Greetings guys. Fair warning ahead of time, I'm probably going to type a lot, and it's going to be a bit of a rant. Queue "lolzors generic rant thread omglolbbq". I'm a bit bored at work, so I figured I'd express myself to you guys and just speak what's on my mind.
If you've seen me around on the forums, you've probably noticed a few things about me. Obviously I love Necrons, and I'm not a fan of the Imperium, as well as the idea of Battle-Brothers (Solo 2016! ). But I'll give you guys a little back story (the "Forum Index" button is right up there if this isn't what you're feeling right now).
Spoiler:
I've been playing wargaming in general for about a year and a half now, and have come quite a long way. It all started with a few of my friends during 6th edition 40k. A friend of mine showed me Dawn of War back in High School, and since then I have loved Necrons and had an appreciation for the world that was 40k. So a friend of mine got into Orks, one friend Space Marines, and my other friend continued to build upon his Dark Eldar (he'd been playing longer than us, obviously). So I hopped on board with Necrons, especially when I saw things that weren't in Dawn of War (DoW was based around 3rd edition, I believe). Flying baked goods, one-eyed sniper assassins, gliding mechanical shrimp, the grim reaper, and of course, the ominous Monolith (in DoW it was devastating, but I soon learnt otherwise....). This army was for me, no doubt about it.
Thus began my wargaming career.
I remember the amazing feeling of picking up my codex (my friend originally had let me look at a PDF before I decided to buy the codex), and I got a box of Warriors and some glue. Raced home, took an Exacto knife (Clippers? What were those??) and began to get to work putting them together. Oh, how excited I was. Within the next few weeks, I purchased a Doom Scythe, a battleforce, and some Wraiths. My first official game with my own models was against my Ork friend, and it literally came down to my Deathmarks kiting his Warboss and a few Nobz around the board, and he won off of kill points. Sure had fun though. Then I got some named characters (I'm looking at you, Imotekh), a Monolith, Immortals, and from there I just kept expanding. I was getting models faster than I could (or wanted to) paint. Life was good.
Then I started expanding into leagues. I did 2 at my local gaming store, running very non-competitive lists. My first league I ran something like Wraiths, a Doomsday Ark, Imotekh, warriors, a Flier or 2, ext. First game was against Tau, first game I ever played against them! He brought 3 Riptides, Broadsides and a Commander behind an Aegis line, two Devilfish, and a mix of infantry in ruins or behind the line. I killed a Riptide with a Necron warrior, in CC. Then I conceded. I swiftly chatted to the TO about the league, as it was advertised as a friendly "come play other people and learn the game" type scenario. Oh I was pissed. This guy was obviously a power-gamer, even with the way he carried himself. I was still a new player at the time, and this was not okay with me. He apologized and said that "Yes, he tends to do that, I should've thought about that, sorry!". I mean, I can't blame him, really. It was a lesson. A lesson that those people exist within this game. I had to learn sometime.
Then 7th edition came out in the middle of my second league. At this point, I was a pretty decent player. I was running a CCB overlord, 2 Ghost Arks, Wraiths, Fliers, 2 A-barges, ext. It was a decent list, but nothing cheesemongerly competitive. I ended up meeting some nice people in that league, and even made it to the top 8! But for simplicity sake, they kept with the 6th edition rules until the league was over, since people were still learning the 7th edition ones. I didn't have a problem with this....until......Taudar. My first game in the top 8 was against a guy (who I later found out is in the same "friend" group as the original Tau guy) who was running 2 Riptides with drones, one of which was accompanied by a Buffmander and a second Commander, the other was followed by a Farseer on a bike. Then he had 2 Skyrays, minimum squads of Firewarriors, and Kroot. Oh, and a 5 man squad of Dire Avengers, you know, cuz yeah. I thought to myself "I have no chance, this guy came to win, and I didn't bring anything that can fight this...". I played smart though. It was Emperor's Will. He got First Blood, I swept his Commanders and his Riptide with nothing but my Overlord's brazen might! Then my overlord got Smashed by the other riptide. So, Slay the Warlord and Slay the Warlord. Then it came down to Linebreaker. I had it, he didn't. It was a tie game! I couldn't believe it! "Oh, we can't leave it at a tie, we have to keep going until someone wins", he said. So he nova'd his Jetpack, and got linebreaker as well. And it was a loss. I was rather hurt by this, but honestly, I put up a hell of a fight. It was a great feeling! Though I will never play that guy again in my life. I also started to realize that GW had no idea what they were doing when it comes to balance.
Then we started learning the 7th edition rules. Man, there were so many things I was hoping they'd fix, and I eagerly looked through the book trying to find the things I thought they would set right. Ordnance! Oh man, is my Monolith good now?......No. Uhh.....okay. Well I'll accept it. Doesn't make sense, but whatever. Psychic powers. Nice, taking a bit from Fantasy, I see. I like. So, I only have to deny enough to that you fail to cast, right? Oh....OH. I have to deny every single warp charge, and on a 6....with at most, 6 dice. What is this heresy? Okay, okay. Well, at least Taudar is gone. Yes! Score! Oh man, and my vehicles are harder to kill? I'm liking it! Wait a minute, what's this here? Super Heavies? Gargantuan Creatures? I mean, I have a Transcendant C'Tan, but I never use it. It's too powerful. Wait, they're just apart of the game now? Uhh.....wut. So I bought Escalation for nothing? I can use this guy legally whenever I want? NO.
Overall, I felt 7th edition was a big swing and a miss. But it could've been worse, and for that I was thankful. So I started playing. Ran a CCB against my Space Marine friend. Completely mulched him. Damn, this thing is stupid good now! But, unfortunately, I started to realize a sad truth. I looked at Space Marines, and saw Fearless soldiers of the Imperium, the Emperor's finest. Decent special rules, equipped for any situation. Good CC characters, fluffy rules, options, ext. I looked at Tau. Supporting fire, damn, that's pretty good! Markerlights? Synergy! Something to make for their lack of CC, which is being good at shooting! I looked at Eldar. Oh, so this unit has W, X, Y, and Z special rules. And their gun does this, that, and the other. I looked at even Chaos Space Marines (Whoa now, this is going too far), and I was envious of their special rules! You can give these guys marks to represent different Gods? Dude, awesome! I looked at Tyranids. They require Synapse, sure, but that's awesome! I feel like it makes them tricky to play. And their units have different purposes, and they have....Special Rules!
I then looked at the codex I had come to know through and through, and have loved since day one. My Overlords hit Tac marines on 4s. My named characters feel like they don't know what they want to do, plus they have almost no special rules or decent weapons. I have no customization options. Warscythes were an auto-include, the other weapons weren't even worth the ink they were printed with. Destroyers, Lychguard, Praetorians, Tomb Blades, C'Tans, Lords, Monoliths, Doomsday Arks, Flayed Ones, and most of my characters were, in the grand scheme of things (actually no, in every scheme of things), completely useless! I started analyzing the game from a different perspective. My army was bland, grossly imbalanced within itself, and had 0 flavor at all. To make matters worse, my only special rule was straight up ignored half of the time. These were dark days for me. I had invested in every single unit in my codex (minus Flayed Ones. I mean, seriously, would you have?), and half, if not more, was not even worth putting on the table. I didn't even play in a super competitive meta, and they still weren't worth it!
And so I began to look elsewhere for enjoyment. I looked at Daemons. I really like the fluff of Tzeentch, and I usually play a wizard/necromancer is most RPGs, and this guy is all about spells. Heck yeah! Then I looked at the new Tyranid codex that had just come out. This seemed promising. So, on impulse, I bought the codex and the Tyranid Swarm box. I'm going to play a different army, one that is the exact opposite of mine! No vehicles, psychic powers, decent MCs, decent CC. And, they looked fun to paint! So, thus began my second army. I started getting some MCs, a Hive Tyrant, ext. Started playing some games. And man, I was doing well. Again, not in a competitive meta, but I had played Chaos, Tau, Space Marines, Eldar, Orks, Dark Eldar, and 90% of the time, I was winning. Man it was good feeling. I wasn't even running cheese. It made me feel good that people, like my girlfriend, were afraid of Tyranid Warriors. And occasionally, I'd play my Necrons if someone wanted me to. But it just wasn't....fulfilling. I won most games without resorting to cheese, mainly by walking forward and shooting one of two guns at things. Is that a vehicle? Gauss. Is that infantry? Gauss or Tesla. Is that an MC? I'm screwed. Is that 2+ armor? I'm screwed.
Then, there were the 7th edition codexes. Orks were the first. My friend was excited. We drove 2 hours one night just talking and discussing the new codex. He was not thrilled. I was confused. Yeah, they dumbed down some rules, yeah they took some things away, but they added some stuff too! But, it wasn't enough. They lost Fearless, which I agree doesn't make a lot of sense, and some of their wacky rules changed for the worse. I felt for him, I really did. We played a few games, with both my Necrons and Tyranids. He lost horribly every time. He then proceeded to quit the game entirely.
Then more codexes came along, at breakneck speeds! Space Wolves! They seem pretty solid. GW seems to be toning things down, dumbing some rules down, simplifying things, bringing everything into one streamlined power level. I'm okay with this. This is a change for the better, so keep it up GW! Grey Knights came out. They were still good. Can't complain there. Things got better, they got a few cool things, but overall, same trend. Dark Eldar came out. My friend was....disappointed, to say the least. Nerfs to things he liked, buffs to things that didn't need them. No increase in speed or survivability, rules that didn't matter. It was overall a very bad codex, but it was within the same trend of the other 7th edition codexes. They also removed Wracks as troops. This has been another trend. Removing things as troops. I'm like, "Okay, GW wants armies to take more standard troops, and they wanna sell them, damnit!". So, I accepted it, and so did he. In fact, he's been doing rather well with the codex. Then Blood Angels. They were toned down, lost Assault Marines as troops. That hurt, but it kept with the trend. Overall it seemed like a decent dex. Then, my turn. Oh, I was ecstatic. Rumors started flowing of the changes....huh? Mindshackle Scarabs? They're.....useless. Really? That was our one thing we had in CC! Transcendant C'Tan became really....really bad. Tesla was nerfed, made more expensive, and didn't get any extra rules to make it worthwhile. Overall, wasn't liking what I was seeing. Then the codex came out. I was surprised. Special rules! Flayed Ones gained Shred and Fear??? Overlords are decent now? Every single unit has become good? Wow, I was happily surprised, it was a dream come true! Then I read the Decurion. Oh my....a fluffy way to give my army even more special rules? Pinch me. Reanimation actually being good? Synergy options throughout the codex? GW, you have not only proven yourself capable of balancing a codex internally, you have saved me from disliking this game. Or so I thought.
So I started buying more, painting more, playing more. In fact, I shelved my Tyranids for awhile. I was dominating. The Decurion was just too much. Everyone hated Necrons, people reluctantly played me. That's a gakky feeling, I must say. I wasn't even running Destroyers or Wraiths all the time, I mostly ran infantry and some vehicles. But, the confusing part of it all, was the sheer power difference. Necrons started a new trend, and I not only felt bad for playing them, but felt bad for earlier codexes that missed out on this treatment. Why was I the lucky one? But, lets wait and see how the rest of the codexes fair up. Harlequins. Nice, making them their own army. Formations, not too shabby. Then Khorne Daemonkin. Keeps the same trend, but...copy paste much? They didn't fix anything that was wrong with the units in the first place...now that's just lazy. Then the next codex was up. I was praying for Chaos Space Marines, man did they need it! My girlfriend was constantly going up against Necrons. You can imagine how that would fair. Then the rumors. ELDAR? Why do they need an update? They already have an amazing codex! Wait, I've got it! They nerfed everything that was cheesy from the 5th edition Necron codex, so that's probably it. They're probably trying to tone them down as soon as possible, since they are really powerful. They did it with Necrons, it only makes sense!
Then the codex dropped. Oh....my....god. Wraithknight is a Gargantuan Creature, shooting D weapons, and is cheaper than my Obelisk! My Transcendant C'Tan became an MC at 250 points, then made the Wraithknight a GC for 45 points more! The feth? Wraithguard with D-weapons? In regular games? Who wants to play with that in regular games? Okay, okay, calm down. Fluff-wise I guess it makes sense, at least they got more expenvi....nope. Okay....well. The Wraithknight at least makes sense that it's a Gargantuan Creature, so, alright. I'll live with it. Now jetbikes. Dark Eldar jetbikes are Fast Attack and got nerfed. Eldar jetbikes were troops that magically gained a 3+ armor save because reasons. They were stupid good in the last codex, and a lot of people hated them. They had to have nerfed th-nope again! So, they kept them as a troop choice, and now every model can take a heavy weapon? Whatib[e biergoeurhgqegfhwrovgnorewgowrge??R:$!?! Why on earth would they.....oh. There's a new kit to sell. Boom goes the dynamite, that's why they did it.
Okay, well, if that is all, then I can live with....no, oh god, no. A better psychic phase? Better powers? Aspects getting more special rules at no cost? Not only does this not keep with the trend, but it literally gaks on other codexes. Here you go Howling Banshees, here's more stuff. "Oh, what's that Wyches? No, you don't get good stuff. In fact, I'm taking away your Haywire Grenades.". "But daddy! The elves across the street get good stuff! They even got more stuff! Why take away our toys?". "Because dear, life isn't fair, and because Allies." Hey Dark Eldar, like that new $80 dollar bomber you guys got? Eldar have a $60 dollar bomber that is also cheaper in game and infinitely better. Thought your Scourges were cool and could fly through the air? Nah, they just Jump infantry. Dem Swooping Hawks doh, they need to be faster. Ey yo Dark Eldar, your Archons don't know how to ride a bike. "But I thought you never forget how to ride a bike?" Dark Eldar do. But Eldar? Here's a brand few Farseer on a bike. Buy it!
Then there was Adeptus Mechanicus. Alright, cool faction, adding new stuff to the game, alright. Then Cult Mechanicus, okay. I was actually just thinking how "You know what would be healthy for this game? Another army that can spam S6. BUT, only if it can potentially ignore cover, and is also AP3. I thought this game had too many armor saves, we don't have enough that can ignore them. It would also be nice if they could spam Grav, too. Maybe through in some more MCs-that-should-be-walkers." GW delivered with Admech.
Okay, okay. I'm falling too far into this rant. Let me take a breath. Phew. Okay. It's not the end of the world. Let's see how the rest of the codexes pan out. Space Marines? Wait, what about Chaos? Why do Space Marines need a new codex so early too?? Okay, maybe they'll nerf the stuff that needs it. Maybe they'll get it right with this one, maybe. Grav Cents need to be toned down, well Grav in general, really. They should take away bikes as troops, because trends. Shield Eternal is stupid, and they'll probably get rid of it. Chapter Masters don't have a model, if I remember correctly, so they'll probably be removed, so no more Smashfether! Maybe, just maybe. Wait....no. It's just 20 points to upgrade to one? Ugh. Okay. Shield Eternal is...still there. Great, so they didn't kill that build at all. Grav Cents are still just as good, so that build stayed. But wait, ders more! Did you need to eat, breath, sweat and bleed Grav? Well, you got it! Because new models to sell! Then, of course, Gladius and Skyhammer, which we all know about.
I give up.
At least Dark Angels only got a 2+ rerollable cover save. That's the most tame out of it all.
I enjoyed the short time in which I could play C'Tan shards and infantry and not only do well, but have fun. Now? The game is diluted with GCs, Super Heavies, min/maxing, stupid formations, AP2/3, bikes, bikes, bikes, allies, ext. Now, I have to bring Destroyers or Wraiths to even have a chance. And competitive? Oh, lordy. I don't even wanna look at it. Taxi services left and right, allies plugging holes in armies that don't need those holes plugged. All the while we have Codex: Flyrants that struggles even in casual games now if they run anything less than 5 Flyrants, Chaos Space Marines that might as well not exist as a playable army, Orks that have, like, 2 builds worth anything? Blood Angels and Space Wolves that can't keep up with vanilla, and Dark Eldar that see the light of day as a Codex: Eldar supplement.
I recently got into Star Wars X-Wing, and man was it a breath of fresh air. Balanced rules, every ship is usable, not too expensive. I actually went to a tournament, a legit tournament (I am in no means a competitive, tournament goer, in any game) and actually won running things that people don't typically use! Man, that was a great feeling. And then I realized that I haven't expanded upon my armies in 40k for awhile. There's so many things I want to buy for my Necrons and Tyranids. But, why? Tyranids are terrible, so might as well box them up until a new codex. And Necrons are now struggling to compete, and I can't play the units that I enjoyed playing anymore. I'm in this for the game, but I'm realizing it's the game that I hate the most. Don't get me wrong, I love my Necrons to death, I really do. But, I wish they existed in a completely different game, made by a completely different company. I'm slowly slipping away from this game. I've been browsing these forums every day, but it's been slowly more and more about X-wing, or just answer rules debates or discussing how to fix OP armies. Do I really enjoy this game anymore? Is it even worth playing? Or is it even a game? Is it just "Models that have rules".
