It's been a long time since I played 40k. Last time I played it, the Necrons had just had their relaunch in plastic, and the general state of the game was good, but with a few things that needed a fix.
I know that the Psychic phase has been added since. Which I am actually feeling positive about, since it gives a definitive phase for all of those little abilities we would either do in the wrong phase, or forget about.
But I'm interested in knowing the general state of the game overall.
I feel 40k ain't that bad. The new dex are slowly balancing themself out (although I feel for people that need to wait a while before a new, up to date dex hit the field.)
Hopefully, they won't change their ''codex making'' politics right in the middle of the process, like they did last time.
I really like the Psychic phase (but I moved to Tau about 2-3 months ago and I don't get to cast spell :( )
There has been some power creep, but besides some armies that need to get updated (CSM, Guard, Nids) to the new standard the current 3 that are (SM, Eldar, Necrons) are well internally balanced between the 3 of them IMO. Basically whats causing this jump in power is SUPER FORMATIONS. Its a very fluffy way to build an army (eg. half battle companies and 1st company formations) that are powerful but not unstoppable.
I'd say that being a newbie to warhammer relatively (2014) I enjoy the state of the game immensely. I play fluffy ultramarine lists, usually honour guard and a chapter master in a land raider running about killing daemons for existing and sweeping necrons under a rug in no time flat. Its a fun game, but its a tad bit broken at the second.
I'm having a blast with 7th edition, even more than I enjoyed 6th edition. Mostly this is because I don't play in highly competitive metas, but the game is still going strong at the FLGSs that I frequent.
Are there problems with the rules and the power creep of armies? Absolutely. But if you aren't trying to actively break the ruleset or build the most overpowered lists possible the game is still fun, and that's what matters most to me.
The "Decurion Detachment" is kinda the trend as of late where some "uber detachments" are a thing for various armies.
"Maelstrom" has become the go-to scenario for a few games.
Big Stomping machines/critters are being a general power-level controversy with Imperial Knights and such.
I would say for variety of models and varying scales of warfare this has never been a better time to play.
For balance of a pick-up game or competitive play it is a bit of a mess however.
There is a refreshing amount of optimism in this thread so far, very cool. 7th has been great to my group so far, Psychic phase has indeed helped in remembering when/what to cast.
If you're into competitive gaming you might have a pretty rough time, you'll see a lot of people with (legitimate) gripes about balance.
Dakka as an internet forum tends to draw a particular type of player, but in person I've not been through half the nightmarish stories people seem to experience. As long as you talk to your opponent before a game 7th ed. and 40K is pretty great right now IMO.
I'm enjoying it so far, having played since 4th I have to say I've liked 6th and 7th the most so far. 4th was clunky and 5th was parking lots to put it bluntly, but for my area at least the big stuff seems to be scarce and not under 1500 without people knowing and that's good cause I actually like seeing the big stuff; just not spammed and in low points where it's just going to stroll freely through the field.
I'll have to admit though, I enjoyed the 6th Eldar with Iyanden better than the 7th. I want to run my full wraith army without it seeming too intimidating when it isn't really.
There is a lot of positive reviews of 7, but also a lot of people have left since 6th. At least the way I see it.
40K in my area pretty much dried up because of 7th. Maelstrom missions randomly change the course of the game. The system is too clunky to use the dice for a moderately paced game so you're pushed to purchase the cards. In any case every game seemed more dependent on card draws than anything happening on the field.
I see people say the armies are starting to balance out. We saw the same trend when 6th hit. CSM and DA had fun builds and were rather lack luster. Looked to be a good trend of a more balanced game. Then Tau and Eldar came out and any hope of balance got tossed out the window. Now look where we are at. Eldar is out and even worse with Tau right at the door with possibly 3 gargantuan creatures and the first squad of gargantuan creatures.
I have a lot invested in 40K and I'm waiting to get back into it. But I'm just not seeing it right now. Too many elements in games that you can't prepare a TAC list, too many formations, psychic phase seems to be an all in or nothing matter to me, and Warlord traits are still random.
