this?
Slayer le boucher wrote:
NOw i said in another post that i played 1000-ish games a few times, but they where only to show new players how the game went.
Ah, now I see why you erased the other post. To some extent, it contidicts both the first quote and this one.
So, Which of the above is it?
Actually, don't answer that. I just wanted to point out that you are changing your story to help prop up your argument.
Now breath. We are simply discussing our differences of opinion on the interwebs. This is not about either one of us "winning"(I don't even think that one can truly win an internet discussion) This is about exchanging ideas and points of view.
I get that you don't like the "idea" of lower point games. You dislike the idea to the point that you are willing the prevaricate reasons as to why you won't/don't like such. This tells me that no logical argument will entice you into playing such games and as such we will have to agree to disagree.
Slayer le boucher wrote:8 Zerkers with a Champ with a pair of LC and Melta bomb+ Icon, seems like a wargear overload?
Kharn is also the cheapest of the HQ's in the codex.
I only take the bare neccesary, to expressly avoid overload and have a decent model count, wich isn't easy with a CSM army, even if you don't go crazy on options.
Go back and re-read what i typed in my first reply. I said that you seemed to be spending too many points on wargear or "uber units". Point is that you are choosing to use the one of most expensive low model count builds to prop up your argument that the board isn't crowded. IMO, as posted, the build you typed comes across as stretching to meet the high points gaming environment you choose to play in.
May you crush your enemies, drive them before you and hear the lamentations of their women.
Later
I have been playing since 4th and honestly i feel 6th has made a great return to the theme ideas. Of course it is imperfect, but eh, nothing some home-brewing type players couldn't work with, right?
A 6x4 board is rather large in my opinon, and interms of scale, i think it is really terrain makers that are getting it all wrong. For LOS blocking terrain my club uses soft rolling hills adding a 3d element to the game, and forests and things. This doesn't over crowd the board, and doesn't block movement too badly. I play a 180 model count army regularly, where my deployment tactics is "fill the zone." As far as warhammer tactics go, their is a pressing matter of knowing how to move your units to pull a win. Even at costs of models, and army, you can win by objectives. Many a time i have tabled my friend to 1 unit of guardsmen, and he won because he held a objective.
I personally enjoy the new shooting rules, it makes the game less streamlined, but it is more realistic. I hated the days of the magic curving bullets killing orks around a bend of terrain.
Fliers are a excellent addition to the game, maybe their rules and concepts are flawed, but they add a aggressive powerful element that is to be considered when you make a army.
Of course, not everyone has access to a counter to air, it is not impossible. Fighting a fluffy air list, which i use to have; i sold it because i stopped getting games no matter how i played it.
Now wargear overloads, and deathstars are common, typically deathstars have the wargear overload, now i do think deathstars are dumb, but you can stop them in their tracks with the right application of fire power, which is a tactical skill over just loading everything up on war gear.
Problems i have with 6th is victory conditions are often very flawed, most objective games i feel like we are playing over pocket watches with armies. Objectives in all reality should be some kind of fort with a gun, just a small pill box, and with a functioning gun it, This makes you want to own objectives, they increase the support of your army. But that is just me being crazy, you know nothing huge.
I wont give up sixth, it has been built to destroy the competitive world. Power creep has seemed to capsize with the last two codecs released, Dark Angels seem balanced, and so do Chaos Space marines. Thus in all reality, its about applying tactical advantages of rules, and minis over your enemies. If you find yourself losing all the time, then you are just a crappy player.
I play with "orks" and "eldar" which are considered to be "low par, low tier, weak codecs" and the list goes on. Then i make the space marine player eat every single word, space wolves are a preferred hobby of mine to kill, blood angels more so. The race i lose the most to is Tyranids. CAUSE GOD DAMN MONSTERS. i love the game of warhammer, i have tried other games like dust tactics, flames of war, war machine, infinity... nothing really builds up to the scale of a 180 models like warhammer40k.
I conclude with; you think their is no tactics, it is all list. Perhaps for the dumb player that is what it is at. But a war game isnt like magic where you find a nice combo and call it a tactic. A war game is where you find a nice way to combo units across the board with moving, shooting, and punching, and pull apart your enemy unit.
Third) Again, Your model counts seem to reflect that you overgear your units. Its easy to load a unit up with a bunch of wargear. Lower point games don't allow such luxury.
8 Zerkers with a Champ with a pair of LC and Melta bomb+ Icon, seems like a wargear overload?
Kharn is also the cheapest of the HQ's in the codex.
I only take the bare neccesary, to expressly avoid overload and have a decent model count, wich isn't easy with a CSM army, even if you don't go crazy on options.
NOw i said in another post that i played 1000-ish games a few times, but they where only to show new players how the game went.
Try a 500 - point deathmatch using only troops, and with heavy terrain.
S**t brix you will
Thank you FocusedFire, I feel much better now. I think it should just be assumed that ALL posts not citing a reference should be assumed as opinion. That way we can just drop this right here, right? I was pretty sure the whole color thing had good organizational reason and wasnt just 'HEY look at ME!'. By all means color code, just use something duller in large quantities please. Teal is great for highlights, but maybe like red or orange for bulk? idk plain blue maybe? Lets continue. Love point A-2 btw. Freakin' hilarious I'll leave it to opinion on what constitutes strategy and agree to disagree if you will.
I want to go on to this whole 'Flier'...thing. I'm cool with fliers as a concept. Cuz warplanes and choppers and starships are flipping amazing and super cool! But I truly believe that they were purposely left out for editions one through five*** because the game designers had a plethora of good reasons. Think about that, five chances to add them to the game in the core rules, and all those White Dwarfs where they could have toed them in and they didn't do it. Until they did of course in a White Dwarf, then the following core. Ponder that decision for a moment: Five editions with NO fliers. You cant tell me they weren't thinking about it. They HAD to have good reasons not to do this for that long. Fliers are large imprint models: they are big bodied, and have a huge flight stand that does not agree well with the board on issues like sloped terrain, or with models moving underneath. They have to be big because they have to be at least close in scale to the rest of the game, which is one of the larger scale war games in the first place. Not the largest, but certainly not small either. Real world air combat vehicles are fast, they could pass over this size battlefield and miss it by a literal mile. So Squeezing the flier on to the board in speed-distance relationships is 'messy' at best. If we could reasonably play on a 18'x12' board, they at least wouldn't feel so crammed in to this tiny box that was only ever meant for infantry and at its largest super heavy tanks. Fortunately it is the forty-first millennium, and we can explain these issues away with psyker powers if all tech explanations fail. Then came the reason of the units already in the game generally aren't equipped with anti-air systems or tactics. Air is king. The game has demonstrated that very well and rightly so. Part of me would be upset if they weren't super powers. But for making a fun game experience they can make one-sided situations rather often.
As far as 'fixes' go? I'm no designer, but the flier concepts in 40k are all wrong. They all have way too many weapon systems that are way to powerful. I'm dead set against twin-linked lascannons and assault cannons on them. Give 'em like a single lascannon and one or two bombs/missiles, all with like BS 3 for the difficulty of hitting small targets while moving fast.. There is no reason for the tremendous payloads that they have. But that's done and wont be changing back, they are stuck with it now. So then i would look at points. I could slap a fifty to a hundred point tax on them without blinking. OR create a new spot in the force organisation chart for air support much the same way fortifications have. But all that is just me.
***Edit: This comes up later and is super relevant in a way as there technically were 'fliers' before sixth, thanks Bro!
ArbitorIan wrote: The Rogue Trader book didn't really do 'named' vehicles, since there were no kits available. Instead, it gave you very wide vehicle design rules, including rules for Flyers (as well as Juggernauts, Skimmers, Tanks, Road Cars, etc). There was an 'example' vehicle called the Argus Flyer, but that was it...
And it's worth noting how many Fliers Forge World produced first. So that generated a lot of actual heartfelt demand that GW produce fliers. We had tasted them and wanted more. Sure there was demand before, if they had been produced they would have certainly been bought. But now that potential profit was filtering out to FW. Putting fliers in the game officially may have simply been them reclaiming the market, strictly business. In the end I believe it came down to this: There was now an undeniable demand, the demand was being supplied by a competitor company, and they needed something new that was not a variation on what they already had. (For this last one I would have felt fortifications would have sufficed but whatever.)
Except for the part that ForgeWorld is owned and operated by GW. For all intents and purpouses they ARE GW, not a "competitor company".
KnuckleWolf wrote: Oh wait seriously? I appologize. I have been under false information. Will delete that paragraph asap.
Why edit your previous posts? Such actions damages your integrity. Just accept the fact that you aren't perfect and in light of new facts, you re-affirm your beliefs.
"Because debate is a tool by which we discover and refine truth. By disagreeing with one another and stating the reasons why, it becomes easier to see where the correct answer lies. Without the back-and-forth, much of the benefit from this thread would be lost." - Doctor Thunder.
KnuckleWolf wrote: I want to go on to this whole 'Flier'...thing. I'm cool with fliers as a concept. Cuz warplanes and choppers and starships are flipping amazing and super cool! But I truly believe that they were purposely left out for editions one through five because the game designers had a plethora of good reasons.
Just being pedantic, but flyers were included in the 1ed 40k rulebook.
KnuckleWolf wrote: Really? Never heard of em. Which ones? I may have alot more editing to do. LOL
The Rogue Trader book didn't really do 'named' vehicles, since there were no kits available. Instead, it gave you very wide vehicle design rules, including rules for Flyers (as well as Juggernauts, Skimmers, Tanks, Road Cars, etc). There was an 'example' vehicle called the Argus Flyer, but that was it...
I will chuck my two cents into this discussion. I'll be honest and say that I have not read each and every individual response, but what I have read I can gather a fair idea of the many points.
Is 6th edition a a horrible rule set? No. Is it a great rule set? No. It's okay.
I'm willing to let a lot of things slide with 6th edition since it's trying to do a lot of new things.
Fliers:
For all intents and purposes, fliers are a new things and new mechanic introduced with 6th edition. I can not speak to Rogue Trader, since I wasn't playing the game at the time. I'm glad that fliers have been added. Again, it's something new, so I'm not surprised that it's not perfect right out of the gate. I personally like the idea one poster put about giving fliers their own force organization slot.
Randomness:
I agree that all the randomness is annoying, but I can understand why it was implemented: to curb the over the top competitiveness and tournament scene. As much as I would like to choose my warlord trait, I could see how having the ability would be abused. We would see combinations that would cheese.
Scale:
40k is the only table top game I have any experience with, so I can give any real opinion about scale. I personally don't have a problem with it. I think crowding has more to do with terrain density than actual number of "army" units on the board. I played a 1999 point game with 28 models on the board at any given time.
Allies:
As with fliers, this is a new mechanic that has been added to the game. One that I was excited about seeing, and I'm still eager to give a try. It too could use more refinement. Beasts of War did a great video on Allies of Convenience, and oh man, is it painfully funny. Again, it's something new, and allows players to have other armies without having to actually sink the large amount of money into actually getting another army then have to decide which one they are going to play.
As a few have pointed out, I think many of the short comings of 6th edition can be taken care of with house rules, or coming to a consistences between you and your opponent. I'm already beginning to contemplate some rules I would like to make to the Dark Angels codex.
@bkiker.
if you have only played 40k, its a bit difficult to hold an objective view of the 6th ed rule set.
Compared to 4th and 5th ed it IS sort of 'OK'
(But compared to games written for game play , like Infinity , Fast And Dirty, Warzone,Stargrunt, 3050, etc, it does look more like a marketing pamphlet! )
And if you belive adding lots of randomness is the only way to stop 'over the top' competitiveness, then you are using the same sort of restrictive vision of game design that is enforced at GW towers.
Which is backed up with your solution of PAYING GOOD MONEY FOR A RULE SET that FAILS to deliver the game play YOU WANT.AND FIXING IT YOURSELF!
Would you pay Ferrari prices for a car that needed constant work to make it run anything like as reliably as a much cheaper Ford Focus?
The game mechanics of WHFB on which 40k STILL USES 25 years later...
Are based on large block of troops moving into weapons range.This is where the bulk of ancient warfare tactics take place in the moving into contact.
As WHFB is mainly about CLOSECOMBAT match ups with ranged support, this game mechanic works in WHFB.(Better implemented in KoW and AoA , IMO.)
40k brings mostly skirmishing units armed with ranged weapons , supported by vehicles(monsters) to the games table.
This means that most units are in weapons range after turn 1.
Most games that have similar amounts of models on table as 40k tend to be 15mm ,which allows more room for the units to move into contact.(And the foreshortening of the horizontal scale compared to the vertical scale is less noticed.)AND/OR use a better mechanic to resolve ranged attacks.
40k is NOT trying new things!!
Its still using the same tired old game mechanics and resolution methods from over 30 years ago.
All its trying to do is to sell more stuff, by adding rules to include it.(Terrain and Flyers.)
NEW STUFF WOULD BE;-
A new INTERACTIVE game turn mechanic of interleaved phases, or alternating activation.
A UNIFIED damage resolution to allow more accurate comparison and balance.
A proper consideration/implementation of a morale system with more depth than OK or running away/dead.
If the game went a bit wonky while they made massive changes like this, I could forgive them a bit.
You are correct I haven't played any of the games that you have listed, but since the discussion was about 6th edition 40k I felt I could say my opinion about 6th edition 40k with some certainty. Just because I have not played other games does not less my opinion or experience with 6th edition 40k.
I find all the randomness equally annoying, but how would players choose/select powers, warlord traits, etc. without "those players" figuring out and creating cheese. As an example, I think it was two codices back when players could pick chapter traits for a home grown Codex Space Marine chapter. I thought that was a great thing and loved it. However, it wasn't long until " those players" figured out the cheese combos that basically broke the system. Perhaps that could be solved by giving a point value to the warlord trait or power. Perhaps that could be solved by assigning a particular trait to a particular HQ choice. The random charge length is strange, but maybe it is to represent a squad charging into a unit that is shooting at it, but I actually find that a benefit as it actually increases the charge distance more often than not. The missions and victory conditions are just a start. My friend and I still play the battle missions and planet strike expansion, and they still work well.
I still enjoy the scale. Since I have vision problems, the scale allows me to still paint and enjoy both the minis and the game with little problem. If the scale was any smaller, I wouldn't be able to paint or build the minis or really enjoy the game as I would be straining to see. If the number of models at the table is a factor, then there are missions and rules for Combat Patrol, which are available in the battle missions expansion or from Adepticon.
Your suggestion that GW trying creating new rules to sale things is... a point. However, they aren't exactly doing a bang up job at it, especially with fliers. Most peoples' opinion is the game wise the fliers are too expensive for what they do, so there is little reason to go out a purchase a model. I can speak from experience on this with the Dark Angels fliers. They're not great, and I honestly would probably only use one every once in a blue moon. The same can be said about main of the other units in the Dark Angels codex. The Deathwing Knights are expensive game wise and bring little to the table, so I will more than likely just stick with my standard terminators for Deathwing. As for the terrain, I got many of the terrain pieces back before there were points and rules for them. I just thought they would make great piece of terrain for the board, and that's what I use them for. Most players are moving away from using the fortifications.
Your suggestion on new things 40k could do sound interesting. We are on a 50k Proposed Rules forum. Why don't you posted them? I would love to see them, and I'm not being sarcastic about it. I love to see home brew rules, and I think that is a great selling point for 40k. To say it's a waste of money to purchase a rule set that you go in and tweak is an argument that could be leveled at any table top game that gives players the ability, motivation, freedom, permission, directive, etc. to change rules
@bkiker.
I did not mean to infer your opinion was not valid, but not possibly as objective as some one who has a wider experience of more table top minature games(. )
How to combat 'cheesemongers' like every other games company in the world.
Strive for Internal and External balance in all army composition lists across the game system.
By using more accurate PV allocation and restriction to limit synergistic anomalies .
Perfect balance is impossible, but GW are just not trying at all in comparison to other games.
Mainly because the studio are more into ''promoting the latest minatures'' with 'special rules'' rather than extending the game play with 'better' core rules.I KNOW the current game developers at GW are capable of much better game system for 40k, IF they were 'allowed' to release it.( )
The fact the devs dont have time to do 'the job properly', means their rules applications is hit an miss.
But the 'cheesemongers' just pick the under costed units,and brow beat the 'fluff monkies' into submission .
...'Why don't you play to win, why pick that its not cost effective, I wouldn NOT field them !etc, etc.'
Which simply means those more interested in the background buy these 'over costed units' to prove a point ....
End result GW simply sell models , and the 'promotions department at GW towers' doesnt need to do any actual 'game development'...
I have no problem with using 28mm minatures in a battle game like 40k .IF the rules are written for it!(I know the minatures are what draws most people to 40k.)
My objection is the way lots of units are 'nailed on' as Rick puts it.Without any thought to of detriment to the game play . And the level of complication in the rules is getting worse, while the level game play is just stalling because of it.
I am currently posting some ideas in the 40k proposed rules forum. (40k in 40 pages.)(If the 50k proposed rules forum is different please post a link for me. .)
I was NOT saying ADDING to a WELL DEFINED INTUITIVE RULE SET is a waste of time.(We all write campains and add special stuff in and special rules for them don't we? )
But the amount of work you have to put in to 40k just to make the basic game work is silly, compared to how much you pay for them IMO.
There are 'free to down' load rules that are a lot better than 40k If you want to modify a rule set!!
Why not use these FREE rule sets for modification, this was the point I was trying to make.
The draw back of non-spoken Internet dialogue strikes again.
Your rebuttal is thought provoking. I particularly agree with your cheesemonger verus fluff monkies point as I like to think of myself in the fluff monkies camp.
I will look for your 40k in 40 pages thread as I'm interested in seeing what you proposed. I for one will be posting some proposals for the Dark Angels codex next week.
Your final point about changing the 40k rules to make the basic game work is one too consider, and one I'll look into by finding these free to download rules that you mentioned. If you have some suggestions I would like to here. I concede that I can't make a final call because of my lack of experience with other table top games.
I can't help but feel like a lot of the gripes listed in the OP are attributable to codex lag. We seem to always go through this when the new rules are released, FAQs haven't been updated adequately, and until we get new codices we're out of luck.
To me, this is inherently the problem with fliers right now -- but I still enjoy using them. More units need skyfire, and the aegis defense line needs to be less automatic against flier-heavy lists, but overall I think it's an issue that will get resolved over time.
The ally matrix is simplistic, but it was done largely to service fluff. It still feels too early to know the ramifications for sure, and whether it's resulting in wild imbalance. Personally, I haven't faced any game-breaking combinations, but acknowledge there probably are some out there.
In terms of scale, I don't understand the desire to switch. I love the 28mm scale, and I can't recall a game that became strategically dull because of scale. If the board is crowded it's likely because of a huge horde army, which isn't a regular occurrence, and adds to the cinematic quality of the encounter.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of sixth for all the reasons I was lukewarm on fifth. I like that power weapons aren't all homogeneous, I enjoy the randomness of charge distances, and like the variety in mission types and objectives.
It's far from perfect, but it's my favorite rule set in a long tim.
All the problems in 40k since 3rd ed ,are simply down to the studio being forced to use WHFB game mechanics in the modern war game 40k should have become.IMO.
If you look at Net Epic (fan supported Epic Space Marine ), or Epic Armageddon rule set.(138 pages including ALL the army lists and the game play for more stuff than that in an 40k Apocalypse game!)
You can see why some people think the 'battle game' is best played with smaller minatures.
However, I think using rule set for this sort of battle game, and adding more detail.Would arrive at a better rule set for 40k.(Still using heroic 28 mm minatures.)
The IDEA of 6th ed game play is great! Its just the actual rules are not in synergy with this idea!!
@bkiker.
These might still be free to down load in' beta' or' trial' formats..;-Infinity, No Limits,Chain reaction II, Stargrunt II ,Fast and Dirty, Warzone, Urban War,Dust Tactics etc.
Just looking at these games ,(And the Epic scale ones mentioned above.)Can shows some ideas on how the game play of 40k could be represented in the rules in a more 'intuitive' way...
I do not pretend to know all the answers, but I can think up some good questions...
cormadepanda wrote:I have been playing since 4th and honestly i feel 6th has made a great return to the theme ideas. Of course it is imperfect, but eh, nothing some home-brewing type players couldn't work with, right?
Wrong.
Why?
Because a lot of "casual gaming groups" are short lived entities started by TFG's because they can neither get pick-up games or play in local tournies due to their habits of cheating and poor sportsmanship. You can't compromise with this type of indicidual, so coming to an agreement on homebrew rules ends up being nothing but an exercise in futility(Unless your willing to give the spoiled little brat every advantage and like dealing with rage quitters).
Another reason I don't like dealing with these little home gaming groups is because they tend to be clique-ish and filled with interpersonal politics. This is why I prefer pick-up games or meeting friends at a flgs. It gives a greater pool of opponents and helps to prevent my friends and I from isolating ourselves.
comradepanda wrote:A 6x4 board is rather large in my opinon, and interms of scale, i think it is really terrain makers that are getting it all wrong. For LOS blocking terrain my club uses soft rolling hills adding a 3d element to the game, and forests and things. This doesn't over crowd the board, and doesn't block movement too badly. I play a 180 model count army regularly, where my deployment tactics is "fill the zone."
A 6'x4' board is a good sized board.... When played at the proper points level for the scale that you are playing.
All of the terrain stuff you mention here is standard operating procedure pretty much everywhere I've ever played. And I have played at flgs's(or BB's) in 8 out of 10 of GW's largest north american largest markets.
Also, Might be wise if you added an "In your Opinion" where you say that it doesn't over-crowd the board.
Finally, A 180 model count army on a 6'x4' board using 28mm IS overcrowding. I feel stating this as a fact is ok because of your comment about "filling the zone" during deployment. Such model counts at 28MM leave no room but to run headlong into each other or to move one skimmer from the left side of the board to the right and then hopscotching the smimmer on the right to the left side. Thing is that there is no room to pull any opponent with half a brain any where. They just advance and you meet head on. (Yes the skimmers can jump over the front lines but it is still a head on movement).
You gotta understand that GW realized that they were expanding the game beyond the scale of the average game board back in 4th ed. This is why 5th ed introduced the outflanking rule. The rule was a patch for where GW was going to ruin the games movement/tactics with the rest of 5th ed BRB and the power creep codices.
comradepanda wrote:As far as warhammer tactics go, their is a pressing matter of knowing how to move your units to pull a win. Even at costs of models, and army, you can win by objectives. Many a time i have tabled my friend to 1 unit of guardsmen, and he won because he held a objective.
Thank you for being condescending. Seriously, do you realize how arrogant you sound here? Pro-tip, don't try to baby talk tatctics that most gamers learn in their first 10 games to people who have been playing just as long or longer than you. It makes you seem trollish.
comradepanda wrote:I personally enjoy the new shooting rules, it makes the game less streamlined, but it is more realistic. I hated the days of the magic curving bullets killing orks around a bend of terrain.
I agree with the above. The return to 4thed style shooting while maintaing 5th ed los mechanic works fine. Now if they would just dump the KP system and bring back VP's. Would also be nice if GW had stored all of the 4th ed & earlier los blocking terrain instead of "quietly" instructing thier stores to dump said terrain.
comradepanda wrote:Fliers are a excellent addition to the game, maybe their rules and concepts are flawed, but they add a aggressive powerful element that is to be considered when you make a army.
Strongly disagree. It is tactically rediculous, implemented poorly and a flawed idea that completely breaks game immersion for many players. Air support being under the command of the field infantry was something abandoned almost as soon as there were air corps/air forces.
Mind you air cav(Choppers and Ospreys) are different than air combat craft such as supersonic jets &such, due to both their flight profiles and their mission as transports. Skimmer rules were fine for the Valk/Vendettas/Storm Ravens because such vehicles dropping units in a hot LZ are very vulnerable. Now they make no sense when you look at their intended missions vs how they are used under the 6th ed rules.
comradepanda wrote:Of course, not everyone has access to a counter to air, it is not impossible. Fighting a fluffy air list, which i use to have; i sold it because i stopped getting games no matter how i played it.
So a "fluffy air list" can lead to people seeing you not as, "a casual player", but rather as tfg with his op list. Sshhhh, Don't let the Casual Gamer Mafia hear you say that. Don't you know that only super evil people that engage in icky competitive play can have op lists that make people stop playing with them.
comradepanda wrote:Problems i have with 6th is victory conditions are often very flawed, most objective games i feel like we are playing over pocket watches with armies. Objectives in all reality should be some kind of fort with a gun, just a small pill box, and with a functioning gun it, This makes you want to own objectives, they increase the support of your army. But that is just me being crazy, you know nothing huge.