I hate playing a game where the odds are stacked against me, before anything even starts. "Hey man, wanna play Mortal Kombat?". "Sure bro, lets do it". "Oh, I suck with this character, got my ass kicked, but I can do better! Just gotta practice."
"Hey man, wanna play 40k?". "Sure, I'm playing a fluffy Chaos Space Marine army". "Oh, I'm playing a fluffy Saim Hann army". "Nice! I won't even unpack my models, you win! You deserve it!" That's the kind of game I wanna play. Not. I love how someone can win before the game starts. Totally worth the thousands of dollars invested, right?
No. No it's not.
TL;DR: Game is broken, codexes are unbalanced, losing interest in the game, x-wing is cool.
So I believe that's all I have to rant about. For those who stuck around for the journey, I thank you. This was simply meant for me to have a space to rant and discuss issues that I feel strongly for. I know I've probably opened the floodgate for internet hate and snarky comments, but it's whatever. I spoke my peace, and I appreciate anyone who read it and if you enjoyed it, than I feel good. I'm going to take an extended hiatus from 40k. I don't know if I'll return, and if so, when. I'll check out some of the new codexes that come out (Because Tau need to come out before Chaos Space Marines, amirite?), but that's about it.
Please share your opinions, I would love to hear them. Does anyone else feel the same way that I do? If so, why? And if not, explain why you enjoy this game, and how you're coping with the issues of power creep and glaring imbalance.
I think you have some serious 40k woes, but I think that's more about game balance as opposed to how good of a game it is. I ranked it 9 out of 10. I don't think there's a lot out there that captures the breadth and scope of a game of 40k - and I've played this game for 15 years! Yeah, my first games vs the new Necrons with my Tyranids was awful, and sure when they redo Chaos they're actually going to make them worse, because someone at HQ has a raging for Eldar and Necrons, but I don't feel like that's where I enjoy my 40k most. Competitive 40k is one thing; having my games with buds is another.
Try mixing things up a bit. Try Kill Team, or Combat Patrol, and see just how different those games can be. Maybe try homebrew missions, or campaigns, and go out of your way to impose some extra hindrances and extra rules. There's more to the game than just the codex and the wills of the internetz.
I don't but because I'm of the opinion of I don't care how good your codex's rules are I will find a way to win with my under dog army lol even if that means having to be a better player lol
The game always had problems. 40k really is a disastrous game. It's just so omnipresent it's difficult for many to compare it to anything else than itself.
tldr; The game is unbalanced, and the power creep is real, so OP is slowly getting out and start X-wing.
Totally agree with you man lol. I don't even play so much these day and I feel like I need a 40k break lol. Just invested in another smaller board game close to SNES JRPG. Hopefully that will keep me going for some time.
And yeah, long post while at work: I understand you lol.
Vryce wrote: You lost me when you said your Necrons struggle to compete.
How did I lose you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PandaHero wrote: tldr; The game is unbalanced, and the power creep is real, so OP is slowly getting out and start X-wing.
Totally agree with you man lol. I don't even play so much these day and I feel like I need a 40k break lol. Just invested in another smaller board game close to SNES JRPG. Hopefully that will keep me going for some time.
And yeah, long post while at work: I understand you lol.
Yeah, it's been an issue growing within me for a few months now. I know it was a long post, but I like to be thorough when I explain myself.
Yarium wrote: I think you have some serious 40k woes, but I think that's more about game balance as opposed to how good of a game it is. I ranked it 9 out of 10. I don't think there's a lot out there that captures the breadth and scope of a game of 40k - and I've played this game for 15 years! Yeah, my first games vs the new Necrons with my Tyranids was awful, and sure when they redo Chaos they're actually going to make them worse, because someone at HQ has a raging for Eldar and Necrons, but I don't feel like that's where I enjoy my 40k most. Competitive 40k is one thing; having my games with buds is another.
Try mixing things up a bit. Try Kill Team, or Combat Patrol, and see just how different those games can be. Maybe try homebrew missions, or campaigns, and go out of your way to impose some extra hindrances and extra rules. There's more to the game than just the codex and the wills of the internetz.
Having a game with the buds is where the game is best for me, but even that's...diminishing. One guy plays strong Space Marine lists, one plays Eldar, some people play full on Admech, but then you have my Dark Eldar player, who doesn't even really play anymore. Or my girlfriend who plays Nurgle marines. Even within the confines of a friendly group, imbalance takes its toll.
Necrons are considered a horribly OP faction right now. Even if you don't bring the "big cheese" you should be able to compete.
Sure, against Chaos, or Dark Eldar. Maybe Orks. But the way things are going, if you show up to Tau, Eldar, Space Marines, Admech, Imperial Knights, Daemons, or any combination of the like, if you don't bring Wraithspam or Destroyer spam, you get munched.
You have all the tools in that codex that you need to kill opponents. Night Scythes, Tomb Blades, CCBs, Tesla, AnniBarges, Scarabs. There's nothing wrong with that codex...it's considered right up there in the power level with Eldar and Daemons. If anything, I'd say Necrons are up there with Eldar, the difference being that they trade firepower for durability but keep similar speed.
I feel as if 40k is still a good game, and has got a good foundation of popular fluf, solid gameplay and mechanics. I think the rules are good, overall, but feel as if GW should be in the habit of releasing FAQs, as they once did, to clarify issues and ambiguities that come up.
The codexes, on the other hand, are starting to become an issue to me.
Orks was an unmitigated disaster, and whoever wrote it seems to barely know how the rules work, much less how orks work.
Then came necrons, eldar, SM, each more OP than the last, and it's never been more evident that GW holds itself as a collectible company first, and a rules company second. And that's a problem when people want to play with said collectibles.
Overall, I really feel as if there's a good foundation for the game and IP, but whoever's in charge is paying zero attention to balance - they're just making FOTM codexes to push models.
I'm really waiting to see what happens in the rumored CSM & Tau codexes, and if they'll do anything to arrest the codex creep of they're just going to double down with OP nonsense.
Yarium wrote: I think you have some serious 40k woes, but I think that's more about game balance as opposed to how good of a game it is. I ranked it 9 out of 10. I don't think there's a lot out there that captures the breadth and scope of a game of 40k - and I've played this game for 15 years! Yeah, my first games vs the new Necrons with my Tyranids was awful, and sure when they redo Chaos they're actually going to make them worse, because someone at HQ has a raging for Eldar and Necrons, but I don't feel like that's where I enjoy my 40k most. Competitive 40k is one thing; having my games with buds is another.
Try mixing things up a bit. Try Kill Team, or Combat Patrol, and see just how different those games can be. Maybe try homebrew missions, or campaigns, and go out of your way to impose some extra hindrances and extra rules. There's more to the game than just the codex and the wills of the internetz.
Having a game with the buds is where the game is best for me, but even that's...diminishing. One guy plays strong Space Marine lists, one plays Eldar, some people play full on Admech, but then you have my Dark Eldar player, who doesn't even really play anymore. Or my girlfriend who plays Nurgle marines. Even within the confines of a friendly group, imbalance takes its toll.
Necrons are considered a horribly OP faction right now. Even if you don't bring the "big cheese" you should be able to compete.
Sure, against Chaos, or Dark Eldar. Maybe Orks. But the way things are going, if you show up to Tau, Eldar, Space Marines, Admech, Imperial Knights, Daemons, or any combination of the like, if you don't bring Wraithspam or Destroyer spam, you get munched.
I've seen non wraith and non destroyer spam do incredibly well against all of those armies, and I think your view on the matter may be skewed by either 1) only playing against players who only use the best of the best, or 2) you loosing interest, and almost hoping to use that as a reason to get out (not a bad thing, but a psychological thing people tend to do when they loose interest in things). I rated the game an 8 because, yeah, it has flaws, but outside of a competitive environment, most of those flaws are either ignored, or much less of an issue (excluding stomps, damn grumble grumble). I think that if you take the game out of the " my fluffy list is a scatter bike spam, because it's still fluffy" area, and open up to making scenarios for missions, playing things like kill team, and some of the more non-netlist-able things, the game gets better.
I played my first game against scatterbike spam + wraithknight yesterday with my 30k list at 1850, and I got stomped, bad. By the end of the game, I had 1 dreadnought left, however I had a great time because hot damn did I do some damage: Got the wraithknight stuck in against 26 marines, did all but 2 wounds before I got killed off, all the while a dread is running around punching stuff on the other table end, the end of turn 3 looked like the start of turn 5 or 6 model and unit count wise, there was just so much death so early. but I was fine with my 400 point terminator squad getting charged and stomped to death on 3 "6's", because it looked cool, and we had a good time. I've never been one to like tournaments or building the best list, and the game is more fun when you take it out of that play-style.
I wouldn't sell off all of your stuff yet, hold onto your 40k, and don't play it for a few months. come back to it later, playing for fun, casual matches, not tournaments or against net-lister's, and see if you still like it. Nothing hurts more then getting rid of all of your stuff, then getting hit by nostalgia, and not being able to play.
I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.
40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.
I've seen non wraith and non destroyer spam do incredibly well against all of those armies, and I think your view on the matter may be skewed by either 1) only playing against players who only use the best of the best, or 2) you loosing interest, and almost hoping to use that as a reason to get out (not a bad thing, but a psychological thing people tend to do when they loose interest in things). I rated the game an 8 because, yeah, it has flaws, but outside of a competitive environment, most of those flaws are either ignored, or much less of an issue (excluding stomps, damn grumble grumble). I think that if you take the game out of the " my fluffy list is a scatter bike spam, because it's still fluffy" area, and open up to making scenarios for missions, playing things like kill team, and some of the more non-netlist-able things, the game gets better.
I played my first game against scatterbike spam + wraithknight yesterday with my 30k list at 1850, and I got stomped, bad. By the end of the game, I had 1 dreadnought left, however I had a great time because hot damn did I do some damage: Got the wraithknight stuck in against 26 marines, did all but 2 wounds before I got killed off, all the while a dread is running around punching stuff on the other table end, the end of turn 3 looked like the start of turn 5 or 6 model and unit count wise, there was just so much death so early. but I was fine with my 400 point terminator squad getting charged and stomped to death on 3 "6's", because it looked cool, and we had a good time. I've never been one to like tournaments or building the best list, and the game is more fun when you take it out of that play-style.
I wouldn't sell off all of your stuff yet, hold onto your 40k, and don't play it for a few months. come back to it later, playing for fun, casual matches, not tournaments or against net-lister's, and see if you still like it. Nothing hurts more then getting rid of all of your stuff, then getting hit by nostalgia, and not being able to play.
I don't think I could ever go through with selling it. I sold off what little Daemons I had for fantasy and immediately regretted it, and I didn't even play them hardly ever. I may come back, but I doubt it more and more every day. I want to come back. I want to enjoy it. I also want to play C'Tan shards, Annihilation Nexuses, Monoliths, and Apoc games where I have a decent Super heavy. This day and age, none of that is possible, and the first 3 would be a huge hindrance to myself.
krodarklorr wrote: Oh, how excited I was. Within the next few weeks, I purchased a Doom Scythe, a battleforce, and some Wraiths. My first official game with my own models was against my Ork friend, and it literally came down to my Deathmarks kiting his Warboss and a few Nobz around the board, and he won off of kill points. Sure had fun though. Then I got some named characters (I'm looking at you, Imotekh), a Monolith, Immortals, and from there I just kept expanding. I was getting models faster than I could (or wanted to) paint. Life was good.
Then I started expanding into leagues.
I think it's pretty obvious where your 40k experience started to develop issues. Draw your own conclusions....
40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.
It is very rock/paper/scissors, But some armies have a ton of rocks, plenty of paper and scissors (Eldar, Space Marines), while other armies are all rock (Necrons), and some armies have almost no paper, rock, or scissors (Dark Eldar, Orks, Chaos Space Marines).
40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.
It is very rock/paper/scissors, But some armies have a ton of rocks, plenty of paper and scissors (Eldar, Space Marines), while other armies are all rock (Necrons), and some armies have almost no paper, rock, or scissors (Dark Eldar, Orks, Chaos Space Marines).
Thats why this game is not worth playing competitively. If you want a good, competitive match, then have both players build their army lists together, know what the other is doing, and take a list that matches up well against each other. Don't play against people who want to keep a secret list, and don't play against people who want to bring a counter to every unit you have. Those people are not worth playing against.
In my 6 months I have only ran into one person like that. Everyone else is more than willing to work together to make a good game. You're spending 2-4+ hours a game, it only makes sense to me that both sides make an effort to create a fun game that both will enjoy.
Vryce wrote: You lost me when you said your Necrons struggle to compete.
How did I lose you?
Next to Eldar, Necrons simply have the most broken and OP 'dex currently in circulation. SM can stand up to them, but mainly due to Skyhammer and Gladius formations.
Decurion, Canoptyk Harvest - these things exist. You may not play them/use them, but you don't get to make a blanket statement that your Codex struggles because you don't use them. Your army LIST may struggle, but your CODEX, most certainly does not. Even without those formations, the basic Necron warriors are arguably some of the best standard troops available in the game. They have a basic weapon that can wound any toughness and can glance any vehicle. They get a rule that is better than FnP - built right in to the model - that can easily be augmented to be even better by a properly equipped Lord. And as far as I can recall, these abilities extend to just about every model in your army. Necrons don't "struggle". Probably the -only- Codex I would concede to be superior to Neceons is Eldar.
However, I will agree with you about your overall premise, that the game is not what it used to be and the power creep is real. Some armies - your girlfriends CSM, your friends Dark Eldar, Orks, certain flavors of SM, and Astra Militarium (what used to be Imperial Guard) are simply terrible. But, to an extent, all editions have suffered from this to a degree; there was always a codex or two at the bottom of the pile that simply couldn't compete on equal footing with anything - and this was back when, overall, the general rules were much tighter and better written. However, they've never been perfect.
Played CSM for 6 years and always struggled to win. Sold 75% of army at huge lost. Learned that eldar will always be op cheese. saw how flyers break the game.and then saw SHV and GC enter the game to break the game more.
still have expensive paint and cases. I had just enough money to buy 5 second hand IK.
The game can never be balanced because if it was then the be little to no reason to buy a new codex. They release a new codex with imba stuff so you would buy the flavor of the month.
krodarklorr wrote: Having a game with the buds is where the game is best for me, but even that's...diminishing. One guy plays strong Space Marine lists, one plays Eldar, some people play full on Admech, but then you have my Dark Eldar player, who doesn't even really play anymore. Or my girlfriend who plays Nurgle marines. Even within the confines of a friendly group, imbalance takes its toll.
Well, as someone whose been in the hobby for 15 years, let me tell you the secret;
"Every game is broken if you try to break it."
This even applies to your games where you try and address the imbalance by taking the less-than stellar things. The problem may be that your group, which started on an even playing field, has moved beyond that. When you started, you probably pictured all factions as being somewhat balanced, but over this year and a half you're now noticing the imbalances that were already there. Put on top of that continued investment in the game from yourself (you've seemed to amass quite the collection in a year and a half!), and continued games where you're probably learning how to play well at an accelerated pace, and there's no wonder that you now have a clear hierarchy of players.
I think another part of the problem, as I've read from your previous posts, is that you are playing lists that feel the same very often. Maybe take out your Tyranids again! Say "Sorry Necrons, gonna hang you up for now". I play Eldar, Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Harlequins, and Tyranids, and have Space Marines, Tau, and Necrons in the wings... I can tell you that diversity of games is important. Also, try finding some others in your area who are willing to take you on with the top-tier stuff. That'll be really enjoyable as you get better! Then you won't be looking to satisfy that need with your friends, and you'll see the game fresh again.
Still playing, still enjoying it.
Sure some rules are frustrating, others unclear and some down right annoying but overall its fun.
Not much else to add really.
The game is good and fun, but has balance problems and the rules are pretty disorganized. It needs an 8th ed (after all codexes are released in 7th) to put everything in place, more organically.
I gave it an 8. I agree about the power creep and stuff, as I know what it is like to have a bottom tier army (6th edition DA sucked balls). Of course, even if I played Eldar or 'Crons, I might still lose because I am still very much learning strategies and tactics. I have no intention to quit anytime soon, but rather to keep playing games until I learn some better strategies!
I gave it a 7, as it's not super bad but generally suffers from balance issues.
Also, I wish the OP had some perspective with playing an actually underpowered codex, like Guard or Orks. The rant might be the same but at least they'd have the viewpoint from an army that's suffering this edition.
The core rules have issues, but are basically solid. The codices are worse off, but most imbalance issues could be fixed with simple point increases or decreases.
I gave it a 7 simply because, for all of its faults, 40k is no worse than most other games on the market, and if you cooperate with your opponent you can have a very good gaming experience. It's really no worse or better, rules wise, than Warmachine, Flames of War, or the innumerable historical games I play.