A friend of mine has been playing 40K for a long time and he got me into the game mid 5th. We both had fun with 6th despite the problems. 7th made us both quit pretty much at the same time. We had 4 local tournaments in the beginning of 7th that were all canceled due to lack of participation. I'm glad to hear some areas are doing well with it, but the game is pretty much just circling the drain here.
It has a few balance issues. There are a few rules that may need some houserulling until/if we get an faq. But overall it's still 40k.
I have a lot of fun with it. And for all the negative that can be said about formations and such, I do see more variation on the table than I did in 4th 5th and 6th. I enjoy maelstrom.
Also check your local gaming hubs, as their meta will be a little more specific than the general picture strangers online can paint. Your local group could be super competitive, fluff bunnies, or anything between. Unless you are playing with only your group of friends, this will likely have a larger impact on your games than the state of the rules will.
Take my local group for example. 40+ people, mostly strangers outside of 40k games. We have our own quick house rules for tricky stuff. We are almost entirely void of... less than desirable players. People don't scoff at the idea of toning down/up lists so people get the game they are looking for. Combined with Internet forums and Facebook pages, it's never been easier to find games when/where you want, with prearranged points, friendly limit requests(commonly no super heavies for example), ect.
On the flip side, if you get sucked into the grim dark bowels of some posts, you may be led to believe that every group is nothing but rules lawyers. Every player only takes skyhammer, jet bike spam, or dercurion. Every other person cheats, has weighted dice, has an odor pungent enough to strip lead based paint. If your local scene is as bad as some posts on here, I am truly sorry.
40k is much the same as its always been. A quick discussion before a game, and a mature attitude are all that you really need to have a good time. Like most hobbies, it's as fun as YOU make it.
True, it really depends on your local meta and who you'll be playing with. You local store might be full of WAAC players, or fluff based lists for days.
Over saturation of Gargantuan Creatures and Super Heavies can be a pain, but for most games around 1850 it's really cool to see one or two on the table.
I personally love the Maelstrom cards, but have heard many people shy away from them due to the randomness it brings. Not playing in a competitive meta I'm not really bothered by how quickly it can shift, I've always found it helps to keep players from stagnating. However you can still play non-maelstrom games, they are still printed in BRB even.
The rules for 40K are basically broken if your going for pure RAW and unmodified rules tend to create for some one sided stomps and army mismatches. Way too easy for WAAC mentality players to exploit the rules. With reasonable restrictions put in place and a patching up of unclear rules then the game is decently good. Still a lot of internal and external codex imbalance plus some fairly broken mechanics like invisibility, rerollable 2+, str D, and stomp but for the most part with a bit of social contracting the game is fun.
Yeah I recently played against the Dark Shroud w/ Dark Angels bike spam. It was... not fun. Re-rollable skilled rider shrouded jink.
To be fair it was a tournament list he wanted to practice and I figured I would see how it goes. I'm not as big a fan of patching up the rules, but rather making sure each opponent has a list that can be an enjoyable fight for both sides.
Well, 40k is not externally balanced. Some xenos armies like Eldar and Necrons can be very powerful. Others like DA or Chaos are rather underwhelming.
There is a thread here asking if 40k is playable. The consensus was - it is not in general. Its still playable in a closed group, but if two unknown players just meet for game, it doesn't work.
Moreover, GW have had a button ''Gaming'' at its homepage. It has been replaced by ''Painting and Modeling''. Says it all.
But if you have fun playing 40k, get back into it.
As long I as continue to avoid the toxic tournament scene and play with a small group of friends the game is fine. It's definitely not my favorite minis game though.
Savageconvoy wrote: There is a lot of positive reviews of 7, but also a lot of people have left since 6th. At least the way I see it.
...
.
That's the way I see it too.
I gave up during 6th because I didn't like the direction of the rules (Maelstrom, Unbound, Super heavies, etc) but largely because of the massive leap in cost of the rulebook and codexes. All this only got worse in 7th.