Absolutely agree that the missions need work. IMHO, best missions, terrain set-ups and game sizes were back in the 1000 point "Cities of Death" days. If you put the current LOS shooting rules into 4th ed and used that to play the old CoD expansion....that would be pure win.
comradepanda wrote:I wont give up sixth, it has been built to destroy the competitive world. Power creep has seemed to capsize with the last two codecs released, Dark Angels seem balanced, and so do Chaos Space marines. Thus in all reality, its about applying tactical advantages of rules, and minis over your enemies. If you find yourself losing all the time, then you are just a crappy player.
a) Nobody aske you to give up 6th ed.
b)Your comment about 6th ed being built to destroy the competitive world implies that you think of yourself as a casual gamer, yet you previously you admitted to running wreck your face WAAC "Fluffy Air list" and you end this paragraph with an "if you can't win you are a crappy player" insult. Hmmm, You are doing a good job of proving what I said about "casual gaming groups" at the beginning of my reply. c)You talk about applying tactical advantage of rules and minis........you don't get that tactics are more than rule book and codex power combos. Of course many 40k players don't undertand such because they have never played a game that allowed for both strategic and tactical maneuvering after deployment but before you are with small arms range.
and
d)Your insult about losing and being a crappy player are unwarranted and off the mark. This is because I never said that I had a problem winning. In fact, had a better than 60% win average with my Tau at the end of 5th ed. Newcrons were the only army that I couldn't win against with any consistency while using my Tau.
Also, I know many players who have their chosen army because they can only afford "one army". Said army can be old. not considered competitive and the player may lose more than they win...yet...they are good players. They are good sports and usually have stuck with their chosen army long enough to master a lot of the nuances that Fotm tourny & casual players never take the time to learn.
comradepanda wrote:I play with "orks" and "eldar" which are considered to be "low par, low tier, weak codecs" and the list goes on. Then i make the space marine player eat every single word, space wolves are a preferred hobby of mine to kill, blood angels more so. The race i lose the most to is Tyranids. CAUSE GOD DAMN MONSTERS. i love the game of warhammer, i have tried other games like dust tactics, flames of war, war machine, infinity... nothing really builds up to the scale of a 180 models like warhammer40k.
a)As one who played Tau all through 5th ed and managed to win more than I lost, your claimed feats with the orks and eldar are not so impressive.
and
b)I understand why you don't like the better written and better balanced smaller scale game systems. By your own words, you like an over crowded board that forgoes tactical maneuver in favor of an in your face head on style. And thats ok, still doesn't invalidate my issues with 40ks scale.
comradepanda wrote:I conclude with; you think their is no tactics, it is all list. Perhaps for the dumb player that is what it is at. But a war game isnt like magic where you find a nice combo and call it a tactic. A war game is where you find a nice way to combo units across the board with moving, shooting, and punching, and pull apart your enemy unit.
And again, Thank you for the condecending insult. The irony of you trying to label me as a net list MtG cheesy combo guy is very amusing. Any examination of my posting history would tell you otherwise.
Now, Close examination of your words has shown that you could very possibly be that cheesy list guy. You then finishing with an instruction of what a war game is becomes priceless when you look at how your definition fits the core problem I'm having with 40K. You talk about, "moving, shooting, and punching, and pull apart your enemy unit(Your poor use of english and sentence structure, not mine). You never once mention manouvering. You talk about getting across the board as if that is the only way to win or play. It is not, if the game is scaled properly.
bkiker wrote:
I still enjoy the scale. Since I have vision problems, the scale allows me to still paint and enjoy both the minis and the game with little problem. If the scale was any smaller, I wouldn't be able to paint or build the minis or really enjoy the game as I would be straining to see. If the number of models at the table is a factor, then there are missions and rules for Combat Patrol, which are available in the battle missions expansion or from Adepticon.
A)You mention that eye sight is an issue with smaller scale minis. I'm not going argue your personal experience but just want to ask if you have tried painting a 15mm model?
The reason I ask is that many older players are gravitating towards 15mm and they/we cite that the model being easier to paint as one of our reasons for switching. Now its true that you don't get as much detail but many who have switched comment about how they can paint an entire squad in the same time it takes to paint a single 28mm model.
Also want to note for many who might get confused on some of the searches, 40K epic was 6mm. What I am talking about is 15mm. I note this because some 15mm sci-fi searches will point towards 40K epic which is about 1/5 the size of 40K. 15mm is 1/2 the size of 40K.
B)I agree about combat patrol helping, but scale isn't the only issue. Want to play 40K, not spend 1 hour on house ruling for ever 2 hours of game play. 40k should be a game where I can learn the rules to where I don't have to constantly reference and then play different scenarios that don't conflict with the rules that I've taken the time to program into myself. Problem with mst houserules is that you end up programming conflicting info into your memory, thus subsequent games end up being longer than they should because you have to go back and re-learn the base system.
This is also a problem due to how many faq's and expansions GW is trying to cram in. You don't even have time to play enough to get the rules down before they make some of the rules obsolete(WD, Ipad faqs andSkies of Death, I'm looking at you.).
bkiker wrote:Your suggestion that GW trying creating new rules to sale things is... a point. However, they aren't exactly doing a bang up job at it, especially with fliers. Most peoples' opinion is the game wise the fliers are too expensive for what they do, so there is little reason to go out a purchase a model. I can speak from experience on this with the Dark Angels fliers. They're not great, and I honestly would probably only use one every once in a blue moon. The same can be said about main of the other units in the Dark Angels codex.
Might I suggest that your opinion about "Fliers are too expensive for what they do" is possibly limited to your local area. They seem to show up in numbers at many tournaments in the US and the amout of complaints about them not having a decent counter seem to come from all over the world. I feel that so many people wouldn't be complaiing about a lack of counters if they were to expensive for what they do.
Auswin wrote:I can't help but feel like a lot of the gripes listed in the OP are attributable to codex lag. We seem to always go through this when the new rules are released, FAQs haven't been updated adequately, and until we get new codices we're out of luck.
If codex lag was the issue, I would have dropped 40K half way through 5th ed due to being primarily a Tau Player
Auswin wrote:To me, this is inherently the problem with fliers right now -- but I still enjoy using them. More units need skyfire, and the aegis defense line needs to be less automatic against flier-heavy lists, but overall I think it's an issue that will get resolved over time.
Somewhat agree that more armies should have been updated with anti-air options when 6th ed dropped.
Still doesn't fix what bothers me about them. Imo, Fliers should have to leave the board at the end of the movement phase on their 2nd turn on the board unless they are air cav units that enter hover mode.
Even then they would bother me because the aircraft fires/drops its weapons on strafing/bombing runs before they are over the target(or even over that section of the battlefield. Meh, maybe its from my time in the Air Force.
Auswin wrote:In terms of scale, I don't understand the desire to switch. I love the 28mm scale, and I can't recall a game that became strategically dull because of scale. If the board is crowded it's likely because of a huge horde army, which isn't a regular occurrence, and adds to the cinematic quality of the encounter.
I understand that you love 28mm and feel that the game is not stratigically dull. If it works for you, great.
My opinion differs due to how I remember the game when played at a points and movement level that matched the intended scale. My opinion also differs from getting to play in 15mm scale where two opposing armoured columns have enough room to maneuver for tactical advantage before there is any real shooting.
cormadepanda wrote:I have been playing since 4th and honestly i feel 6th has made a great return to the theme ideas. Of course it is imperfect, but eh, nothing some home-brewing type players couldn't work with, right?
Wrong.
Why?
Because a lot of "casual gaming groups" are short lived entities started by TFG's because they can neither get pick-up games or play in local tournies due to their habits of cheating and poor sportsmanship. You can't compromise with this type of indicidual, so coming to an agreement on homebrew rules ends up being nothing but an exercise in futility(Unless your willing to give the spoiled little brat every advantage and like dealing with rage quitters).
There is nothing on this forum that riles me more than people starting their comments with 'Wrong'. Later in the same post you criticise another poster for not stating 'In My Opinion' at the start, yet apparently your opinions are objective statements? Corma states that he enjoys 6th and feels that it's a great return to theme - how can he be 'Wrong'?
Anyway, while I'm sure there are TFG-run casual groups, I think they're a tiny minority. I mostly play with a group of friends at our houses. We're extremely casual, and have no problems with TFG behaviour. When I was at school, fifteen years ago, we went around each others' houses on the weekends to play. Again, no problems. I sometimes play in FLGS and tournaments but when I do they're almost always more 'formal' affairs, with less house rules or fun changes.
When you take into account everyone who plays 40k, from the little kids all the way up, I think you'll find the VAST majority are in 'casual gaming groups' rather than part of a regular FLGS, and they aren't all run by TFGs..
cormadepanda wrote:I have been playing since 4th and honestly i feel 6th has made a great return to the theme ideas. Of course it is imperfect, but eh, nothing some home-brewing type players couldn't work with, right?
Wrong.
Why?
Because a lot of "casual gaming groups" are short lived entities started by TFG's because they can neither get pick-up games or play in local tournies due to their habits of cheating and poor sportsmanship. You can't compromise with this type of indicidual, so coming to an agreement on homebrew rules ends up being nothing but an exercise in futility(Unless your willing to give the spoiled little brat every advantage and like dealing with rage quitters).
There is nothing on this forum that riles me more than people starting their comments with 'Wrong'. Later in the same post you criticise another poster for not stating 'In My Opinion' at the start, yet apparently your opinions are objective statements? Corma states that he enjoys 6th and feels that it's a great return to theme - how can he be 'Wrong'?
Anyway, while I'm sure there are TFG-run casual groups, I think they're a tiny minority. I mostly play with a group of friends at our houses. We're extremely casual, and have no problems with TFG behaviour. When I was at school, fifteen years ago, we went around each others' houses on the weekends to play. Again, no problems. I sometimes play in FLGS and tournaments but when I do they're almost always more 'formal' affairs, with less house rules or fun changes.
When you take into account everyone who plays 40k, from the little kids all the way up, I think you'll find the VAST majority are in 'casual gaming groups' rather than part of a regular FLGS, and they aren't all run by TFGs..
First is the introduction of Flyers as an in game mechanic.
Having aircraft striking your enemies while your forces are engaged on the table top is like shooting into cc or shooting your own troops. It feels very inconsistent and doesn't fit with the roles of aircraft in a battlezone. If GW wanted to make Flyer models then they should have been for their own seperate game and with very limited use in the game of 40K. Really,
Not entirely true. If you want to talk realism in battle I've seen attack aircraft coming in so low and slow you can read the tail numbers. While I do agree GW should have introduced AA with fliers, fliers are not broken.
Second is how the Allies matrix was set up.
It could have been a great mechanic for faction balance, alas the matrix is too simplified and because of this it leads to exploitation that adds imbalance to the game.
Easily fixed. If you do not like allies just let everyone at your LGS know you won't play a list with them in it. Problem solved.
Third is the inherent flaw within 40k that becomes fatal when combined with GW's business model. It can be summed up with one word...."Scale".
28mm is a scale for squad to single platoon battles on 4x6 or 4x8 game tables. A business model that calls for multible platoons to company sized 28mm games on standard game boards creates a game that quickly runs out of table room. Lack of table room means little to no manuvering or tactics and thus gameplay suffers.
Never has for me and I've put over over 200 models on the table at one time with my Orks.
Another issue tied to the scale is lack of LoS blocking terrain. Such terrain is rare and due to the scale it is unwieldly, quickly overwhelms the gameboard, and blocks movement beyond what it should.
This isn't a game issue this is an issue where you play. You do know that in 6th edition players roll for density and place terrain don't you? Here at my LGS we have everything from 2X2 woods to 12X12 hills 2 feet tall.
I loved your response. An important point that I think is ether lost or doesn't exist in number on the Internet. Most people see this as a GAME played with LITTLE PLASTIC ARMY MEN. We play this to have fun with friends in a causal environment. You're correct. Not everyone is TFG. Every game I've played at LGS has been nothing but absolute fun.
I'm still not sold on the allies issue. This is my reason why. The Allies is an interesting mechanic, and looks like so much fun. However, to take an ally is to take points away from my main army. I haven't used allies because those are points I would like to spend on my main army.
Secondly, I pretty sure the allies matrix was the same matrix that was introduced by Forgeworld and later used way back when Apocalypse came out, and I don't recall people raising much of fuss then.
Ultimately, I have to ask this to the original poster and many others. What are the reasons you have for playing Warhammer 40k and/or participating in the Warhammer 40k hobby as opposed to playing golf or knitting or playing chess? I ask this because it seems that while people are leveling criticism towards GW and the rules nobody seems to be completely quitting the game or hobby. They are simply waiting until a rule book comes out that soothes their own personal opinions and taste. Since this is a non-verbal form of discussion, I want to make it clear that I'm not asking this or pointing this out to be hostile. I'm just asking this so everyone can take a moment and reflect on what their motives are for playing a game with little plastic army men.
bkiker wrote: Ultimately, I have to ask this to the original poster and many others. What are the reasons you have for playing Warhammer 40k and/or participating in the Warhammer 40k hobby as opposed to playing golf or knitting or playing chess? I ask this because it seems that while people are leveling criticism towards GW and the rules nobody seems to be completely quitting the game or hobby. They are simply waiting until a rule book comes out that soothes their own personal opinions and taste. Since this is a non-verbal form of discussion, I want to make it clear that I'm not asking this or pointing this out to be hostile. I'm just asking this so everyone can take a moment and reflect on what their motives are for playing a game with little plastic army men.
First and foremost it is a game. However when the army that you have chosen as your own, painted lovingly, and spent your money on becomes rather useless overnight that is why GW gets so much hate. It's not like GW can't re-balance a lot of the armies out there or release other options for them, they choose not to for profit sake. It's not difficult to release an errata stating that a unit's statline changes to XYZ to not make it useless overnight when an edition change hits. They are writing the rulebook, if they know their game they will know what units will be effected. Right out the gate from sixth they knew they have only a handful of armies with fliers or anti-air and they knew fliers would be extremely powerful. Did they give you flyer options for you armies? Nope, if you want a flier or flier defense go buy an ally.
In the end it is indeed a game played with LITTLE PLASTIC ARMY MEN, however now GW isn't the only known game out there with quality. What do people do when a company screws up their own game? They find a new one. We all love 40k, don't get us wrong. There is no other game of it's type that uses vehicles like 40k does and the fluffy for the different armies is practically ingrained in nerd history. That is why most people hang onto their armies and jsut quit playing the game in hopes that GW fixes their ways after they lose their profit or they sell off the IP to someone who does care.
@ bkiker.
I like the asthetic of 40k, as do most of my group of friends who play table top games.
We simply use alternative rules sets that we feel fit the game play we want.(And we try out a few to be fair .)
40k cool minatures rubbish rules..solution use other rule sets!!!(I forgot Warpath on my previous list BTW.)
If GW ALWAYS turned out 'duff' rule sets , then we could say its always been like it' like it or lump it'..
But Epic (SM &EA,), Necromundia, Blood Bowl, Battle Fleet Gothic, Space Hulk, etc, prove this is not true.
Since 2004 the game devlopers WANTED to address the problems with 40k battle game.But corperate managment prevented it.
(It is most likely this is why Andy Chambers left , followed by a long list of game developers ending with Rick Priestly most recently.)
It is in EVERY type of players interest to have rules written with clarity , brevity and elegance.
ONLY 'WAAC rules lawyers' and 'Cheesemongers' thrive with poorly defined ambiguos rules , they can easily exploit and abuse... I find it odd the player type GW say they only make up 'less than 5% of their customer base, gain the most benifit from the way GW write their rules for 40k...
And the new young gamers benifit the least from this type of rules writing..
Quite simply I belive its time for 40k to have a rule set written specificaly for its own game play.
@BlueDagger
We have all felt the pain of our army getting left behind. I'm feeling it again with the new Dark Angels codex. I can't help but feel that this time next year I'll be playing green Ultramarines.
@Lanrak
An eloquent and thought provoking post. Again, my question was more rhetorical than anything, meant to cause people to reflect on their reasons and motivation for choosing and playing Warhammer 40k. Many of your points I would have to agree on to some level.
bkiker wrote: @BlueDagger
We have all felt the pain of our army getting left behind. I'm feeling it again with the new Dark Angels codex. I can't help but feel that this time next year I'll be playing green Ultramarines.
That is the major problem, it shouldn't have to be that way. It comes down to the business model of invalidating armies for the "new shineys" for the sake of profit. Everything GW does screams of profit and not for the sake of making a good game.
Before we begin there is something I must do. *ahem* In my oppinion. OK! Were good now. Read on.
To Focusedfire: Thank you for the color change! Nice choice. Bold yet smooth, just the way I like my alcohol, morning tea, and women. If you could as a space saving measure, knock out some dead space from your posts? When your typing with post-quotes, don't put another line between the quoted text and your response to it, just start your response at the end of the 'end quote code' (i.e. ".../quote]your response here[nextquote...) The quote code will automatically put a line between the beginning and end of each quote. If its easier to type otherwise or with out that, have at it man, just thought I'd ask. Now for the grim task of responding to your...text book?...Novella?...Greek Epic?...Pile?
I read the same words you did from Comradepanda and I don't know where you got lost. Nothing about what the dude said sounded condescending, arrogant, 'baby talk', indicative of being a TFG, or rude. Though he walked that line like it was a tight rope. He seemed like he was stating opinions. He seemed like he was aware that many people who read these forums are only in their first few battles of any wargame at all. He seemed like he had a unique perspective, one that was from a different point of experience. (In fact I don't know if you even interpreted his words properly on the fluffy air thing, his English was confusing but it sounded like he was losing games with his air list, not losing chances to play. IDK) And another thing, nobodies personal records in this game are valid claims in a post. They are easily falsified, exaggerated, misreported, etc. They are further un-indicative of any form of expertise or experience. Just dismiss them. And as a Tau player, just between you and me, we could hold our own in fifth. With good strategy and tactics you could pull your claimed win percentage no sweat. And no I'm not talking lists either, to those who care. Most people look at my lists like I'm a moron, till turns out I could rumble with the Necrons. (Quick aside, honestly I wish people would quit preaching broadsides to me. I don't overly like the model, I don't particularly like the function, I don't like the retail price). And again, even my claims can not be substantiated for the same reasons above, but I feel better having a rebuttal on thread. I wont even deal with the rest except to say that fliers would reasonably only be on the table for one turn before they zoomed off, but this is a game with confines by which we must agree or agree to bend or break. If fliers were on for only a turn, you wouldn't need a model, a token would suffice, and GW wants to sell you a model. All in all bro, simmer down.
Reading through the rest of the thread, you guys can duke it out on terrain, we don't have many problems. Allies, meh, whatevs, would laugh hard at a Tau night fight list with the necron light switch guy though . GW is a company, profit goals are expected. They are toy plastic space dudes, the dudes abide. All I need from a game is a solid framework of core rules, with bros we can fill in the rest. Want to know my dirty little secret? My primary game of choice is Magic: the Gathering! When I want clearly defined rules, I read their 190+ page rule book that damn near requires a law degree to understand. When I want a sandbox, Dungeons and Dragons, or 40k. I almost don't want the rules to be that much tighter. We have social skills and wisdom of age, we can deal with TFG's and lawyers without a rule book. No seriously, you almost need a law degree! Look at this excerpt!--->
"112.6k An ability whose cost or effect specifies that it moves the object it’s on out of a particular zone functions only in that zone, unless that ability’s trigger condition, or a previous part of that ability’s cost or effect, specifies that the object is put into that zone." -MtG Comprehensive Rules...My brain is all like
@ KnuckleWolf.
I agree all you need is a solid frame work of core rules , but I prefer them to cover the intended game play. (40ks current core rules only cover standard infantry units.Every other unit uses exceptions, USR's, and vehicle rules.etc)
And in my definition a 'solid framework of core rules ' = 'well defined instructions to play the game.'
The amount of FAQS and ERRATA for 40k sort of implies that the frame work is rather shaky and poorly defined.
And my definition of 'well defined' is simply using language correctly .
Do not call something universal , which means it applies to everything, and then call it special , which implies it does not apply to everything.
Do not say 'must' when you mean 'may','never', when you mean 'not often','always' when you mean 'mostly '....etc
GW likes to write rules using 'inspiring language' to inspire customers to buy toy soldiers.Which leads to very poor definition of the instructions to play the game.
I have read quite a few of rule sets over the years.(About 30 ish..)
The well written ones do not have to break into 'technical instruction-esque' language to explain how the game is played.
(MtG and CBT are a bit 'TI' as you pointed out.)
My favorite rules sets manage better definition , simply by applying 'every day language correctly and consistently.'
@Lanrak: Must be a 'by degrees' thing. Your not satisfied at the degree it's at now and I do. Some like it hot, some like it cold! I guess there are some places a little spit shine from GW would be appreciated, it's not like if they released 'em I wouldn't use 'em y'know? There's a point to how much you can really solidify rules though, MtG for instance is clarified and expanded in some way with each expansion, four expansions a year. Which often requires errattas and official rulings be ammended to their 10,000+ cards on Gatherer.com Like, somewhat recently 'put into play' became 'put onto the battlefield', and there has been some messing around with 'leaves the battlefield' or when something just 'dies' which is now essentially keyword for 'put into the/a graveyard'. And Magic is like 15+ years old and still trying to work some minor things out? I mean how picky should/can we get with a game company? Though I understand your point and believe at some level we are in full agreement.
Well unlike Magic, GW gets the chance to completely re-do everything without being cluttered with 15 year old cards with old wordings that need to be Errata'ed.
Shandara wrote: Well unlike Magic, GW gets the chance to completely re-do everything without being cluttered with 15 year old cards with old wordings that need to be Errata'ed.
Exactly. Every new edition, a new rule set is made, and new codices [supposedly designed to work with that edition, and in later codices, be compatible with the next] that rewrite the army to work properly.
As much as I hate to admit it, Matt Ward was good at one thing: Making armies work in the current/next edition of 40k. While he is the chief cheese monkey, and kingpin of all unbalancers, I've seen surprisingly few problems getting his stuff to work in 6th ed (Where difficulties arise, it's usually a problem in the rulebook, or with another codex).
Well even though I said they get the chance, they don't really do it.
They still insist on giving simple rules and then section upon section of exceptions to those rules to cover vehicles, flyers, etc..
I'm no game designer but I would collate all those into a single section for movement, e.g. 'This is how units move, with these types using these rules', shooting, assault, etc..
Instead of duplicating a lot across sections/sub-sections/sub-sub-sections to deal with the change of Infantry into Vehicles into Flyers.
Each new edition gives them the chance to clean up the rules.
Shandara wrote: Well even though I said they get the chance, they don't really do it.
They still insist on giving simple rules and then section upon section of exceptions to those rules to cover vehicles, flyers, etc..
I'm no game designer but I would collate all those into a single section for movement, e.g. 'This is how units move, with these types using these rules', shooting, assault, etc..
Instead of duplicating a lot across sections/sub-sections/sub-sub-sections to deal with the change of Infantry into Vehicles into Flyers.
Each new edition gives them the chance to clean up the rules.
Yeah, I'm on your side of the argument, but in my self-rage at admitting matt ward was capable of something, I forgot to add the "They do a poor job" part to my post.
EDIT: added this bit:
You'd think that by 6 editions in, they'd know how to write a rulebook...
Exactly right!? Six editions in and still goofing the core a smidgen? But each new edition is just a mutation off the last isn't it? Magic hasn't had to rewrite the core. I'm not sure how deep we want to get into a cross-comparison to Magic, but for what we've already talked about, I want to clarify some things. Wizards of the Coast along with the DCI are extremely good about keeping the Oracle text up to date. All rules errata to previous cards that need to be made due to a change or new expansion are posted, IIRC, the week before or week of the change or release. On all 10k+ cards. On extremely rare occasions a clarification by judges ruling may need to be added, but only rarely. And the Oracle text is easily brought up on a phone through Gatherer.com. And I'd say 99.95% of the time these things are rarely even relevant or worth noticing because the original cards wording is still clear enough and hasn't suffered any functional change (e.g. a change in cost, power, toughness, abilities, type, etc). Any changes or updates are to clarify previous wording by installing the new wording so that (as Lanrak would like) their is a consistent terminology/language/whatever. And I wouldn't use the word 'cluttered'. Due to the format divisions (Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, maybe one more) every single card is divided into place(s) where it can stay out of the way where wanted/needed and purposely not clutter the games environment. If you'd like I could go find an example of what a few changes might be.
But over here we got GW! Now none of this is meant as criticism, this is very important for you to understand, but...Wouldn't it be great if we could still use like a 1st ed Codex that had just been reprinted every year with constantly evolving, proportionally expanding rules, all changes to which were posted for free online? (that might not be clear for what I'm envisioning) And if all our FAQs and needed erratas were just posted once at release of a new edition and done with? What if it all just had been polished for the past 5 editions, instead of being rewritten over and over? But then the greater questions to the questions: Would that be good for 40k's casual, sandbox feel? Would they have been able to stay in business with out making us buy new rules entirely? Sub-question: If they had spent this time refining rules instead, would the game have a stronger/larger following? I don't know the answer to any of these. I DO know I like my little toy soldiers in the sandbox that we do have. Like I said before, I don't really want them changed, but wouldn't care either if they did.
Personal observation: It seems to me that somewhere in games there are these strange borders of evolution on one side, and change on the other. I could for instance point to DnD and say that Original evolved into Advanced, changed into 3rd ed, which evolved into 3.5, then changed into Fourth while also evolving into Pathfinder. Axis and Allies evolves over time, while also changing into alternate games and even game types. Warhammer and 40k constantly change but rarely evolve. None of this is inherently good or bad mind you. Hmmm, maybe that's just me in my own words.
Edit: We should be expecting another epic post by Focusedfire soon too shouldn't we?
lordofthegophers wrote: Here's a fact: 40k is a game of pew pew lazorz for kids, rules and releases are driven by profits. The sooner you realise this the sooner you can stop crying about how you don't like it and move on to a balanced game system that was created with balance and community in mind.