Been playing since 1998 and still loving it [9 out of 10 rating for me]. In that time I have witnessed the same cycles over and over. Players invests heavily in one play style and then something changes and they cry imbalance (not saying that is you, OP, just a general comment). If one rushed out and bought 9 flyers as soon as the Necron flyer was introduced, then one deserves the disappointment a year later when the rules for other armies catch up.
My only piece of wisdom from all that experience playing is that the same imbalance that each wave of players complain about is what keeps the game from becoming stagnant and boring. Its what killed Fantasy in the end. If the game was perfect (such a thing can never be achieved, and everyone has had a different view on which version is the best), then players would play the same army and grow bored and move on. Instead, a new codex comes out or a new edition that opens up new possibilities of play to be explored. The perfect example of this was 5th edition [or was it 4th?] when the game devolved into whoever had the most long-range fire power combined with the best armor generally won. Of course many Imperial Guard players have been disappointed with 6th and 7th edition because their forces became less effective. I also remember when a unit of Khorne bikers could annihilate 50% of my army because they could charge from one unit to the next in the same phase due to sweeping advance. Then it changed, again, and again, and again. And while some people were jaded and disappointed, others were excited because now it turned in their favor.
In my opinion, many people have immensely high expectations for a game that is so extremely complex (there really isn't anything else like it) with so many armies, units, weapons, equipment, special gear, etc. It is madness to ever expect them to perfect a system that is above the potential for exploitation (because that is what is really causing most players' bad experiences). Are there examples of them being sloppy, making mistakes, etc.? Yes, plenty. Do I wish they would do better? Yes, obviously. But, here's the dirty little secret of it all, codices created during the same edition of core rules are usually very balanced between one another (Necrons, Eldar, Space Marines)...so they are making positive headway. Are their business practices reproachable? Hell yeah, but next time look at what major food corporations are doing or, god forbid, the banking industry. Corporations are fairly evil regardless of what their business is.
The rapid shift from 6th to 7th got a lot of people upset (and perhaps rightly so) but man was it incredibly necessary. Too many big changes happened too quickly with over watch, flyers, super heavies, etc. that the core system was beginning to crumble. I was immensely happy to see 7th when it dropped. It wasn't perfect, but I never expected it to be. It is my favorite version of 40k to date because I remember the problems of the old editions just as vividly as the good parts. I love that 7th allows for variety of armies like no edition, since it fits the fluff and allows you to customize your own forces to a degree that never previously existed. If players abuse that - well, that is on them and not the game designers. Also, Maelstrom missions - while obviously not perfect - balance the game to a far greater degree than people often give it credit. I routinely take "fluffy" lists that are "noncompetitive" and more often then not win. And even if I don't - who really cares as long as the battle was fun? At the end of the day, this is a hobby and like any hobby, a lot of one's personal interest in it requires investment and effort on their part. If you love to kayak white water rapids, but only ever go to the same set of rapids every time you will get bored of it. 40k is no different and it is strange to me that so many people appear to expect GW to keep them interested instead of taking the initiative on their own. I noticed enthusiasm for 40k was on the decline in my local gaming community, so I offered to run a narrative campaign and behold! a whole range of players are coming every night of the campaign full of excitement. Again, the customer has every right to expect them to produce a worthwhile product, but one should also remember that their definition of what constitutes that isn't universal.
If
I do not pretend to know everyone's situation, nor their local gaming scene. I also cannot speak for everyone's interests with the game and the faults that they find in it. So, if what I am saying resonates with you, then great, and if it is just rambling, then ignore it.
The biggest things for me are:
1) the increasingly rock-paper-scissor nature of the game if you don't houserule and format things. Nothing worse than getting curbstomped because your army has no reasonable method of dealing with the opponent.
2) the bloated, innefficient, slow as molasse unfaqed rules. 40k needs some streamlining something fierce.
I think it depends a lot on what army you play. An eldar player will say that w40k was the most fantastic game in the last 30 years, a DA player will say it got a lot more fun and better in 7th and a IG player will say it sucks.
I'd probably dive right back into 40k and love it again if it could pick a god damned scale and stick to it.
At the moment it feels like a skirmish game trying to play with enough models to be a mass battle, or possibly a mass battle that is just bogged down with skirmish rules.
Pick one, or hell, even have two different game modes but as it is now I find it horribly bloated and counter intuitive.
Skirmish 40k:
Make the average point size something like a battleforce. Larger than kill team, more like a captain, a tac squad, a five man assault/dev/scout unit and a dreadnaught.
Everyone moves and attacks individually with no unit cohesion rules like kill team.
Remove fliers and larger vehicles like land raiders, say a single leman russ would be the heaviest vehicle in the game.
The idea is to play it on a 4x4 board in an hour.
Mass combat 40k:
Drop the remove casualties from the front rule and measure everything from the squad leader. He dies last, otherwise you pick which model you take off the board. If the sgt has LoS everyone does, if he is in cover everyone is. Essentially the rest of the unit is there as wound counters for him and are a true 'unit' rather than tethering 10 'units' together on the board.
Replace the 'I go you go' system with something more like 'I move,shoot,assault 1 unit, you do 1 unit'.
Go nuts here with things like tank squadrons, fliers, artillery, etc, but understand that means a 6x4 or even 8x4 and an entier evening. Almost like apoc lite (which is what 40k seems to be trying to be these days anyway).
I'll reserve judgement on whether it's a balanced game when every Codex gets 'Decurion'ized.
But for the most part I've been assembling and painting my Orks and Blood Angels. Quite like being the underdog. Dark Eldar have taken a back burner as everyone in my meta spams Ignore Cover/Divination stuff and my Tyranids haven't seen a tabletop ever since five Flyrants became the norm (have a very competitive meta, one where my friend always wants me to run cut-throat lists against the guy who bought 18 Necron Wraiths and a Legion because he got beaten by them in a tournament). My meta also wants to expand into 30k and have at least 3000 points per battle. I just don't have the time or money for those sorts of things. Truth be told I don't want to. None of those things interest me. The only reason I started Blood Angels was because they function similar to Orks on the tabletop and because, underdogs. I've always been interested in the Xenos races but never wanted to play anything that was overpowered. Hence why I bought £100 of Necrons from GW, proxied it against my friend and then returned it when I saw it's power.
I stopped playing to win ever since I started Orks. I don't want to be in a tournament 24/7. I think the worst of my woes was when someone asked me for a game, asked me what I was playing and then brought Crimson Fists with Pedro Kantor (PE: Orks was not fun that day).
I'm actually sort of looking forward to heading back to uni soon. Different meta, more casual meta. Helps that the boss has assembled 40k points of Orks to help me plan my armies, hehehehe
The universe has tons of great backgorund and cool stuff, tons of the model kits are super cool, but the game itself is awful.
We have multiple issues.
First and foremost, the game simply does not know what it wants to be. This has been true since really 5th edition, but has become a dramatically larger and more obvious problem over the last couple of years. The game is simply trying to be too many things, and abstracts in the wrong direction. The unit types and model sizes that GW is attempting to hamfist into literally any size game just is not working particularly well. The game tries to make it so that each individual humble basic guardsmen and his weeny Lasgun have just as much stats and rolling to do as a gigantic titan, and is, if anything, even more detailed. The abstraction happens at the highest levels, with big units ignoring charts and effects and having less detail while smaller units are more detailed and granular, which is rather bass-ackwards. The model count, unit scale, and special rule count is simply out of control, particularly when GW is writing their ruleset to allow everything in any sized game. 40k is trying to be both Epic and Kill Team and everything in between, and failing miserably.
Second, GW's rules design has two major problems. First, they seem to change design paradigm every year or so. The 2012/early 2013 stuff was much less powerful than the rest of the 2013 stuff, while the 2014 books were significantly toned down relative to the 2013 armies, and the 2015 books have ramped up the power level beyond anything 40k has ever seen before, along with aggravating the scale issues mentioned above.
Add to it that GW simply does not do rules errata nor address FAQ issues, we get a game where power levels are all over the place resulting in absurdly stilted games, scale has gone out the window, and rules issues simply go unaddressed.
As a game, 40k is pretty bad. It's never been a great game, but I don't recall it ever being in this bad a state. It's totally unsuitable for pickup or even pretending to be suitable for any sort of competitive play anymore, and that makes getting games that are worth playing rather difficult. Pre-determined outcomes and one-sided games are much more common now these days.
For my own anecdotal experiences, particularly over the course of the last 6 months or so, fewer people are showing up for games and events.
I gave it a 5/10 mostly for nostalgia. When i started, it was easily a 9/10 game. Nowadays, I'm so torn on the game that I seriously considered a 1.
Being a CSM player that started with a small group of friends during the end of 5th edition, I can completely understand your frustration with the game. Back then, sure the game was imbalanced, but my meta was pretty casual so it wasn't that obvious to me then.
That being said, i don't think i've played a game in 6 months now. Just none of my friends play anymore. Either they were burned out with the game or just frustrated with the power imbalance. Now its just me with my CSM, slowly painting my army when i have time. At least there's no rush to get them table ready.
The game is bad when compared to other games in the market. It needs a total rewrite to get rid of much of the bloat. Mass battle game with skirmish rules does not work very well. The balance of the game gets worse and worse with each codex release.
4 out of 10 is what I rate it just to many other games out there that do it much better. If GW did faq and errata I would have rated it maybe a 5 out of 10. But with such balance issues and bloat I don't see how people can score it higher then a 5.
Salous wrote: I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.
40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.
You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game
I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against
My gaming group is AMAZING.
we have no powergamers and everyone just brings the things the like. we also vote on bringing in homebrew unit modifications to make some things Good/playable and some OP thing more fair.
I gave it a 3. The game is mostly unplayable out of the box as it were. You have to houserule so much right off the bat so that it can be played smoothly that I have no idea how brand new players can even get started.
if i sit down with my 2 friends and give them both a starter army for whatever faction they play they will be able to play and have fun the game isnt that bad until people start powergaming
Salous wrote: I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.
40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.
You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game
I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against
How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...
Salous wrote: I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.
40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.
You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game
I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against
How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...
Because in a balanced game, a new player would be getting destroyed for a while since the other players have a leg up by virtue of experience. In most table top games....actually in most video games too....this is how it works. I lost a lot of games in WMH when I started, and I started with cryx, the strongest faction arguably. I played against one of the weaker factions, didn't matter. In 40k if I was elder and he was say....chaos, I'd roll him, maybe with a few losses here and there due to dice.
Fighting games, strategy games, table top games, even dnd all work off of this premise. 40k does not, despite being on the more complex side. Codex and list is most of the strategy involved in this game, and trumps nearly everything else.
Salous wrote: I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.
40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.
You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game
I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against
How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...
Because in a balanced game, a new player would be getting destroyed for a while since the other players have a leg up by virtue of experience. In most table top games....actually in most video games too....this is how it works. I lost a lot of games in WMH when I started, and I started with cryx, the strongest faction arguably. I played against one of the weaker factions, didn't matter. In 40k if I was elder and he was say....chaos, I'd roll him, maybe with a few losses here and there due to dice.
Fighting games, strategy games, table top games, even dnd all work off of this premise. 40k does not, despite being on the more complex side. Codex and list is most of the strategy involved in this game, and trumps nearly everything else.
I agree that list building can mess up the balance in the game. Thats why I always speak with the people im playing against before hand. We tell each other our lists, and make changes to try and create a balanced game. No one spams units that the other can't kill. No one sneaks in flyers that the other can't counter, so on so forth. If more people do this and stop trying to sneak in lists then I believe people will stop complaining about unbalanced games.
I play against guard, marines, Chaos, orks, and admech mainly. I have beaten them all, I have lost to them all. 90% of the games come down to the final round to see who wins. The only game I played where one side was tabled or unable to win was where no one knew the other's list before the battle started.
If the game is played as written by GW then its horribly imbalanced and incredibly vulnerable to cheese. It would be incredibly frustrating to just play 100% blind matchups with random people.
-Imagine a scenario where you took 100 40K players of all factions, competiveness, fluffiness, experience, etc and put their names in a hat. Every game is determined by random name draw and used the 40K rules as written with no modifications. Now imagine how any fun games would be had when you have little timmy who got dark vengeance for xmas and billy who is spamming unbound scatter bikes + wraithknights are in the same player pool.
Add in the social contracts, house rules, etc to the mix and the game becomes a lot more enjoyable as you can set things to some sort of roughly agreed upon level of play. Unfortunately it takes work, social skill, player knowledge, and a degree of trust to make this work. Sadly some players lack some of these elements which makes it difficult to find good games and even then bad luck (on either side) can sour a game just as quickly as a mismatched pairing. When things go right then it is an incredibly fun game. GW unfortunately is like a half blind and fully drunk captain that thinks that removing the rudder and cutting holes in the sails to make even more sails will make the ship sail better. A lot of the time it feels like fun is being had despite GW's best efforts to hit every rock, storm, and narwhal it comes across all the while telling you to forge the sea shanty of a glorious voyage.
I gave it a 4. The game itself, with the core rules and phases is relatively simple and straightforward. When you add special rules, special-er rules and exceptions to the special rules, the game becomes messy and complicated. There is a lot to memorize and it takes a lot of experience from both players to play a game smoothly. The fluff is awesome, there's good variety, and it has great potential; but the game itself is crippled by a lack of intent to make it a game worth playing. Army imbalance is just the tip of the iceberg.
Salous wrote: I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.
40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.
You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game
I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against
How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...
Because in a balanced game, a new player would be getting destroyed for a while since the other players have a leg up by virtue of experience. In most table top games....actually in most video games too....this is how it works. I lost a lot of games in WMH when I started, and I started with cryx, the strongest faction arguably. I played against one of the weaker factions, didn't matter. In 40k if I was elder and he was say....chaos, I'd roll him, maybe with a few losses here and there due to dice.
Fighting games, strategy games, table top games, even dnd all work off of this premise. 40k does not, despite being on the more complex side. Codex and list is most of the strategy involved in this game, and trumps nearly everything else.
I agree that list building can mess up the balance in the game. Thats why I always speak with the people im playing against before hand. We tell each other our lists, and make changes to try and create a balanced game. No one spams units that the other can't kill. No one sneaks in flyers that the other can't counter, so on so forth. If more people do this and stop trying to sneak in lists then I believe people will stop complaining about unbalanced games.
I play against guard, marines, Chaos, orks, and admech mainly. I have beaten them all, I have lost to them all. 90% of the games come down to the final round to see who wins. The only game I played where one side was tabled or unable to win was where no one knew the other's list before the battle started.
It's most likely because I've been playing so long, and most of my meta started in 2nd-4th edition, but what you are describing is called list tailoring, or net decking. Such a term usually carries a very negative connotation in nearly every other game out there.
40k is the only game I've ever played that requires me to sit down for about 30-45 minutes and build a list and a series of house rules with my opponent with every game. I can play a game of warmachine in that time.
This is also assuming that you and your opponent agree on how strong every unit is. Tau, Eldar, and Necron seem to have issues with identifying what units are strong. Grey knights occasionally suffer from this problem as well. If my opponent doesn't think scat bikes are too bad, but wraithguard are broken, and I'm playing Chaos Marines, what do we do? What if he didn't bring the only units I can really handle with my list?
New players in ANY game should get stomped by more experienced gamers. Try playing Street fighter, Smash, Starcraft, or MvC3 against someone who has been playing seriously for a while. These games are balanced, and you will get rolled. The same is true in simpler games like chess as well. Only in 40k, where list selection and faction trump every other decision you may make, does this not occur. A new player who downloads a net list involving eldar will probably crush any force that isn't necron, eldar, admech, or formation space marines. It makes for a very weird play experience.
Same with other games that put profit over customer satisfication. I used to play YGO but stopped that after general power creep meant you had to buy the latest packs to stay competitive. Only play it online now.
I agree that new players should be beaten by experienced players because there is an element of skill. When you can take something off the internet and win consistently, there is a problem. I understand that yes, the community can rate stuff such as the Canoptek Harvest, Gladius, etc as super good and other stuff, such as Flayed Ones (previous Codex example), Dreadnoughts and co as rubbish. That shouldn't be the case, everything should be balanced against other things in the Codexes and against everything else.
I realised I never gave it a score in my post. I think I gave it a 3. The fluff is fun, but the rules are full of pitholes that require house-ruling. I'm only keeping a small portion of my 40k stuff, selling most of it to start playing Infinity (and rent and food and stuff). Reason why I'm keeping a small portion (probably Orks and BA, I'm fed up of Tyranids mono-build and will sell them if the new Codex is the same and DE is impossible in my Ignore Cover heavy meta) is that I have a friend who still enjoys the game so I'm a whipping boy/test for the lists he comes up with.
Partly as what's contributed to my score were the players behind it. From my experience, I've never seen a more toxic community than 40ks.
1) I've had people pick up armies because they wanted to win all the time and spam something to death to ensure they win. If you followed my posts, you'll know that I know someone that picked up Necrons after getting tabled by them.
2) I've seen people convince others of something (case in point, this older Tau player convinced little timmy that his Necrons couldn't take RP against his basic weapons and it was up to me and another guy to point out he could).