The fact that GW have lost over 20% of their sales in the last three years shows people have been leaving in droves.
However if you like the current rules and don't mind the prices, I am sure you can have fun.
Myc wrote: So the general state is good, then. That's handy to know.
But damn is it expensive now. It's going to cost me at least £2-300 to get a decent playable army roster again.
How did you get 'the general state of 40k is good' from the comments in the thread? Sure some like it but there are enough comments clearly indicating that the lack of external balance and GW`s doubling down on crazy have driven many 40k players away. So games with a close group of players can work fine but there are serious issues with pick-up games and competitive play.
I've been playing for 19 years and to be honest I find this to be my favourite version. There's a couple things I dislike but it's impossible to be perfect. There's some super broken combos and as mentioned before, some rather outdated codecies, but on the whole it's a great game.
Myc wrote: So the general state is good, then. That's handy to know.
But damn is it expensive now. It's going to cost me at least £2-300 to get a decent playable army roster again.
How did you get 'the general state of 40k is good' from the comments in the thread? Sure some like it but there are enough comments clearly indicating that the lack of external balance and GW`s doubling down on crazy have driven many 40k players away. So games with a close group of players can work fine but there are serious issues with pick-up games and competitive play.
There's like... three negative posts. How did you come to the opposite conclusion?
For a casual game, 40K is okay. It could be better.
I've been recently playing in a very casual Escalation league with 'Nids. While I'm getting my eyes beat out (God, is the Tyranid codex bad), the people I've been playing it with have kept it fun. The model range and armies that can be chosen to be played is the best it's ever been.
I would not, however, touch a serious 40K tournament scene with a 10 foot pole. Not with a game that too easily can be won with an army list before the first miniature hits the board.
Likewise, prices are way too high, Apple levels of pricing.
7th edition is fun. Don't listen to all the naysayers. All you have to do is not go blind into a match and you will have fun. Talk to your opponent, make sure both armies are around the same power level, and have fun. Most of the negative posters are all crying about imbalanced tournament play...This game is not built for it, no point beating your head against the wall trying to make it that way. If you wan't a tournament feel, bring two lists that have equal chance of beating each other.
Myc wrote: It's been a long time since I played 40k. Last time I played it, the Necrons had just had their relaunch in plastic, and the general state of the game was good, but with a few things that needed a fix.
I know that the Psychic phase has been added since. Which I am actually feeling positive about, since it gives a definitive phase for all of those little abilities we would either do in the wrong phase, or forget about.
But I'm interested in knowing the general state of the game overall.
The power creep has exploded off the scale, and the current imbalance between many armies is worse than at any time since the worst parts of 4E and 2E, possibly moreso.
The plus side, for some things, is that there's no problems bringing any model of any type to the table in any game. In some ways this can be cool.People have largely untwisted their panties with respect to Forgeworld stuff now for example. In other ways, it obviously is not a great thing.
What 40k is at this point is a sandbox best left to close gaming groups with lots of self imposed (either implicit or explicit) restrictions and pre-planning. As a casual pickup game or anything competitive, it's a total shitshow.
The tournament scene is basically dead. Some will object but tournament organizers will need to add extra rules for getting the tournament going. GW sells miniatures in the first place and not a game.
The situation is different with PP. The rule set of WMH is pretty tight and it works very well in tournaments via SR. The only downside are their miniatures - hard plastic or metal.
Likewise, prices are way too high, Apple levels of pricing.
Yeah. I'd just been looking at the Necron Battle Force, which is £70/$109, but then I priced each set of units from the set individually and found that it's only £3.75/$5.86 more, so where's the real value? Best you can get with £3.75 is a pot of paint. So I'm thinking it might be better to just buy the separate units with a more tailored view of what I want than the Battle Force.
That said, I have no idea what the better units are these days. Immortals used to be well worth their points back in the day. And I have no idea what a ghost ark or annihilation ark does! lol.
We play HH and/or our own 6.5 version and are quite happy with that - for most of us, 40k now ONLY works with House Rules.