Never a truer word spoken. I've found 40K (and GW in general) to be getting a bit stale recently and 6th edition just feels like the last edition with a load of house rules dumped on the top to add "depth". I've taken the bits I like and adapt the game to scenarios that I can write and play out at the local club. Far better than the line up here and there, go at it style of play.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: I've found 40K (and GW in general) to be getting a bit stale recently and 6th edition just feels like the last edition with a load of house rules dumped on the top to add "depth". I've taken the bits I like and adapt the game to scenarios that I can write and play out at the local club. Far better than the line up here and there, go at it style of play.
I agree with this to some degree, though the pick and choose what you want and then playing out at the local club doesn't work so well in many parts of the USA. The reason why has to do with both geographical and cultural issues.
In many areas of the US, you have to drive distances, most britts would find astounding, in order to meet up with others that are into 40K.
As to cultural, lets just say that he US doesn't do small gaming groups very well. Imo, the gameplay in small groups eventually becomes very stale. You get to know one another to well and everything gets too predictable. I guess that I'm old school. That I prefer my randomness to come from my opponent rather than clumsy game mechanics that makes the entire game pointless.
PS-
I do envy you Britts and Europeans in general as to how easy it is to get to a game store and the number of fellow gamers available..
Let's be honest here. 40K has become a lot like WoW. GW feels that the way to expand the game is to increase the player base by making it easier for noobs to be successful playing the game. Since the old player base is already saturated it's time to increase sales with a game system that depends more on luck than skill. Thus all the random BS. Hence, anyone can win with the right rock-paper-scissor combo, but even the best players will lose because of it. It makes the game more generalized but less appealing if you ask me, but it's been an on-going trend for some time. Pity.
The problem is GW can not decide what damoghraphic they are targeting...
Most other companies produce rules focused on game play , to allow players to grow with the system.(Like chess.)
And /or price their products to compete for buisness in the open market.
GW price their products so high it acts as a barrier to new players wanting to start.
And the 'dumb down the game play' with so much randomness it deters some veteran players.
And then GW wonder why sales volumes are falling....
I have lost a lot of my interest in 40K. I started in 4th edition and as I learned the game and discovered weird, unbalancing things in the game, I would often here "yes that is overpowered or unbalanced, but you should have seen 'X' in last edition - GW is getting better with 40K each edition". So 5th edition rolled around and the same feelings. Yes GW fixed some issues but usually created as many or more. 6th edition comes along and IMO things have gotten worse for balance and what I enjoy in a game.
Flyers: I also felt that flyers (meaning using models on the table) don't fit the scale of the game and board size you need to play (and games in our area when I started were normally around 1750, then 1850 in 5th and 2000 in 6th - everyone wants to use all the toys). Since GW decided to include flyers it would be nice to have made an attempt to balance them in the game. The way it is going, maybe there will be a semblance of balance with flyers for 6th when 7th edition starts - I doubt it. It is the clumsy way GW has introduced flyers that is the issue - no attempt at balance between armies.
Balance: tight rules with decent internal and external balance between dexes is good for both tournament and casual players. There are no rules from stopping players from doing whatever they want. If you and you mates think necrons and GK should be best buds and fight together - who cares. It is another thing to add it into the game as a standard rule. The Allies matrix just makes a bad situation worse, IMO. Rather than put out a decent errata on each army with 6th edition to correct serious issues in any dex and with changing to a new game edition, GW just tossed in the Allies rules that, yes have some obvious fluffy aspects for some, but are filled with exploitable things for others (which are regularly exploited making many lists/units unplayable even in many casual games).
Randomness: Yes it is a dice game and so there are many random elements. That doesn't mean trying to make almost everything random when it doesn't need to be. Rolling for warlord traits seems silly to me as others have said. Commander X, are best leader in coordinating reserves and getting them to the battle at the right place and time at great advantage, will be sent in to lead the battle with no reserves (not that we don't have reserves in our army - we just decided not to use his 'great advantage' and give him reserves for the heck of it). I guess new dexes give certain characters warlord traits already - good. Is it so hard to errata each army and give them traits to that are applicable to their armies?
Yes GW needs to make money as it is a business and has shareholders. However, their business practices, which I find are detrimental to making a good game and to the customer, have been constantly pushing me away from 40K.
ArbitorIan wrote:
There is nothing on this forum that riles me more than people starting their comments with 'Wrong'. Later in the same post you criticise another poster for not stating 'In My Opinion' at the start, yet apparently your opinions are objective statements? Corma states that he enjoys 6th and feels that it's a great return to theme - how can he be 'Wrong'?
Noted, it is a pet peeve of yours. So much so that you will jump in to defend one who was being offensive.
KnuckleWolf wrote:Before we begin there is something I must do. *ahem* In my oppinion. OK! Were good now. Read on.
I read the same words you did from Comradepanda and I don't know where you got lost. Nothing about what the dude said sounded condescending, arrogant, 'baby talk', indicative of being a TFG, or rude. Though he walked that line like it was a tight rope.
When I first read his post there wasn't much of a problem. It wasn't until the end that he said something that cast the rest of his post in a much more negative tone.
I do agrre that he walked the tight rope for a bit, but he went over with the following:
comradepanda wrote:
I conclude with; you think their is no tactics, it is all list. Perhaps for the dumb player that is what it is at. But a war game isnt like magic where you find a nice combo and call it a tactic. A war game is where you find a nice way to combo units across the board with moving, shooting, and punching, and pull apart your enemy unit.
I highlighted the part that crossed the line. You read that line and then go back and re-read his whole post and there is definitely a condescending and insulting tone.
ArbitorIan wrote:
KnuckleWolf wrote: Edit: We should be expecting another epic post by Focusedfire soon too shouldn't we?
i can't wait for all of us to proven WRONG, and to be reminded that everything originally stated in the OP is objectively RIGHT.
*waits with baited breath*
Funny, I feel that it has been the opposite. I stated that I had problems with 6th ed that were driving me away from the game and listed the reasons. Then others start telling me that I'm WRONG to quit this editions for those reasons. Go figure.
Also, what's up dude? We've never had an issue before yet now you seem to be in this thread primarily to take shots at me. Would rather that people discuss the issues with this edition and could be done to correct said issues.
ON TOPIC:
Another concern of mine is what does this edition mean in relation to future editions.
I mean, We have had:
Squad Hammer
Hero-Hammer
Infantry Hammer
Tank Hammer
and now
Flier Hammer
Where does GW go with 40k from here?
Titan-Hammer? Where Titans are the new must have.
Space Hammer? Where Space/Landing craft like the Manta are the new Black?
Seriously, Their business model of more units and larger units has a tipping point. I feel that it was reached in 5th ed, others disagree.
Point is though that 40K is quickly approaching a point where either players will have no room to play at the current scale or GW will have to implement "Reserve Hammer" where the players can only start with x points on the board and can only bring in x points of reserves in a turn.
The only other option would be to reboot the whole system and I don't think anyone would want to see GW corporates version of a reboot.
*opens closet, finds dusty old thread with shiny new post* Oh, hey, we're still doing this thing? Cool.
Hey FF! Wassup!? I was just razzing you man. Wondered where you ran off to is all.
I dunno. A reboot can take many shapes. If they got some GOOD designerS( yes plural) on the game design team, who knows. I would subcontract the rule writing out if I were them. I was wondering about that myself in our long recess. Now no one ever really likes my ideas but I was thinking something like this:
They release a "Core" rule book that is simple as dirt. Just move/shoot/assault, terrain, stats. Not these BRBs, that can be extra. Simultaneous with that release is a super balanced string of codexes for each army that ONLY contain Characters, a generic HQ, a basic troop, and then three other units of whatever type. All the rules for other models will be available on the website but are noted to not have much balancing work done. Only these 'Mini' codexes will be tourney legal as they have been fine tuned for balance. Every four months, they slide one more unit into each codex, this will allow them to evolve a campaign over the course of a few releases. Then much like magic, every year, after youv'e run through a full campaign series of expansions you take the core codex list and tweak it a little to start the next campaign by changing the original codex line up. I should say before I go that its 4am where I am so this might not be as clear or concise or whatever an explanation as I want it to be. It was just a though anyway
having played a few games of 6th in not overly impressed Flyers as you say are very overpowered and the game just doesn't flow anymore recently ive been getting into the knight models Arkham city game Tonnes of fun the game is urban so theres plenty of LoS blocking terrain having the scale of the game is small and fast with each side having few models the action is fast paced and the best bit the rules are free the models are gorgeous and of course its Batman :-)
@Knucklewolf. I like the direction of your idea but it has a flaw that would need to be addressed.
The flaw has to do with such a short release and turn -over rate. Many players would not be able to purchase, build, paint and play their models in your trimester to annual cycle.
I do agree about releasing a stream-lined & coherent core rule set . Though I think that they should do the whole rule book like the mini books in the battle boxes and then offer the big fancy one for the collectors.
Imo, a lot of the over complication in the rules is from trying to add onto an existing rule set that has gone through many revisions. This is why I feel a from the ground up reboot is necessary.
The problem with doing such a reboot is GW Corporates' past behavior. It just doesn't inspire confidence in their ability to handle such a project. Now note that I specifically said GWCorporate . I feel that they have the personnel to do this, just not the culture to do so.
Honestly the only real issue i have with 6th is flyers. not so much the units themselves but the lack of updates for every race with flyers of their own AND ways to deal with them(skyfire upgrades n what not).
What i think they should have done is make a "flyers codex" that has aircraft and anti-aircraft for every army. I think that could solve a lot of issues people have with flyers.
Think of it this way. Is there a perfect game out there that NO ONE has any qualms with? I would love to play that game, whether it be table top or comp. GW is jsut going at a snails pace when it comes to the rules and the secrecy of GW is in itself hurting GW, not from the usual $ aspect, but by the testers. Testing a version is what irons out the kinks and with only so many testers there will be more kinks. So my only response to people complaining about fliers are...just wait till the next edition and then they will prob be no more worth than a slowed rooster.
But you have to learn a new language to play it ASL-inise, the rules are huge and detailed, and cover just about everything imaginable in a ww2 tactical setting.
If 40k ever became this detailed valanced and concise..thise would be the only kinda guys playing it..
not the current demographic of GW...a little on the older side (as am I ), I do miss playing ASL though , incredible game.
40k is a nice simple game, and a excuse to play with toys and not get locked away as a wackaloon.
^ASL looks (Cue Hogans Heros cheesy german accent) Verrry interrresteengk.(/accent).
the guys in that picture look about the age of both myself and those I game with.
Honestly, 40K wouldn't have to be perfectly balanced. Just a lot better than it is now, while also recognizing that there is a percentage of there player base where spatial relations and distances matter very much. I understand that many players have never developed their spatial reasoning skills. That is no reason to make the movement portion of the game so meaningless. that you have to force in a random mechanic just in order to make movement have some interaction with the game. .
The movement portion of the game should be just as powerful as the shooting and assault phases. Not something that is usually only used tactically in the first and last turns of the game.
More importantly, how in the world of feth are we going to get an entire model range ported to 15mm scale?
I like 40k at its kinda "this guy's 25mm and this guy's 28mm" scaling. I really do like it that they don't feel that every man must be exactly .5" (about 13mm) because that's 1/144 scale.
40k has never tried to be a game about the game. It's always tried to be a game to give some backing to the models we buy, since its the models you play for. I cannot convert 15mm models. Why would I want to buy them if I can't make them mine?
All in all, you're talking out of your arse. I'm sorry, I know that's rude, but seriously. Who actually wants to play in 15mm? FOW can do it because it was built in 15mm. if 40k would do it, it had better be a damn new game.
Honestly, 40K wouldn't have to be perfectly balanced. Just a lot better than it is now, while also recognizing that there is a percentage of there player base where spatial relations and distances matter very much. I understand that many players have never developed their spatial reasoning skills. That is no reason to make the movement portion of the game so meaningless. that you have to force in a random mechanic just in order to make movement have some interaction with the game. .
The movement portion of the game should be just as powerful as the shooting and assault phases. Not something that is usually only used tactically in the first and last turns of the game.
Now, look. I was as miffed as the next guy when I realised everyone moved 6" (I really like Fantasy having characteristic movement values, I think that's a lot better a way to go.) I was also miffed when they refused to have G ranged weaponry. On the other hand, I liked the randomness of scatter. It adds something that you need to take into account. I also think the scatter dice is one of the most brilliant ideas ever, just for the record.
All that said, I'd be careful saying "never developed their spatial reasoning skills." That's a very, very edgy statement and while I'm sure you didn't mean to insinuate we're all dumb for enjoying 40k's current scale, you did just say it.
Movement is a bit unimportant, sure. Some armies never move. This just makes deployment more important.
I think you've misused tactics here, too. Tactically, movement is used every phase of the game. Strategically, the first and last turn of the game are crucial for making position or capturing objectives.
Maybe, you simply don't understand the finesse of tactical movement, rather than it simply doesn't exist? I know I have quite a few movement phase tactics that, if they weren't there, I couldn't win in the assault phase. I also know that there is a tactic to making the most of your consolidation and run moves, no matter their distance.
Hi again.
I think it is important to have a clear definition of what we mean by strategy and tactics.
As often we end up confusing them and talking at cross purpouses.
This is just a suggestion to allow the discussion to continue.(As discussing the fine points of definition and application would take 100s of pages. )
For simplicity we could define them as ;_
Strategic choices are made before the game starts..The mission objectives, deployment and units used.
And tactical choices are made in game.What units perform what actions in what order.
40k has strategic loading on movement. Eg where the units start and where the units move to to claim objectives.
But other games make it more tactical ,by limiting movement decisions to ONE phase, and making players choose what the units are going to do.
With 40k allowing movement in the moving shooting and assault phase.AND making it quite random.
The tactical choices about movement are diminished.
Other games make the players take more decisions on how units move in the 'command' or 'movement' phase for example.
What really annoys me about 40k though, is the massive over complication in the rules writing , which leads to so many WTF moments as the GWdevs lose control of the rules.
40k relatively simple game play could be covered in a more straightforward way, with more appropriate core rules.
When you look at the Epic games, (Net Epic and Armageddon.)
You can help but feel 40k used the wrong choice of game mechanics when it changed from a skirmish to a battle game.
I first started playing 40k about 10 years ago when i was like 9 or something and ive enjoyed it ever since. Ill be the first to admit that yes some of the rules can be a bit iffy and every rule book has its problems. When it come to six edition i'd have to say i like it. The majority of the games I play now are tournaments or apoc games held at my house back home with my close friends and we play for fun!! we just have a good time playing a game we have all played and loved for quite a while. The rules suit me and friends just fine on the basis of the fact that we just don't really care to much. we just play to have an excuse to eat, drink, and hangout all day. I a rule seems stupid or broken or outright crazy we either congratulate the lucky punk who got the benefit! or we might make some simple house rules...
For example when it comes to the apoc rules. I have my complaints abut the deployment, who fights along side who, who goes first and several other strategic assets that can be taken...
To deal with this we have done two things, suck it up and just played and still had a great time! or we set up a scenario game... we use huge oddly shaped tables/ arranged tables, not just the standard 8x10 ... we draw maps and battle plans before hand to create campaigns and background to our game. and people deploy everywhere! We try to make it so that there isnt side by side fighting of two armies that just dont match... like necron and orks! We have also rid of or controlled some rules like flank march or we have given certain warlord traits to army generals based on the scenario. The APOC games we usually end up playing are fun as heck and tend to be quite bloody. For tournaments we hold, we throw alot of randomness and fun objectives into the mix. it makes for a fun and relaxed game!
So yes i know this is a discussion about playing the rules the letter like in a real tournament. And yes over the years i have seen how GW has geared its games towards buying more or bigger models, therefore more expensive. and yes there probably is some things that could be changed. Im just trying to show that you dont have to give up the game entirely and sell all your stuff... It can still be loads of fun! I personally play several different games, FOW, War of the ring, napoleonics, civil war ( black powder), fantasy and various other games that me and my friends all have a good time playing!
So take this how you will but 40k has been something me and friends have had loads of fun playing because we love the fluff, models, and hanging out!
remember its a game, have fun!
Happy Gaming !!
Tony A.
Most people still play 40k because of the artistry and background.
DESPITE the poor rules and codex books, which they pay a fortune for.(Even the GWdev team don't know how the rules are supposed to work according to Jervis. )
And then try to fix all the problems them selves!
I am a bit clueless why anyone would pay over the odds for substandard product , just so they can 'enjoy fixing it themselves!'
Lanrak wrote: Most people still play 40k because of the artistry and background.
DESPITE the poor rules and codex books, which they pay a fortune for.(Even the GWdev team don't know how the rules are supposed to work according to Jervis. )
And then try to fix all the problems them selves!
I am a bit clueless why anyone would pay over the odds for substandard product , just so they can 'enjoy fixing it themselves!'
Funny, I've come to feel that most stick to the game because of a near religious belief that things will eventually get better and a "To big to Fail" mentality. I believe that most eventually come to know that the Game rules have massive issues and that the game is way out of scale for the models it uses. Thing is, that by the time they come realize these problems, they feel like they have "too much invested" to quit and in some instances, even complain.
Instead, these "GW faithful" hold out hope for the "Next Edition". When the edition arrives, the desire for it to be good is so bad that the player will make justifications for the new glaring issues.
Justifications like, "Wait for a few codices to be released", "The meta will eventually shift" and my favorite "Just buy a current power army until your other one gets an update". I swear that there are times that GW seems like it is a splinter faction/ branch of Sc******ogy or some other religion.
Well, the one thought I have on flyers is this, they have WAY too much armor. Flyers should be dependent on speed to protect them, and needing a 6 to hit them unless you have a skyfire weapon works well. That every flyer I can think of is at least as heavily armored as a rhino is absolutely wrong.
That being said I find it incredibly frustrating to for my flyrant to have a 1 in 3 chance of being knocked out of the sky by weapons that didn't even hurt him!
I get what you are saying ff and I agree wholeheartedly. My gaming buddies and I use 5th ed rules and codices. Though it means we don't get rules for a majority of the new models ect. But hey, I really like the models and all the fluff for the 40k universe.
GW obviously aim their game at younger gamers. This can be seen by overly simple/permissive rules.
I don't use allies, but I think there should be more restrictions both points wise and who can ally with who.
The introduction of flyers into the main game seems like a desperate attempt by gw to get mor interest in the game system. Which, might I add, is overpriced. However I will keep buying the models although another price increase will break me.
I think that legitimate complaints against 6th edition can fall mostly into two categories.
1) Personal taste
2) Awkward clumsy rules
As a matter of personal taste I am not keen on the flier rules, the challenge rules, random rolling for warlord traits and psychic powers.
I find the whole challenge system to be unneeded and it seems like they ported that from whfb.
Overall 6th seems to me to be more fiddly and a bit like 2nd edition, which I do not see as a great advancement. I like to play 40k and the changes from 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 all had their pros and cons but it seemed like the game was progressing. Sixth seems to me to be a bit of a step backward.
The real test of an edition is the codexes. I think the necron codex is a real problem for this edition and hope something changes in the meta to slow them down a bit. I hope for the sake of the Tau players that their codex is much better than the demon codex because that book is just terrible.
As far as a 15 mm scale game of 40k is concerned, I just do not see that as an option. It wouldnt really be 40k, how would you remove figures from the typical stand of 5 figs when there was a casualty. Sure, 15mm scale games can be great but I just dont see 40k transferring to that scale. I could see epic translated to 15mm but since there are already 6mm figs and rule sets I dont see the point in it.
Having played 40k with 6mm minatures ,(Epic.)THIS is a much more intuitive and in synergy with the background 'battle game'.And so for 'Epic Battles' in the 41st millenium this would be my rule set of choice.
FAR more game play , far more interaction and ALL the information in 138 pages...(Including the army lists.)
However , I think that using the current 28mm heroic scale minatures is a major draw to current 40k players.As the artistry and the IDEA of what 40k could be is very appealing.
And the inspiration to aspire to this theoretical ideal is very strong.(So strong 40k players go above and beyond to try to get it despite the poor products GW sell them.)
The game of 40k can and should work well with current scale 40k minatures.
But this would need a major re-write to make targeting enemy units with ranged weapons less cut and dried.(Its in range Ill hit it on a 3+ no matter what!)
And probably a simple and intuitive suppression mechanic.
Along with a more interactive game turn, unified damage resolution,etc.
In a recent poll only 'taking turns and rolling D6' seemed to be the basic requirments the average 40k player wanted to keep hold of.
So the whole rule set could be re-written for 40k intended game play , rather than written for WHFB, then bodged up to sort of represent 40k in a round about way.
Lanrak wrote: I am a bit clueless why anyone would pay over the odds for substandard product , just so they can 'enjoy fixing it themselves!'
You realize your talking about people who buy kits and put even the freakin' game pieces together themselves right? I mean, think about that. If they want to fiddle with the design of the individiual pieces and even the playing surface, why wouldn't they want rules that need a little 'putting together'? This game wasn't geared toward an age group at all! It was aimed at people who wanted to be more creative with their gaming experience, if it was aimed at all mind you. The same way DnD is. Which BTW doesn't have perfect rules either but they are still amazingly polished rules. These are two very immersive games, and I think that's what draw's many to it. Even magic is enjoying some of the creative input factor lately with the higher influx of players/artists 'Full-Arting' cards they like or sending them away for specific artists to do for them. Check some out, they are pretty sweet! (example below, yes those are magic cards with altered art)
Not even are the Flyers more armored then Rhinos as Rumbleguts points out, they often have more firepower than Predators! I'm like...lol wut da f?
As someone who plays mostly with 6mm and 15mm sci-fi, I can tell ya'll that yes, they are both way, way more affordable. However, the 15mm miniatures available are only really dead on proxies for Orks and IG; most 15mm minitures are simply a different flavour of sci-fi, few having melee weapons of any kind. 6mm has almost everything you need, and would be lauphebly cheap, but the true advantages of that scale would only come into its own with Apoc battles. honestly, I like many elements of the rules and lore; I would love to see the community marshalling togather to take all the elements in rules and lore that they like and put it into a Warhammer 40k: Fan edition. indeed, I would be wiling to head up such a project myself if I were more qoulified.
Lanrak wrote: Most people still play 40k because of the artistry and background.
DESPITE the poor rules and codex books, which they pay a fortune for.(Even the GWdev team don't know how the rules are supposed to work according to Jervis. )
And then try to fix all the problems them selves!
I am a bit clueless why anyone would pay over the odds for substandard product , just so they can 'enjoy fixing it themselves!'
Funny, I've come to feel that most stick to the game because of a near religious belief that things will eventually get better and a "To big to Fail" mentality. I believe that most eventually come to know that the Game rules have massive issues and that the game is way out of scale for the models it uses. Thing is, that by the time they come realize these problems, they feel like they have "too much invested" to quit and in some instances, even complain.
Or, you know, we just play it because we think it's a fun game, regardless of the faults.
But nope, we have to be insane and/or deluding ourselves, because we don't agree with you and are thus obviously wrong.
KOVAV wrote:As someone who plays mostly with 6mm and 15mm sci-fi, I can tell ya'll that yes, they are both way, way more affordable. However, the 15mm miniatures available are only really dead on proxies for Orks and IG; most 15mm minitures are simply a different flavour of sci-fi, few having melee weapons of any kind. 6mm has almost everything you need, and would be lauphebly cheap, but the true advantages of that scale would only come into its own with Apoc battles. honestly, I like many elements of the rules and lore; I would love to see the community marshalling togather to take all the elements in rules and lore that they like and put it into a Warhammer 40k: Fan edition. indeed, I would be wiling to head up such a project myself if I were more qoulified.
I am looking for people to contribute and help build the list(hint)(hint).
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Captain Avatar wrote:
Funny, I've come to feel that most stick to the game because of a near religious belief that things will eventually get better and a "To big to Fail" mentality. I believe that most eventually come to know that the Game rules have massive issues and that the game is way out of scale for the models it uses. Thing is, that by the time they come realize these problems, they feel like they have "too much invested" to quit and in some instances, even complain.
Or, you know, we just play it because we think it's a fun game, regardless of the faults.
But nope, we have to be insane and/or deluding ourselves, because we don't agree with you and are thus obviously wrong.
Hmm.....
@AlmightyWalrus- You do realize that nowhere in his post did Captain Avatar say or imply that anyone was insane or deluding themselves. Those are your words, not his.
The fact that you inferred such from his post and the tone of your reply could be viewed that you are the one who feels that those with differing views must be wrong.
Not trying to attack you, just stating that your reply seem to be a bit afield.
@ Captain Avatar- I agree that "some" players have a near religious attitude toward the game.
Though imo, it is not just limited to a "belief that things will eventually get better". Rather, some will be openly hostile towards any views and ideas simply because a person doesn't don't believe that 40k isomgthemostamazingbesthingevvaa.
Now I disagree about such people being in the majority. Could they not just be a very vocal minority in your area?
@KnuckleWolf.
My gaming group happily make our own terrain, modify convert proxy , as much as any one else I guess.
But we prefer to use FREE TO DOWNLOAD rules , if we are going to modify and change the rules to suit our tastes.(There are quite a few to pick from.)
GW charge for a PREMIUM product they do not deliver.