3) I've seen people list tailor to win (happened against me when someone asked what I played and then specifically built the list, making sure he had PE against my whole army).
4) I've seen people complain (myself included) that some armies get favoured while other armies are neglected or seen as a 'trial run' for the main Codex (example might be BA and SM). I've seen the BA players in my meta comment on the changes and the SM players tell them 'they should shut up, stop whining and play vanilla marines if they feel that bad about it'. Not everyone wants to play vanilla.
5) I've seen people splash money at the problems in their army to make it better, which creates a pay to play problem all by itself. I know one person who started to collect SW to deal with another persons Necrons.
I could list more, but I don't want to rant. I'm just going to cut my losses and invest in a balanced and affordable system. Which sucks really, because 40k could have been something. Instead, I find it to be overpriced and badly thought out.
Frozocrone wrote: Same with other games that put profit over customer satisfication. I used to play YGO but stopped that after general power creep meant you had to buy the latest packs to stay competitive. Only play it online now.
I agree that new players should be beaten by experienced players because there is an element of skill. When you can take something off the internet and win consistently, there is a problem. I understand that yes, the community can rate stuff such as the Canoptek Harvest, Gladius, etc as super good and other stuff, such as Flayed Ones (previous Codex example), Dreadnoughts and co as rubbish. That shouldn't be the case, everything should be balanced against other things in the Codexes and against everything else.
I realised I never gave it a score in my post. I think I gave it a 3. The fluff is fun, but the rules are full of pitholes that require house-ruling. I'm only keeping a small portion of my 40k stuff, selling most of it to start playing Infinity (and rent and food and stuff). Reason why I'm keeping a small portion (probably Orks and BA, I'm fed up of Tyranids mono-build and will sell them if the new Codex is the same and DE is impossible in my Ignore Cover heavy meta) is that I have a friend who still enjoys the game so I'm a whipping boy/test for the lists he comes up with.
Partly as what's contributed to my score were the players behind it. From my experience, I've never seen a more toxic community than 40ks.
1) I've had people pick up armies because they wanted to win all the time and spam something to death to ensure they win. If you followed my posts, you'll know that I know someone that picked up Necrons after getting tabled by them.
2) I've seen people convince others of something (case in point, this older Tau player convinced little timmy that his Necrons couldn't take RP against his basic weapons and it was up to me and another guy to point out he could).
3) I've seen people list tailor to win (happened against me when someone asked what I played and then specifically built the list, making sure he had PE against my whole army).
4) I've seen people complain (myself included) that some armies get favoured while other armies are neglected or seen as a 'trial run' for the main Codex (example might be BA and SM). I've seen the BA players in my meta comment on the changes and the SM players tell them 'they should shut up, stop whining and play vanilla marines if they feel that bad about it'. Not everyone wants to play vanilla.
5) I've seen people splash money at the problems in their army to make it better, which creates a pay to play problem all by itself. I know one person who started to collect SW to deal with another persons Necrons.
I could list more, but I don't want to rant. I'm just going to cut my losses and invest in a balanced and affordable system. Which sucks really, because 40k could have been something. Instead, I find it to be overpriced and badly thought out.
I actually agree a lot with you. The community of 40k really does suck. Now granted, I play with some close friends up at a local store once a week (or did), so I didn't have to worry too much. But the tournament scene is terrible, and even the local League scene is god awful.
I just finished playing in my second x-wing tournament, and let me tell you, the people there are actually nice. There were even a few kids there having a great time. Ironically enough, one of the jerks that plays 40k was in that x-wing tournament, but wasn't being a jerk in this game. It's like he switched it off. So it may just have to deal with 40k in general. Maybe it, in itself, makes the community toxic.
I will be straight - I strongly believe that 40K is utter rubbish. It still has its (mostly) fantastic models and ,despite GW's efforts, it is quite thematic. But is it enough? For me it wasn't - the 7th edition destroyed 40K for me and since then I have tried Malifaux, both Hordes and Warmachine, Infinity and Dropzone Commander. It was quite eye opening experience. It is just that I didn't have to face the problems I experienced while playing 40K in every one of those games- Finally I could play the factions (I played the 6th editions Dark Angels and Tyranids) I liked the most, had the stability that the game won't change before I painted my army and I could trust the designers to do their job.
Some people said that you should try different 40K formats, but I personally don't believe in that. It feels awfully like deluding yourself. If I wanted to play a skirmish, why not play an actual skirmish game? If the thirst for 40K starts to feel unbearable ,FFG have few quite good RPGs in the setting.
If you feel discontent with 40K, try different games, just like you did with X-Wing. The chances are quite good that you will find something that you are happy with.
If you feel discontent with 40K, try different games, just like you did with X-Wing. The chances are quite good that you will find something that you are happy with.
Couldn't agree more. However, as I mentioned in the OP, I absolutely love my Necrons and the collection I've accumulated. Sadly, Necrons only exist within a GW game, and nowhere else....
I thought of trying Warmachine, but I just don't really like the models, or the factions. Plus, the game doesn't look very fun, from what I've seen. I think X-wing is going to be my next crutch, as there are very few games out there that really catch my attention.
Warmahordes is an odd beast. I wouldn't call it "fun" and I find it to be quite dry. I play it because I like the mental challenge it provides and the infinitesimal room for error, which can be fun in it's own way. It's models are not very good from a technical standpoint, but they are veeeery slowly working on that. Frankly, I wouldn't recommend it to everyone.
As for the Necrons, I feel you. I loved my dark Angels....they had to go. I loved my Tyranids....they had to go. I wanted to start Daemons ....then the Eldar codex arrived. Then Age of Sigmar appears....which I feel is a harbinger of doom for my desire to have a good and playable 40K That's why my hate for GW is still present after more than a year. They lured me with a very compelling product, I god hooked up on their universe . I spent tons of money and in the end the said product turned out to be rotten. One of my friends got hit harder than me- he LOVES his CSM. But even he resigned to the idea that GW isn't capable of making a good game. At least now he plays factions that have an actual chance of winning in both Malifaux and WMH.
TychoTerziev wrote: Warmahordes is an odd beast. I wouldn't call it "fun" and I find it to be quite dry. I play it because I like the mental challenge it provides and the infinitesimal room for error, which can be fun in it's own way. It's models are not very good from a technical standpoint, but they are veeeery slowly working on that. Frankly, I wouldn't recommend it to everyone.
As for the Necrons, I feel you. I loved my dark Angels....they had to go. I loved my Tyranids....they had to go. I wanted to start Daemons ....then the Eldar codex arrived. Then Age of Sigmar appears....which I feel is a harbinger of doom for my desire to have a good and playable 40K That's why my hate for GW is still present after more than a year. They lured me with a very compelling product, I god hooked up on their universe . I spent tons of money and in the end the said product turned out to be rotten. One of my friends got hit harder than me- he LOVES his CSM. But he resigned to the idea that GW isn't capable of making a good game. At least now he plays faction that have an actual chance of winning in both Malifaux and WMH.
Yeah. The sad thing is, Necrons are widely considered to be part of the Unholy Trinity, one of the OP armies. But even then, the game isn't fun. But yeah, I can understand where you're coming from. I also play Nids, and have shelved them until further notice. If that was the only army I played? Pssshh, I'd be sure to quit the game entirely.
Warmachine is certainly not for everyone. You see it thrown out there quite a bit because it is similar to 40k, especially older editions, in many ways, but it is a more balanced, nuanced game. Movement and order of activation is incredibly important in that game, while in 40k this usually isn't a big deal, or is incredibly simplistic.
All of the pieces can do a large variety of actions, with infantry having the least amount and jacks/beasts being able to do an ungodly amount of things. The game is about creating combos with special rules/abilities to achieve a game plan. It's not a "beer and pretzels" game. I find that, in general, people who are upset that 40k can't be played competitively but DON'T play one of the consistently OP factions tend to enjoy WMH.
But you can create lists that you never could in 40k and see them work. Denny's pirate boat, Sorcha's 18, Menoth Synergy Robot Spam, All Gryffon army, Legion spawning vessel, Meat Mountain, MOAR BANEZ, and many more. The list variety is what really drew me into the game.
Personally I like the setting more than warhammer fantasy but not as much as 40k, which is still my favorite setting ever created.
Playstyle and faction selection is a big problem in that game. While most factions can do a large range of playstyles depending on the caster chosen, certain factions lend themselves to certain play styles more. Sometimes this is falsely advertised by PP, or just horrendously out of date (Khador being the armor faction, Stormwall changing how Cygnar plays, the new bugs making skorne a mixed arms faction, etc etc). The learning curve, coming from 40k, can be harsh for new players. 40k teaches you a lot of bad habits that are hard to get over at times. I have a similar problem playing other fighting games after taking Smash so seriously, since smash is a more casual game in many ways. Its a similar experience, IMO.
X-wing and infinity are easier to learn. Infinity is a little more hero hammery though.
Why is it that competitive play always comes up? The game is not a competitive game, and unless tournaments change the list building rules, it never will be. It's a game that SHOULD be played with some buddies, or a few local guys at a flgs. when you play competitive, you abuse the best things in your army, and typically, that leads to whining about the best things in other armies. When you stop paying to go play against scatbike spam with your skyhammer + gladius, while the decurion player fights DE + Eldar Wraithknight army, the game gets leagues better. Secondly, take of the nostalgia goggles, 5th had just as many flaws as 6th and 7th. I'm not saying 7th is flawless, but it's not half as broken as the "doom and gloomers" make it out to be.
Ready for the rage at saying it isn't competitive and that "whining about the whiners is not okay"
So far all I see is complaints about community instead of genuine complaints about the game (which is not balanced).
If you are forced to bring your OP Crons to deal with OP Eldar, and its not tournament play... maybe its the culture of your weekly games that needs to shift to a narrative style or add some ground rules (2 flyer max, 1 wraithknight, etc... whatever is getting crazy)... most likely if youre frustrated so are other members of your group... so put on the big boy pants and make changes.
Lobukia wrote: So far all I see is complaints about community instead of genuine complaints about the game (which is not balanced).
If you are forced to bring your OP Crons to deal with OP Eldar, and its not tournament play... maybe its the culture of your weekly games that needs to shift to a narrative style or add some ground rules (2 flyer max, 1 wraithknight, etc... whatever is getting crazy)... most likely if youre frustrated so are other members of your group... so put on the big boy pants and make changes.
I thought I stated balance issues?
I could play as casual a list as possible with my Necrons, and my Girlfriend gets stomped when she plays me, as CSM are that bad. I could also play as casual as possible against as casual as possible an Eldar list, and get stomped. But if I bring any of the fun toys (Wraiths, Destroyers, which I love, btw) then you, in reverse, stomp who oppose you. The balance issues are still glaring even in casual games.
But if you want more game specific complaints, I'll address my feelings here.
1. Vehicles vs. MCs. This is a hot dabate, and we all know vehicles suck. Why? Because reasons.
2. Grav is slowed.
3. Super Heavies and Gargantuans in regular games was going to far, especially when they're an auto-include for their points cost.
4. Stomps and Strength D in regular games is uncalled for.
5. Some armies can't effectively deal with other armies. This game is rock/paper/scissors, but some armies are all paper with no scissors or rocks to deal with other things, and some armies are immune to everything but rock, which only a handful of armies have, while at the same time possessing the rock/paper/scissors to all other armies.
6. Some codexes were obviously negelected. (Orks, Dark Eldar, ext)
7. The game is bloated. Codexes, mini-codexes, micro-codexes, dataslates, supplements, allies, ext.
8. Do I need to mention ally abuse?
9. A dice based game where some times dice don't even need to be rolled (ala BS5 rerollable, 2++ rerollable, Grav with rerolls)
10. This is a turn based game where someone could effective give you no first turn (Null deployment alpha strike)
11. This game is based off of what models need to sell, so that's what models are made good. That is a poor business decision on GW's part.
12. The larger the game, the more imbalanced it becomes. Most games have an activation phase for a reason. In 40k, you could lose half your army by going second, all because of a roll off.
Brennonjw wrote: Why is it that competitive play always comes up? The game is not a competitive game, and unless tournaments change the list building rules, it never will be. It's a game that SHOULD be played with some buddies, or a few local guys at a flgs. when you play competitive, you abuse the best things in your army, and typically, that leads to whining about the best things in other armies. When you stop paying to go play against scatbike spam with your skyhammer + gladius, while the decurion player fights DE + Eldar Wraithknight army, the game gets leagues better. Secondly, take of the nostalgia goggles, 5th had just as many flaws as 6th and 7th. I'm not saying 7th is flawless, but it's not half as broken as the "doom and gloomers" make it out to be.
Ready for the rage at saying it isn't competitive and that "whining about the whiners is not okay"
3rd and 4th both had gw ran tournaments. It may currently not be a competitive game, certainly by 6th this was true, but it wasn't always the case. Many of us spent quite a bit of money on this game when the rules were tighter and the codexes weren't as far apart as they are now. Gw suddenly switched tracks and said a large part of my collection (nids and chaos marines) are useless garbage since my two common opponents are elder and necrons. Both have been playing their armies since 3rd and 5th respectively.
5th had way less flaws than the current edition. Most of the codexes could play, instead of 4 at the tournament level. Tanks were too strong, but that could have been easily fixed by adding the hp system with a few modifications.
7th requires me and my opponent to sit down and design our list together. I usually bring my entire collection for whatever army I'm playing and get it from my car after list design. Depending on the other player, this list design can take quite a while. I've never had to do this in the earlier editions (though I didn't play a lot of 6th), so yes, 7th is the most broken edition (also never played 2nd....I've heard good and bad from that edition though).
Lobukia wrote: So far all I see is complaints about community instead of genuine complaints about the game (which is not balanced).
If you are forced to bring your OP Crons to deal with OP Eldar, and its not tournament play... maybe its the culture of your weekly games that needs to shift to a narrative style or add some ground rules (2 flyer max, 1 wraithknight, etc... whatever is getting crazy)... most likely if youre frustrated so are other members of your group... so put on the big boy pants and make changes.
If a game can't let two people bring legal lists and have a good, relatively fair, game then it is a bad game.
Brennonjw wrote: Why is it that competitive play always comes up? The game is not a competitive game, and unless tournaments change the list building rules, it never will be. It's a game that SHOULD be played with some buddies, or a few local guys at a flgs. when you play competitive, you abuse the best things in your army, and typically, that leads to whining about the best things in other armies. When you stop paying to go play against scatbike spam with your skyhammer + gladius, while the decurion player fights DE + Eldar Wraithknight army, the game gets leagues better. Secondly, take of the nostalgia goggles, 5th had just as many flaws as 6th and 7th. I'm not saying 7th is flawless, but it's not half as broken as the "doom and gloomers" make it out to be.
Ready for the rage at saying it isn't competitive and that "whining about the whiners is not okay"
3rd and 4th both had gw ran tournaments. It may currently not be a competitive game, certainly by 6th this was true, but it wasn't always the case. Many of us spent quite a bit of money on this game when the rules were tighter and the codexes weren't as far apart as they are now. Gw suddenly switched tracks and said a large part of my collection (nids and chaos marines) are useless garbage since my two common opponents are elder and necrons. Both have been playing their armies since 3rd and 5th respectively.
5th had way less flaws than the current edition. Most of the codexes could play, instead of 4 at the tournament level. Tanks were too strong, but that could have been easily fixed by adding the hp system with a few modifications.
7th requires me and my opponent to sit down and design our list together. I usually bring my entire collection for whatever army I'm playing and get it from my car after list design. Depending on the other player, this list design can take quite a while. I've never had to do this in the earlier editions (though I didn't play a lot of 6th), so yes, 7th is the most broken edition (also never played 2nd....I've heard good and bad from that edition though).
It's never truly been functional on a tournament level without people whining about cheese, just because tournaments were ran, doesn't mean that people didn't complain about the issues.
Can you really blame the game for mainly playing 2 people who play strong armies with updated codexes vs. a non updated codex? I mean, I play CSM, and I still manage to have fun, even when I play against 'Crons, SM, and Eldar.
Honestly, 5th only looks like it has less flaws. Seriously, look back and remember the things people complained about, the number or complaints and what they were about are remarkably similar to now-a-days. However, bringing up the fact that Tournaments are flawed only goes to prove my point that the game works better when you take it out of the tournament setting. I still stand by Nostalgia goggles being the reason that 7th is the "most broken edition. People said the same about 6th, and probably said the same about 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 5th.
Honestly I was never there but it sounds like there were brokenness and complaints about it in 5th, and quite a lot of that actually. It WAS the Matt Ward era, after all.
CrashGordon94 wrote: Honestly I was never there but it sounds like there were brokenness and complaints about it in 5th, and quite a lot of that actually. It WAS the Matt Ward era, after all.
But that could be chalked up to "rhinos are stupid hard to kill" and the like. As far as today goes, that's the complete opposite, which goes for all vehicles, MCs are too hard to kill (except for grav, which is a huge issue in itself), and of course sub-300 point GCs running around stomping things out of existence, massed S6/7 shooting wherever you look, even less restrictions over what you're allowed to bring. I would honestly much rather have 5th edition's problems than 7th's.