Sad to say but IMO 7th was just bad and the Codexes since it arrived shockingly bad - either underpowered or hugely overpowered, overpriced, lacking in fluff and badly put together..... terrible
Salous wrote: 7th edition is fun. Don't listen to all the naysayers. All you have to do is not go blind into a match and you will have fun. Talk to your opponent, make sure both armies are around the same power level, and have fun. Most of the negative posters are all crying about imbalanced tournament play...This game is not built for it, no point beating your head against the wall trying to make it that way. If you wan't a tournament feel, bring two lists that have equal chance of beating each other.
This however presents several disadvantages:
-You need to own (and bring with you) a large enough model collection so that you can build armies of various power levels.
-You have to accept that a fair amount of the time you will be playing stuff you don't really like in order for the gam to be balanced.
Myc wrote: Yeah. I'd just been looking at the Necron Battle Force, which is £70/$109, but then I priced each set of units from the set individually and found that it's only £3.75/$5.86 more, so where's the real value? Best you can get with £3.75 is a pot of paint. So I'm thinking it might be better to just buy the separate units with a more tailored view of what I want than the Battle Force.
That said, I have no idea what the better units are these days. Immortals used to be well worth their points back in the day. And I have no idea what a ghost ark or annihilation ark does! lol.
Yeah, the GW site is funny, recently most of these "specials" had NO price difference so it is kinda nice to see it is at least a little less.
The only way to know the "better" units is to get the rule book and the Necron codex and after a little research, buy appropriately.
Look at the Decurion detachment and unit selection may start from there.
Bad Point: I may have to be clear that I prefer a more competitive game so I have learned to relax a bit with 40k but I find it largely garbage as a system unless I design a scenario to be balanced for a close game.
Good Point: The models and variety I am quite pleased with, seeing so much Mechanicus has made me happy and the larger models have been quite pretty. I am taking my time with the Imperial Knights, I find them well detailed and look like an excellent canvas to do some creative painting.
Bad Point: Model cost is definitely problematic, when I can get insanely detailed Gundam models molded in color and with metal parts that are bigger for less, GW has no right to say they are the "best" other than for making models for their setting.
Good Point: Allies I had been drawn to since a LONG time ago the Inquisition could conscript IG or SM's into their force.
Bad Point: The present rules however tend to fly in the face of "fluff" and create some truly unholy alliances. It is due to this huge amount of mixing that can be done that the weaknesses of a force can be compensated for with another.
I also have to say that 6th and 7th is the FIRST time from all the prior editions I just could not buy all the codex's.
It is just too much and way too expensive.
It has made it possible that many times people have no idea what exactly they are facing across the table and depend completely on their opponent knowing their rules and being honest.
I always made a point of knowing my opponent's capabilities as well as they do... just not possible now (or just too costly for what it is worth).
The good thing is I have a variety of armies so I know more than most.
Playing this game with friends works out very well, if you want more competition with strangers I would suggest X-wing.
Playing this game with friends works out very well, if you want more competition with strangers I would suggest X-wing.
Agreed with this.
40k is dying, at least from what I've seen. There's been a few people in my area that have quit altogether recently, and I'm not too far behind them. Even my other local store's league, which used to have a variety of people with straight forward lists, has lost a good chunk of people, as the few TFGs that are left just spam whatever's the most powerful, over the course of a few different books.
Salous wrote: 7th edition is fun. Don't listen to all the naysayers. All you have to do is not go blind into a match and you will have fun. Talk to your opponent, make sure both armies are around the same power level, and have fun. Most of the negative posters are all crying about imbalanced tournament play...This game is not built for it, no point beating your head against the wall trying to make it that way. If you wan't a tournament feel, bring two lists that have equal chance of beating each other.
This however presents several disadvantages:
-You need to own (and bring with you) a large enough model collection so that you can build armies of various power levels.
-You have to accept that a fair amount of the time you will be playing stuff you don't really like in order for the gam to be balanced.