The best analogy I can think of is if you are setting up a car for 'banger racing',(demolition derby,) where you get your jollies speeding round a track bashing up the cars, in a fun random way.
It makes more sense to buy your cars from the scrapyard.
You do not buy them from the GW showroom and pay F1 racing car prices...for a car in a similar condition to the one found in the scrapyard...
There is NOTHING wrong with 40k game play.
It is PURELY the RULES SET that is awful, in reguards over complication , for the relative simple game play of 40k.
Compared to other rules sets.(Even GW Specialist games Blood Bowl , Epic Armageddon etc,)
In short, 40k is a fun activity, with an awful instruction manual.
Lanrak wrote: @KnuckleWolf.
My gaming group happily make our own terrain, modify convert proxy , as much as any one else I guess.
But we prefer to use FREE TO DOWNLOAD rules , if we are going to modify and change the rules to suit our tastes.(There are quite a few to pick from.)
GW charge for a PREMIUM product they do not deliver.
The best analogy I can think of is if you are setting up a car for 'banger racing',(demolition derby,) where you get your jollies speeding round a track bashing up the cars, in a fun random way.
It makes more sense to buy your cars from the scrapyard.
You do not buy them from the GW showroom and pay F1 racing car prices...for a car in a similar condition to the one found in the scrapyard...
There is NOTHING wrong with 40k game play.
It is PURELY the RULES SET that is awful, in reguards over complication , for the relative simple game play of 40k.
Compared to other rules sets.(Even GW Specialist games Blood Bowl , Epic Armageddon etc,)
In short, 40k is a fun activity, with an awful instruction manual.
focusedfire wrote:
*snip*
Now I disagree about such people being in the majority. Could they not just be a very vocal minority in your area?
Point taken, my statement was overly broad. I should have said that most of the long term players that I have known have exhibited such behavior.
Lanrak wrote:@KnuckleWolf.
There is NOTHING wrong with 40k game play.
It is PURELY the RULES SET that is awful, in reguards over complication , for the relative simple game play of 40k.
Compared to other rules sets.(Even GW Specialist games Blood Bowl , Epic Armageddon etc,)
In short, 40k is a fun activity, with an awful instruction manual.
While I agree that the rules are atrocious, I disagree about there being nothing wrong with 40k gameplay as a broad generalization.
I feel that it works "ok" in small games but as the points level go up scale issues generally limits the gameplay.
To my bro Lanrak,
I want to back up a tick and make sure we are on the same page. That was all an agreement post right? Like downloading other free rules=getting different bits to put your game together, right? We also agree that the official GW game is really flawed but stlll playable if you pay the derp-o-saurus prices? Like, we good? Lots of caps, wasn't trying to make you angry bro, sorry
@Knucklewolf.
I was not angry at you.But a bit frustrated with my self for not making my point very clear.
I do not see the point in paying a price which SHOULD deliver a well defined intuitive rule set with focus on game play.Which needs very little or no input from the players.
And then be given a very poorly defined diffuse and counter intuitive rule set full of 'typoes', and 'copy paste errors' etc. Which need lots of additional work to make the games enjoyable for the players.
I do not mind paying a premium price for fully developed and PLAY TESTED rules, that can be used in their natural state, to deliver the implied game play With a minimum amount of fuss/input from the players .(EG the Classic Battletech series.)
But with all the FREE rule sets available , you can down load and mess about with to your hearts content.Buying GW s rules at a premium price for 40k to fix yourself seems to be a very strange choice to me.
@Captain Avatar.
I meant to differentiate between the fun game experience allot of people enjoy when playing 40k.
And the way the 'instructions to play the game' get in the way of that experience.
If the instructions to play were written with 'game play focus' father than 'selling the latest releases'.Then most , if not all of the issues we encounter in larger games would be mitigated.
40k is intrinsicaly a UNIT interaction game.Individual models within the unit effect unit performance.
BUT 40k rules switch between macro managing 'army strategy', and micro managing individual models actions.
TOTALLY missing the unit level where all the interaction should take place!
Where as a rule set focused on DETAILED UNIT interaction would allow much more fun and fluid game play.But apparently the idea of deep in game decision making it not in synergy with GW plc's current prime demoghraphic.
Lanrak 505518 5434281 wrote:
@Captain Avatar.
I meant to differentiate between the fun game experience allot of people enjoy when playing 40k.
And the way the 'instructions to play the game' get in the way of that experience.
If the instructions to play were written with 'game play focus' father than 'selling the latest releases'.Then most , if not all of the issues we encounter in larger games would be mitigated.
40k is intrinsicaly a UNIT interaction game.Individual models within the unit effect unit performance.
BUT 40k rules switch between macro managing 'army strategy', and micro managing individual models actions.
TOTALLY missing the unit level where all the interaction should take place!
Where as a rule set focused on DETAILED UNIT interaction would allow much more fun and fluid game play.But apparently the idea of deep in game decision making it not in synergy with GW plc's current prime demographic.
I agree
Absolutely, 40K "was" an enjoyable "activity/game", until the rules became so intrusive that it stopped being so much "activity/game" and more "drudgery/work".
So yeah, I agree with your above ^ post, providing that the rules are re-written with the scale of the game system firmly in mind,
@ All Posters
Just an added note.
The allies matrix problem is about to get truly stupid. The Tau are about to be released and they have been given a new mission from GW. Where the Tau were originally designed as a check to the MEQ problems of 3rd & 4th, the new codex coming out next month sounds to to be the check to the current flier meta.
The reason this will be so stupid is that Tau are going to be allied to everyone for their AA capability, thus....Tau will be fighting Tau in what will "seem" every game(Not saying "every" just that it will seem that way.) Now I really like my Tau and am glad that they look to be a strong selling faction.....it is just that I don't want to be shooting my faction every game. It just doesn't seem fitting.
The allies matrix problem is about to get truly stupid. The Tau are about to be released and they have been given a new mission from GW. Where the Tau were originally designed as a check to the MEQ problems of 3rd & 4th, the new codex coming out next month sounds to to be the check to the current flier meta.
The reason this will be so stupid is that Tau are going to be allied to everyone for their AA capability, thus....Tau will be fighting Tau in what will "seem" every game(Not saying "every" just that it will seem that way.) Now I really like my Tau and am glad that they look to be a strong selling faction.....it is just that I don't want to be shooting my faction every game. It just doesn't seem fitting.
LOL, that's funny. Maybe one of the central tenant of the greater anime fan is going murder-rage whenever you see aircraft on any kind. "Commander, the chaos space marines request our aid" "What? no. they cannot be reasoned with. they are insane, and agianst the greater good." "Their fighting an airborne force" "WOOOOOT! RUSH TO THEIR AID! FOR THE GREATER GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!"
ok i read about 50% of previous replies [sorry ot] and thought this is too long. i am sure there are many valid points. here are mine
1. Allies Matrix: it an inbalanced game mechanic- it is designed to create tactical situations. however, many players will find a way to exploit it to create and good example that closely resembles this is whfb 4th edition and the magic item combo's.
2.Flyers: these are also added to heighten the element of tactics, however they shouldn't always be in game, or some shouldn't be considered "Flyers" at all. the ones that should are: Fighta Bomma, the DE Fighter, and the Helspamdrake, i personally think the majority of flyers should be counted as "skimmers", read as similar function as eldar anti grav tech.
@Orkimedes 1000.
Change 'tactical' to 'strategic' and 'tactics' to 'strategy' in your post and I agree with the first two.
And No3, its the same re hash of the same basic rule set and fluff, in the vain hope of selling more toy soldiers.(Just like every edition 'change' since 3rd..)
Was just thinking about what 6th Edition's legacy would be and then I came on this thread.
In response to the OP, I actually really like the flyers mechanic. I think it adds a new tactical element to the game - it takes me ages to work out exactly where to come on to avoid LoS from the icarus lascannon and still get my missiles off, really gets the grey matter going. The Necron flying circus was poorly thought out but that doesn't make flyers in general [usually see two max] a bad thing.
I like the introduction of overwatch, it just makes more sense. I don't think it is a game breaking as some say [although I'm a little concerned about the Tau supporting fire rule].
In regards to the allies matrix, the problem for me is how it tramples all over the fluff rather than balancing issues, although there is a clear bias towards imperial armies.
My big issue is just how slow and clunky the game is. I usually play 2v2 with a group of 3 friends and there are always loads of occasions where we have to stop and check how USRs and shooting mechanics work, then from there to the FAQs to check they haven't been changed, then a 'debate' because of ambiguous wording [wound allocations from blast templates for example]. We always end up forgetting something like nightfighting as there are just so many different rules to take into account. I don't find this is improving the more we play which leads to slow games and lots of conflict.
I also found that the game is very 1 dimensional with a huge bias towards shooting. Combat usually ends in a big tarpit that I think we'd all just rather avoid.
6th edition's legacy - slow games with too many ambiguous rules?
I've found that a "just as planned" buy in, is needed to circumvent the randomness that is my major complaint. For instance, I play Dark Angels, and take Azrael. Partially for the rites of battle, but mostly so I know I'll have a warlord trait that I can actually use. My librarian takes Prescience and Psychic Shriek, Again, so I always know what powers he has, and I don't roll at the beginning of the game and say "wow, that was 145 points wasted, as you have no use in my battle plans now"
And I think this is because the game has been on a steady track to using special characters more and more. After all, the point requirement to make them show up is almost gone (heres looking at you, templars [I think, haven't looked at that codex in a while]). The game is going away from, "do what you want with the characters you've made up in your head", to, "do what you want with the characters we've made up in our heads."
After all, in the 4th edition space marine codex, you could build a chapter to fit an entire planned back story, and then give a character you've come up with the adamantine mantel to keep them able to actually survive a round with a monstrous creature. Now if you play space marines and aren't running Calgar/Lysander, it giggles when you charge and smashes you before you can tickle it. Sure, I can just make my own lysander model, and paint him in my chapter colors, but that doesn't change the fact I'm playing "kind of Imperial Fists". I don't care for the creativity leeching thats been going on, the most.
ADustyMan wrote: I've found that a "just as planned" buy in, is needed to circumvent the randomness that is my major complaint. For instance, I play Dark Angels, and take Azrael. Partially for the rites of battle, but mostly so I know I'll have a warlord trait that I can actually use. My librarian takes Prescience and Psychic Shriek, Again, so I always know what powers he has, and I don't roll at the beginning of the game and say "wow, that was 145 points wasted, as you have no use in my battle plans now"
And I think this is because the game has been on a steady track to using special characters more and more. After all, the point requirement to make them show up is almost gone (heres looking at you, templars [I think, haven't looked at that codex in a while]). The game is going away from, "do what you want with the characters you've made up in your head", to, "do what you want with the characters we've made up in our heads."
After all, in the 4th edition space marine codex, you could build a chapter to fit an entire planned back story, and then give a character you've come up with the adamantine mantel to keep them able to actually survive a round with a monstrous creature. Now if you play space marines and aren't running Calgar/Lysander, it giggles when you charge and smashes you before you can tickle it. Sure, I can just make my own lysander model, and paint him in my chapter colors, but that doesn't change the fact I'm playing "kind of Imperial Fists". I don't care for the creativity leeching thats been going on, the most.
Mmm. This is one thing that saps the fun out of 40k for me. Every time I try to create a personal theme a damnable D6 roll screws it over, and I'm forced to go by GW's idea of "fun".
40k used to be a game of "here's some cool stuff to get you started, now sod of and make your own damn fun!". Now it's moved to "You're clearly too stupid to make your own fun, I guess I'll have to make it for you".
An idea for flyer balancing, which I just had as I continue to read through this thread. At the beginning of the turn, make them choose skyfire, or not. If they choose skyfire, they shoot normally. If they don't, they can fire at any unit they passed over, from the facing the point of the unit they started closest to. This represents a strafing attack, versus the way they operate now.
ADustyMan wrote: An idea for flyer balancing, which I just had as I continue to read through this thread. At the beginning of the turn, make them choose skyfire, or not. If they choose skyfire, they shoot normally. If they don't, they can fire at any unit they passed over, from the facing the point of the unit they started closest to. This represents a strafing attack, versus the way they operate now.
I think that's close to how fliers work in epic armageddon. Except that interceptor was incorporated into skyfire, and skyfire is the only thing that can shoot aircraft.
Dakkamite wrote: I wandered around a 40k tournament the other week in between games at the Fantasy tournament next door.
Every table had fliers (usually on both sides). Every table had an Aegis Defense Line (most had two). At least three quarters had allied detachments.
Screw that gak man, I'm gonna go try and find that 15mm 40k
Considering that when you add in FW the Orks have more kinds of fliers than they know what to do with and My nids stuck with a grand total of three, one of which is apocalypse only and exactly zero surface to air options, I'm fairly certain you're in much better straits than I am.
Out of the regular fliers, only the dakkajet is any good. The others are really terrible from a competitive point of view.
No idea about those FW fliers though. I thought they were all Apoc only? But really, the only time I'll run a flier is either A) the other guy is running Hellturkeys or Vendettas or something equally terrible that deserves some Dakkajet love B) if I'm running the Blitzabomber with its hilarious crash table
Dakkamite wrote: Out of the regular fliers, only the dakkajet is any good. The others are really terrible from a competitive point of view.
No idea about those FW fliers though. I thought they were all Apoc only? But really, the only time I'll run a flier is either A) the other guy is running Hellturkeys or Vendettas or something equally terrible that deserves some Dakkajet love B) if I'm running the Blitzabomber with its hilarious crash table
Fightas and Fighta bommers aren't apoc only as they aren't superheavies, but Fightas are essentially more durable dakkajets with Big shootas instead of supashootas, but they can carry bombs and rokkits. Fighta bommers are fightas except with more stuff to make things explode.
As anyone can tell you, Tyranids are rather allergic to bombers. Large amounts of pieplates and templates has always been the best way to kill Tyranids en masse.
Just checked out those FW fliers. The Fighta is a Dakkajet minus the WAAAGH Plane and Fighta Ace things (aka what makes it good...), the Bomba is sort of like a more expensive Burna Bomba. Those one shot, 72" rokkits might be interesting though. The main good thing about them is that 1-3 Fightas per FA slot... could totally run a roight propa deff skwadron with them!
Dakkamite wrote: Just checked out those FW fliers. The Fighta is a Dakkajet minus the WAAAGH Plane and Fighta Ace things (aka what makes it good...), the Bomba is sort of like a more expensive Burna Bomba. Those one shot, 72" rokkits might be interesting though. The main good thing about them is that 1-3 Fightas per FA slot... could totally run a roight propa deff skwadron with them!
Rokkitz that hit at BS5. And always on side or rear armor. And guess where Leman Russes have such weak armor that big shootas can penetrate them? (I've seriously seen ork players kill leman russes with big shootas by firing into their craptastic rear armor, much lulz were had).
Wot manner of heresy is this? Orks cannot shoot at BS 5, its roight unorky!
Seriously what am I missing here? Are you talking about Grot Bomms, which do hit at 2+ or some crazy gak but are fairly weak, or is there some way to hit with those S8 rokkits at BS5?
Wot manner of heresy is this? Orks cannot shoot at BS 5, its roight unorky!
Seriously what am I missing here? Are you talking about Grot Bomms, which do hit at 2+ or some crazy gak but are fairly weak, or is there some way to hit with those S8 rokkits at BS5?
Suparokkitz have unlimited range and always hit on twos. Suck it hunter killers.
Aeronautica gives them Rokkits but no suparokkits that I can find?
Then again, even the 1d4chan tactica is talking about Suparokkits. So its more a matter of "where the hell are the rules?" rather than "do these rules even exist?"
You realize what you've done though right? I literally *just* finished nine Big Trak / Battlewagon scratch builds, and now I have to get to work making nine of these goddamn fliers so I can troll all that Mech Guard at my club...
loki old fart wrote: Terrain should be part of the table, not your army list.
Warlord traits could be chosen and paid for in points, as should spells.
Charges should be fixed length not random.
I was going to say that. There are a few other huge flaws with 6ed
1) Melee is a joke now, there is only 1 army build that would work Deathwing Hammernator everything else gets cut down by OP shooting.
2) Power Weapons being AP3 what are eldar banshees, death cult assassins, lighting claws terminators, shining spears, burna boyz use in game now
3) Flyers Why! just Why
4) Moving and Rapid Fire. unit of 30 Orks boys start 24" away move 9" average (6+D6") now 15" away
Space Marines move 6" shoot kill 3 Ork from the front 15" + 7" now the Ork are 22" away from Space Marines (Orks thinking to themselves why we no move last turn) unit of 27 Orks boys start 22" away move 9" average (6+D6") now 13" away
Space Marines move 6" shoot kill 3 Ork from the front 13" + 7" now the Ork are 20" away from Space Marines (Orks thinking to themselves we did move this turn right) unit of 24 Orks boys start 20" away move 9" average (6+D6") now 11" away
Space Marines are at the bored edge cant move back but move 6" sideways so they 12" away " shoot kill 6 Ork from the front 12" + 2" now the Ork are 14" away from Space Marines
unit of 18 Orks boys start 14" away move 6" just need 8" on (2d6 average of 7") for a random charge they get 8" thank Gork and Mork..... stop. stop Snap Fire
the bolter get only .75 of a kill the Orks are IN no no Space Marines get a free flamer and its gets d3 hits on snap fire they kill the 1 Ork that made combat Failed
Space Marines move 6" shoot kill 12 Ork from the front 2" + 4" the Ork unit Fails LD Nob kills a boy to re-roll they pass this time
unit of 5 Orks boys start 4" away move 6" just need 1" on (2d6 average of 7") for a random charge they get 12" you always get the big numbers when you don't need them. Snap Fire then Space Marines get 11 attacks only the Nob lives he kills 2 Space Marines lost combat by 2 LD 5 no re-roll and is run down with his I3 vs I4
so end of 5th turn a unit of 30 Orks costing 225pts were wiped by 170pts of Space Marines and there is still 8 men left in the unit. If you want to try ripping on the example just remember, rhinos are 35pts so now the unit is 205pt unit. The Space Marines can drive off 3rd turn or tank shock 2nd turn pushing the Orks back the 4" of ground they have made over 2 turns and now have to go around the rhino or they have to assault it
1) Melee is a joke now, there is only 1 army build that would work Deathwing Hammernator everything else gets cut down by OP shooting.
2) Power Weapons being AP3 what are eldar banshees, death cult assassins, lighting claws terminators, shining spears, burna boyz use in game now
3) Flyers Why! just Why
1) Abaddon disagrees.
2) Not all of them. It actually makes sense. As for their use, it makes CC easier.
3) Agreed.
1) Melee is a joke now, there is only 1 army build that would work Deathwing Hammernator everything else gets cut down by OP shooting.
2) Power Weapons being AP3 what are eldar banshees, death cult assassins, lighting claws terminators, shining spears, burna boyz use in game now
3) Flyers Why! just Why
1) Abaddon disagrees.
2) Not all of them. It actually makes sense. As for their use, it makes CC easier.
3) Agreed.
1) um who will go with Abaddon
2) What about lighting claws
1) Melee is a joke now, there is only 1 army build that would work Deathwing Hammernator everything else gets cut down by OP shooting.
2) Power Weapons being AP3 what are eldar banshees, death cult assassins, lighting claws terminators, shining spears, burna boyz use in game now
3) Flyers Why! just Why
1) Abaddon disagrees.
2) Not all of them. It actually makes sense. As for their use, it makes CC easier.
3) Agreed.
1) um who will go with Abaddon
2) What about lighting claws
1) Me. I will be termie bombing him in when I've got him painted. Termie bomb + meat-shield spam. And a Heldrake. 'Cause cheese.
2) Re-roll to wound (I think), still AP3. Only 2+ saves will stop them - use against almost anything you want in CC.
1) Melee is a joke now, there is only 1 army build that would work Deathwing Hammernator everything else gets cut down by OP shooting.
2) Power Weapons being AP3 what are eldar banshees, death cult assassins, lighting claws terminators, shining spears, burna boyz use in game now
3) Flyers Why! just Why
1) Abaddon disagrees.
2) Not all of them. It actually makes sense. As for their use, it makes CC easier.
3) Agreed.
1) um who will go with Abaddon
2) What about lighting claws
1) Some people like Abaddon for his beatstick quality, he's still very hard to surpass in that category.
2) Lightning claws are primarily used for sheer volume of attacks and rerolling to wound is pretty nice. Also, 2+ saves are pretty rare, it's entirely possible to have a list without any unit that has one. Heck, I don't think the Eldar, DE, or Imperial Guard even get 2+ saves anywhere. Just because you can't kill TEQs with them doesn't make them worthless, as there are still plenty of 3+ and 4+ save models around.
I don't think you 2 have played any games.
1) Hammernator are the same pts as lighting claws terminators (str4 AP3 5+ save) so why would i ever not take Hammernator (str8 AP2 3+ save)
2) Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have Hammernator
3) All Space Marines armies can have 40 Hammernator
4) Hammernator can Combat Squads to make 8 5man Hammernator units
5) 5 Hammernator would kill Abaddon and Abaddon cost that same price as 7 Hammernator
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why do you need anything other then a bolter to kill Eldar and Dark Eldar they die if you flick a wet towel at them
orkgoffrocker wrote: I don't think you 2 have played any games.
1) Hammernator are the same pts as lighting claws terminators (str4 AP3 5+ save) so why would i ever not take Hammernator (str8 AP2 3+ save)
2) Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have Hammernator
3) All Space Marines armies can have 40 Hammernator
4) Hammernator can Combat Squads to make 8 5man Hammernator units
5) 5 Hammernator would kill Abaddon and Abaddon cost that same price as 7 Hammernator
Automatically Appended Next Post: 6) Why do you need anything other then a bolter to kill Eldar and Dark Eldar they die if you flick a wet towel at them
Firstly, there's no need to be rude. I know that I have played multiple games since 6th. Wins and losses all round, ofc. Having an Ultramarine player nearby means I do actually know what I'm talking about here.
1) Well, my knowledge of SM codecies is rusty, so that wasn't the first thought in my head. But SM characters oft have access to lightning caws, as do several CSM units. I believe they appear in some other stuff too. They're not always in direct competition with TH/SS.
2) They don't always want to. TH/SS termies aren't the "Be-All-End-All" of WH40k.
3) Who uses 40? Outside of Apoc games, I don't see that ever coming up, as they cant score. And it's not as if they're everyone's favourite unit either, sometimes people actually want to use other units.
4) And the point you are trying to make is?
5) If Abby is alone. But, as he won't, he'll win, and then take the other unit's lunch money. 275 pts to try to fend off one model.
6) This comment just gave me herpes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: While I'm here:
Things that don't have a 2+ save:
-All IG units
-Most Tyranid units
-Most Tau units (The ones that do will kill your termies first anyways)
-PASM's.
-SM Scouts
-Chaos Daemons
-Everything in the CSM codex that isn't a terminator.
-Most (all?) Eldar/DE
orkgoffrocker wrote: I don't think you 2 have played any games.
1) Hammernator are the same pts as lighting claws terminators (str4 AP3 5+ save) so why would i ever not take Hammernator (str8 AP2 3+ save)
2) Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have Hammernator
3) All Space Marines armies can have 40 Hammernator
4) Hammernator can Combat Squads to make 8 5man Hammernator units
5) 5 Hammernator would kill Abaddon and Abaddon cost that same price as 7 Hammernator
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why do you need anything other then a bolter to kill Eldar and Dark Eldar they die if you flick a wet towel at them
I've been playing Tyranids since third edition.
1) More attacks, to the uneducated one additional attack may not seem like much, but this is a squad with said extra attacks.
2) Typically in my experience when guards take marine allies they go for power armored marines for tough scoring troops. Hammernators are a bit contradictory to most guard playstyles in their usage.
3) Outside of just for fun fill all the slots games or apocalypse I seriously doubt anyone is going to field forty of them.
4) Translation: Herp? Herp, herpa derp. Derp derp derp. Herpa herp? Derp!
5) Is that before or after the cost of the land raider you used to shuffle them around?
Wait wait Chaos lords and Obliterator dont have 2+ anymore
Tyranid do have 2+ saves
Thanks to the dumb Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have any thing they want in 40k other then Tyranid
The whole point i was making was at my club people do play Deathwing Hammernator and guess what there TROOPS and they wipeout Ork armies on turn 2, i have even seen Deathwing Hammernator win on 1st turn. But other then this 1 OP codex, melee is dead it's a waste of time and thanks to snap fire games take 30mins longer then in 5ed
The meta game now at a club game Tyranid player wants a game an Imperial Guard player says yes so they set up.
e.g.) Imperial Guard player ask how many flyers do you have, the Tyranid player replys NONE. Oh Imperial Guard player says i have 6. Tyranid player replys GG so do you want to play tailmans for the next 3 hours
e.g.) Imperial Guard player ask how many flyers do you have, the Tyranid player replys NONE. Imperial Guard player says i don't use them there so OP, but I did take some Allies
Tyranid player says cool what did you take 20 Deathwing Hammernator. Tyranid player :( i wish i had any Allies, so tailmans again?
e.g.) Imperial Guard player ask how many flyers do you have, the Tyranid player replys NONE. Imperial Guard player says i don't use them there so OP, What about Allies no i just took an Aegis defence line.
1st turn Tyranid player asks so the 5 leman russ battle tanks get 4+ cover from the Aegis defence line. Imperial Guard says NO, they have camo-cloaks so its 3+.Tyranid player. So do you have any friends that want to but a Tyranid army?