CrashGordon94 wrote: Honestly I was never there but it sounds like there were brokenness and complaints about it in 5th, and quite a lot of that actually. It WAS the Matt Ward era, after all.
5E had problems, some big ones, but the game as a whole did play much better.
Issues with vehicles weren't really even "Rhino's are too hard to kill", Vehicle lifespan overall was actually rather reasonable for probably the only time in 40k's existence, and nobody seemed to have a problem dealing with gun-tanks. The problem was that transports typically didn't care about glancing hits 5 of 6 times and even penetrating hits 50% of the time, while a gun-tank would find its role impacted by any result.
There were also issues with wound allocation and multi-wound units, as well as Kill Points (which still exist) and a couple other things. There were codex imbalances as there always have been. There was stupid Mat Ward stuff galore.
However, as a whole, the game was far more playable, particularly from a core rules standpoint. Aside from KP's (which are still an issue), the missions worked better, army construction was simpler and less absurd, and there was better (though far from perfect) balance.
5E was not by any means a perfect edition. In fact, I never thought I'd want to go back to 5E. However, with the game in the state it is now, I'd go back in a heartbeat.
I'd rate the various editions of 40k like this:
2E - 6
3E - 8
3.5E - 9
4E - 9
5E - 8
6E - 4
7E - 4
Compared to the mess that 2E was, 3E was a breath of fresh air, 3.5E filled in the blanks, and 4E was a fine cleanup of the rules.
5E started to see the Codices get out of control, but the game engine was fine.
6E saw GW catering to the worst segments of their fanbase, making the game ever more arcane and legalistic, while 7E doubled down on the suck, with even more tables and cross-references. It amazes me how GW has completely lost the plot of how their flagship game is supposed to play.
I'd rate the various editions of 40k like this:
2E - 6
3E - 8
3.5E - 9
4E - 9
5E - 8
6E - 4
7E - 4
Compared to the mess that 2E was, 3E was a breath of fresh air, 3.5E filled in the blanks, and 4E was a fine cleanup of the rules.
5E started to see the Codices get out of control, but the game engine was fine.
6E saw GW catering to the worst segments of their fanbase, making the game ever more arcane and legalistic, while 7E doubled down on the suck, with even more tables and cross-references. It amazes me how GW has completely lost the plot of how their flagship game is supposed to play.
But if you want more game specific complaints, I'll address my feelings here.
1. Vehicles vs. MCs. This is a hot dabate, and we all know vehicles suck. Why? Because reasons.
So don't use vehicles vs MCs... if its as rock/paper/scissors as you think (and I don't think it is... too many units that are both rock and paper for the analogy to hold) stop putting your rock infront of paper without scissors nearby... kinda the point of any wargame anyway.
2. Grav is slowed.
use cover and bubble wrap, I'm sorry deploy and tactics now matter for MEQ forces.. and if MC are broken (your #1) then Grav is often the pill for that ailment... your second point is defeating your first here
3. Super Heavies and Gargantuans in regular games was going to far, especially when they're an auto-include for their points cost.
Again, sounds like a community issue, but other than a few standout units, SH and GC rarely make their points back... the standouts are just that painful to sour the whole barrel... make a league rule, no SH... ideally GW would think these things out better, but they didn't, so either rage or cope or correct
4. Stomps and Strength D in regular games is uncalled for.
Agreed, but I have much less issue with the stomps and D is much better than before
5. Some armies can't effectively deal with other armies. This game is rock/paper/scissors, but some armies are all paper with no scissors or rocks to deal with other things, and some armies are immune to everything but rock, which only a handful of armies have, while at the same time possessing the rock/paper/scissors to all other armies.
Examples? I can't think of any full dex this applies to. If youre talking about harlequins of Cult Mech or the like, its a mini dex, that's part and parcel
6. Some codexes were obviously negelected. (Orks, Dark Eldar, ext)
I'll concede that there are some codices that need light point adjustments, and I completely agree that balance with 40k gets a little pants on head at times, that's the flaw with the GW system. If its getting so bad that people are shelving armies, offer them a 10% point bonus so that everyone can have fun again
7. The game is bloated. Codexes, mini-codexes, micro-codexes, dataslates, supplements, allies, ext.
Agreed, no argument, its silly
8. Do I need to mention ally abuse?
Yes, most tournaments and most leagues limit a force to 2 or 3 formations. If you're playing 40kRAW, you're missing its point and intent (the BRB actually backs me up on this)
9. A dice based game where some times dice don't even need to be rolled (ala BS5 rerollable, 2++ rerollable, Grav with rerolls)
As long as fair points were paid and it can die (hint: everything can), I don't see the bother... and I'm amazed how often boxcars burns someone.
10. This is a turn based game where someone could effective give you no first turn (Null deployment alpha strike)
Again, example please. In the WAAC tournament scene this is almost unheard of... if its not happening there, then it really isn't an issue
11. This game is based off of what models need to sell, so that's what models are made good. That is a poor business decision on GW's part.
Right, so lists made of older units and not the new hotness dominate the tournament scene... oh wait, we've got Scout armies and Lictor-shame lists taking top spots... nuts
12. The larger the game, the more imbalanced it becomes. Most games have an activation phase for a reason. In 40k, you could lose half your army by going second, all because of a roll off.
Right, so going second is bad... I hope you're aware that most top players prefer going second. You'll find more complaints from veteran players about the other guy getting to go last instead of what you're advocating.
Salous wrote: I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.
40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.
You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game
I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against
How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...
Because in a balanced game, a new player would be getting destroyed for a while since the other players have a leg up by virtue of experience. In most table top games....actually in most video games too....this is how it works. I lost a lot of games in WMH when I started, and I started with cryx, the strongest faction arguably. I played against one of the weaker factions, didn't matter. In 40k if I was elder and he was say....chaos, I'd roll him, maybe with a few losses here and there due to dice.
Fighting games, strategy games, table top games, even dnd all work off of this premise. 40k does not, despite being on the more complex side. Codex and list is most of the strategy involved in this game, and trumps nearly everything else.
I agree that list building can mess up the balance in the game. Thats why I always speak with the people im playing against before hand. We tell each other our lists, and make changes to try and create a balanced game. No one spams units that the other can't kill. No one sneaks in flyers that the other can't counter, so on so forth. If more people do this and stop trying to sneak in lists then I believe people will stop complaining about unbalanced games.
I play against guard, marines, Chaos, orks, and admech mainly. I have beaten them all, I have lost to them all. 90% of the games come down to the final round to see who wins. The only game I played where one side was tabled or unable to win was where no one knew the other's list before the battle started.
It's most likely because I've been playing so long, and most of my meta started in 2nd-4th edition, but what you are describing is called list tailoring, or net decking. Such a term usually carries a very negative connotation in nearly every other game out there.
40k is the only game I've ever played that requires me to sit down for about 30-45 minutes and build a list and a series of house rules with my opponent with every game. I can play a game of warmachine in that time.
This is also assuming that you and your opponent agree on how strong every unit is. Tau, Eldar, and Necron seem to have issues with identifying what units are strong. Grey knights occasionally suffer from this problem as well. If my opponent doesn't think scat bikes are too bad, but wraithguard are broken, and I'm playing Chaos Marines, what do we do? What if he didn't bring the only units I can really handle with my list?
New players in ANY game should get stomped by more experienced gamers. Try playing Street fighter, Smash, Starcraft, or MvC3 against someone who has been playing seriously for a while. These games are balanced, and you will get rolled. The same is true in simpler games like chess as well. Only in 40k, where list selection and faction trump every other decision you may make, does this not occur. A new player who downloads a net list involving eldar will probably crush any force that isn't necron, eldar, admech, or formation space marines. It makes for a very weird play experience.
New players in games should not get stomped just because they're new... What you're not taking into account is any given player's intelligence, or their research/study of them game. It is quite easy to jump into a new game and do well. Some games are harder than others yes, but if someone jumps into a new game and can't hold their own, it more than likely comes down to their brain power or their lack of study of the game. And by study I don't mean googling the op lists. Target focus is the biggest thing in 40k. All you need to do is know the strength of a weapon vs the toughness/armor of the person you're shooting at. A little math and common sense tells you what to do to achieve the greatest chance at success.
@Salous, if you're saying that a new player who fully understands and knows all the rules shouldn't lose, I agree... but that's not going to happen often in 40k
Lobukia wrote: @Salous, if you're saying that a new player who fully understands and knows all the rules shouldn't lose, I agree... but that's not going to happen often in 40k
Not saying that a new player who knows the game should not lose. I'm saying that if a new player can win at a game does not mean that a game is bad. Alot of variables go into deciding who wins or loses a game of 40k. But just because you're new does not mean that you should lose.
Lobukia wrote: @Salous, if you're saying that a new player who fully understands and knows all the rules shouldn't lose, I agree... but that's not going to happen often in 40k
Not saying that a new player who knows the game should not lose. I'm saying that if a new player can win at a game does not mean that a game is bad. Alot of variables go into deciding who wins or loses a game of 40k. But just because you're new does not mean that you should lose.
Why competitive play is so important? Because it benefits the casual players too. The competitive scene is a huge driving factor for achieving good balance. WMH is not perfect, but PP are trying their best by publishing errata and changing things, based on what is happening in the tournaments.
In a game that is geared for competitive play I don't have to indulge in long pre-game discussions to ensure that both of us have a chance. I just show up with my list(s) or make my list based on the missions and my opponent's faction, as is the standart in Malifaux, and I am ready to roll.
CSM can have good matches against necrons. I have played a few 1500-2k point games against CSM and CSM has won most of them. The key is to check yourself in casual games and not spam your list with your best units. Don't play decurion unless your opponent asks for it, don't spam jetbikes, wraiths, or ghost arks. By doing this you will find that most armies are just fine at fighting necrons.
Necrons have 3 main OP units to some armies.
Jetbikes counter most cheap infantry hordes. Guard, orks, tau, Ad mech, and a few others have a very hard time against them because a group of 6 can wipe out full squads of infantry, regardless of cover, every turn.
Wraiths are just hard as feth to kill unless you build a list tailored to fight them, even then they have a good chance at saving most wounds. Most people either waste their whole army shooting at them and get angry when they don't die, or they just run away from them, neither works very well. The best way to counter them is to tarpit them with a unit and forget about them, kill everything else, get the objectives, and stop trying to kill them.
Ghost arks are what I feel are the most op units in the necron codex. They are the best troop transport in the game. Instead of hiding warriors in cover to survive, you have full movement of the board with them, being able to kill/wound any unit in the game without having to worry about them being shot up. Its hard to kill, unless you bring the right weapons. But the greatest value it has to me is being able to spawn in more warriors. I have tarpited more units with warriors than I have with any other unit just because they can keep coming back to life.
Anyways, moral of the story is, limit yourself in your lists, make the game more challenging by taking weaker units. You will have more fun because you have to try to win, your opponent will have more fun because they feel like they have a chance to win. And again, talking to your opponent ahead of time, telling them whats in your list allows them to bring whats needed to stand up to Necrons and have a good match. Necrons are not in end all be all in 40k, the weakest armies can beat them.
There's an element here I fundamentally don't understand; the need to let people know and consequently try and bring them down with you.
At one point, I was a 'competitive' Warcraft III player. As such, I participated in forums, conducted replay analysis for the community, tried to make my way into small tournaments, etc. I involved myself and invested my time in involving others. As the game progressed it began to interest me less. As a result I now longer reached out to the community and they didn't reach back. Eventually this fade out was complete and I haven't played the game in years despite how very much I enjoyed it.
For some reason, I see posts like this in regards to Warhammer all the time. People arguing about moot points ( "40k isn't balanced!" - nobody ever said it was). Others making harsh rationalizations, some debating the points of community. My question is much more basic than all of that:
Why are you here?
If you're quitting, congratulations! Find another game and enjoy spending your money there. Sincerely. It's bothersome that you tell me you loved this game, and then attempt to sow dissent into the community as you try and "depart." And I do mean that in quotations, because quite frankly there's a number of people here posting their hatred for the game and yet they have posts here IN THE THOUSANDS.
They never really depart. They just complain, construct posts complaining, and justify their wish to depart but they just don't.
Brennonjw wrote: Why is it that competitive play always comes up? The game is not a competitive game, and unless tournaments change the list building rules, it never will be. It's a game that SHOULD be played with some buddies, or a few local guys at a flgs. when you play competitive, you abuse the best things in your army, and typically, that leads to whining about the best things in other armies. When you stop paying to go play against scatbike spam with your skyhammer + gladius, while the decurion player fights DE + Eldar Wraithknight army, the game gets leagues better. Secondly, take of the nostalgia goggles, 5th had just as many flaws as 6th and 7th. I'm not saying 7th is flawless, but it's not half as broken as the "doom and gloomers" make it out to be.
Ready for the rage at saying it isn't competitive and that "whining about the whiners is not okay"
3rd and 4th both had gw ran tournaments. It may currently not be a competitive game, certainly by 6th this was true, but it wasn't always the case. Many of us spent quite a bit of money on this game when the rules were tighter and the codexes weren't as far apart as they are now. Gw suddenly switched tracks and said a large part of my collection (nids and chaos marines) are useless garbage since my two common opponents are elder and necrons. Both have been playing their armies since 3rd and 5th respectively.
5th had way less flaws than the current edition. Most of the codexes could play, instead of 4 at the tournament level. Tanks were too strong, but that could have been easily fixed by adding the hp system with a few modifications.
7th requires me and my opponent to sit down and design our list together. I usually bring my entire collection for whatever army I'm playing and get it from my car after list design. Depending on the other player, this list design can take quite a while. I've never had to do this in the earlier editions (though I didn't play a lot of 6th), so yes, 7th is the most broken edition (also never played 2nd....I've heard good and bad from that edition though).
It's never truly been functional on a tournament level without people whining about cheese, just because tournaments were ran, doesn't mean that people didn't complain about the issues.
You're treating complaining as a binary problem, and its not. Relatively speaking, there has never been more complaining about cheese in the game as there is now. The biggest complaints you have seen is when 6th dropped, and when 3rd dropped. I believe the latter is because each of those edition changes represented a massive shift in the tone of the game, while other edition changes didn't change nearly as much.
Anyway, that wasn't the point. You claimed that the game was not a competitive game. My point is that for a large portion of its lifetime, it was and did just fine. People complain about competitive games all the time. Check out the Riot forums. I have a nephew who is a "challenger" (he assures me this is a big deal), and the forum posts he has shown me is....toxic. Yeah, let's stop with toxic. It doesn't mean the game isn't competitive or somewhat balanced.
Can you really blame the game for mainly playing 2 people who play strong armies with updated codexes vs. a non updated codex? I mean, I play CSM, and I still manage to have fun, even when I play against 'Crons, SM, and Eldar.
If your opponent tones his list down and you bring the good stuff, sure this works. If he/she only owns the better models, didn't bring the bad ones, or doesn't want to list tailor with you...no, you won't.
Honestly, 5th only looks like it has less flaws. Seriously, look back and remember the things people complained about, the number or complaints and what they were about are remarkably similar to now-a-days. However, bringing up the fact that Tournaments are flawed only goes to prove my point that the game works better when you take it out of the tournament setting. I still stand by Nostalgia goggles being the reason that 7th is the "most broken edition. People said the same about 6th, and probably said the same about 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 5th.
No, they didn't. Most of the editions had a few things that were strong, but nothing like now. The way allies work, and Lords of war/formations, have allowed for power combos that have never existed in the game before. In previous editions, long fangs were considered really good. Now they are mediocre at best, completely outclassed by death stars (deathstars back then were a re-rollable 4++ btw, not a 2++). It's practically the same unit as its always been, divination actually makes it better, but what is considered powerful has shifted so drastically that its just not that great.
5th has less flaws then the game does now. We can compare the strongest units from each edition, or look at the common complaints, but the truth is in 5th most of the dexes could play at the top table. Some were stronger, sure, but everyone could play. Right now its 4 armies total.
@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.
Cieged wrote: And I do mean that in quotations, because quite frankly there's a number of people here posting their hatred for the game and yet they have posts here IN THE THOUSANDS.
@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.
You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.
Cieged wrote: There's an element here I fundamentally don't understand; the need to let people know and consequently try and bring them down with you.
At one point, I was a 'competitive' Warcraft III player. As such, I participated in forums, conducted replay analysis for the community, tried to make my way into small tournaments, etc. I involved myself and invested my time in involving others. As the game progressed it began to interest me less. As a result I now longer reached out to the community and they didn't reach back. Eventually this fade out was complete and I haven't played the game in years despite how very much I enjoyed it.
For some reason, I see posts like this in regards to Warhammer all the time. People arguing about moot points ( "40k isn't balanced!" - nobody ever said it was). Others making harsh rationalizations, some debating the points of community. My question is much more basic than all of that:
Why are you here?