I've always found that making a list before the game is efficient and then you don't have to bring every model you own. It's not that hard to get an email or phone number these days and keep in touch with people you enjoy playing with. Shoot them a message, ask how many points and gauge the power of your lists.
If we're going fluffy you build goofy and fun units, if we're going beat-eachothers-face-in-cheese I'll dust of the Dirty Eldar.
I would also agree with those who posted about the tournament scene. It's pretty much drying up, because GW does not support or really want it. No sense forcing a 40K tournament scene (which everyone says is terrible) when there are alternatives ready to go (x-wing / WMH / Infinity).
I rate current 40k with a solid 7/10.
Sure there are some bizarre rules, FAQs need an update and some armies/units are still borderline bonkers but overall its still playable, fun and if you dont take it overly seriously a great way to get some fun and dice in.
Salous wrote: 7th edition is fun. Don't listen to all the naysayers. All you have to do is not go blind into a match and you will have fun. Talk to your opponent, make sure both armies are around the same power level, and have fun. Most of the negative posters are all crying about imbalanced tournament play...This game is not built for it, no point beating your head against the wall trying to make it that way. If you wan't a tournament feel, bring two lists that have equal chance of beating each other.
This however presents several disadvantages:
-You need to own (and bring with you) a large enough model collection so that you can build armies of various power levels.
-You have to accept that a fair amount of the time you will be playing stuff you don't really like in order for the gam to be balanced.
I've always found that making a list before the game is efficient and then you don't have to bring every model you own. It's not that hard to get an email or phone number these days and keep in touch with people you enjoy playing with. Shoot them a message, ask how many points and gauge the power of your lists.
If we're going fluffy you build goofy and fun units, if we're going beat-eachothers-face-in-cheese I'll dust of the Dirty Eldar.
I would also agree with those who posted about the tournament scene. It's pretty much drying up, because GW does not support or really want it. No sense forcing a 40K tournament scene (which everyone says is terrible) when there are alternatives ready to go (x-wing / WMH / Infinity).
This. As a club game, it's best with a large group of friends/acquaintances. I've rarely had any issue when I've emailed/asked "Hey, 2k points?" and even then the only bad experiences I've had came from A) one guy list tailoring (buddy canceled, so I took a chance on a PUG with a guy I've never seen before/since) and B) a guy who explicitly cheats (although he's like 18 and possibly autistic? he acts oddly even in normal conversation). Can't speak from true tournament experience, but the semi-competitive LGS tourneys I've been in have all been fun and have had reasonable restrictions (no LOWs above 400, no Unbound or Forgeworld).
With regards to price I did some number crunching last year to see just how much GW prices had gone up in my time playing (since circa 2000), while taking the general economy into account.
Basically its 25% above inflation for bog-standard boxsets like Tactical Squads. Find a third party who give you a 25% discount and you're getting effectively the old price range. In fact alot of 5-man boxsets like Assault Marines actually work out cheaper.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well you aren't because 10 years ago the discount retailer's 25% was off the then GW list price which was 25% lower than now. (Or whatever.)
Well I think the 'fun' part in 40k depends on your personality and goals; I didn't win a single game since ages and yet I still like to play and have fun. I don't play tournaments, I find most fun in assembling and painting the minis - for me that's the best part. But if you're a competitive person then you may encounter some frustrating things.
As for the prices, most of my minis are second-hand ones or bought from retailers. GW is just crazily priced for me.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well you aren't because 10 years ago the discount retailer's 25% was off the then GW list price which was 25% lower than now. (Or whatever.)
It's indisputable that the street price of GW models has gone up relative to inflation through the years. However, the discounts have also gone up -- in 1990, the stores I went to had a 5-10% discount for regulars, in 2000 it was 10-15%, in 2010 it was 20-25%, and now, I've gotten discounts as high as 33%. Not on junk, either; a lot of it is promotional push on new drops -- I'm getting a Skarbrand at 33%.
Back in 1990, getting a discount of 33% was inconceivable.