1)Wait wait Chaos lords and Obliterator dont have 2+ anymore
2)Tyranid do have 2+ saves
3)Thanks to the dumb Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have any thing they want in 40k other then Tyranid
4)The whole point i was making was at my club people do play Deathwing Hammernator and guess what there TROOPS and they wipeout Ork armies on turn 2, i have even seen Deathwing Hammernator win on 1st turn. But other then this 1 OP codex, melee is dead it's a waste of time and thanks to snap fire games take 30mins longer then in 5ed
5) The meta game now at a club game Tyranid player wants a game an Imperial Guard player says yes so they set up.
e.g.) Imperial Guard player ask how many flyers do you have, the Tyranid player replys NONE. Oh Imperial Guard player says i have 6. Tyranid player replys GG so do you want to play tailmans for the next 3 hours
e.g.) Imperial Guard player ask how many flyers do you have, the Tyranid player replys NONE. Imperial Guard player says i don't use them there so OP, but I did take some Allies
Tyranid player says cool what did you take 20 Deathwing Hammernator. Tyranid player :( i wish i had any Allies, so tailmans again?
e.g.) Imperial Guard player ask how many flyers do you have, the Tyranid player replys NONE. Imperial Guard player says i don't use them there so OP, What about Allies no i just took an Aegis defence line.
1st turn Tyranid player asks so the 5 leman russ battle tanks get 4+ cover from the Aegis defence line. Imperial Guard says NO, they have camo-cloaks so its 3+.Tyranid player. So do you have any friends that want to but a Tyranid army?
1) Well, now that I remember, Chaos Lords can be upgraded to terminator armour (2+ save), and Obliterators have flesh metal (2+ save)
2) Okay then, I was wrong there.
3) Except they often won't take more than a more solid scoring unit.
4) It is impossible to win on turn one. You can make a tactical move that makes it impossible for your opponent to win, but you can't auto-win. As for DA hammernator spam... Very rare. Just get some AP 2 guns if you're really that worried, the allies matrix works both ways y'know, you can call in some IG or Tau big guns ffs.
5) How is that even relevant?
If its to prove that CC is useless, that example actually made you fail harder. Nids pretty much auto-loose against well equipped IG anyway.
orkgoffrocker wrote: I don't think you 2 have played any games.
1) Hammernator are the same pts as lighting claws terminators (str4 AP3 5+ save) so why would i ever not take Hammernator (str8 AP2 3+ save)
2) Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have Hammernator
3) All Space Marines armies can have 40 Hammernator
4) Hammernator can Combat Squads to make 8 5man Hammernator units
5) 5 Hammernator would kill Abaddon and Abaddon cost that same price as 7 Hammernator
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why do you need anything other then a bolter to kill Eldar and Dark Eldar they die if you flick a wet towel at them
I've been playing Tyranids since third edition.
1) More attacks, to the uneducated one additional attack may not seem like much, but this is a squad with said extra attacks.
2) Typically in my experience when guards take marine allies they go for power armored marines for tough scoring troops. Hammernators are a bit contradictory to most guard playstyles in their usage.
3) Outside of just for fun fill all the slots games or apocalypse I seriously doubt anyone is going to field forty of them.
4) Translation: Herp? Herp, herpa derp. Derp derp derp. Herpa herp? Derp!
5) Is that before or after the cost of the land raider you used to shuffle them around?
6)
that is a lie noone played Tyranids in 5ed.
1) attacks mean nothing in 6ed It is a pew pew game now
2) Typically in my experience ...... IG take OP units they dont have like Dreadknight and Hammernators, since there allies with everthing
3) 3 people at my club play DA and 2 of them play deathwing so and Grey knights pallys are just as bad
4) 8 units that can kill anything again anything
5) have read the rules for Hammernators you know the bit were they can teleport and/or buy a drop pod
6) mate in 3rd , 4th and 5ed i face rolled most armies with my Ork and did well with SW and IG but the 6ed rules i can't lose with my SW allied IG army.4 Rune Priests with Divination its just a rain of fire
orkgoffrocker wrote: I don't think you 2 have played any games.
1) Hammernator are the same pts as lighting claws terminators (str4 AP3 5+ save) so why would i ever not take Hammernator (str8 AP2 3+ save)
2) Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have Hammernator
3) All Space Marines armies can have 40 Hammernator
4) Hammernator can Combat Squads to make 8 5man Hammernator units
5) 5 Hammernator would kill Abaddon and Abaddon cost that same price as 7 Hammernator
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why do you need anything other then a bolter to kill Eldar and Dark Eldar they die if you flick a wet towel at them
I've been playing Tyranids since third edition.
1) More attacks, to the uneducated one additional attack may not seem like much, but this is a squad with said extra attacks.
2) Typically in my experience when guards take marine allies they go for power armored marines for tough scoring troops. Hammernators are a bit contradictory to most guard playstyles in their usage.
3) Outside of just for fun fill all the slots games or apocalypse I seriously doubt anyone is going to field forty of them.
4) Translation: Herp? Herp, herpa derp. Derp derp derp. Herpa herp? Derp!
5) Is that before or after the cost of the land raider you used to shuffle them around?
6)
that is a lie noone played Tyranids in 5ed.
1) attacks mean nothing in 6ed It is a pew pew game now
2) Typically in my experience ...... IG take OP units they dont have like Dreadknight and Hammernators, since there allies with everthing
3) 3 people at my club play DA and 2 of them play deathwing so and Grey knights pallys are just as bad
4) 8 units that can kill anything again anything
5) have read the rules for Hammernators you know the bit were they can teleport and/or buy a drop pod
6) mate in 3rd , 4th and 5ed i face rolled most armies with my Ork and did well with SW and IG but the 6ed rules i can't lose with my SW allied IG army.4 Rune Priests with Divination its just a rain of fire
Not sure if your 'nid comment is serious... But they were around.
1) Until Tyranids or CSM or Daemons hit the field. Or those TH/SS terminators you seem to be obsessed with. If 6th is so anti-melee, why are they such a problem for you?
2) I can't be bothered to comment.
3) They have a low model count. Spam Vindicators.
4) Not Abaddon. Not Darnath Lysander. Not a good TS unit. Not even a 35-man mob of cultists.
5) They can't assault on the turn they deepstrike. SHOOT THEM!!!! You moan about how 6th is so shooty, yet you seem to think that a CC unit is unkillable.
6) You can loose. It is impossible to be unkillable. Also, if you can't lose with that list, why are TH/SS termies such a problem?
orkgoffrocker wrote: I don't think you 2 have played any games.
1) Hammernator are the same pts as lighting claws terminators (str4 AP3 5+ save) so why would i ever not take Hammernator (str8 AP2 3+ save)
2) Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have Hammernator
3) All Space Marines armies can have 40 Hammernator
4) Hammernator can Combat Squads to make 8 5man Hammernator units
5) 5 Hammernator would kill Abaddon and Abaddon cost that same price as 7 Hammernator
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why do you need anything other then a bolter to kill Eldar and Dark Eldar they die if you flick a wet towel at them
I've been playing Tyranids since third edition.
1) More attacks, to the uneducated one additional attack may not seem like much, but this is a squad with said extra attacks.
2) Typically in my experience when guards take marine allies they go for power armored marines for tough scoring troops. Hammernators are a bit contradictory to most guard playstyles in their usage.
3) Outside of just for fun fill all the slots games or apocalypse I seriously doubt anyone is going to field forty of them.
4) Translation: Herp? Herp, herpa derp. Derp derp derp. Herpa herp? Derp!
5) Is that before or after the cost of the land raider you used to shuffle them around?
6)
that is a lie noone played Tyranids in 5ed.
1) attacks mean nothing in 6ed It is a pew pew game now
2) Typically in my experience ...... IG take OP units they dont have like Dreadknight and Hammernators, since there allies with everthing
3) 3 people at my club play DA and 2 of them play deathwing so and Grey knights pallys are just as bad
4) 8 units that can kill anything again anything
5) have read the rules for Hammernators you know the bit were they can teleport and/or buy a drop pod
6) mate in 3rd , 4th and 5ed i face rolled most armies with my Ork and did well with SW and IG but the 6ed rules i can't lose with my SW allied IG army.4 Rune Priests with Divination its just a rain of fire
You say that melee doesn't matter but extol the virtues of a purely assault based unit anyway. You claim deep striking is a remedy but forget that you cannot assault out of deep strike. You act like a doofus and you have the audacity to call me "mate" comrade. You then go and say 8 hammernators can kill anything which is patently false. 20 kitted out genestealers still take their lunch money, but hey Genestealers have been a hard counter for terminators since oh I dunno...space hulk?
1) Good just so we are clear
2) I know an i'm always right 3) You failed to get the point IG get everything and Nids NO allies NONE as in they only get there own codex they can't even have an Aegis defence line
4) Deathwing Hammernators can DS on 1st turn with no scatter there Deathwing so Hammernators can have guns all there shooting is twin-linked the Ork army is boxed in and has to assault 1st turn there weapons are useless on Hammernators even the power fist will most of the time bounce off 3++ and every unit flees of the table so thats a 1st turn win in my book.
1) I know an i'm always right
2) You failed to get the point IG get everything and Nids NO allies NONE as in they only get there own codex they can't even have an Aegis defence line
3) Deathwing Hammernators can DS on 1st turn with no scatter there Deathwing so Hammernators can have guns all there shooting is twin-linked the Ork army is boxed in and has to assault 1st turn there weapons are useless on Hammernators even the power fist will most of the time bounce off 3++ and every unit flees of the table so thats a 1st turn win in my book.
1) No.
2) I know nids have a raw deal, but are you nids? If not, stop moaning, you can use allies too. Furthermore, I didn't even comment. How can I not have gotten the point?
3) Then use a different tactic. Spread them out. Infiltrate. Use reserves. Use fliers. Bring so many un-upgraded boyz that the TH/SS can't win. To me, your army smells of poor leadership.
1) Good just so we are clear
2) I know an i'm always right 3) You failed to get the point IG get everything and Nids NO allies NONE as in they only get there own codex they can't even have an Aegis defence line
4) Deathwing Hammernators can DS on 1st turn with no scatter there Deathwing so Hammernators can have guns all there shooting is twin-linked the Ork army is boxed in and has to assault 1st turn there weapons are useless on Hammernators even the power fist will most of the time bounce off 3++ and every unit flees of the table so thats a 1st turn win in my book.
1) Good just so we are clear
2) I know an i'm always right
3) You failed to get the point IG get everything and Nids NO allies NONE as in they only get there own codex they can't even have an Aegis defence line
4) Deathwing Hammernators can DS on 1st turn with no scatter there Deathwing so Hammernators can have guns all there shooting is twin-linked the Ork army is boxed in and has to assault 1st turn there weapons are useless on Hammernators even the power fist will most of the time bounce off 3++ and every unit flees of the table so thats a 1st turn win in my book.
orkgoffrocker wrote: I don't think you 2 have played any games.
1) Hammernator are the same pts as lighting claws terminators (str4 AP3 5+ save) so why would i ever not take Hammernator (str8 AP2 3+ save)
2) Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have Hammernator
3) All Space Marines armies can have 40 Hammernator
4) Hammernator can Combat Squads to make 8 5man Hammernator units
5) 5 Hammernator would kill Abaddon and Abaddon cost that same price as 7 Hammernator
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why do you need anything other then a bolter to kill Eldar and Dark Eldar they die if you flick a wet towel at them
I've been playing Tyranids since third edition.
1) More attacks, to the uneducated one additional attack may not seem like much, but this is a squad with said extra attacks.
2) Typically in my experience when guards take marine allies they go for power armored marines for tough scoring troops. Hammernators are a bit contradictory to most guard playstyles in their usage.
3) Outside of just for fun fill all the slots games or apocalypse I seriously doubt anyone is going to field forty of them.
4) Translation: Herp? Herp, herpa derp. Derp derp derp. Herpa herp? Derp!
5) Is that before or after the cost of the land raider you used to shuffle them around?
6)
that is a lie noone played Tyranids in 5ed.
1) attacks mean nothing in 6ed It is a pew pew game now
2) Typically in my experience ...... IG take OP units they dont have like Dreadknight and Hammernators, since there allies with everthing
3) 3 people at my club play DA and 2 of them play deathwing so and Grey knights pallys are just as bad
4) 8 units that can kill anything again anything
5) have read the rules for Hammernators you know the bit were they can teleport and/or buy a drop pod
6) mate in 3rd , 4th and 5ed i face rolled most armies with my Ork and did well with SW and IG but the 6ed rules i can't lose with my SW allied IG army.4 Rune Priests with Divination its just a rain of fire
You say that melee doesn't matter but extol the virtues of a purely assault based unit anyway. You claim deep striking is a remedy but forget that you cannot assault out of deep strike. You act like a doofus and you have the audacity to call me "mate" comrade. You then go and say 8 hammernators can kill anything which is patently false. 20 kitted out genestealers still take their lunch money, but hey Genestealers have been a hard counter for terminators since oh I dunno...space hulk?
Melee is dead i was saying Hammernators are the only thing left that can melee. DS anywhere you understand its WAS a game about movement and skill now it just pew pew and flyer spam.
LOL 20 genestealers with 6ed rending on a modle with 3++ your joking right. 20 kitted out genestealers so like 450pts unit yes they can kill 5 Hammernators its a pitty that you get 10 Hammernators for only 400pts , also how are your genestealers going without fleet of foot. do you really still play them
1) I know an i'm always right
2) You failed to get the point IG get everything and Nids NO allies NONE as in they only get there own codex they can't even have an Aegis defence line
3) Deathwing Hammernators can DS on 1st turn with no scatter there Deathwing so Hammernators can have guns all there shooting is twin-linked the Ork army is boxed in and has to assault 1st turn there weapons are useless on Hammernators even the power fist will most of the time bounce off 3++ and every unit flees of the table so thats a 1st turn win in my book.
1) No.
2) I know nids have a raw deal, but are you nids? If not, stop moaning, you can use allies too. Furthermore, I didn't even comment. How can I not have gotten the point?
3) Then use a different tactic. Spread them out. Infiltrate. Use reserves. Use fliers. Bring so many un-upgraded boyz that the TH/SS can't win. To me, your army smells of poor leadership.
1) Good just so we are clear
2) I know an i'm always right 3) You failed to get the point IG get everything and Nids NO allies NONE as in they only get there own codex they can't even have an Aegis defence line
4) Deathwing Hammernators can DS on 1st turn with no scatter there Deathwing so Hammernators can have guns all there shooting is twin-linked the Ork army is boxed in and has to assault 1st turn there weapons are useless on Hammernators even the power fist will most of the time bounce off 3++ and every unit flees of the table so thats a 1st turn win in my book.
orkgoffrocker wrote: 1) Good just so we are clear
2) I know an i'm always right
3) You failed to get the point IG get everything and Nids NO allies NONE as in they only get there own codex they can't even have an Aegis defence line
4) Deathwing Hammernators can DS on 1st turn with no scatter there Deathwing so Hammernators can have guns all there shooting is twin-linked the Ork army is boxed in and has to assault 1st turn there weapons are useless on Hammernators even the power fist will most of the time bounce off 3++ and every unit flees of the table so thats a 1st turn win in my book.
orkgoffrocker wrote: I don't think you 2 have played any games.
1) Hammernator are the same pts as lighting claws terminators (str4 AP3 5+ save) so why would i ever not take Hammernator (str8 AP2 3+ save)
2) Allies matrix Imperial Guard can have Hammernator
3) All Space Marines armies can have 40 Hammernator
4) Hammernator can Combat Squads to make 8 5man Hammernator units
5) 5 Hammernator would kill Abaddon and Abaddon cost that same price as 7 Hammernator
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why do you need anything other then a bolter to kill Eldar and Dark Eldar they die if you flick a wet towel at them
I've been playing Tyranids since third edition.
1) More attacks, to the uneducated one additional attack may not seem like much, but this is a squad with said extra attacks.
2) Typically in my experience when guards take marine allies they go for power armored marines for tough scoring troops. Hammernators are a bit contradictory to most guard playstyles in their usage.
3) Outside of just for fun fill all the slots games or apocalypse I seriously doubt anyone is going to field forty of them.
4) Translation: Herp? Herp, herpa derp. Derp derp derp. Herpa herp? Derp!
5) Is that before or after the cost of the land raider you used to shuffle them around?
6)
that is a lie noone played Tyranids in 5ed.
1) attacks mean nothing in 6ed It is a pew pew game now
2) Typically in my experience ...... IG take OP units they dont have like Dreadknight and Hammernators, since there allies with everthing
3) 3 people at my club play DA and 2 of them play deathwing so and Grey knights pallys are just as bad
4) 8 units that can kill anything again anything
5) have read the rules for Hammernators you know the bit were they can teleport and/or buy a drop pod
6) mate in 3rd , 4th and 5ed i face rolled most armies with my Ork and did well with SW and IG but the 6ed rules i can't lose with my SW allied IG army.4 Rune Priests with Divination its just a rain of fire
You say that melee doesn't matter but extol the virtues of a purely assault based unit anyway. You claim deep striking is a remedy but forget that you cannot assault out of deep strike. You act like a doofus and you have the audacity to call me "mate" comrade. You then go and say 8 hammernators can kill anything which is patently false. 20 kitted out genestealers still take their lunch money, but hey Genestealers have been a hard counter for terminators since oh I dunno...space hulk?
Melee is dead i was saying Hammernators are the only thing left that can melee. DS anywhere you understand its WAS a game about movement and skill now it just pew pew and flyer spam.
LOL 20 genestealers with 6ed rending on a modle with 3++ your joking right. 20 kitted out genestealers so like 450pts unit yes they can kill 5 Hammernators its a pitty that you get 10 Hammernators for only 400pts , also how are your genestealers going without fleet of foot. do you really still play them
1) I know an i'm always right
2) You failed to get the point IG get everything and Nids NO allies NONE as in they only get there own codex they can't even have an Aegis defence line
3) Deathwing Hammernators can DS on 1st turn with no scatter there Deathwing so Hammernators can have guns all there shooting is twin-linked the Ork army is boxed in and has to assault 1st turn there weapons are useless on Hammernators even the power fist will most of the time bounce off 3++ and every unit flees of the table so thats a 1st turn win in my book.
1) No.
2) I know nids have a raw deal, but are you nids? If not, stop moaning, you can use allies too. Furthermore, I didn't even comment. How can I not have gotten the point?
3) Then use a different tactic. Spread them out. Infiltrate. Use reserves. Use fliers. Bring so many un-upgraded boyz that the TH/SS can't win. To me, your army smells of poor leadership.
1) Good just so we are clear
2) I know an i'm always right 3) You failed to get the point IG get everything and Nids NO allies NONE as in they only get there own codex they can't even have an Aegis defence line
4) Deathwing Hammernators can DS on 1st turn with no scatter there Deathwing so Hammernators can have guns all there shooting is twin-linked the Ork army is boxed in and has to assault 1st turn there weapons are useless on Hammernators even the power fist will most of the time bounce off 3++ and every unit flees of the table so thats a 1st turn win in my book.
This entire thread is based around "hammernauts are OP"
And I look at the possibility of 6 teams of 5 hammernauts coming my way and think to myself "What on earth will I do against it?!" then I realise "wait, I can just walk away and gun them down as they are freaking slow and cant even even shoot freaking lasguns at me"
Seriusly, hammernauts are among the least scary things in the game per cost, grow a spine.
Thats right you dont get a reply Selym after you call someone a troll Your Argument is Invalid!
BoomWolf wrote: This entire thread is based around "hammernauts are OP"
And I look at the possibility of 6 teams of 5 hammernauts coming my way and think to myself "What on earth will I do against it?!" then I realise "wait, I can just walk away and gun them down as they are freaking slow and cant even even shoot freaking lasguns at me"
Seriusly, hammernauts are among the least scary things in the game per cost, grow a spine.
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator
1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked
2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge
3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator
4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable.
5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
Something looks very, VERY wrong in that claim that "Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked " considering that in order to TAKE hammer and shield you need to give up all other weapons in the firstplace.
So either you are a hammernator, or you can shoot. never both.
And considering they cost 49 points each, they will be very, very outnumbered even against marines.
Shooty armies got a whole turn of free point-blank shooting with all the plasma and spam guns they can muster, if you cant take 20 hammernators in point blank your shooting is a failure.
Assault armies would either drown them in bodies, or outright remove them. if you cant take down 20 hammernators when YOU have the charge with EVERY SINGLE UNIT IN YOUR ARMY, your assault units are lousy anyway.
Taking 20 deathwing hammernators as troops costs you a minimum of 1170 points. that is NOT cheap, your pretty much dedicated your entire strategy on that deathwing assault, and if that fails, you are left with virtually nothing.
There is a reason nobody in our LGS plays that thing, one trick pony armies are not only boring, they are easy to take down after you saw it once.
orkgoffrocker wrote: Thats right you dont get a reply Selym after you call someone a troll Your Argument is Invalid!
BoomWolf wrote: This entire thread is based around "hammernauts are OP"
And I look at the possibility of 6 teams of 5 hammernauts coming my way and think to myself "What on earth will I do against it?!" then I realise "wait, I can just walk away and gun them down as they are freaking slow and cant even even shoot freaking lasguns at me"
Seriusly, hammernauts are among the least scary things in the game per cost, grow a spine.
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator
1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked
2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge
3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator
4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable.
5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
1) As said before, they CAN'T have guns.
2) You're 1" away from them. Shoot, charge, drown them in bodies.
3) Will almost never happen below 3k pts, as they're fething expensive.
4) Not my CSM. I've had those guys last until turn seven. You just need to be a competent general.
5) Hell no.
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator 1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked 2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge 3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator 4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable. 5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
First: your spelling is atrocious. Are you ten? You need to actually put effort into your posts like every other person who has responded to your insipid posts about how melee is dead.
Second: melee is not at all dead. Certain army playstyles that previously worked (like Wych cults) got taken down a notch because of Overwatch. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean those armies are dead. People still assault with Beastmaster units, there are incredibly competitive players who still use Tyranids, namely Jesse Newton who placed in the top ten in the championship qualifiers at Adepticon. This year.
Third: It is fairly obvious that you are have no idea what you're talking about, so either you are intentionally trying to rile us up (which is trolling) or you really don't know how to play warhammer 40k.
orkgoffrocker wrote: Thats right you dont get a reply Selym after you call someone a troll Your Argument is Invalid!
BoomWolf wrote: This entire thread is based around "hammernauts are OP"
And I look at the possibility of 6 teams of 5 hammernauts coming my way and think to myself "What on earth will I do against it?!" then I realise "wait, I can just walk away and gun them down as they are freaking slow and cant even even shoot freaking lasguns at me"
Seriusly, hammernauts are among the least scary things in the game per cost, grow a spine.
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator
1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked
2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge
3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator
4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable.
5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
1) As said before, they CAN'T have guns.
2) You're 1" away from them. Shoot, charge, drown them in bodies.
3) Will almost never happen below 3k pts, as they're fething expensive.
4) Not my CSM. I've had those guys last until turn seven. You just need to be a competent general.
5) Hell no.
1) my bad i must have read the codex wrong i thought it said SS/TH and a Shoulder mounted CML. no wait! thats what is dose say but personly i would just take 4 Hammernators and leave the power fist on the last guy and add a plasma cannon, but thats just me 2) Yeah tried that you see um Hammernators are GODS in melee that 3++ means even Mega Nobs can't kill very many the last game i had 9 Mega Nobs assault 5 Hammernators, mathhammer says the Mega Nobs should have inflicted 15 wound and then the Hammernators would have saved 10 still killing the unit what really happen was i rolled low for the charge 4 (average for Mega Nobs since they have Slow and Purposeful) so only 5 Mega Nobs got to attack only killing 3 Hammernators i lost the 5 Mega Nobs counts as 10 wounds, so lost combat but 7 the Ork can't past LD of 7 since i need to roll 0 on 2d6 3) They are expensive but i have found the smaller the points size the more a 2+ save counts, so games of less then 1000pts Hammernators are often the toughest model on the table.
4) I love that your only real argument is attacking my competence as a general. I know i'm easily the best general at my club because i never let your opponent dictate the battle, i know every move they will make before they do, i find the hardest opponents to be the Noobs. People that have never played a game before because they make tactically dumb moves e.g. death or glory on Battlewagon with a Power Fist when you can just Krak grenade it next turn or assaulting a mob of 30 boyz with there Space Marine Devastator Squad.
5) Really do you play Korn Berserkers NO! You love Abaddon, why because he has a Ap2 power weapon and a 2+ save. I still can not express my disbelieve at how underpowered Korn Berserkers are for 19pts in a 6ed codex, you would expect them to have 2 attacks since Wolf Guard are 18pts and have 2 attacks and Grey Knights are 20pts and have 2 attacks. Also fleet of foot would have not been out of place since its crap now but would help the get more charges. This would be balanced but we are talking about a new codex for 6ed so every Korn Berserkers should have a power weapon and the funny part is even if they did all have power weapons they would still not be as covered as Grey Knights
orkgoffrocker wrote: Thats right you dont get a reply Selym after you call someone a troll Your Argument is Invalid!