If you're quitting, congratulations! Find another game and enjoy spending your money there. Sincerely. It's bothersome that you tell me you loved this game, and then attempt to sow dissent into the community as you try and "depart." And I do mean that in quotations, because quite frankly there's a number of people here posting their hatred for the game and yet they have posts here IN THE THOUSANDS.
They never really depart. They just complain, construct posts complaining, and justify their wish to depart but they just don't.
So, again, why are you here?
Go enjoy yourselves you bloody masochists.
Many people like the game universe, many people like the models, some people play older editions, and many people still like other various portions of the hobby and game, and places like this is where they voice their concerns and discuss their issues with the game and the issues they perceive it to have.
I still play 40k, just got through a game with the guys over the weekend.
However, me playing an occasional game of 40k every few months is a far cry from me playing a few games of 40k every week.
Back then, I played smallish games when the 40k ruleset was a lot cleaner and simpler. The game didn't bog under a mountain of 6E/7E crap like Snap Shots or Challenges or closest first or several flavors of "Special" rules for every freakin' thing that slows the game down. It played a lot faster, getting in more turns or larger games in the same amount of time.
I would prefer something simpler and cleaner, more akin to 3E/4E than the mess that is 6E/7E.
@Akiasura: But here's the thing, why is new people losing a good thing? All that does is make things seem hopeless for the new player and discourage them from going further.
I gave it a 2 on the assumption we're talking 7th Ed. The game is awful. Sixth left a rotten taste in my mouth and seventh made me get rid of everything (except demons that have value in Fantasy). It got a 2 because there are worse games. But its glory days are behind it.
Cieged , it is rather simple. Nostalgia is a harsh mistress. Although I have moved to greener pastures, I return here from time to time to see if the things have gotten better. I would LOVE to be able to embrace 40K again. Sadly the indications are pointing in the opposite direction- things are getting even worse.
Usually. I refrain from posting here, but this topic is something I could relate to and have something to say, even if it isn't much.
@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.
You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.
Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.
No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.
@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.
@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.
You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.
Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.
No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.
@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.
Considering this is a 40k thread, talking about 40k, why are you even talking about another game?...
@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.
You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.
Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.
No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.
@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.
Considering this is a 40k thread, talking about 40k, why are you even talking about another game?...
I'm comparing 40k to a game that it is frequently compared to, along with many other more balanced games to show why it falls flat.
Its hard to judge something in a vacuum. Everything is relative.
@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.
You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.
Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.
No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.
@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.
Considering this is a 40k thread, talking about 40k, why are you even talking about another game?...
I'm comparing 40k to a game that it is frequently compared to, along with many other more balanced games to show why it falls flat.
Its hard to judge something in a vacuum. Everything is relative.
No, you're trying to tell me why new players should lose to "experienced" players in 40k, not another game. There is no need for comparison. Next time just read the post a little better before your need to show off your "intelligence" overwhelms you.
@ Salous, experience trumps intelligence in a wargame. Intelligence and knowledge of the rules can determine how quickly this gap closes and the smarter player starts winning, but a new player, no matter how experienced in war games, will miss synergies, order of activations, be surprised by a feat/model/spell, while an experienced player simply won't.
This is true in every competitive game that I'm aware of outside of 40k. I can tell you the frame data and strategies for a lot of characters in street fighter/ MvC, but I lose to my 17 year old nephew because his muscle memory and experience trump mine by far. He doesn't even know what frame data is.
The best 40k player I know, who has done a few major tournaments when they were a thing, lost his first 13 games in a row at WMH. He now crushes everyone pretty regularly, after about 60 games. It took me about 20 games to start beating him, and I run a faction he hates to see on the table with the lists he uses. I'm, arguably, a lot smarter than he is and I know the rules for 40k/WMH better than he does. He has way more experience than I do, since he used to play nearly everyday, and still plays 3 days a week. I still lose to a bunch of other players (I hate legion) who have a lot of experience over me, and I just lost to a bradigus player who made a lot of mistakes but has faced gaspy 2 a ton. It was my 3rd time against brad.
You can get all the "experience" you will ever need by watching a few batreps before you ever play your first game. There are two basic ways to become good at this game, experience by playing , or by studying the game. Taking gotcha moments out of the picture, you should know what all the units are able to do before you start the first turn, there is no reason why a new player can't hold their own and do just fine in their games.
Sure, in 40k (this game) that's true. I never said otherwise. 40k is the only game where you can netdeck or list tailor most opponents into submission. The game has all the tactical depth of crossing a street in Iowa.
I was speaking of competitive games. WMH, Infinity, any fighting game, LoL, HoS..., not unbalanced games like 40k.
No new player can possibly know or how to utilize a character in a tournament setting in any of the other games. Deathclock alone will kill new players, especially in Cryx or Cygnar.
@CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.
Considering this is a 40k thread, talking about 40k, why are you even talking about another game?...
I'm comparing 40k to a game that it is frequently compared to, along with many other more balanced games to show why it falls flat.
Its hard to judge something in a vacuum. Everything is relative.
No, you're trying to tell me why new players should lose to "experienced" players in 40k, not another game.
Again, you'll find that I never once suggested that experience was needed to play 40k. My whole point was that 40k was alone in this, and that no other game, including table tops and other competitive games, treats experience with such disregard.
This is because anyone can play the most OP eldar list, and find such a list by using a search engine. I don't even think you'd need to look at a battle report before hand unless you're playing one of the other powerful codexes.
There is no need for comparison. Next time just read the post a little better before your need to show off your "intelligence" overwhelms you.
Perhaps if you tried reading what other people are saying rather than leaping to your own conclusions, you wouldn't feel the need to belittle others so.
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
One 40k issue is the cost of models, people invest so much money and time in their armies, they get emotionally attached to them and hence a loss can be painful. Thus people do plenty to avoid a loss - manifested in things mentioned above with flavour of the month armies, eldar D wep ,WK spam etc.
A boardgame we can just rock up to and just play and win or lose its no biggie.
If 40k had cheaper models, the player base would be bigger and people would (hopefully) not get so hyped at gametime. But yeah I agree fully the balance merry go round as GW try to force model sales is an issue.
Akiasura wrote: @CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.
That doesn't answer my question, WHY is new players losing good specifically?
You can stop with the condescension on work and whatever, because it's perfectly understandable that people wouldn't want their LEISURE TIME wasted by just being walked over, particularly in such an expensive and time-consuming hobby to begin with where it's not reasonable to demand they devote EVEN MORE time just so they'll have a chance and actually be able to enjoy themselves.
How is making things awful for new players that way good?
Akiasura wrote: @CrashGordon94, brand new players losing is a sign of a healthy game. Experienced players usually win at most competitive games, its hard to think of one where they don't.
If losing makes you give up, I don't know what to tell you. Competitive games are probably not for you then? I can't imagine you enjoying any competition if you can't handle losing. Or college. Or work in a corporate environment. Or most things really.
That doesn't answer my question, WHY is new players losing good specifically?
You can stop with the condescension on work and whatever, because it's perfectly understandable that people wouldn't want their LEISURE TIME wasted by just being walked over, particularly in such an expensive and time-consuming hobby to begin with where it's not reasonable to demand they devote EVEN MORE time just so they'll have a chance and actually be able to enjoy themselves.
How is making things awful for new players that way good?
Newer players have an uphill battle in nearly every game. It's a sign of a balanced game when newer players must spend time practicing to beat veteran players.
This is true in every fighting game.
This is true in every shooting game.
This is true in every MOBA.
These are all wildly popular genres, more so than table top games, that eat up people leisure time. Nearly all other table top games work in this manner as well. Even the more cooperative ones, like pandemic, get easier the more experience someone has.
In those games, and nearly every sport or competitive event out there, losing to an experienced player who is showing you the ropes builds a drive into you. You find other less experienced players, and keep playing until you get better, and eventually you get good enough to play with nearly anyone. Some people go further and play at extreme levels of competition, but that's not needed to enjoy the game in most metas.
40k has essentially adopted a pay to win style. With enough money and an internet connection, anyone can field a top tier army and beat anyone who doesn't come with a similar arsenal. How is that in any way good?
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.
That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?
I think of 40k as a game that barely functions as a medium to enjoy the great lore and models of 40k in a tabletop setting. It does a very poor job in this regard. I don't think I've ever played a game that demanded so much money for so little quality.
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.
That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?
Thats how we interpreted the rules that was 1 year ago, we really went thru the rules carefully at the time and triple checked. I was none too impressed my Soviet Sappers did not do their duty for the motherland. Anyways I don't really wanna hijack this thread into a FoW rules discussion, I would rather have a root canal.
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.
That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?
Thats how we interpreted the rules that was 1 year ago, we really went thru the rules carefully at the time and triple checked. I was none too impressed my Soviet Sappers did not do their duty for the motherland. Anyways I don't really wanna hijack this thread into a FoW rules discussion, I would rather have a root canal.
That's fine, we just can't forget that 40k has more than its fair share of such oddities as well, like why does a velocity locked airplane crash if there's an infantry unit on the ground where its 18" move would take it?
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.
That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?
Thats how we interpreted the rules that was 1 year ago, we really went thru the rules carefully at the time and triple checked. I was none too impressed my Soviet Sappers did not do their duty for the motherland. Anyways I don't really wanna hijack this thread into a FoW rules discussion, I would rather have a root canal.
"My word, that creature is as tall as a skyscraper! Shoot it!"
"But sir, we can't get a good shot, it's toe is in that building over there!"
What I don't understand is how people will on one hand bemoan the competitive and bloated nature of 40k, and then cry about how Age of Sigmar lacks content and can't be played at tournament level.
They all seem to have these weird rose-tinted glasses about a singular edition that was good, usually for their army specifically, and claim that it was the standard of quality for wargaming.
I don't think the rules are the problem, since they're constantly evolving and changing, so if you don't like it now, wait a year and the whole meta will be different.
Maybe somebody will come out with a new stratagem that blows away the competition.
I will say that the prices are absolutely a problem, as EVERY GW wargame is expensive as hell to get into.
The models are disgustingly costly for what you get, (especially finecast, since they're warped and broken more often than not) and the codexes aren't much better.
The only thing that still maintains standard and reasonable prices are the Black Library books. Its usually 7.99 or 11.00 per book.
And you can pick them up cheaper at secondhand books stores and halfprice books.
Mantorok wrote: What I don't understand is how people will on one hand bemoan the competitive and bloated nature of 40k, and then cry about how Age of Sigmar lacks content and can't be played at tournament level.
They all seem to have these weird rose-tinted glasses about a singular edition that was good, usually for their army specifically, and claim that it was the standard of quality for wargaming.
I don't think the rules are the problem, since they're constantly evolving and changing, so if you don't like it now, wait a year and the whole meta will be different.
Maybe somebody will come out with a new stratagem that blows away the competition.
I will say that the prices are absolutely a problem, as EVERY GW wargame is expensive as hell to get into.
The models are disgustingly costly for what you get, (especially finecast, since they're warped and broken more often than not) and the codexes aren't much better.
The only thing that still maintains standard and reasonable prices are the Black Library books. Its usually 7.99 or 11.00 per book.
And you can pick them up cheaper at secondhand books stores and halfprice books.
My biggest issue with AoS was the fact that it's easily broken if you look for it (not that 40k isn't, but AoS it's a bigger problem), and the lack of points means you have to resort to using your own comp system, and I personally hate using anything unofficial.
Had you asked me 2 weeks ago, I'd have said 5/10 probably. Now that I have found X-Wing, much like the OP, I'd give it no more than 3/10.
Different strokes for different folks.
Personally, since I've now lived through 4 editions, and my gaming group has had a lot of kids, we can't get as many games in, so the minute changes in the rules are confusing, and we spend as much time playing as thumbing through a big tome, that is poorly edited, in my opinion.
The movement templates might limit movement a tad, maybe, but at least my WAAC friend doesn't need to verify my every move to make sure I don't go forward an extra 1/8 of an inch.
And honestly, I care more about skirmish games. The scale turns me off. But I understand the appeal if that's your thing. These days I'm less 40K, FoW and CoC and much more Infinity, Frostgrave or Malifaux. And X-Wing.
My biggest issue with AoS was the fact that it's easily broken if you look for it (not that 40k isn't, but AoS it's a bigger problem), and the lack of points means you have to resort to using your own comp system, and I personally hate using anything unofficial.
I feel that's fair.
However, GW has established that AoS doesn't require points values.
They WANT you to come up with your own system to manage play.
That way the onus is on the player to determine whether a army list is broken or cheese, and to choose opponents accordingly.
Warhammer Fantasy is made for the Beer and Pretzels players, with 40K for the pro-level tournament circuit.
My biggest issue with AoS was the fact that it's easily broken if you look for it (not that 40k isn't, but AoS it's a bigger problem), and the lack of points means you have to resort to using your own comp system, and I personally hate using anything unofficial.
I feel that's fair.
However, GW has established that AoS doesn't require points values.
They WANT you to come up with your own system to manage play.
That way the onus is on the player to determine whether a army list is broken or cheese, and to choose opponents accordingly.
Warhammer Fantasy is made for the Beer and Pretzels players, with 40K for the pro-level tournament circuit.
They just want to appease everybody.
40k is beer and pretzels too, we just shoehorn it into competitive play because we have a Reece and we can
Mostly because the universe and fluff surround most factions is great. Don't like the new trademarking GW is doing at the moment.
Hell at least it's not AoS which seems to be having some personality issues atm. Tried reading the fluff, are they fighting in heaven now? No idea now why they are even fighting at all!!! I have no clue what is going on in that game, no idea how units work now.... circle bases now? Like it's basically a skirmish like version of 40k but with more swords and no point costs?
Anyway back on topic! The rules for 40k have never been competitive, it was originally never suppose to be a competitive game, more fun than anything else. You know silly things, like how my mate has this specific ethereal in his army who has routed ork mobs, guardmen, chaos etc after winning cc. How a Battlecannon scatters through 3 buildings, hits a pathfinder who survives, having a laugh how cinematic it would of been to see a tank round miss, go through 4 walls and shower a guy with rubble, and then started pissing ourselves when that said rubble technically gave him a cover save.
You always have tfg who gets super competitive and moans when you tell him how he has interpreted that super new rule he's learnt or how "stupid" it is he can't hit you or you wiped his unit of termies out with around 30 odd flashlights. I had one guy moan at me when I forgot to snap fire my meltaguns, when a dreadnought charged my chimera. The same guy moan when I said sod it and let my opponent kill a guy because we didn't want to look up some obscure rule over the save of one meltagun.
What I personally find annoying is how much of a gap there is between top tier and even middle tier armies. I'm actually happy enough with the rules. Another issue is the pricing, which means when a rule change or codex change makes stuff pretty much useless it costs an arm and a leg. Luckily with guard hardly changing since late 3rd I'm not massively affected.
Lobukia wrote: 40k is beer and pretzels too, we just shoehorn it into competitive play because we have a Reece and we can
This. I recently played a complete GW game stone cold sober, and I'm going to come right out and say that it only works if you have alcohol to take the edge off, and salty snacks to keep the alcohol flowing. 40k shouldn't be a competitive game, and GW has worked ridiculously hard to make it not-competitive via Maelstrom. It is amazing that people keep trying to pound that square 40k peg back in the round tournament hole.
Akiasura wrote: Newer players have an uphill battle in nearly every game. It's a sign of a balanced game when newer players must spend time practicing to beat veteran players.
This is true in every fighting game.
This is true in every shooting game.
This is true in every MOBA.
These are all wildly popular genres, more so than table top games, that eat up people leisure time. Nearly all other table top games work in this manner as well. Even the more cooperative ones, like pandemic, get easier the more experience someone has.
Aaaaand you missed the point yet again Akiasura, I'm not concerned about how many times this mistake appears in other stuff or it being a "sign of a balanced game" or whatever, I asked SPECIFICALLY why new players losing is good and nothing else holds any relevant. THAT is the question I want answered, I don't care about the other stuff.
Akiasura wrote: In those games, and nearly every sport or competitive event out there, losing to an experienced player who is showing you the ropes builds a drive into you. You find other less experienced players, and keep playing until you get better, and eventually you get good enough to play with nearly anyone. Some people go further and play at extreme levels of competition, but that's not needed to enjoy the game in most metas.
Or, speaking from experience, it just grinds you down and makes you miserable because just losing over and over and over again without accomplishing anything is NOT FUN and if it's clear that it's not going to stop being like that, you give up because it's really pointless.
I speak as someone who tried Call of Duty multiplayer once. And it was just like you said, the "experienced" people kept snuffing me out over and over and over again, and I barely got to do anything at all. Did that give me a "drive"? No! It made me quit because I play games ot have fun and getting steamrolled with no chance of competition isn't fun, neither is exhausting myself spending huge amounts of time in training or practice (which is tedious and not entertaining) just to be some uber-competitive dude and FINALLY MAYBE have some fun.
And that's not the only example, the sheer prevalence of this crappy idea is what's almost completely turned me off to online multiplayer. And quite frankly I'm glad it's not in 40k.