The way my shop looks at it is, if Skarbrand cost about $70, and they sell it for around $86, that's still a $16 profit per unit with no risk on their part (because you need to commit to it in advance to get the super price). And while you're there, you might buy all sorts of other stuff, or tools and supplies -- which is at a 25% discount. I've see people go in to pick up a $50 model that is superbly priced, and then walk out with $400 of stuff.
Occasionally, to push sales, they'll even put a couple of units on the shelf *below cost* and advertise it for a launch day or sale event. In their last event, they had 2 copies each of Age of Sigmar and Space Hulk for USD $52 to get people into the door (and a bunch of overstocked and old stuff at 50%). There was a lineup to the end of the block that looked more like an iPhone launch than gaming store sale.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well you aren't because 10 years ago the discount retailer's 25% was off the then GW list price which was 25% lower than now. (Or whatever.)
I remember that you could buy sets twice the size of the Battle Force sets for, like £150/234. Which is much cheaper than now, although I see those sets have disappeared.
Either find a narrative campaign group to join, or a group that practices for tourneys. Those two camps are up and running just fine and have made the (really few) house rules needed to keep things fairly balanced. Let the whiners whine. With basic social skills and a little bit of pre-battle conversation, the game is in a great state of being.
I really love the game at the minute. I don't get to play enough though. more than the game though the world of 40k has grown into an amazing thing. There are a large number of haters out there but try it for yourself and try to ignore the hate squad.
Either find a narrative campaign group to join, or a group that practices for tourneys. Those two camps are up and running just fine and have made the (really few) house rules needed to keep things fairly balanced. Let the whiners whine. With basic social skills and a little bit of pre-battle conversation, the game is in a great state of being.
100% agree. To bad that it seems most of the posters here forgot to learn basic social skills in school... Guess its the price we pay for allowing them to all grow up on video games and the internet.
I don't play the game, only model/paint/collect. Mini's are the absolute best on the market imo, and the level of detail and quality for GW's new plastic models in unmatched. Sure it's a little pricey, but literally any hobby or activity you do is going to cost you.
grumpy_newenglander wrote: I don't play the game, only model/paint/collect. Mini's are the absolute best on the market imo, and the level of detail and quality for GW's new plastic models in unmatched. Sure it's a little pricey, but literally any hobby or activity you do is going to cost you.
GW's plastics are very good, but it's hard to say that GW's mini's are in any way superior to say, Dropzone Commander, Infinity, Heavy Gear, Malifaux, etc
GW's just able to do *big* stuff economically in a way that others cannot.
Either find a narrative campaign group to join, or a group that practices for tourneys. Those two camps are up and running just fine and have made the (really few) house rules needed to keep things fairly balanced. Let the whiners whine. With basic social skills and a little bit of pre-battle conversation, the game is in a great state of being.
100% agree. To bad that it seems most of the posters here forgot to learn basic social skills in school... Guess its the price we pay for allowing them to all grow up on video games and the internet.
Basic social skills? Like insulting posters you disagree with?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dozer Blades wrote: I love 40k straight out of the rulebook - really hate to see people making major rule mods that others have no choice but to accept or not play.
7th is my least favorite edition so far.
The main rule mod I suggest is dropping the how to allocate wounds and simply let the player choose which model takes the hit. Every player I've encountered loves the idea. The other is simply a matter of not playing Maelstrom missions. Again another change that never seems to disappoint anyone.
Not playing is always a better choice than playing a game you won't enjoy.
Been playing for 16 years and this is my favorite version of the game. A lot of people claim that the system is broken or some other such comment - hopefully you take that as the extreme exaggeration that it is. It became quite fashionable to pick on GW and pray for its destruction over the last couple years. Some complaints were valid, but the majority have just been...well, an internet fad. Take, for instance, people complaining that GW releases codices that make certain units less viable and others greatly more so. They have been doing that from the start, haha. Does it help sales - heck yeah - but it also makes the game dynamic, interesting, promotes new unit combinations, etc. The death of Warhammer Fantasy in large part occurred because units rarely changed and few were added over the span of years. Apocalyptic minded people claim the sky is falling and 40k is dying, but GW's drop in sales can in large part be attributed to the fact that 40k is dependent on people having disposable income and a lot fewer people have that these days.