BoomWolf wrote: This entire thread is based around "hammernauts are OP"
And I look at the possibility of 6 teams of 5 hammernauts coming my way and think to myself "What on earth will I do against it?!" then I realise "wait, I can just walk away and gun them down as they are freaking slow and cant even even shoot freaking lasguns at me"
Seriusly, hammernauts are among the least scary things in the game per cost, grow a spine.
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator
1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked
2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge
3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator
4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable.
5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
1) As said before, they CAN'T have guns.
2) You're 1" away from them. Shoot, charge, drown them in bodies.
3) Will almost never happen below 3k pts, as they're fething expensive.
4) Not my CSM. I've had those guys last until turn seven. You just need to be a competent general.
5) Hell no.
1) my bad i must have read the codex wrong i thought it said SS/TH and a Shoulder mounted CML. no wait! thats what is dose say but personly i would just take 4 Hammernator and leave the power fist on the last guy and add a plasma cannon, but thats just me 2) Yeah tried that you see um Hammernator are GODS in melee that 3++ means even Mega Nobs can't kill very many the last game i had 9 Mega Nobs assault 5 Hammernator, mathhammer says the Mega Nobs should have inflicted 15 wound and the would have saved 10 still killing the unit what really happen was i rolled low for the charge 4" (average for Mega Nobs since they have Slow and Purposeful) so only 5 Mega Nobs got to attack only killing 3 Hammernators i lost the 5 Mega Nobs counts as 10 wounds, so lost combat but 7 the Ork can't past LD with LD of 7 since i need to roll 0 on 2d6 3) They are expensive but i have found the smaller the points size the more a 2+ save counts, so at games < 1000pts Hammernator are often the toughest model on the table.
4) I love that your only real argument is attacking my competence as a general. I know easily the best general at my club because i never let your opponent dictate the battle, i know every move they will make before they do, i find the hardest opponents to be the Noobs people that have never played a game before because they make tactically dumb moves e.g. death or glory on Battlewagon with a Power Fist when you can just Krak grenade it next turn or assaulting a mob of 30 boyz with the Space Marine Devastator Squad.
5) Really do you play Korn Berserkers NO! You love Abaddon, why because he has a Ap2 power weapon and a 2+ save. I still can not express my disbelieve at how underpowered Korn Berserkers are for 19pts in a 6ed codex, you would think 2 attacks since Wolf Guard are 18pts and have 2 attacks and Grey Knights are 20pts and have 2 attacks. also fleet of foot would have not been out of place since its crap now but would help the get more charges. This would be balanced and were talking about a new codex for 6ed so every Korn Berserkers should have a power weapon and the funny part is even if they did all have power weapons they would still not be as covered as Grey Knights
Paragraphs! For the love of the Emperor use paragraphs!
orkgoffrocker wrote: Thats right you dont get a reply Selym after you call someone a troll Your Argument is Invalid!
BoomWolf wrote: This entire thread is based around "hammernauts are OP"
And I look at the possibility of 6 teams of 5 hammernauts coming my way and think to myself "What on earth will I do against it?!" then I realise "wait, I can just walk away and gun them down as they are freaking slow and cant even even shoot freaking lasguns at me"
Seriusly, hammernauts are among the least scary things in the game per cost, grow a spine.
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator
1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked
2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge
3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator
4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable.
5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
1) As said before, they CAN'T have guns.
2) You're 1" away from them. Shoot, charge, drown them in bodies.
3) Will almost never happen below 3k pts, as they're fething expensive.
4) Not my CSM. I've had those guys last until turn seven. You just need to be a competent general.
5) Hell no.
1) my bad i must have read the codex wrong i thought it said SS/TH and a Shoulder mounted CML. no wait! thats what is dose say but personly i would just take 4 Hammernators and leave the power fist on the last guy and add a plasma cannon, but thats just me 2) Yeah tried that you see um Hammernators are GODS in melee that 3++ means even Mega Nobs can't kill very many the last game i had 9 Mega Nobs assault 5 Hammernators, mathhammer says the Mega Nobs should have inflicted 15 wound and then the Hammernators would have saved 10 still killing the unit what really happen was i rolled low for the charge 4 (average for Mega Nobs since they have Slow and Purposeful) so only 5 Mega Nobs got to attack only killing 3 Hammernators i lost the 5 Mega Nobs counts as 10 wounds, so lost combat but 7 the Ork can't past LD of 7 since i need to roll 0 on 2d6 3) They are expensive but i have found the smaller the points size the more a 2+ save counts, so games of less then 1000pts Hammernators are often the toughest model on the table.
4) I love that your only real argument is attacking my competence as a general. I know i'm easily the best general at my club because i never let your opponent dictate the battle, i know every move they will make before they do, i find the hardest opponents to be the Noobs. People that have never played a game before because they make tactically dumb moves e.g. death or glory on Battlewagon with a Power Fist when you can just Krak grenade it next turn or assaulting a mob of 30 boyz with there Space Marine Devastator Squad.
5) Really do you play Korn Berserkers NO! You love Abaddon, why because he has a Ap2 power weapon and a 2+ save. I still can not express my disbelieve at how underpowered Korn Berserkers are for 19pts in a 6ed codex, you would expect them to have 2 attacks since Wolf Guard are 18pts and have 2 attacks and Grey Knights are 20pts and have 2 attacks. Also fleet of foot would have not been out of place since its crap now but would help the get more charges. This would be balanced but we are talking about a new codex for 6ed so every Korn Berserkers should have a power weapon and the funny part is even if they did all have power weapons they would still not be as covered as Grey Knights
Firstly: Improve your spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Secondly: Learn how to format a sentence.
Thirdly: Learn what a paragraph is, and then apply it to your writing style.
1) So why were you complaining about them having twin-linked guns? If you've ever seen them in combat IRL, you'd know already.
2) Hammernators aren't gods. Firstly, if your Nobz are failing to do anything, stop paying for them. Get more Boyz. Secondly, it is going to take quite a LONG time for Hammernators to cut through a 30-strong blob of Orks. Tarpit and move on. Thirdly, 3++ is the same as fighting a 3+ with only AP 4 or higher, it will on average take three wounding hits to kill one of those terminators with a powerklaw, something a Nob can easily do.
As I said before, use reserves. Hammernators can only attack things in CC, reserves subvert their ability to kill things. Stormboyz, Dakkajets, Bikerz, anything in a transport can/will out run a hammernator. Use the options given to you in your codex, ffs.
3) Except Ghazkhull. Avoid the damn things if you can't kill them.
4) Actually, it's mostly reason and logic, but your seeming incapacity to accept a new tactical doctrine is near proof of poor generalship.
5) So first you are saying that Berzerkers are good because they have a 3+, then immediatley contradict yourself by saying that they will loose 9/10 games. Then you say that for 19 pts they are under-powered. One Berzerker will kill a Wolf Guard in melee. GK is standard Matt Ward fail.
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator
1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked
2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge
3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator
4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable.
5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
First: your spelling is atrocious. Are you ten? You need to actually put effort into your posts like every other person who has responded to your insipid posts about how melee is dead.
Second: melee is not at all dead. Certain army playstyles that previously worked (like Wych cults) got taken down a notch because of Overwatch. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean those armies are dead. People still assault with Beastmaster units, there are incredibly competitive players who still use Tyranids, namely Jesse Newton who placed in the top ten in the championship qualifiers at Adepticon. This year.
Third: It is fairly obvious that you are have no idea what you're talking about, so either you are intentionally trying to rile us up (which is trolling) or you really don't know how to play warhammer 40k.
1) Thanks for being a Grammar Nazi about a little spelling mistake, I hope it made you feel like man. I never pointed out your a virgin!
2) i) Overwatch is really not that bad other then tau with there 210 shot or worse adding makerlight to it so they Overwatch at BS 5. The problem is random charge range being 2d6 if you mathhammer it out 2d6 averages to 7" so that is a 66.666 % (2/3) chance before Overwatch
so 1 out of 3 assaults will fail before it even starts, but thats not enough we have to rub salt into the wound and make the poor assault unit eat Overwatch shots only to get rapid fired next turn.
2) ii) I had a look at Jesse Newton Termagant, Carnifex with Devourer w/Brainleech Worms, Hive Tyrant TL Devourer w/Brainleech
Worms kind sounds like a shooting army. Truthfully i don't know everyone stop playing Nids in 5ed at my club. Also he had a Skyshield Landing Pad, since Nids can't have Allies he can't take Fortifications so the army list is Invalid
3) No no i still play i just stop playing Orks unless my opponent is play Orks too then both list are poo and its a fun game, we both sit with 30 shoota boyz with 3 big shootas 23" away from each other and try to kill a more then a single Ork boy a turn, but thats just for the lulz.
Back to the real list i play
4 Rune Priests all with Divination (guild)
Allied IG so i get the most OP flyers
IG blob of 50 - - - First rank fire, second rank fire this would net you 140 shots add the Rune Priest with Divination (guild)
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator
1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked
2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge
3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator
4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable.
5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
First: your spelling is atrocious. Are you ten? You need to actually put effort into your posts like every other person who has responded to your insipid posts about how melee is dead.
Second: melee is not at all dead. Certain army playstyles that previously worked (like Wych cults) got taken down a notch because of Overwatch. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean those armies are dead. People still assault with Beastmaster units, there are incredibly competitive players who still use Tyranids, namely Jesse Newton who placed in the top ten in the championship qualifiers at Adepticon. This year.
Third: It is fairly obvious that you are have no idea what you're talking about, so either you are intentionally trying to rile us up (which is trolling) or you really don't know how to play warhammer 40k.
1) Thanks for being a Grammar Nazi about a little spelling mistake, I hope it made you feel like man. I never pointed out your a virgin!
2) i) Overwatch is really not that bad other then tau with there 210 shot or worse adding makerlight to it so they Overwatch at BS 5. The problem is random charge range being 2d6 if you mathhammer it out 2d6 averages to 7" so that is a 66.666 % (2/3) chance before Overwatch
so 1 out of 3 assaults will fail before it even starts, but thats not enough we have to rub salt into the wound and make the poor assault unit eat Overwatch shots only to get rapid fired next turn.
2) ii) I had a look at Jesse Newton Termagant, Carnifex with Devourer w/Brainleech Worms, Hive Tyrant TL Devourer w/Brainleech
Worms kind sounds like a shooting army. Truthfully i don't know everyone stop playing Nids in 5ed at my club. Also he had a Skyshield Landing Pad, since Nids can't have Allies he can't take Fortifications so the army list is Invalid
3) No no i still play i just stop playing Orks unless my opponent is play Orks too then both list are poo and its a fun game, we both sit with 30 shoota boyz with 3 big shootas 23" away from each other and try to kill a more then a single Ork boy a turn, but thats just for the lulz.
Back to the real list i play
4 Rune Priests all with Divination (guild)
Allied IG so i get the most OP flyers
IG blob of 50 - - - First rank fire, second rank fire this would net you 140 shots add the Rune Priest with Divination (guild)
1) Stop retaliating like a butthurt nine-year-old.
2) I) 210 shots? Overwatch at BS5? Try reading the codex, please. They can overwatch at BS2, but that's it IIRC. And 210 shots is waaay out there on how much a unit can fire.
II) Nids can take forts, as that's an addition to the primary detachment, not an extra for an allied detachment. Furthermore, your use of roman numerals to write point "2" in two parts is pointless, as part two is unrelated to part one, and logically should be just point "3".
3) Orks can be very competitive, if you actually bother to use them properly. Also, if you so rarely use Orks, why do you keep complaining about how they're getting killed by Hammernators?
As for this: "Allied IG so i get the most OP fliers", this just makes you sound like a douche. It also doesn't help that you have poor S.G.P (Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation).
Thanks for this thread. It's been a long time since forum trolling has made me laugh this hard. Really, you've been arguing in circles for pages, and this guy just keeps making outlandish assertions about totally incorrect rules interpretations? That doesn't set off little bells and whistles in anybody's head?
This is a game with 14 year old kids as the target audience. You don't like it, go find something else to play with rather than ruining everybody else's experiences.
orkgoffrocker wrote: Thats right you dont get a reply Selym after you call someone a troll Your Argument is Invalid!
BoomWolf wrote: This entire thread is based around "hammernauts are OP"
And I look at the possibility of 6 teams of 5 hammernauts coming my way and think to myself "What on earth will I do against it?!" then I realise "wait, I can just walk away and gun them down as they are freaking slow and cant even even shoot freaking lasguns at me"
Seriusly, hammernauts are among the least scary things in the game per cost, grow a spine.
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator
1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked
2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge
3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator
4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable.
5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
1) As said before, they CAN'T have guns.
2) You're 1" away from them. Shoot, charge, drown them in bodies.
3) Will almost never happen below 3k pts, as they're fething expensive.
4) Not my CSM. I've had those guys last until turn seven. You just need to be a competent general.
5) Hell no.
1) my bad i must have read the codex wrong i thought it said SS/TH and a Shoulder mounted CML. no wait! thats what is dose say but personly i would just take 4 Hammernators and leave the power fist on the last guy and add a plasma cannon, but thats just me 2) Yeah tried that you see um Hammernators are GODS in melee that 3++ means even Mega Nobs can't kill very many the last game i had 9 Mega Nobs assault 5 Hammernators, mathhammer says the Mega Nobs should have inflicted 15 wound and then the Hammernators would have saved 10 still killing the unit what really happen was i rolled low for the charge 4 (average for Mega Nobs since they have Slow and Purposeful) so only 5 Mega Nobs got to attack only killing 3 Hammernators i lost the 5 Mega Nobs counts as 10 wounds, so lost combat but 7 the Ork can't past LD of 7 since i need to roll 0 on 2d6 3) They are expensive but i have found the smaller the points size the more a 2+ save counts, so games of less then 1000pts Hammernators are often the toughest model on the table.
4) I love that your only real argument is attacking my competence as a general. I know i'm easily the best general at my club because i never let your opponent dictate the battle, i know every move they will make before they do, i find the hardest opponents to be the Noobs. People that have never played a game before because they make tactically dumb moves e.g. death or glory on Battlewagon with a Power Fist when you can just Krak grenade it next turn or assaulting a mob of 30 boyz with there Space Marine Devastator Squad.
5) Really do you play Korn Berserkers NO! You love Abaddon, why because he has a Ap2 power weapon and a 2+ save. I still can not express my disbelieve at how underpowered Korn Berserkers are for 19pts in a 6ed codex, you would expect them to have 2 attacks since Wolf Guard are 18pts and have 2 attacks and Grey Knights are 20pts and have 2 attacks. Also fleet of foot would have not been out of place since its crap now but would help the get more charges. This would be balanced but we are talking about a new codex for 6ed so every Korn Berserkers should have a power weapon and the funny part is even if they did all have power weapons they would still not be as covered as Grey Knights
Firstly: Improve your spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Secondly: Learn how to format a sentence.
Thirdly: Learn what a paragraph is, and then apply it to your writing style.
1) So why were you complaining about them having twin-linked guns? If you've ever seen them in combat IRL, you'd know already.
2) Hammernators aren't gods. Firstly, if your Nobz are failing to do anything, stop paying for them. Get more Boyz. Secondly, it is going to take quite a LONG time for Hammernators to cut through a 30-strong blob of Orks. Tarpit and move on. Thirdly, 3++ is the same as fighting a 3+ with only AP 4 or higher, it will on average take three wounding hits to kill one of those terminators with a powerklaw, something a Nob can easily do.
As I said before, use reserves. Hammernators can only attack things in CC, reserves subvert their ability to kill things. Stormboyz, Dakkajets, Bikerz, anything in a transport can/will out run a hammernator. Use the options given to you in your codex, ffs.
3) Except Ghazkhull. Avoid the damn things if you can't kill them.
4) Actually, it's mostly reason and logic, but your seeming incapacity to accept a new tactical doctrine is near proof of poor generalship.
5) So first you are saying that Berzerkers are good because they have a 3+, then immediatley contradict yourself by saying that they will loose 9/10 games. Then you say that for 19 pts they are under-powered. One Berzerker will kill a Wolf Guard in melee. GK is standard Matt Ward fail.
1) yes i am complaining about twin-linked plasma cannon that can DS anywhere 1st turn. Yes i have seen them in RL there are 2 Deathwing palyers at my club and thanks to GW and the dark vengeance box set they will be everywhere soon
2) A Nob with a powerklaw mathammered out will kill 1 Hammernator every other game turn, thats if the sargent dose not character challenge first turn and kill the Nob.. so whom is Tarpitting who??
3) LOL Ghazkhull with the new Slow and Purposeful rule what is he going to do crawl after units at d6" a turn and then charge 3d6 pick the lowest, he is about as useful as 1 legged man in an ass kicking contest
4) I have accepted the new tactical doctrine pew pew pew, melee /lol pew pew pew character challenges pew pew win
5) How is it contradictious to say because you have a 3+ save you may win 10% of your games just by luck.
Berzerker vs Wolf Guard in melee
lets try this
Berzerker WS 5 BS 4 S5 T4 W1 I4 A4 Ld 10 Sv 3+ improved stat line
Wolf Guard WS 4 BS 4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A3 Ld 10 Sv 3+ improved stat line
mathammered out if the Berzerker is assaulting 64.75* % chance of killing the Wolf Guard
mathammered out if the Berzerker is assaulting 30.5 % chance of the Wolf Guard killing the Berzerker
Berzerker WS 5 BS 4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld 10 Sv 3+ improved stat line
Wolf Guard WS 4 BS 4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A3 Ld 10 Sv 3+ improved stat line
mathammered out if the Wolf Guard is assaulting 47.16* % chance of killing the Berzerker
mathammered out if the Wolf Guard is assaulting 25 % chance of the Berzerker killing the Wolf Guard
Wolf Guard BS 4 bolter range 24" 4 shots 44.4*% chance of killing the Berzerker
Berzerker BS 4 bolt pistol range 12" 1 shots 11.1*% chance of killing the Wolf Guard
looks even to me as long as the Berzerker dose not go running off after a rhino
So i understand you have never played a game vs Deathwing Hammernator
1) Deathwing Hammernator can shoot and its all twin-linked
2) Deathwing Hammernator can deep strike 1st turn and don't scatter so 1" away from you then run so they daisy chain box you into your own deployment zone, so.......walk away were exactly your traped on your own table edge
3) Thanks to the Allies matrix every Imperial army can have 20 Deathwing Hammernator
4) The funny part is you just proved my point with your example, EVERYOTHER MELEE ARMY IN 6ed.. will get tabled in 4 turns or less. i.e. Wych cult dead!, Foot eldar or heavy Aspect warriors dead, Nid MC spam or Nid gaunt spam dead!, genestealers and all Ork armies unplayable.
5) SW blood claws, Korn Berserker, Black Templars still playable becauce of there 3+ save but will still loss 90% of games
First: your spelling is atrocious. Are you ten? You need to actually put effort into your posts like every other person who has responded to your insipid posts about how melee is dead.
Second: melee is not at all dead. Certain army playstyles that previously worked (like Wych cults) got taken down a notch because of Overwatch. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean those armies are dead. People still assault with Beastmaster units, there are incredibly competitive players who still use Tyranids, namely Jesse Newton who placed in the top ten in the championship qualifiers at Adepticon. This year.
Third: It is fairly obvious that you are have no idea what you're talking about, so either you are intentionally trying to rile us up (which is trolling) or you really don't know how to play warhammer 40k.
1) Thanks for being a Grammar Nazi about a little spelling mistake, I hope it made you feel like man. I never pointed out your a virgin!
2) i) Overwatch is really not that bad other then tau with there 210 shot or worse adding makerlight to it so they Overwatch at BS 5. The problem is random charge range being 2d6 if you mathhammer it out 2d6 averages to 7" so that is a 66.666 % (2/3) chance before Overwatch
so 1 out of 3 assaults will fail before it even starts, but thats not enough we have to rub salt into the wound and make the poor assault unit eat Overwatch shots only to get rapid fired next turn.
2) ii) I had a look at Jesse Newton Termagant, Carnifex with Devourer w/Brainleech Worms, Hive Tyrant TL Devourer w/Brainleech
Worms kind sounds like a shooting army. Truthfully i don't know everyone stop playing Nids in 5ed at my club. Also he had a Skyshield Landing Pad, since Nids can't have Allies he can't take Fortifications so the army list is Invalid
3) No no i still play i just stop playing Orks unless my opponent is play Orks too then both list are poo and its a fun game, we both sit with 30 shoota boyz with 3 big shootas 23" away from each other and try to kill a more then a single Ork boy a turn, but thats just for the lulz.
Back to the real list i play
4 Rune Priests all with Divination (guild)
Allied IG so i get the most OP flyers
IG blob of 50 - - - First rank fire, second rank fire this would net you 140 shots add the Rune Priest with Divination (guild)
1) Stop retaliating like a butthurt nine-year-old.
2) I) 210 shots? Overwatch at BS5? Try reading the codex, please. They can overwatch at BS2, but that's it IIRC. And 210 shots is waaay out there on how much a unit can fire.
II) Nids can take forts, as that's an addition to the primary detachment, not an extra for an allied detachment. Furthermore, your use of roman numerals to write point "2" in two parts is pointless, as part two is unrelated to part one, and logically should be just point "3".
3) Orks can be very competitive, if you actually bother to use them properly. Also, if you so rarely use Orks, why do you keep complaining about how they're getting killed by Hammernators?
As for this: "Allied IG so i get the most OP fliers", this just makes you sound like a douche. It also doesn't help that you have poor S.G.P (Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation).
1)
2) my bad its with the Ethereal power 216 and the supporting ranged overwatch assistance rule!! its at BS2 are you joking say your joking that not even funny
3) I don't think you understand what Competitive means when you look at a codex for the units that are ONLY underpowered and not flat out useless you know something had gone horribly wrong In 4ed Ork boyz were still good the heavy CCW rule kept the choppas in game. i personly still took shoota boyz because i had the models from when i played flash gitz in 3ed they were boyz with stormbolters for 12 pts but now they had 18" range but only cost 6pts i was in heaven, I know the APC rules in 4ed made everything a coffin, but we got run so it workout i guess i could play fun armies Ork Big Gun Kannon, Zzap guns or Killa Kans because they had BS3 that may not seen huge to you guys but to Ork players this was awesome a gun that hit half the time. Loota boyz were funny just set up a 5 man team at the back and see what they and blow up sometimes they fail to kill anything other times they drop a dreadnought every turn the Big Mek with a SAG was the best . Then 5ed dropped it was horrible fearless units took massive wounds for no reason choppas were gone over night, you no longer needed a KFF because everything gave 4+ cover rending stop being good,
units of boyz became littel more then 30 wound Nob since he was the only thing good about the unit. Most Ork player did not know what to do now Ork boyz were Useless. This is the sad tale of how KAN WALL came about 9 cheap dreadnought with 4+ cover that could win a combat
you still had to take boyz since there your only Troops (scoring units), NOB bikes was that samething a melee army that can't melee anymore.
The Tyranids did not fair as well thought the dark days of 40k. Tyranid armies on ebay for next to nothing because noone wanted them a they had 2 codexs in 4ed and still GW had not made the half the model for them so everyone stop playing them, Then MATT the : WARD : son of an Ork gave 40k the blood , CON and the abortion that was Grey Knights and broke 5ed .......... So believe please me when i say that i sincerely want 6ed to be good i did hear that MATT the : WARD was on the team wrighting 6ed but i was praying to the God Emperor that he would just kill more fluff and GW would have the insight to not let him near anything important. I read the 6ed rule book and it did not seem that bad on paper, but every assault i failed i could see how much MATT the : WARD had teabgged melee
1) Thanks for being a Grammar Nazi about a little spelling mistake, I hope it made you feel like man. I never pointed out your a virgin!
Well, first, it's "you're" as in "you are," not "your" as in "that belongs to you" especially considering I do not have a virgin just lying around. I do not possess any virgins, that would be illegal.
Also, that insult was terrible. I will allow one mulligan, please attempt to use proper grammar.
MY bad your right 15" Rapid Fire with a str 5 gun on a 9pts modle doesn't mean your safe from assault, the Orks only have to roll 11 on 2d6 in the mean time you have 33.3*% chance of killing an Ork with each shot and with and Ethereal near by you get 3 shots, that is 1 dead Ork each turn if you can't do the maths and the poor Orks have only a 8.3*% chance of assaulting the Fire Warrior, but please forgive if you think that i'm out of line calling a rule broken when you get to Overwatch as well, shooting fish in barrel would be harder, but you should be commended on the great skill and tactics, move 6" back shoot 30" at Orks
orkgoffrocker wrote: MY bad your right 15" Rapid Fire with a str 5 gun on a 9pts modle doesn't mean your safe from assault, the Orks only have to roll 11 on 2d6 in the mean time you have 33.3*% chance of killing an Ork with each shot and with and Ethereal near by you get 3 shots, that is 1 dead Ork each turn if you can't do the maths and the poor Orks have only a 8.3*% chance of assaulting the Fire Warrior, but please forgive if you think that i'm out of line calling a rule broken when you get to Overwatch as well, shooting fish in barrel would be harder, but you should be commended on the great skill and tactics, move 6" back shoot 30" at Orks
Instead of whining like you're six, how about you adapt and overcome?
BoomWolf wrote: It it just me, or is the dude complaining that every single army in the game is OP?