Akiasura wrote: 40k has essentially adopted a pay to win style. With enough money and an internet connection, anyone can field a top tier army and beat anyone who doesn't come with a similar arsenal. How is that in any way good?
It isn't. It's also not what I'm defending.
I'm defending how new players can actually have a shot and maybe win games. Because I'm not spending so much time, money and effort on my Dark Angels just so they can be curb-stomped by everyone I play against.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mantorok wrote: I feel that's fair.
However, GW has established that AoS doesn't require points values.
They WANT you to come up with your own system to manage play.
That way the onus is on the player to determine whether a army list is broken or cheese, and to choose opponents accordingly.
And that's a terrible, terrible idea that can never, ever work.
Many (possibly even most) players don't have the capacity to figure out how much every bloody model is worth points-wise.
It's not a gameplay design decision or another way of playing, it's a MISTAKE and that's how it should be treated.
I rated it as an 8. I play once a week at my FLGS and have a good time. If I lose I learn something new about the game and my army, if I win I look at what worked and what didn't work. I've been playing since 7th came out so I guess I'm not as jaded as everyone else. I played CSM and lost pretty much every game to my friend playing SM and Iron Hands, then Daemonkin came out and I revamped my army and I haven't lost in a few weeks to IG and Iron Hands. I'd like to start playing twice a week but no one is ever free on Sundays near me.
The game is expensive but the only thing I haven't bought second hand are some chaos warhounds to use as flesh hounds.
Crash,
The second block you quoted directly answers your question. It's the very first sentence.
Your own feelings aside, that is the point of having new players lose to more experienced players. Perhaps competitive games are not for you if you find this to be so terrible, but competitive games are a wildly successful model for games, and have been for generations.
Calling it a mistake is well, a mistake.
Edit:
I'd also appreciate it if you can address how a pay to win model is superior to a balanced competitive game. It was the last thing in my previous post.
Akiasura wrote: Crash,
The second block you quoted directly answers your question. It's the very first sentence.
Then you could've just posted that bit phrased a direct response and left out the filler.
Akiasura wrote: Your own feelings aside, that is the point of having new players lose to more experienced players. Perhaps competitive games are not for you if you find this to be so terrible, but competitive games are a wildly successful model for games, and have been for generations.
And it's a terrible point, not everyone is going to be drawn in by getting walked all over by "pro players" because it's much more likely to feel hopefully and depressing. A much better way to draw people in is to give them a good experience, that involves perfectly reasonable chances of winning OR losing.
I imagine the success is because people play in places/metas/whatever where they AREN'T being curb-stomped by people who've played longer.
No. Letting newbies get curb-stomped just because they're new and expecting them to just suck it up is a mistake, as is defending that.
Akiasura wrote: Edit:
I'd also appreciate it if you can address how a pay to win model is superior to a balanced competitive game. It was the last thing in my previous post.
No, because that's not what I said, that was in the last part of my previous response to you.
I speak as someone who tried Call of Duty multiplayer once. And it was just like you said, the "experienced" people kept snuffing me out over and over and over again, and I barely got to do anything at all. Did that give me a "drive"? No! It made me quit because I play games ot have fun and getting steamrolled with no chance of competition isn't fun, neither is exhausting myself spending huge amounts of time in training or practice (which is tedious and not entertaining) just to be some uber-competitive dude and FINALLY MAYBE have some fun.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from, but there are a lot of people willing to put up with the competitive grind and themselves become experienced players. Most games with a competitive landscape take at least hundreds of hours to get to the top percentile, which is where I want to be if I'm going to play a competitive game.
So what I do when I see a competitive game I like (such as CoD or Hearthstone) is say to myself, do I like this game enough to just play it some casually -- or do I love it enough to throw a thousand hours at it?
In any game with a ranked system, it's really hard to "feel good" (high win ratio, high rank) without spending a lot of time at it. TTGs are not really that different.
In 40k, if you play in a casual or semi-competitive meta, it's quite possible to have fun (and win) without being uber-competitive or investing countless hours, but not so if your meta is very competitive. But again, that's not really different than any other game.
Mantorok wrote: I feel that's fair.
However, GW has established that AoS doesn't require points values.
They WANT you to come up with your own system to manage play.
That way the onus is on the player to determine whether a army list is broken or cheese, and to choose opponents accordingly.
And that's a terrible, terrible idea that can never, ever work.
Many (possibly even most) players don't have the capacity to figure out how much every bloody model is worth points-wise.
It's not a gameplay design decision or another way of playing, it's a MISTAKE and that's how it should be treated.
I disagree. AoS is remarkably easy to just grab a bunch of models, eyeball it, and wing it. The game is pretty fun, again, as long as one person isn't disproportionately competitive as compared to the other person. It will work fine if both people are quite competitive, and work fine if both people are quite casual, and poorly if you match the two up.
But again, that's the case for pretty much every game; someone who only wants to spend 30 hours a year playing a game is never going to do well against someone who spends 1000 hours a year playing.
Crash,
The rest of my post wasn't filler, it was supporting points for my answer. Just like your personal experience wasn't filler, but supporting reasoning for why you disagreed with it being a good reason. It's different kinds of support, yours being purely anecdotal while mine was a comment on historical and modern competitive games, but you can't call mine filler without suggesting your own is the same.
As for your second point, you played CoD. Most online games have a similar matchmaking system, which is very loose. Level 1 players are matched with any other players of various levels. You can play local matches, but the vast majority play online in random matches. Sometimes this results in a negative play experience (elo hell in LoL for example) but these games remain extremely popular.
So no, your second point is incorrect. That is not why it's successful, and your feelings about it being terrible are moot.
You can feel it's a mistake to defend competitive games, but it's just a feeling. One you've failed to defend with anything other than " I strongly disagree".
I never claimed you said anything about the pay to win model ever, but that is the current model of 40k. It's a way for a competitive game to ignore the advantage experienced players have, and one 40k embraced. Is this a good system?
You can also introduce so much randomness that player skill becomes minimal to give new players something. 40k used to embrace this system but seems to be moving to pay to win instead. I personally don't like that much randomness, but I can't argue that it isn't viable.
Akiasura wrote: Crash,
The rest of my post wasn't filler, it was supporting points for my answer. Just like your personal experience wasn't filler, but supporting reasoning for why you disagreed with it being a good reason. It's different kinds of support, yours being purely anecdotal while mine was a comment on historical and modern competitive games, but you can't call mine filler without suggesting your own is the same.
As for your second point, you played CoD. Most online games have a similar matchmaking system, which is very loose. Level 1 players are matched with any other players of various levels. You can play local matches, but the vast majority play online in random matches. Sometimes this results in a negative play experience (elo hell in LoL for example) but these games remain extremely popular.
So no, your second point is incorrect. That is not why it's successful, and your feelings about it being terrible are moot.
You can feel it's a mistake to defend competitive games, but it's just a feeling. One you've failed to defend with anything other than " I strongly disagree".
I never claimed you said anything about the pay to win model ever, but that is the current model of 40k. It's a way for a competitive game to ignore the advantage experienced players have, and one 40k embraced. Is this a good system?
You can also introduce so much randomness that player skill becomes minimal to give new players something. 40k used to embrace this system but seems to be moving to pay to win instead. I personally don't like that much randomness, but I can't argue that it isn't viable.
Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.
For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.
For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.
The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?
Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).
Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.
For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.
For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.
The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?
Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).
Think you're a bit out of touch with the majority of 40k players. Might wanna spend less time on the forums discussing "meta" and more time playing the game. You might be able to see your errors. Then again, I doubt you would admit it.
Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.
For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.
For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.
The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?
Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).
Think you're a bit out of touch with the majority of 40k players. Might wanna spend less time on the forums discussing "meta" and more time playing the game. You might be able to see your errors. Then again, I doubt you would admit it.
I mean, if you're not going to address any arguments or provide counter-examples, you can make whatever statements you want and accuse people of all sorts of things. Doesn't make it true.
Likewise, for all the "L2P" we've seen thrown around, I've yet to see someone suggest what people are doing wrong or some new inherent weakness in many of these power lists that people are apparently missing...
Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.
For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.
For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.
The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?
Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).
Think you're a bit out of touch with the majority of 40k players. Might wanna spend less time on the forums discussing "meta" and more time playing the game. You might be able to see your errors. Then again, I doubt you would admit it.
You might want to try addressing a single point instead of making generalizations about someone you don't know personally.
But I doubt you'll try it.
Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.
For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.
For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.
The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?
Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).
Think you're a bit out of touch with the majority of 40k players. Might wanna spend less time on the forums discussing "meta" and more time playing the game. You might be able to see your errors. Then again, I doubt you would admit it.
Yes, it is his error that the game is imbalanced. Darn him! It's his error to not play the flavor of the month OP codex. Sound logic. And why is it wrong to discuss on a forum? I'm at work right now, unable to play the game, but it's nice to discuss these things with fellow forum-goers.
Look, if you're a new player and have been doing well, that's fine. Again, all depends on the army you choose, nowadays.
I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...
almost 70% giving it a 6 or higher.... not too shabby
Lobukia wrote: I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...
Methnks you're vastly over-esitmating the number of "bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago""...
almost 70% giving it a 6 or higher.... not too shabby
Lets keep in mind that this is hardly a well defined poll, and is probably the most optimistic poll I've seen on Dakka, well, ever.
I must say, at the time of this post, 46% of people gave it a 6 or lower, given the number of wide-eyed neophytes new to wargaming who've never played another game that still feel the need to post even though they "just started playing", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...
Nearly a quarter of respondents rating it "below average" to "worse than 4 Hitlers"... GW must be the only business that relies on churn.
Lobukia wrote: I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...
Methnks you're vastly over-esitmating the number of "bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago""...
For some people, anything short of unconditional love is equal to hate.
I would heartily recommend playing some fun stuff from back when GW would put awesome stuff in the White Dwarfs.
Me and a mate of mine recently played the old version of kill team, with klaxon counters and goon squads. By far the best hour we have had playing a 40k game in a long time
Lobukia wrote: I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...
Methnks you're vastly over-esitmating the number of "bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago""...
For some people, anything short of unconditional love is equal to hate.
At the same time many people will dub anyone who doesn't vehemently hate GW as apologists and fanboys.
Interesting, with our statements combined it is implied the Black Knights out number the White Knights. I wonder if that is true.
Both sides share the same goal, the destruction of the GW fanbase. One side demands purity and loyalty to GW, so only the faithful remain. And the other quixotically preaches enlightenment to the heathens.
Lobukia wrote: I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...
almost 70% giving it a 6 or higher.... not too shabby
I can't help but wonder how different that poll would be if asked in Dakka Discussions not 40k General.
Methinks you might find just a teeeeeeny bit more bias down here in the 40k forums.
50% or more play marines and marine got a good codex in 7th and had an ok codex until they got the new one. IMO it is natural that at least 50% find the edition more then good. It is geared for grav bikers, drop pods, small msu units that are resilient etc. The same question asked on an IG forum would probably be closer then 5.
Makumba wrote: 50% or more play marines and marine got a good codex in 7th and had an ok codex until they got the new one. IMO it is natural that at least 50% find the edition more then good. It is geared for grav bikers, drop pods, small msu units that are resilient etc. The same question asked on an IG forum would probably be closer then 5.
You forgot that a huge portion of people play Eldar, who are killing it right now. So yeah, it may be a little biased.
Comparing it to the 40K of around 4th-5th edition, I gave it a 7 or in other words it’s got a lot of great things in it but it could do better:
Pros:
Games Workshop has done a good job of keeping 40K and general wargaming in the mainstream.
The new models and fluff is interesting- not necessarily balanced, but interesting. Especially the Adeptus Mechanicus.
I'm glad to see flyers added. They could do with some slightly more realistic* rules though.
Pre-measuring is great. If 40K was a PC game you'd press something like tab to get a range circle. (I can't remember if that's the case in DOW, anyway the principle is there.)
Glad to see overwatch added.
* Yes I know 40K rules aren't supposed to be 100% realistic, but they could at least make the flyers less like fast skimmers. The old Forgeworld rules were great, albiet somewhat complicated.
Meh:
Wound allocation and who you're able to fire at: In general I prefer unit-based rules rather than model-based rules, but at least it's not as bad as the 'magic disappearing wound' shenanigans of 5th edition.
Psyker powers: It's nice to see that the powers have been made more complex and fluffy, but an extra phase in the turn? Really?
Cons:
The codex creep is real.
True Line of Sight: I really dislike how the things like LOS are becoming increasingly literal rather than simulated. It's tabletop wargaming- it's not supposed to accurately portray what a model can or can't see.
Hull points...oh the damned hull points: Even when I'm benefiting from them in my mechanised lists I still don't like them. They make armour feel spongy, as if we're reducing armoured warfare down to health points.
Combat speed: The game is faster now, with units moving faster and being able to fire and move at the same time. Some people may see this as a positive thing as it makes the game 'flow' more and feels less Napoleonic. However I'm concerned if it's just dumbing down the game- not sure if you should move or shoot? No problem- do both! Not sure if you should pull your tank into that dangerous position? No problem- you've still got 2 hull points after losing one.
The universe has tons of great backgorund and cool stuff, tons of the model kits are super cool, but the game itself is awful.
We have multiple issues.
First and foremost, the game simply does not know what it wants to be. This has been true since really 5th edition, but has become a dramatically larger and more obvious problem over the last couple of years. The game is simply trying to be too many things, and abstracts in the wrong direction. The unit types and model sizes that GW is attempting to hamfist into literally any size game just is not working particularly well. The game tries to make it so that each individual humble basic guardsmen and his weeny Lasgun have just as much stats and rolling to do as a gigantic titan, and is, if anything, even more detailed. The abstraction happens at the highest levels, with big units ignoring charts and effects and having less detail while smaller units are more detailed and granular, which is rather bass-ackwards. The model count, unit scale, and special rule count is simply out of control, particularly when GW is writing their ruleset to allow everything in any sized game. 40k is trying to be both Epic and Kill Team and everything in between, and failing miserably.
Second, GW's rules design has two major problems. First, they seem to change design paradigm every year or so. The 2012/early 2013 stuff was much less powerful than the rest of the 2013 stuff, while the 2014 books were significantly toned down relative to the 2013 armies, and the 2015 books have ramped up the power level beyond anything 40k has ever seen before, along with aggravating the scale issues mentioned above.
Add to it that GW simply does not do rules errata nor address FAQ issues, we get a game where power levels are all over the place resulting in absurdly stilted games, scale has gone out the window, and rules issues simply go unaddressed.
As a game, 40k is pretty bad. It's never been a great game, but I don't recall it ever being in this bad a state. It's totally unsuitable for pickup or even pretending to be suitable for any sort of competitive play anymore, and that makes getting games that are worth playing rather difficult. Pre-determined outcomes and one-sided games are much more common now these days.
For my own anecdotal experiences, particularly over the course of the last 6 months or so, fewer people are showing up for games and events.
This ^ sums it up nicely. 40K has lots of potential but GW made an average game at best into a terrible mess. Balance isn't evil - nobody expects perfection but a serious effort in trying would make a huge difference along with proper errata/FAQs.
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.
That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?
I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.
That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?
I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.
Oh I know, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even with that, it's not like the warboss running in at full speed on his bike is going to have much in the way of finesse other than to simple punch something real hard or grab *something* and try to tear it off More to the point, most vehicles (particularly MBT's) really shouldn't have anything *that* vulnerable anywhere on their front arc except maybe locomotion (popping a wheel or breaking a tread link) that would be vulnerable to such an attack.
This ^ sums it up nicely. 40K has lots of potential but GW made an average game at best into a terrible mess. Balance isn't evil - nobody expects perfection but a serious effort in trying would make a huge difference along with proper errata/FAQs.
RIght? The whole paradigm that seems to be getting pushed that "balance is bad" is simply mind boggling
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.
That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?
I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.
Exactly, fixing krak grenades etc to the weak points; or if they only have a combat knife or their bare hands I think of it as how the Major attempts to remove the top entry hatch from a tank in nearly every single film/series of Ghost in the Shell; it'll half break their arms but they're Space Marines, they can take it.
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.
That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?
I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.
Exactly, fixing krak grenades etc to the weak points; or if they only have a combat knife or their bare hands I think of it as how the Major attempts to remove the top entry hatch from a tank in nearly every single film/series of Ghost in the Shell; it'll half break their arms but they're Space Marines, they can take it.
The GITS example sort of exactly illustrates my problem with the 40k mechanic. Doing something like that isn't possible with most of the attacks a lot of these units are making. Even the attempt in GITS required a vehicle that was in a confined space, with an ultra agile opponent, physically climbing on top and spending almost 30 seconds (probably far longer than a typical 40kCC round would be) getting nowhere and doing nothing to the tank, physically destroying her body in the process, and then just got tossed aside by a simple rotation of the turret, being saved only by close range application of 8 heavy anti-tank gun shots.
Kusanagi also wasn't a slouch in the strength department, there was a scene with her from one of the prequel series where she's able to temporarily arrest the forward travel of a helicopter
Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.