Anyways, the game has changed quite a bit over the last few editions with the introduction of flyers, fortifications, and super heavy vehicles/gargantuan creatures in normal games. IMO this has just added to complexity of the game, which, for me, means that it is more interesting than ever. The game is expensive to get into. On the plus side, the game has been around for such a long time that it is quite easy to buy unpainted models 2nd hand at an affordable cost.
I wish there was a company that made super heavy vehicle Titan Models cheap that can be played in WH40k. Forge World makes amazing Big models but you pay greatly for it.
Dozer Blades wrote: I love 40k straight out of the rulebook - really hate to see people making major rule mods that others have no choice but to accept or not play.
It unfortunately usually results in very unfun games for many otherwise however, and GW will be the first ones to tell you to house-rule the game.
Filch wrote: I wish there was a company that made super heavy vehicle Titan Models cheap that can be played in WH40k. Forge World makes amazing Big models but you pay greatly for it.
China has been known to make Titan models on the cheap
On the one hand, it wants to be this light, fluffy game in which we bring fluff-thematic formations of things that look good together. You know, casual play in which we whip out our big shiny stuff to amaze and impress one another with.
On the other hand, everything (units, formations, Maelstrom) is overloaded with a boatload of special rules that cross reference all over the Codex and rulebook, to the point that it requires GW official play aids to use. Nebbish, book-lawyerly stuff that flat out detracts from the fun of pushing toys around and making "pew, pew" noises.
GW tailoring rules to competitive types, is completely counter to the "just bring it!" joy for casuals it encourages at the sales counter.
GW has more huge models than ever before, and that's actually a very good thing, because it's easier to play 1,000 points of Knights than it is to wrangle 1,000 points of Guard, to say nothing of 1,000 points of footy Orky Boyz.
The main rule mod I suggest is dropping the how to allocate wounds and simply let the player choose which model takes the hit. Every player I've encountered loves the idea. The other is simply a matter of not playing Maelstrom missions. Again another change that never seems to disappoint anyone.
Not playing is always a better choice than playing a game you won't enjoy.
Thinking about it, I think I have to agree with hating 7E most of all, simply because it added Maelstrom, which is a major fething PITA, while still keeping 6E's Challenges and "Closest First" bullgak. Having played multiple Maelstrom missions, I do not enjoy the random for random's sake. As for wounds, I still allocate wounds a la 4E "owner chooses", and flat out refuse to play 6E/7E closest first.
I would rate mainstream 40k a 3/10. It's below average for a wargame due it's poorly written rules, terrible balance and bloated mechanics. It really need to be streamlined and refined.
Horus Heresy 40k I would rate a 7/10. It does away with a lot of the balance issues mainstream 40k has and it avoids a lot of the stupidity of 7th ed in general because it is more restricted in what you can take and how you can take it.
GW has more huge models than ever before, and that's actually a very good thing, because it's easier to play 1,000 points of Knights than it is to wrangle 1,000 points of Guard, to say nothing of 1,000 points of footy Orky Boyz.
At that point however, you're playing an entirely different scale of game than what most of the mini's are really portraying.
You're playing an army that's got fewer models than most skirmish games, and when the disparity gets that big, the purpose of having those smaller units is somewhat defeated, especially having the rules concerned with each individual model instead of the unit as a whole. Having the rules actually bother to discern whether a Sergeant is armed with sword or an axe when it can't hurt anything in the opposing army anyway, makes them far more granular than they need to be, and in fact, you could probably just treat the entire squad a single model at that point instead of bothering with "well, is this individual worthless 5pt guardsmen, who happens to be tied with another for who's closest to the Knight, actually in cover or not?".
The balance is all over the place with some codecies, there are a few too many special rules in my opinion, but it's still a really fun game with great fluff.
Dozer Blades wrote:I love 40k straight out of the rulebook - really hate to see people making major rule mods that others have no choice but to accept or not play.