I"m not even saying that i just said dear GW y 4 you hate melee so much
Automatically Appended Next Post: I did adapt and overcome, i just made an army so and broken SW with IG Allies that most people at my club, now play no Allies and no Fliers without opponent approve. I still win every game, i'm just about Orks not being a playable army
Imperial for the win
I would just like to say that while I have no opinion on either side of this argument here is some food for thought.
In the grim darkness of the year 40,000 this edition has made the gun mightier than the sword like it should be. Lets consider: what should I do shoot, that guy who wants to kill me, from far away or should I run up and try to slice him apart with a sword?
While I still reserve judgement on fliers I think that complaining about the state of melee combat in a far future science fiction game is a bit silly.
I like playing Ork there my favorite army. i love the fluff the painting style the modle even there silly
rules like red paint job, SAG and the d3 roll for the lootas and i have never worried about not being the in top tier list, i played almost every week even in 5ed, but how do you turn up each week and play 2 or 3 games if you know, like really know you can't win. I mathhammered so many army builds to try and find something that dose not have 99% chance of failure.
I have a friend that plays tau we used to play all the time and the games were nail bitting i would win normaly with only and hand full of Ork or we would draw. In 1 game because Tau and Orks are both initiative 2 his last Fire Warrior kiled my last Boy we luled so hard.
The first and last game we had in 6ed he tabled me on turn 4 and i did not get any KP his army was untouched.
So did i forget how to play Ork the day after 6ed came out or is it more likely the rules are unfavorable to any kind of melee. Think about it like this if you had to pass a LD test to shoot each turn would that be fair and if you fail the test you lose a modle
3) LOL Ghazkhull with the new Slow and Purposeful rule what is he going to do crawl after units at d6" a turn and then charge 3d6 pick the lowest, he is about as useful as 1 legged man in an ass kicking contest
SnP means that you can't run. In 5th it meant random movement.
Please re-read the rulebook. And your Ork codex. And the DA codex.
FirePainter wrote: I would just like to say that while I have no opinion on either side of this argument here is some food for thought.
In the grim darkness of the year 40,000 this edition has made the gun mightier than the sword like it should be. Lets consider: what should I do shoot, that guy who wants to kill me, from far away or should I run up and try to slice him apart with a sword?
While I still reserve judgement on fliers I think that complaining about the state of melee combat in a far future science fiction game is a bit silly.
With apologies, this argument is really tiresome. Firstly, this isn't a sci-fi game as much as it is a space fantasy, you know, like Star Wars. To compare this setting to any real futuristic warfare is laughable. Secondly, if the game is supposed to be 'more realistic' by being shooting-centric then why the stupid, cumbersome rules for challenges in close combat? Maybe if GW can ask themselves these questions they will eventually write better rules.
uberjoras wrote: Thanks for this thread. It's been a long time since forum trolling has made me laugh this hard. Really, you've been arguing in circles for pages, and this guy just keeps making outlandish assertions about totally incorrect rules interpretations? That doesn't set off little bells and whistles in anybody's head?
Sadly, there are plenty of people who are in fact, really that dumb.
FirePainter wrote: I would just like to say that while I have no opinion on either side of this argument here is some food for thought.
In the grim darkness of the year 40,000 this edition has made the gun mightier than the sword like it should be. Lets consider: what should I do shoot, that guy who wants to kill me, from far away or should I run up and try to slice him apart with a sword?
While I still reserve judgement on fliers I think that complaining about the state of melee combat in a far future science fiction game is a bit silly.
With apologies, this argument is really tiresome. Firstly, this isn't a sci-fi game as much as it is a space fantasy, you know, like Star Wars. To compare this setting to any real futuristic warfare is laughable. Secondly, if the game is supposed to be 'more realistic' by being shooting-centric then why the stupid, cumbersome rules for challenges in close combat? Maybe if GW can ask themselves these questions they will eventually write better rules.
I agree with you about why there should be CC and shooting in 40k, a lot of people however do not recognize that 40k is not really science fiction.
In general I think 6th edition is a huge step backward. All of the editions have their good and bad points but with 6th it feels like we are returning to a lot of the goofiness and awkwardness of 2nd edition. When thinking about how I would personally improve 40k, it usually boils down to just simply removing a lot of rules.
6th ed has been overall a boost to my performance as a tyranid player. Although our codex remains highly inflexible and unforgiving of mistakes and we must be very willing to absorb enormous amounts of losses. Compared to the misery of being a Tyranid player in a meta dominated by tanks in 5e this is a much better state of affairs. Winning against more modern codices is still a big uphill battle, and beating WAAC lists from said armies is going to have to take a tooth and claw struggle and more than a little luck, but at least now I don't spontaneously combust when pitted against grey knights with razorbacks and purifiers.
3) LOL Ghazkhull with the new Slow and Purposeful rule what is he going to do crawl after units at d6" a turn and then charge 3d6 pick the lowest, he is about as useful as 1 legged man in an ass kicking contest
SnP means that you can't run. In 5th it meant random movement.
Please re-read the rulebook. And your Ork codex. And the DA codex.
I dont have to field the unit to know how it works that may explan why you don't win games. At my club if anyone has the balls to call my list which they never were in 3rd, 4th or 5th ed. In 6ed the meta of the game is piss on fluff and make more thanks MaTT Ward
Hammernators are a real part of the game, 80% of armies that can have them do and with that horrible allied table to many xenos armies have them Tau, Orks, Necrons. IT not just the 3++ and DS that make the danger there are Super Hammernators, Blood Angels Hammernators have FNP and DS with only 1d6 scatter that is re-rolled, Deathwing Hammernators DS on 1st turn with no scatter and can have guns in the unit
orkgoffrocker-you keep insisting the fact everyone can now get hammernators as a game breaker, yet completely miss the point most armies don't even WANT them.
They are a good unit, but NOTHING MORE, they are not op, they are not game breakers, they are not impossible to kill, and they dont actually do alot of damage.
Sure, they can squish most stuff in assault, but as said, they need to freaking GET there, being slow as feth if they walk, or taking at the very least a full turn worth of free shooting if they deep strike.
And they cost you a metric ton! sure, you can throw 20 hammernators on me turn 1, but I can get 96 fire warriors for the same price (8 full squads)
And quick calculation will reveal that if you DS your 20 hammernators near them, they will kill slightly over half of them within the first shooting phase, then kill more on overwatch, and whatever remains will die on turn 2.
And FW are considered "not impressive", nor am I actually bringing any anti-terminator weapons or force multiplers, even a 50 point ethreal will bounce it to ~16 dead hammernators on turn 1.
Compare them to something like wraiths, and I'll choose to take on the hammernators every day. sure they dont have 2+ armor save, but 2+ dies in pain when outnumbered 4 or 5 to 1. (and armies like orks can outnumber them 10 to 1, rendering them even less of a threat)
Sure, they can take a beating, and they can deliver some strong melee hits, but they lack NUMBERS, and without numbers, all the high tech gimmicks in the world will lose.
3) LOL Ghazkhull with the new Slow and Purposeful rule what is he going to do crawl after units at d6" a turn and then charge 3d6 pick the lowest, he is about as useful as 1 legged man in an ass kicking contest
SnP means that you can't run. In 5th it meant random movement.
Please re-read the rulebook. And your Ork codex. And the DA codex.
I dont have to field the unit to know how it works that may explan why you don't win games. At my club if anyone has the balls to call my list which they never were in 3rd, 4th or 5th ed. In 6ed the meta of the game is piss on fluff and make more thanks MaTT Ward
Hammernators are a real part of the game, 80% of armies that can have them do and with that horrible allied table to many xenos armies have them Tau, Orks, Necrons. IT not just the 3++ and DS that make the danger there are Super Hammernators, Blood Angels Hammernators have FNP and DS with only 1d6 scatter that is re-rolled, Deathwing Hammernators DS on 1st turn with no scatter and can have guns in the unit
I don't see how your magical ability to know how all units work makes me bad at gaming. And please stop making wild assertions that you cannot possibly have based on fact or experience.
The meta of 6th is to have troops on the field to hold objectives, whilst out maneuvering the opponent (usually in the form of fliers). If the meta was "cheese", then it would no longer be called "cheese", it would be called "normal".
Your "80%" statistic has no basis in reality. Did you do a study of the average WH40k army? No. You probably didn't. False facts cannot win an argument, and make you seem unintelligent.
Blood Angels have to pay for an entire new character/unit/model (whichever it is, I'm no expert) to get FnP, and the reduction of scatter is only if the buy a teleport homer. Which all marines can do.
Furthermore, if a terminator has a gun, it cannot be a "Hammernator", as it has no hammer.
3) LOL Ghazkhull with the new Slow and Purposeful rule what is he going to do crawl after units at d6" a turn and then charge 3d6 pick the lowest, he is about as useful as 1 legged man in an ass kicking contest
SnP means that you can't run. In 5th it meant random movement.
Please re-read the rulebook. And your Ork codex. And the DA codex.
I dont have to field the unit to know how it works that may explan why you don't win games. At my club if anyone has the balls to call my list which they never were in 3rd, 4th or 5th ed. In 6ed the meta of the game is piss on fluff and make more thanks MaTT Ward
Hammernators are a real part of the game, 80% of armies that can have them do and with that horrible allied table to many xenos armies have them Tau, Orks, Necrons. IT not just the 3++ and DS that make the danger there are Super Hammernators, Blood Angels Hammernators have FNP and DS with only 1d6 scatter that is re-rolled, Deathwing Hammernators DS on 1st turn with no scatter and can have guns in the unit
I don't see how your magical ability to know how all units work makes me bad at gaming. And please stop making wild assertions that you cannot possibly have based on fact or experience.
The meta of 6th is to have troops on the field to hold objectives, whilst out maneuvering the opponent (usually in the form of fliers). If the meta was "cheese", then it would no longer be called "cheese", it would be called "normal".
Your "80%" statistic has no basis in reality. Did you do a study of the average WH40k army? No. You probably didn't. False facts cannot win an argument, and make you seem unintelligent.
Blood Angels have to pay for an entire new character/unit/model (whichever it is, I'm no expert) to get FnP, and the reduction of scatter is only if the buy a teleport homer. Which all marines can do.
Furthermore, if a terminator has a gun, it cannot be a "Hammernator", as it has no hammer.
I don't know what's more frightening that he's this committed to trolling or that he may just really be this stupid.
3) LOL Ghazkhull with the new Slow and Purposeful rule what is he going to do crawl after units at d6" a turn and then charge 3d6 pick the lowest, he is about as useful as 1 legged man in an ass kicking contest
SnP means that you can't run. In 5th it meant random movement.
Please re-read the rulebook. And your Ork codex. And the DA codex.
I dont have to field the unit to know how it works that may explan why you don't win games. At my club if anyone has the balls to call my list which they never were in 3rd, 4th or 5th ed. In 6ed the meta of the game is piss on fluff and make more thanks MaTT Ward
Hammernators are a real part of the game, 80% of armies that can have them do and with that horrible allied table to many xenos armies have them Tau, Orks, Necrons. IT not just the 3++ and DS that make the danger there are Super Hammernators, Blood Angels Hammernators have FNP and DS with only 1d6 scatter that is re-rolled, Deathwing Hammernators DS on 1st turn with no scatter and can have guns in the unit
I don't see how your magical ability to know how all units work makes me bad at gaming. And please stop making wild assertions that you cannot possibly have based on fact or experience.
The meta of 6th is to have troops on the field to hold objectives, whilst out maneuvering the opponent (usually in the form of fliers). If the meta was "cheese", then it would no longer be called "cheese", it would be called "normal".
Your "80%" statistic has no basis in reality. Did you do a study of the average WH40k army? No. You probably didn't. False facts cannot win an argument, and make you seem unintelligent.
Blood Angels have to pay for an entire new character/unit/model (whichever it is, I'm no expert) to get FnP, and the reduction of scatter is only if the buy a teleport homer. Which all marines can do.
Furthermore, if a terminator has a gun, it cannot be a "Hammernator", as it has no hammer.
I don't know what's more frightening that he's this committed to trolling or that he may just really be this stupid.
I'd prefer him to be a troll. That way I'd never have to put up with this level of fail IRL.
Kain wrote: 6th ed has been overall a boost to my performance as a tyranid player. Although our codex remains highly inflexible and unforgiving of mistakes and we must be very willing to absorb enormous amounts of losses. Compared to the misery of being a Tyranid player in a meta dominated by tanks in 5e this is a much better state of affairs. Winning against more modern codices is still a big uphill battle, and beating WAAC lists from said armies is going to have to take a tooth and claw struggle and more than a little luck, but at least now I don't spontaneously combust when pitted against grey knights with razorbacks and purifiers.
The real, obvious answer to a pretty bad Tyranid codex is to fix the codex. The core rules of 6th Ed. are just as convoluted as the worst things in 5th, they are simply different...and just happen to favor some specific Tyranid builds. That hardly is a ringing endorsement.
Kain wrote: 6th ed has been overall a boost to my performance as a tyranid player. Although our codex remains highly inflexible and unforgiving of mistakes and we must be very willing to absorb enormous amounts of losses. Compared to the misery of being a Tyranid player in a meta dominated by tanks in 5e this is a much better state of affairs. Winning against more modern codices is still a big uphill battle, and beating WAAC lists from said armies is going to have to take a tooth and claw struggle and more than a little luck, but at least now I don't spontaneously combust when pitted against grey knights with razorbacks and purifiers.
The real, obvious answer to a pretty bad Tyranid codex is to fix the codex. The core rules of 6th Ed. are just as convoluted as the worst things in 5th, they are simply different...and just happen to favor some specific Tyranid builds. That hardly is a ringing endorsement.
Hey in 5th ed the only winning move a Tyranid army had against a tailor'd Grey Knight or Dark Eldar list was to bend over and hope they were gentle lovers. At least now it's not quite as painful anymore.
amanita wrote: And a better codex would fix that, right? Why is there a need to rely on random, wonky mechanics to level the playing field?
Ideally codices would be living documents constantly updated and patched. In reality we can only get them every so often, and typically a new edition comes out a good deal before a new codex for an army does. So in the mean time a new edition should try to regulate some egregarious imbalances that existed before hand until a new codex can fully patch things up.
amanita wrote: And a better codex would fix that, right? Why is there a need to rely on random, wonky mechanics to level the playing field?
Ideally codices would be living documents constantly updated and patched. In reality we can only get them every so often, and typically a new edition comes out a good deal before a new codex for an army does. So in the mean time a new edition should try to regulate some egregarious imbalances that existed before hand until a new codex can fully patch things up.
Saddy this was done in 5ed to fix that DA S/S were not 3++ and there CML was only 1 shot.
BA rhinos were 35pts and fast, that was fixed within a month or 2 of the codex coming out
All the FAQ's for Orks were nerfs, like they needed a nerf, the weird boyz auto hit str 10 psychic power would have 1 shot fliers and all Nobs being characters would have be great for when some OP character challenges the unit you dont have to send the Big Mek or Warboss out to die you can just feed them a Pleb For the love of god why is Artillery so Buff, toughness 7 grots with a 3+ and you can have so many i think its 17 in total
Just as a last point why can't Daemons use psychic powers from the 6ed rule book
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BoomWolf wrote: orkgoffrocker-you keep insisting the fact everyone can now get hammernators as a game breaker, yet completely miss the point most armies don't even WANT them.
They are a good unit, but NOTHING MORE, they are not op, they are not game breakers, they are not impossible to kill, and they dont actually do alot of damage.
Sure, they can squish most stuff in assault, but as said, they need to freaking GET there, being slow as feth if they walk, or taking at the very least a full turn worth of free shooting if they deep strike.
And they cost you a metric ton! sure, you can throw 20 hammernators on me turn 1, but I can get 96 fire warriors for the same price (8 full squads)
And quick calculation will reveal that if you DS your 20 hammernators near them, they will kill slightly over half of them within the first shooting phase, then kill more on overwatch, and whatever remains will die on turn 2.
And FW are considered "not impressive", nor am I actually bringing any anti-terminator weapons or force multiplers, even a 50 point ethreal will bounce it to ~16 dead hammernators on turn 1.
Compare them to something like wraiths, and I'll choose to take on the hammernators every day. sure they dont have 2+ armor save, but 2+ dies in pain when outnumbered 4 or 5 to 1. (and armies like orks can outnumber them 10 to 1, rendering them even less of a threat)
Sure, they can take a beating, and they can deliver some strong melee hits, but they lack NUMBERS, and without numbers, all the high tech gimmicks in the world will lose.
1) I love that your example used 8 full squads when you can only have 6 at 1999pts DA and BAcan have, sorry sorry always have FNP, But you are right Tau the most shooty army in 40k could allmost kill them
2) Anti-terminator do mean plasma because i think you will find 3++ makes burst cannons better at killing hammernators
3) Did i say anything about FW, i just want an army that is playable out of the codex, not using allies or having to buy Dakka jets or an ADL. Buying terrain as part of your army is the worst rule in 6ed and there are alot of bad rules mainly all the melee rules but hull points are really bad too if every vehicle had 4 hull points it may have been ok, but buggys and killa kans have 2 if they had 4 they would still die from 1 las cannon or get taken out by bolters but they would just last longer as a group maybe 1 would live past turn 1
1-that's because I went for a simplified example and just threw pure numbers at you, without regarding FoC, of course in the real world its impossible, but then again I'll actually have other stuff around.
2-I was thinking more along the lines of S8 AP2 pie plates with interceptor as an answer, but sure, if you think pure dakka spam is better, I can go that do with dual burst cannon suits, pumping up 8 shots each, and moving WAY too fast for your termies to catch up.
And these are the obvious solutions, didn't even spend a moment of thinking for these two. and I am sure every army can pull off something along these lines (well, maybe not JSJ suits, but at the very least pie plates)
Or, their own assault units. preferable ones with high initiative, to jump at your termies.
3-FW stands for Fire Warriors. heck, figure out what you are arguing about before you make your argument.
Also, I find it amusing you assume the temies will wreck everything because you assume the opponent will agree with you that "fortifications are a bad rule" and will not play them against you. well, he might, and it screws up your stratagy.
Also, a terrain can screw you up if shrewdly placed, and so can high initiative bubble-wrapping, and a slew of other things.
BoomWolf wrote: 1-that's because I went for a simplified example and just threw pure numbers at you, without regarding FoC, of course in the real world its impossible, but then again I'll actually have other stuff around.
2-I was thinking more along the lines of S8 AP2 pie plates with interceptor as an answer, but sure, if you think pure dakka spam is better, I can go that do with dual burst cannon suits, pumping up 8 shots each, and moving WAY too fast for your termies to catch up.
And these are the obvious solutions, didn't even spend a moment of thinking for these two. and I am sure every army can pull off something along these lines (well, maybe not JSJ suits, but at the very least pie plates)
Or, their own assault units. preferable ones with high initiative, to jump at your termies.
3-FW stands for Fire Warriors. heck, figure out what you are arguing about before you make your argument.
Also, I find it amusing you assume the temies will wreck everything because you assume the opponent will agree with you that "fortifications are a bad rule" and will not play them against you. well, he might, and it screws up your stratagy.
Also, a terrain can screw you up if shrewdly placed, and so can high initiative bubble-wrapping, and a slew of other things.
1) So.... in RLwhat you said dose not hold water nice
2) I did not see anything in the codex that can do a Str 8 Ap2 pie plates
3) The more terrain, the better for the Hammernators this includes Fortifications
BoomWolf wrote: 1-that's because I went for a simplified example and just threw pure numbers at you, without regarding FoC, of course in the real world its impossible, but then again I'll actually have other stuff around.
2-I was thinking more along the lines of S8 AP2 pie plates with interceptor as an answer, but sure, if you think pure dakka spam is better, I can go that do with dual burst cannon suits, pumping up 8 shots each, and moving WAY too fast for your termies to catch up.
And these are the obvious solutions, didn't even spend a moment of thinking for these two. and I am sure every army can pull off something along these lines (well, maybe not JSJ suits, but at the very least pie plates)
Or, their own assault units. preferable ones with high initiative, to jump at your termies.
3-FW stands for Fire Warriors. heck, figure out what you are arguing about before you make your argument.
Also, I find it amusing you assume the temies will wreck everything because you assume the opponent will agree with you that "fortifications are a bad rule" and will not play them against you. well, he might, and it screws up your stratagy.
Also, a terrain can screw you up if shrewdly placed, and so can high initiative bubble-wrapping, and a slew of other things.
1) So.... in RLwhat you said dose not hold water nice
2) I did not see anything in the codex that can do a Str 8 Ap2 pie plates
3) The more terrain, the better for the Hammernators this includes Fortifications
1) The point is that there are better options than hammernators.
2) Which codex? If you don't have enough AP2, just spam cheap dakka. They'll die eventually.
3) Not if they're deepstriking (which you're complaining about), it forces them to go elsewhere, or risk perils.
BoomWolf wrote: 1-that's because I went for a simplified example and just threw pure numbers at you, without regarding FoC, of course in the real world its impossible, but then again I'll actually have other stuff around.
2-I was thinking more along the lines of S8 AP2 pie plates with interceptor as an answer, but sure, if you think pure dakka spam is better, I can go that do with dual burst cannon suits, pumping up 8 shots each, and moving WAY too fast for your termies to catch up.
And these are the obvious solutions, didn't even spend a moment of thinking for these two. and I am sure every army can pull off something along these lines (well, maybe not JSJ suits, but at the very least pie plates)
Or, their own assault units. preferable ones with high initiative, to jump at your termies.
3-FW stands for Fire Warriors. heck, figure out what you are arguing about before you make your argument.
Also, I find it amusing you assume the temies will wreck everything because you assume the opponent will agree with you that "fortifications are a bad rule" and will not play them against you. well, he might, and it screws up your stratagy.
Also, a terrain can screw you up if shrewdly placed, and so can high initiative bubble-wrapping, and a slew of other things.
1) So.... in RLwhat you said dose not hold water nice
2) I did not see anything in the codex that can do a Str 8 Ap2 pie plates
3) The more terrain, the better for the Hammernators this includes Fortifications
1) The point is that there are better options than hammernators.
2) Which codex? If you don't have enough AP2, just spam cheap dakka. They'll die eventually.
3) Not if they're deepstriking (which you're complaining about), it forces them to go elsewhere, or risk perils.
1) I know ther are better options there called Flyers, all i have been saying is Hammernators are the only good CC unit everything else is a waste of points now
2) Can you give me an example of a Str 8 Ap2 pie plates
3) Deathwing Hammernators DS on 1st turn with no scatter and BA Hammernators can DS on 2nd turn with 1d6 scatter re-rolled so...... risk perils LOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlol and BA can DS a Landrainder to hide behind
4) Your plucking a figure out of thin air and amusing facts, were i'm Paraphrasing games i have played and seen played in RL.
You can say that its Matt Wards codices, but the truth is GW had a chance to fix the GK in 6th ed i.e making there force weapon AP- not Ap3 and giving GK's a 6++. Then Rewritten every weapon in 40k to fix all the broken ones , but instead we got Flyers and Fortifications further bending a broken game
1) So.... in RLwhat you said dose not hold water nice
2) I did not see anything in the codex that can do a Str 8 Ap2 pie plates
3) The more terrain, the better for the Hammernators this includes Fortifications
1) The point is that there are better options than hammernators.
2) Which codex? If you don't have enough AP2, just spam cheap dakka. They'll die eventually.
3) Not if they're deepstriking (which you're complaining about), it forces them to go elsewhere, or risk perils.
1) I know ther are better options there called Flyers, all i have been saying is Hammernators are the only good CC unit everything else is a waste of points now
2) Can you give me an example of a Str 8 Ap2 pie plates
3) Deathwing Hammernators DS on 1st turn with no scatter and BA Hammernators can DS on 2nd turn with 1d6 scatter re-rolled so...... risk perils LOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlol and BA can DS a Landrainder to hide behind
4) Your plucking a figure out of thin air and amusing facts, were i'm Paraphrasing games i have played and seen played in RL.
You can say that its Matt Wards codices, but the truth is GW had a chance to fix the GK in 6th ed i.e making there force weapon AP- not Ap3 and giving GK's a 6++. Then Rewritten every weapon in 40k to fix all the broken ones , but instead we got Flyers and Fortifications further bending a broken game
**I can actually feel my IQ dropping when you post**
1) There are better TROOPS and ELITES than hammernators. There are vehicles that can gimp them too. Orks can spam hordes - something that hammernators are statistically terrible against. And as for you thinking that CC is a waste now, I've had several games where a CC unit changed the outcome of a game in my favour.
2) There aren't any in the Orks codex, that's why I said to spam cheap dakka. Read before replying next time. You do, however have a Str 8 Ap 1 weapon, and you have the SAG and the Zzap gun.
3) What the hell is wrong with you? Terminator squad of 5 is a minimum of 200 points. In a 1750 game, you'd have at most 8 units. Or four units of ten. They are terrible at objective holding, can be outnumbered by Orks to a ridiculous degree (meaning they will get swamped), BA an SM ones are Elites, so there'll be a maximum of three units of ten, who can't score (read: waste of points). Furthermore, DA hammernators DO scatter. They do not have a rule stating that they don't scatter. I have the codex here. If they want to not scatter, they have to DS within 6" of a teleport homer, which can only be on a limited number of units. The teleport homer has to be on the field before the turn in which the hammernators deep strike, meaning that they CANNOT teleport right onto you with any degree of safety on the first turn, and will be hard-pressed to do so on the second.