That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?
I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.
Exactly, fixing krak grenades etc to the weak points; or if they only have a combat knife or their bare hands I think of it as how the Major attempts to remove the top entry hatch from a tank in nearly every single film/series of Ghost in the Shell; it'll half break their arms but they're Space Marines, they can take it.
The GITS example sort of exactly illustrates my problem with the 40k mechanic. Doing something like that isn't possible with most of the attacks a lot of these units are making. Even the attempt in GITS required a vehicle that was in a confined space, with an ultra agile opponent, physically climbing on top and spending almost 30 seconds (probably far longer than a typical 40kCC round would be) getting nowhere and doing nothing to the tank, physically destroying her body in the process, and then just got tossed aside by a simple rotation of the turret, being saved only by close range application of 8 heavy anti-tank gun shots.
That's just one of those strange rules where realism has to just lay down in the face of good cinematics/gameplay. The awesomeness apparently creates a warp-disturbance that causes logic to shrug its shoulders and look the other way.
.... do remember that the Major almost tore her arms off in that scene (and, later on, iirc, *did* actually tear both of her own arms off trying that!)
LordSolar wrote: I would heartily recommend playing some fun stuff from back when GW would put awesome stuff in the White Dwarfs.
Me and a mate of mine recently played the old version of kill team, with klaxon counters and goon squads. By far the best hour we have had playing a 40k game in a long time
I remember that game from the back of the 4th ed rulebook
Buying upgrades for your awesome team of commandos (or getting yourself a redshirt to try and keep alive), or upgrading your base if you were playing the bad guy. Lots of fun, especially if you modelled your kill team so they reflected their specialities
40k is definitely not "fair".
So you can go all competitive and that can be fun.
Designing balanced scenarios work well too.
It sounds like the dreaded 40k burn-out for the OP.
I could not find any game fun for a bit.
Just look at what you are trying to get out of a game.
There is too much random in 40k so the most effective choices is the army and units.
I agree Chaos could use some love, shelved for a few years now, but use in scenarios works well.
Replies can get chilly when you disrespect their #1 game: the honeymoon does end, you reach an understanding and move-on.
Or engage the services of a mistress like X-wing. It is ok.
We all change, rules certainly do, your perspective as well.
Do not sell your stuff, you will find a use for everything eventually: I promise.
OP thanks for letting us peek into your gamer mind, it is OK, much of what you observed is agreeable.
Find your fun and good luck!
Vryce wrote: You lost me when you said your Necrons struggle to compete.
bahahahahahahahahahaha
exactly.... wth?
wait wait love.... bahahahahahah please don't hate me op, Necrons are beast right now. So much so I sold mine. Had to sell an army so I sold that one. To easy to faceroll so many opponents, and i got tired of eyerolls and groaning when I was pulling out my wraiths and barges, Not to mention my cheap infantry that can kill vehicles. And tend to get back up. A lot. Wait a sec... why did I sell those?
I gave it a 9. Frankly I love this game. Then again, I only regularly play with one person, so we both have an understanding where we try to make it as fun as possible. I feel for the guys who can only find competitive players to have a game with. That kind of situation would probably sour my experience
If it were a good game it wouldn't matter whether your opponent was competitive or not, you could still have an enjoyable game as long as they weren't a complete TFG.
And if the rules were better written then there is less for TFG to use as loopholes aren't there or interpreting in a weird way is impossible as the intention and meaning are clear and actually match up.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.
Oh I know, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even with that, it's not like the warboss running in at full speed on his bike is going to have much in the way of finesse other than to simple punch something real hard or grab *something* and try to tear it off More to the point, most vehicles (particularly MBT's) really shouldn't have anything *that* vulnerable anywhere on their front arc except maybe locomotion (popping a wheel or breaking a tread link) that would be vulnerable to such an attack.
The rear armor value stands in for the top armor, which is generally considerably thinner than the forward armor:
That's a Panther, something that one might reasonably treat as the WW2 equivalent of a Leman Russ. The front is 80mm (sloped), where the top is only 15mm - less than 1/5 the thickness. The Panther rear is 30mm, 2x as thick as the top. If anything, HtH units should get +1AP against the rear armor value.
Modern MBTs are even more extreme in the armor thickness front vs top.
In some ways, that might make sense, however GW has pretty much always used the side armor to represent top armor values (such as with Barrage weapons), and I certainly don't think that the earlier aforementioned Warboss, seated in his bike, is striking at the top armor, especially at any sort of direct angle
When i gave My rating of the game it was based on the game rules itself. I had to leave out the fluff, opinions of model quality, and all those little things that can vary wildly with personal aesthetics. I went off the rules as written, how they were written, and how the game plays over the time allowed.
As such i gave it a 3. The conflicting rules, lack of editing that leads to conflicting rules, and the unnecessary application of special rules for special rules sake just makes the actual game a mess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: In some ways, that might make sense, however GW has pretty much always used the side armor to represent top armor values (such as with Barrage weapons), and I certainly don't think that the earlier aforementioned Warboss, seated in his bike, is striking at the top armor, especially at any sort of direct angle
The part that actually makes it even more laughable is that the speed of the vehicle makes little to no difference. It doesnt matter if the vehicle in question moved 1" or 36" you still are hitting the soft spot on a 3+ regardless if in an real life situation the tank is moving at. 5 or 85 mph
I gave it a 5 in its current state. I'd give it less, but compared to other games, I think it edges a whole bunch of them on enjoyment and pretty much in every single case on aesthetics for me - I can't stand the low quality models, uncohesive army design and outright bad design in a lot of competitors
That's not to say 40k doesn't have its weird out of place units that are particularly badly designed but at least when I look at my IG army everything looks like it goes together cohesively, unlike games like Infinity where you get limited choice in models and have models within the same faction that frequently look nothing alike - you might have Soviet heavy infantry dressed in some futuristic battle armour in the same army where you've got a US Marine from the gulf wars, medieval scotsmen wearing kilts, and giant anthropomorphic dogs.
If I could, I'd still play 40k regularly. But everyone in my local area quit. The only time I ever see 40k being played is between maybe 2-4 guys who arranged a game on a weekend, sometimes, at a local FLGS. One club that had a big 40k following for years had its interest collapse almost overnight. There hasn't been a tournament in over a year in any of my local stores or clubs. Invasion events where stores would arrange to have trips down to Warhammer World and compete stopped. Because of that the hobby veteran store managers who managed two of my local stores each for about 5-10 years both quit and got seemingly replaced by talentless 20~ year olds without even the skills to paint scenery to a decent standard.
To be honest it basically means I'm done with wargaming, period, because when I started 40k I knew I was making a solid investment that I could rely on to last years before it burned out. If I go to FLGS' around me, the vast majority of people play card games and board games now, with maybe a few people playing the odd skirmish game. I haven't ever seen anyone play DZC, I don't think I've ever seen anyone play Infinity outside of a tournament. and the only people I knew who played FoW don't seem to anymore. I bought a Firestorm Armada fleet and the game died out within a month. There isn't a single wargame left with a decent following and long lasting appeal and life expectancy that interests me.
That's not to say 40k doesn't have its weird out of place units that are particularly badly designed but at least when I look at my IG army everything looks like it goes together cohesively, unlike games like Infinity where you get limited choice in models and have models within the same faction that frequently look nothing alike - you might have Soviet heavy infantry dressed in some futuristic battle armour in the same army where you've got a US Marine from the gulf wars, medieval scotsmen wearing kilts, and giant anthropomorphic dogs.
To be fair,
If you put vostroyans, Cadians, valhallans, mordians, elysians, and catachans next to each other, you'd say the same thing. Only thing consistent across the range is lasguns. But yet, they're all imperial guard, even if they look nothing alike. Is it thst strange to expect different nationalities on different parts of a planet with different cultures and weapons would look, and be equipped differently? I don't think so.
Within other factions like pan-o And yu-jing, although they represent various different arms of their respective militaries and paramilitaries, you have a far more homogenous look across the board.
What you could do, if you were interested and if things looking cohesive is a thing, you could do worse than look into infinity sectoral lists. Within Ariadna, you have 'french' and 'Scottish' themed sectorals already, with American and Russian incoming.
Funnily enough I have some Pan O here on my desk and have been commenting to my roommate how much I love that you can see the the similarities across the armour types, but they are nice and subtle.
The light infantry have the chest plate and the shin guards, the medium infantry then has the exact same armour over a different pose, with extra thigh plates. The heavy infantry in the powered armour then has a heavier chest piece and a muscle like mesh under the armour, but the same thigh plates and the same shin/knee guards with extra plates built up over the top.
The marines I have been assembling on the other hand are all different, but the differences are really superficial, one guy has an eagle, one has a sword, ect, but it is all purely different decorations tacked on, barely anything in the way of different armour marks, and even the armour marks still don't seem to change anything, they are just different shapes. The only example of any practical changes in marine armour I can think of is the mk8 chest with the added protection over the soft armour of the neck.
One of those two lines feels like it was well thought out and practical, and one feels like a toy...
jonolikespie wrote: The marines I have been assembling on the other hand are all different, but the differences are really superficial, one guy has an eagle, one has a sword, ect, but it is all purely different decorations tacked on, barely anything in the way of different armour marks, and even the armour marks still don't seem to change anything, they are just different shapes. The only example of any practical changes in marine armour I can think of is the mk8 chest with the added protection over the soft armour of the neck.
To be fair, SM armor is mass production of sorts, but if you really want unique looks of Power Armor, you need to either go Chaos or Khorne-but-not-Khorne Black Templars.
Mr.Omega wrote: I gave it a 5 in its current state. I'd give it less, but compared to other games, I think it edges a whole bunch of them on enjoyment and pretty much in every single case on aesthetics for me - I can't stand the low quality models, uncohesive army design and outright bad design in a lot of competitors
That's not to say 40k doesn't have its weird out of place units that are particularly badly designed but at least when I look at my IG army everything looks like it goes together cohesively, unlike games like Infinity where you get limited choice in models and have models within the same faction that frequently look nothing alike - you might have Soviet heavy infantry dressed in some futuristic battle armour in the same army where you've got a US Marine from the gulf wars, medieval scotsmen wearing kilts, and giant anthropomorphic dogs.
If I could, I'd still play 40k regularly. But everyone in my local area quit. The only time I ever see 40k being played is between maybe 2-4 guys who arranged a game on a weekend, sometimes, at a local FLGS. One club that had a big 40k following for years had its interest collapse almost overnight. There hasn't been a tournament in over a year in any of my local stores or clubs. Invasion events where stores would arrange to have trips down to Warhammer World and compete stopped. Because of that the hobby veteran store managers who managed two of my local stores each for about 5-10 years both quit and got seemingly replaced by talentless 20~ year olds without even the skills to paint scenery to a decent standard.
To be honest it basically means I'm done with wargaming, period, because when I started 40k I knew I was making a solid investment that I could rely on to last years before it burned out. If I go to FLGS' around me, the vast majority of people play card games and board games now, with maybe a few people playing the odd skirmish game. I haven't ever seen anyone play DZC, I don't think I've ever seen anyone play Infinity outside of a tournament. and the only people I knew who played FoW don't seem to anymore. I bought a Firestorm Armada fleet and the game died out within a month. There isn't a single wargame left with a decent following and long lasting appeal and life expectancy that interests me.
The ad-hoc nature of that army fits the fluff. They are supposed to be a rag tag group from the different groups living unharmoniously on one planet. Other factions are more harmonious.
The part that actually makes it even more laughable is that the speed of the vehicle makes little to no difference. It doesnt matter if the vehicle in question moved 1" or 36" you still are hitting the soft spot on a 3+ regardless if in an real life situation the tank is moving at. 5 or 85 mph
They need to bring back a ruling like that of 5th (I think it was 5th?) where if you turbo boosted then the vehicle itself is hit on 6s. That would make Dark Eldar a lot better right off the bat.
jonolikespie wrote: Funnily enough I have some Pan O here on my desk and have been commenting to my roommate how much I love that you can see the the similarities across the armour types, but they are nice and subtle.
The light infantry have the chest plate and the shin guards, the medium infantry then has the exact same armour over a different pose, with extra thigh plates. The heavy infantry in the powered armour then has a heavier chest piece and a muscle like mesh under the armour, but the same thigh plates and the same shin/knee guards with extra plates built up over the top.
The marines I have been assembling on the other hand are all different, but the differences are really superficial, one guy has an eagle, one has a sword, ect, but it is all purely different decorations tacked on, barely anything in the way of different armour marks, and even the armour marks still don't seem to change anything, they are just different shapes. The only example of any practical changes in marine armour I can think of is the mk8 chest with the added protection over the soft armour of the neck.
One of those two lines feels like it was well thought out and practical, and one feels like a toy...
Infinity miniatures are clearly designed by people who have spent a great deal of time looking at modern military photos, and understanding the types of things that soldiers need to carry into battle. Infinity miniatures generally look like they're carrying enough gear and ammunition to make it through a day of fighting. 40k minis, at best, have a pouch or two for extra magazines but it's all about the armor.
The difference is night and day. Infinity minis are gorgeous...40k minis are absolute garbage in comparison. I didn't realize just how easy it is to paint 40k until I started painting Infinity.
As for the game...40k is fun. It's a different kind of game though. It could be a lot better...'5th Edition was Best Edition' is really all that needs to be said, and it still had some pretty fatal flaws.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: As for the game...40k is fun. It's a different kind of game though. It could be a lot better...'5th Edition was Best Edition' is really all that needs to be said, and it still had some pretty fatal flaws.
5th ed was my first edition. I gave up the game because of the gross imbalance towards the end of it. And yet, I still consider it a better edition than 6th or 7th. I got as far as removing models from the front in the 6th ed demo game before giving up on it.
I think there needs to be a poll with a bit more clarification behind it. I gave it a low number based on the rules alone and the supporting FAQ and how fast they answer that. Because that to me is the key to a game.
I don't like bringing up fluff, because G.I. Joe and Transformers had plenty of backstory but that didn't make action figures a game.
I don't like including a "fun" factor with plenty of side notes about playing with good people and house rules. As a kid I played with friends using Silly String with house rules and we had fun. That doesn't qualify Silly String as a good game though.
The short life span of 6th and the randomness of Maelstrom games really killed my love of the game. I'm still positive you could replace the card objectives with Uno cards and end up with a more balanced system.
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
Or the fact that when playing RAW, any weapon system that wasn't barrage that could target a unit without LOS couldn't actually cause any casualties thanks to the wording of the casualty rules.
Is that finally fixed now or are Tau SMS still useless when fired out of LOS when playing RAW rather than the RAI everyone actually plays?
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
Or the fact that when playing RAW, any weapon system that wasn't barrage that could target a unit without LOS couldn't actually cause any casualties thanks to the wording of the casualty rules.
Is that finally fixed now or are Tau SMS still useless when fired out of LOS when playing RAW rather than the RAI everyone actually plays?
The rules were written by professionals?
Um, no. They were written by people who are trying to sell models. That is all.
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
Or the fact that when playing RAW, any weapon system that wasn't barrage that could target a unit without LOS couldn't actually cause any casualties thanks to the wording of the casualty rules.
Is that finally fixed now or are Tau SMS still useless when fired out of LOS when playing RAW rather than the RAI everyone actually plays?
The rules were written by professionals?
Um, no. They were written by people who are trying to sell models. That is all.
I don't think you can even argue that. I mean look at the rules for Warp Talons and Mutilators. They were both new kits and so should have had great rules to go with them, right? Nah, they're often regarded as being some of the most useless units in 40K.
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
Or the fact that when playing RAW, any weapon system that wasn't barrage that could target a unit without LOS couldn't actually cause any casualties thanks to the wording of the casualty rules.
Is that finally fixed now or are Tau SMS still useless when fired out of LOS when playing RAW rather than the RAI everyone actually plays?
The rules were written by professionals?
Um, no. They were written by people who are trying to sell models. That is all.
I don't think you can even argue that. I mean look at the rules for Warp Talons and Mutilators. They were both new kits and so should have had great rules to go with them, right? Nah, they're often regarded as being some of the most useless units in 40K.
Hmm, true. I don't know then! The only thing consistent with GW is their inconsistency.
I love how whenever someone complains its usually along the lines of "well the other fella doesn't stand a chance, that's OP and will destroy my opponent!". Not usually the other way round though.
darkcloak wrote: I love how whenever someone complains its usually along the lines of "well the other fella doesn't stand a chance, that's OP and will destroy my opponent!". Not usually the other way round though.
Is that a problem? I don't mind winning, but if it's a blowout, it's not even fun.
If it were a good game it wouldn't matter whether your opponent was competitive or not, you could still have an enjoyable game as long as they weren't a complete TFG.
And if the rules were better written then there is less for TFG to use as loopholes aren't there or interpreting in a weird way is impossible as the intention and meaning are clear and actually match up.
This matches my opinion perfectly - down to the grade!
). But I'll give you guys a little back story (the "Forum Index" button is right up there if this isn't what you're feeling right now). 