Also, DS'ing a LR is a terrible idea.
4) I'm not "plucking a figure out of thin air and amusing facts". None of us are. We're using hard facts, logic and mathammer. And you seem to have a very wonky idea of what happens in a game of 40k, especially given what I have posted above.
BoomWolf wrote: 1-that's because I went for a simplified example and just threw pure numbers at you, without regarding FoC, of course in the real world its impossible, but then again I'll actually have other stuff around.
2-I was thinking more along the lines of S8 AP2 pie plates with interceptor as an answer, but sure, if you think pure dakka spam is better, I can go that do with dual burst cannon suits, pumping up 8 shots each, and moving WAY too fast for your termies to catch up.
And these are the obvious solutions, didn't even spend a moment of thinking for these two. and I am sure every army can pull off something along these lines (well, maybe not JSJ suits, but at the very least pie plates)
Or, their own assault units. preferable ones with high initiative, to jump at your termies.
3-FW stands for Fire Warriors. heck, figure out what you are arguing about before you make your argument.
Also, I find it amusing you assume the temies will wreck everything because you assume the opponent will agree with you that "fortifications are a bad rule" and will not play them against you. well, he might, and it screws up your stratagy.
Also, a terrain can screw you up if shrewdly placed, and so can high initiative bubble-wrapping, and a slew of other things.
1) So.... in RLwhat you said dose not hold water nice
2) I did not see anything in the codex that can do a Str 8 Ap2 pie plates
3) The more terrain, the better for the Hammernators this includes Fortifications
1) The point is that there are better options than hammernators.
2) Which codex? If you don't have enough AP2, just spam cheap dakka. They'll die eventually.
3) Not if they're deepstriking (which you're complaining about), it forces them to go elsewhere, or risk perils.
1) I know ther are better options there called Flyers, all i have been saying is Hammernators are the only good CC unit everything else is a waste of points now
2) Can you give me an example of a Str 8 Ap2 pie plates
3) Deathwing Hammernators DS on 1st turn with no scatter and BA Hammernators can DS on 2nd turn with 1d6 scatter re-rolled so...... risk perils LOLlolLOLlolLOLlolLOLlol and BA can DS a Landrainder to hide behind
4) Your plucking a figure out of thin air and amusing facts, were i'm Paraphrasing games i have played and seen played in RL.
You can say that its Matt Wards codices, but the truth is GW had a chance to fix the GK in 6th ed i.e making there force weapon AP- not Ap3 and giving GK's a 6++. Then Rewritten every weapon in 40k to fix all the broken ones , but instead we got Flyers and Fortifications further bending a broken game
Do you get off on being stupid?
Does it please you to be the biggest, daftest, derpfish on the forum?
Do you truly, honestly believe that deep striking a land raider, one of the hugest models in the game, is a good idea?
Do you actually, honestly call hammernators, a unit only worth a single feth in melee, overpowered in the same game with the "three TL lascannons on an invincible flying brick for 130 points" Vendetta? Do you not get that thirty slugga boys who are much cheaper than a hammernator squad will almost always butcher the termies?
1) In the post to which I previously replied, you only mentioned fliers, not troops. Read your own posts before being rude. If you think that only shooty units are good, then why the hell are you moaning about hammernators being op? Furthemore, if you really hate 40k just quit. There are better wargames out there.
2) The mekboy and big mek can both take a kustom mega blasts. Str 8 Ap 1. And the SAG tears through my army like there's no tomorrow. Zzap can kill the user.
3) A single, slow, non-shooty scoring unit whose only use is to get into melee is a terrible scoring unit. And with hammernators it's even worse, because they can't handle the things an experienced wargamer will throw at them. And the DA guy who never looses: I seriously doubt that. Either his opponents are terrible, or they decided to not bring an army, because a non-scoring army will loose.
4) I've taken 2nd turn plenty of times and won. It sounds to me like you're a terrible wargamer, who has to come crying to an internet forum about his problems because he is too poor a player to fend off what is essentially a fairly terrible unit being made into an absolutely gak army.
You'll find this game heavily benefits volume of fire over low AP in almost all army builds now a days with a few exceptions. The most reliable point for point killing with shooting is with volume over AP, because AP is sometimes not necessary.
For this reason, plenty of lists do well at destroying DA drop lists. Even moreso now with Dakka Broadsides with Interceptor.
You'll find this game heavily benefits volume of fire over low AP in almost all army builds now a days with a few exceptions. The most reliable point for point killing with shooting is with volume over AP, because AP is sometimes not necessary.
For this reason, plenty of lists do well at destroying DA drop lists. Even moreso now with Dakka Broadsides with Interceptor.
Selym there is no point replaying to you
1) blah blah
2) Read the codex kustom mega blasts are Str 8 Ap 2 range 24" ass 1 and gets hot, most Orks only have 6+ save so they die alot like every game half the time without rolling the 5+ needed to hit or they could just keep the Deffa gun 1d3 str 7 48". The SAG blows up and kill half the Ork army. Both the Zzap Gun and SAG have 2d6str so they roll 2 and 3 often and still can kill the user.
3) If you wipeout all your opponents scoring units which is eazy since there all now and people only take them because there scoring you can only draw after that unless you table your opponent!
4) Mate i play 3rd, 4th and 5th ed fine, in fact i was so good if anyone called my army i would say change accepted and ask if they wanted to swap armies and i will beat there face with there own army and they can play my list, i still won everytime.
That has been my point from the start! Rapid Fire has intensifying to the point of making assault pointless. Hammernators are the only wildcard because there retardedly tough 2+/3++ add DS to that and they can still make it into melee
orkgoffrocker wrote: Selym there is no point replaying to you
1) blah blah
2) Read the codex kustom mega blasts are poo Str 8 Ap 2 range 24" ass 1 and gets hot, most Orks only have 6+ save so they die alot like every game half the time without rolling the 5+ needed to hit or they could just keep the Deffa gun 1d3 str 7 48". The SAG blows up and kill half the Ork army. Both the Zzap Gun and SAG have 2d6str so they roll 2 and 3 often and still can kill the user.
3) If you wipeout all your opponents scoring units which is eazy since there all poo now and people only take them because there scoring you can only draw after that unless you table your opponent!
4) Mate i play 3rd, 4th and 5th ed fine, in fact i was so good
That has been my point from the start! Rapid Fire has intensifying to the point of making assault pointless. Hammernators are the only wildcard because there retardedly tough 2+/3++ add DS to that and they can still make it into melee
You just replied.
1) Grow up. And stop being a troll.
2) The whole point of orks is to die en masse, and then smack things in cc. The intro to the codex even says it. If you don't like that style, don't play them.
3) Was that English? I've never seen a game wherein scoring troopers were a bad idea.
1) Not a troll, I is a ORK 2) I KNOW THERE MENT TO DIE, but now there useless in melee because the 2d6 charge now i have to be 8" away not 12" to charge and even being 2" away you may still not get the charge thanks to the gay as sh!t rule Over Watch
3) All units in every codex the Elites units are just better, often Fast Attack are better (think flyers) and Heavy Support IS just Gold. The only time Troops are great is when you pay a Named Character tax (points) to move Elites,Fast Attackor Heavy Support to being Troops i.e DA deathwing, ravenwing, GK the whole codex, Ork warboss Nob bikes, CSM the whole codex, SW loganwing, there are more but you get the point 4) When i am training for a tournament i always play 250+pts less then my opponent and when ever i play nids standard i always let them have 500pts more
orkgoffrocker wrote: 1) Not a troll, I is a ORK 2) I KNOW THERE MENT TO DIE, but now there useless in melee because the 2d6 charge now i have to be 8" away not 12" to charge and even being 2" away you may still not get the charge thanks to the gay as sh!t rule Over Watch
3) All units in every codex the Elites units are just better, often Fast Attack are better (think flyers) and Heavy Support IS just Gold. The only time Troops are great is when you pay a Named Character tax (points) to move Elites,Fast Attackor Heavy Support to being Troops i.e DA deathwing, ravenwing, GK the whole codex, Ork warboss Nob bikes, CSM the whole codex, SW loganwing, there are more but you get the point 4) When i am training for a tournament i always play 250+pts less then my opponent and when ever i play nids standard i always let them have 500pts more
don't use language like this on Dakka. Ever.
Reds8n .
1) Well in that case it's pretty safe to charge from 13", rather than 12". The 7" average does not have a 50% chance of you being forced to not charge. Please learn to check your mathematics. As for rhinos taking an entire horde? What the hell are you talking about? You have clearly never seen a rhino transport in action.
2) i)Powerklaws (Meganobz CC weapon) is the same as a power fist (x2 str, Ap 2), not Ap 3. Some power weapons are Ap 2 (Power Axes).
ii) Dakkajet is cheap anyways, it's not supposed to be the best. Non-fearless does not make a unit bad. Stormboys with Zagstruk are quite powerful. Learn to use them properly.
iii) I'm now under the impression that the only unit you think is any good is a unit of hammernators. Which proves you have either no combat experience, or you've never once won a game.
iv) Ravenwing are not gods. They never were, and never shall be. I play CSM, the army is quite powerful, and I win regularly.
v) Then why bother. The points you make are based on your own special interpretation of how things work, and have no basis in reality. You've tried to claim that hammernators never scatter when they deep strike, that they deep strike on turn one, that they can assault on turn 1, that they all have twin-linked special weapons, that DA cannot be beaten, that CSM are terrible, that Orks are terrible, and that 80% of armies have hammernators. All of which many of us here on dakka can prove are incorrect.
3) If only bodies win you games, then why do hammernators or GK win? They have gear, not bodies. Stop contradicting yourself, and actually try to make a structured argument. It is nigh-impossible to have a 3-year win streak when your opponent always has more points than you, unless they're an extremely poor player, and you're list building.
EDIT: And iirc, you also claimed that hammernators were making you auto loose. How on earth could that be true if you never loose?
orkgoffrocker wrote: 1) Not a troll, I is a ORK 2) I KNOW THERE MENT TO DIE, but now there useless in melee because the 2d6 charge now i have to be 8" away not 12" to charge and even being 2" away you may still not get the charge thanks to the gay as sh!t rule Over Watch
3) All units in every codex the Elites units are just better, often Fast Attack are better (think flyers) and Heavy Support IS just Gold. The only time Troops are great is when you pay a Named Character tax (points) to move Elites,Fast Attackor Heavy Support to being Troops i.e DA deathwing, ravenwing, GK the whole codex, Ork warboss Nob bikes, CSM the whole codex, SW loganwing, there are more but you get the point 4) When i am training for a tournament i always play 250+pts less then my opponent and when ever i play nids standard i always let them have 500pts more
1) "Bumblefaggot". I shall say no more.
2) I have no idea what your point is here: "now i have to be 8" away not 12" to charge". Before 6th you had a max charge range of 6". It is now 7" (7 being the average of any 2D6).
As for overwatch, you'd probably loose no more than three boyz. Not going to stop a full-on horde. If you don't like it, send in grots to take the overwatch, and then send in boyz.
3) i) Other codex's elites are supposed to be better. They are more specialised/elitist armies. You also have Meganobz.
ii) You have the Dakkajets. You have bikerz. You have stormboyz. Some of the most useful things in the game are here.
iii) HS in your codex or the others?
iv) Here are some good troopers: Ork boyz, TAC marines, Cultists, Scouts. ALL codicies have extremely useful troop choices without SCFOC swapping.
v) Deathwing is not king. Ravenwing is the same. GK was f***tarded anyways, so that doesn't really count. CSM Elites --> troops were troopers in the previous codex already. All that did is increase our reliance on good HQ's. Which we got.
vi) No, I don't get the point.
4) Now you're just flatly lying to try to sound impressive.
0) LTP
1) 6" of move and then 6" charge. 6th ed dose not make it 7" that is the average on 2d6 so half the time you fail and taked a 2nd round of insane rapid fire and overwatch, read the tau overwatch rules and say that again i dare you!. I can stop a "full-on horde" with 2 rhinos now, since they have to walk around the them since they can't blow them up untill the shooting phase
2) i) MegaNobZ Should be good now i know but since all the power weapons are AP3, but the S&P rule makes them just to slow, everyone can just walk away from them since they CAN'T RUN ii) The Dakkajets is ok since it's a flyer, remembering it is the worst of the flyers, warbikes are poo since there over priced and not fearless and stormboyz WOW there great they move so fast they out pace the Big Mek with the KFF the twice the price of a normal boy and they can't have any weapons. you will have a nice big horde army paying 12-25pts a modle sounds like you would get out numbered by SM or Tau.
iv) Ork boyz are crap i have just been over this TAC marines are meah at best you have to take 10 SM to get any of the good weapons and then you can't have a las cannon or you waste the bolter shots, SWGH are way better because you can have 2 of the same special weapon. Cultists are free kill points for the opponent . Your right about Scouts if you infiltrate them and have 1st turn to can charge in and disrupt opponents gun lines my bad that was in 3rd, 4th and 5th ed, you can't do that now there is a gay rule to stop it.
v) Ravenwing are Gods now 4 shots from a twin-linked bolter, Dude GK are a really codex there what always win the Tournaments. CSM are crap thats my point!
vi) i know you don't thats why your still posting
3) The funny part is i'm not, i started doing it when i played a guy at my club, that thought i said 2000pts not 1500pts, ( I think he was lying since the 500pts was on wargear that was not WYSIWYG) i still won the game since wargear never wins you games bodies do. I had a 3 year winning streak i did not even draw and since i play 1-2 games every sunday that over 150 games and when i did finally lose a game it was at a mates place and noone believed him untill i turned up latter and told them how he did it.
1) Well in that case it's pretty safe to charge from 13", rather than 12". The 7" average does not have a 50% chance of you being forced to not charge. Please learn to check your mathematics. As for rhinos taking an entire horde? What the hell are you talking about? You have clearly never seen a rhino transport in action.
2) i)Powerklaws (Meganobz CC weapon) is the same as a power fist (x2 str, Ap 2), not Ap 3. Some power weapons are Ap 2 (Power Axes).
ii) Dakkajet is cheap anyways, it's not supposed to be the best. Non-fearless does not make a unit bad. Stormboys with Zagstruk are quite powerful. Learn to use them properly.
iii) I'm now under the impression that the only unit you think is any good is a unit of hammernators. Which proves you have either no combat experience, or you've never once won a game.
iv) Ravenwing are not gods. They never were, and never shall be. I play CSM, the army is quite powerful, and I win regularly.
v) Then why bother. The points you make are based on your own special interpretation of how things work, and have no basis in reality. You've tried to claim that hammernators never scatter when they deep strike, that they deep strike on turn one, that they can assault on turn 1, that they all have twin-linked special weapons, that DA cannot be beaten, that CSM are terrible, that Orks are terrible, and that 80% of armies have hammernators. All of which many of us here on dakka can prove are incorrect.
3) If only bodies win you games, then why do hammernators or GK win? They have gear, not bodies. Stop contradicting yourself, and actually try to make a structured argument. It is nigh-impossible to have a 3-year win streak when your opponent always has more points than you, unless they're an extremely poor player, and you're list building.
EDIT: And iirc, you also claimed that hammernators were making you auto loose. How on earth could that be true if you never loose?
1) I did the maths and you will fail the charge 1/3 of the time before snap fire so.... it is often worse the 1/2 since overwatch is real
2) i)You said yourself you can walk away from hammernators and they can RUN, where as Meganobz CAN'T ( as in they Crawl after a rapid firing unit and they can do nothing about it. I have seen Zagstruk do very well too but just as often land on a rhino and die or scatter 2d6 the other way and get owned from Surprise Surprise Rapid Fire
ii) Dakkajets are poo since bolter work on them and you have to blow the armies waaagh for them to be any good if all flyers where av 10 they would be fine but most are av 12
ii) Hammernators are bull OP there 40pts each and i have seen them at one time or another solo kill everything from Wraithlords to Greater Daemons
iv) So noone you have played has used Traitors Bane 4 shot bolters at 23" bikes on you with plasma that never fails to wound, WOW just wow your club is full of noobs. All we see now is banner bolter spam
v) I never said all Hammernators never scatter when they deep strike, what i sadi was DA and BA don't standed and the rest don't if you have a teleport homer. Any unit of SM can teleport turn 1 if they have a libby with them! The whole CSM codex is Over Priced only 1 modle has eternal warrior and come on Kharn The Betrayer should have it ! Orks are terrible the only good units are Lootas and Grot artillery and there only good because the grot are 3pts and T7. 80% of armies have hammernators that sound about right only Nids and Chaos can't have them
3) How is it contradictory i was talking about 5ed. You said yourself the GK codex is OP and Hammernators have 2+ so a power weapon is now a stick to them and and if you do get past the 2+ they still have 3++
orkgoffrocker wrote: 1) Not a troll, I is a ORK 2) I KNOW THERE MENT TO DIE, but now there useless in melee because the 2d6 charge now i have to be 8" away not 12" to charge and even being 2" away you may still not get the charge thanks to the gay as sh!t rule Over Watch
3) All units in every codex the Elites units are just better, often Fast Attack are better (think flyers) and Heavy Support IS just Gold. The only time Troops are great is when you pay a Named Character tax (points) to move Elites,Fast Attackor Heavy Support to being Troops i.e DA deathwing, ravenwing, GK the whole codex, Ork warboss Nob bikes, CSM the whole codex, SW loganwing, there are more but you get the point 4) When i am training for a tournament i always play 250+pts less then my opponent and when ever i play nids standard i always let them have 500pts more
1) "Bumblefaggot". I shall say no more.
2) I have no idea what your point is here: "now i have to be 8" away not 12" to charge". Before 6th you had a max charge range of 6". It is now 7" (7 being the average of any 2D6).
As for overwatch, you'd probably loose no more than three boyz. Not going to stop a full-on horde. If you don't like it, send in grots to take the overwatch, and then send in boyz.
3) i) Other codex's elites are supposed to be better. They are more specialised/elitist armies. You also have Meganobz.
ii) You have the Dakkajets. You have bikerz. You have stormboyz. Some of the most useful things in the game are here.
iii) HS in your codex or the others?
iv) Here are some good troopers: Ork boyz, TAC marines, Cultists, Scouts. ALL codicies have extremely useful troop choices without SCFOC swapping.
v) Deathwing is not king. Ravenwing is the same. GK was f***tarded anyways, so that doesn't really count. CSM Elites --> troops were troopers in the previous codex already. All that did is increase our reliance on good HQ's. Which we got.
vi) No, I don't get the point.
4) Now you're just flatly lying to try to sound impressive.
0) LTP
1) 6" of move and then 6" charge. 6th ed dose not make it 7" that is the average on 2d6 so half the time you fail and taked a 2nd round of insane rapid fire and overwatch, read the tau overwatch rules and say that again i dare you!. I can stop a "full-on horde" with 2 rhinos now, since they have to walk around the them since they can't blow them up untill the shooting phase
2) i) MegaNobZ Should be good now i know but since all the power weapons are AP3, but the S&P rule makes them just to slow, everyone can just walk away from them since they CAN'T RUN ii) The Dakkajets is ok since it's a flyer, remembering it is the worst of the flyers, warbikes are poo since there over priced and not fearless and stormboyz WOW there great they move so fast they out pace the Big Mek with the KFF the twice the price of a normal boy and they can't have any weapons. you will have a nice big horde army paying 12-25pts a modle sounds like you would get out numbered by SM or Tau.
iv) Ork boyz are crap i have just been over this TAC marines are meah at best you have to take 10 SM to get any of the good weapons and then you can't have a las cannon or you waste the bolter shots, SWGH are way better because you can have 2 of the same special weapon. Cultists are free kill points for the opponent . Your right about Scouts if you infiltrate them and have 1st turn to can charge in and disrupt opponents gun lines my bad that was in 3rd, 4th and 5th ed, you can't do that now there is a gay rule to stop it.
v) Ravenwing are Gods now 4 shots from a twin-linked bolter, Dude GK are a really codex there what always win the Tournaments. CSM are crap thats my point!
vi) i know you don't thats why your still posting
3) The funny part is i'm not, i started doing it when i played a guy at my club, that thought i said 2000pts not 1500pts, ( I think he was lying since the 500pts was on wargear that was not WYSIWYG) i still won the game since wargear never wins you games bodies do. I had a 3 year winning streak i did not even draw and since i play 1-2 games every sunday that over 150 games and when i did finally lose a game it was at a mates place and noone believed him untill i turned up latter and told them how he did it.
1) Well in that case it's pretty safe to charge from 13", rather than 12". The 7" average does not have a 50% chance of you being forced to not charge. Please learn to check your mathematics. As for rhinos taking an entire horde? What the hell are you talking about? You have clearly never seen a rhino transport in action.
2) i)Powerklaws (Meganobz CC weapon) is the same as a power fist (x2 str, Ap 2), not Ap 3. Some power weapons are Ap 2 (Power Axes).
ii) Dakkajet is cheap anyways, it's not supposed to be the best. Non-fearless does not make a unit bad. Stormboys with Zagstruk are quite powerful. Learn to use them properly.
iii) I'm now under the impression that the only unit you think is any good is a unit of hammernators. Which proves you have either no combat experience, or you've never once won a game.
iv) Ravenwing are not gods. They never were, and never shall be. I play CSM, the army is quite powerful, and I win regularly.
v) Then why bother. The points you make are based on your own special interpretation of how things work, and have no basis in reality. You've tried to claim that hammernators never scatter when they deep strike, that they deep strike on turn one, that they can assault on turn 1, that they all have twin-linked special weapons, that DA cannot be beaten, that CSM are terrible, that Orks are terrible, and that 80% of armies have hammernators. All of which many of us here on dakka can prove are incorrect.
3) If only bodies win you games, then why do hammernators or GK win? They have gear, not bodies. Stop contradicting yourself, and actually try to make a structured argument. It is nigh-impossible to have a 3-year win streak when your opponent always has more points than you, unless they're an extremely poor player, and you're list building.
EDIT: And iirc, you also claimed that hammernators were making you auto loose. How on earth could that be true if you never loose?
1) I did the maths and you will fail the charge 1/3 of the time before snap fire so.... it is often worse the 1/2 since overwatch is real
2) i)You said yourself you can walk away from hammernators and they can RUN, where as Meganobz CAN'T ( as in they Crawl after a rapid firing unit and they can do nothing about it. I have seen Zagstruk do very well too but just as often land on a rhino and die or scatter 2d6 the other way and get owned from Surprise Surprise Rapid Fire
ii) Dakkajets are poo since bolter work on them and you have to blow the armies waaagh for them to be any good if all flyers where av 10 they would be fine but most are av 12
ii) Hammernators are bull OP there 40pts each and i have seen them at one time or another solo kill everything from Wraithlords to Greater Daemons
iv) So noone you have played has used Traitors Bane 4 shot bolters at 23" bikes on you with plasma that never fails to wound, WOW just wow your club is full of noobs. All we see now is banner bolter spam
v) I never said all Hammernators never scatter when they deep strike, what i sadi was DA and BA don't standed and the rest don't if you have a teleport homer. Any unit of SM can teleport turn 1 if they have a libby with them! The whole CSM codex is Over Priced only 1 modle has eternal warrior and come on Kharn The Betrayer should have it ! Orks are terrible the only good units are Lootas and Grot artillery and there only good because the grot are 3pts and T7. 80% of armies have hammernators that sound about right only Nids and Chaos can't have them
3) How is it contradictory i was talking about 5ed. You said yourself the GK codex is OP and Hammernators have 2+ so a power weapon is now a stick to them and and if you do get past the 2+ they still have 3++
Okay, by this point these things are obvious:
-You have never played a real game of 40k -You are purely trolling
-You refuse to accept any argument other than "OMG EVERYTHING EXCEPT ME IS OP!!!"
-You're being a monumental douchebag
I'm outta here, because there is clearly no point in facilitating your complete failure-ness.
Just stop posting, your posts are at best a dyslexic mess that convey no useful information and appear like the rantings of a young child who can't understand why everyone won't just let them win.
MarsNZ wrote: Just stop posting, your posts are at best a dyslexic mess that convey no useful information and appear like the rantings of a young child who can't understand why everyone won't just let them win.
You'd think that someone who was old enough to play 1st ed would be old enough to know how to write.
), then move on to my observations as to basic Game Mechanics issues, will end the opening post with some suggested solutions and then leave the floor open for comments.
They won't be neglected or forgotten. 
On this subject, you will not be seeing them much. I will not allow them to be forced to to endure your misconcieved and flawed ideas. You will only get to see them when supervised and only on a very limited basis. 
You have flaws that are peculiar to you and others that came to you from your ancestors. Thing is that these flaws are fixable but because you believe in your own perfection, they will never be fixed. 
It is for these reasons that I am ending our association and why I have taken steps to find another who will meet my needs.
SUUUUPPP!
guy', or 
)
talking about the wrong guy. hehe
Maybe I should have put the 
Now none of this is meant as criticism, this is very important for you to understand, but...Wouldn't it be great if we could still use like a 1st ed Codex that had just been reprinted every year with constantly evolving, proportionally expanding rules, all changes to which were posted for free online? (that might not be clear for what I'm envisioning) And if all our 
covered 