If you've actually read the rulebook, you should know that the rules as written flat-out don't work. Fortunately GW has given us permission to Forge The Narrative i.e. fudge the rules. For gameplay purposes clarification is needed, which is why Tournament FAQs exist.
Also, I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a game of 40k that has been played where every rule was followed exactly to the letter. I know I haven't.
JohnHwangDD wrote:As I see it, 40k is self-conflicted.
On the one hand, it wants to be this light, fluffy game in which we bring fluff-thematic formations of things that look good together. You know, casual play in which we whip out our big shiny stuff to amaze and impress one another with.
On the other hand, everything (units, formations, Maelstrom) is overloaded with a boatload of special rules that cross reference all over the Codex and rulebook, to the point that it requires GW official play aids to use. Nebbish, book-lawyerly stuff that flat out detracts from the fun of pushing toys around and making "pew, pew" noises.
GW tailoring rules to competitive types, is completely counter to the "just bring it!" joy for casuals it encourages at the sales counter.
GW has more huge models than ever before, and that's actually a very good thing, because it's easier to play 1,000 points of Knights than it is to wrangle 1,000 points of Guard, to say nothing of 1,000 points of footy Orky Boyz.
The main rule mod I suggest is dropping the how to allocate wounds and simply let the player choose which model takes the hit. Every player I've encountered loves the idea. The other is simply a matter of not playing Maelstrom missions. Again another change that never seems to disappoint anyone.
Not playing is always a better choice than playing a game you won't enjoy.
Thinking about it, I think I have to agree with hating 7E most of all, simply because it added Maelstrom, which is a major fething PITA, while still keeping 6E's Challenges and "Closest First" bullgak. Having played multiple Maelstrom missions, I do not enjoy the random for random's sake. As for wounds, I still allocate wounds a la 4E "owner chooses", and flat out refuse to play 6E/7E closest first.
I think GW has been pretty clear what kind of game Warhammer 40,000 is: a giant sandbox that's what the players themselves make of it and choose to use, like an RPG sourcebook. They don't directly support the rules or balance the game in a top-down manner because they assume that the players themselves are responsible for that. I can choose to play casual or narrative-focused games, and you can choose to play at tournaments. Just don't go thinking that your choice is any more or less legitimate than mine.
I actually like Maelstrom. I find it balances out a lot of the otherwise suffering armies by giving them another factor that will aid them: the luck of the draw. Sure, the execution isn't great, and you have to agree to house rules just to make it playable, but there's a reason most tournaments have added some sort of modified version of Maelstrom. It puts a renewed emphasis on mobility instead of the static gunlines that Eternal War missions degenerate into for some armies. And if you don't like Maelstrom, you can still play the standard missions.
Challenges in 7th are a lot better than they were in 6th. It isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for characters now that wounds spill into them, and CC characters aren't wasted now that wounds spill out of them.
"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition, and it seems like it's open to too much abuse. You could have a giant squad and allocate wounds from shooting onto the models in back, meaning that you'd have to be 100 percent dead or 100 percent stupid not to end up in CC. It's even more abusable with multiwound models. You think Decurion Wraiths are bad now? Imagine if you had to deal five wounds to a five-strong unit before the Necron player even started removing models. "Closest First" does slow the game down, and gets tricky when multiple different saves come into play, but only the most colossal rules lawyer would literally make you take one saving throw at a time.
Ugh I can't stand Maelstrom. I've never found it to be any good balancing mechanism, and the armies that usually are on top can take best advantage of it (particularly Eldar, Necrons, and SM's with bikes/jetbikes and podding). It's also just a ton of extra rolling and record keeping, and actively detracts from any narrative sense with constantly shifting arbitrary demands that are typically disconnected from the tactical realities of the table.
JohnHwangDD wrote:As I see it, 40k is self-conflicted.
On the one hand, it wants to be this light, fluffy game in which we bring fluff-thematic formations of things that look good together. You know, casual play in which we whip out our big shiny stuff to amaze and impress one another with.
On the other hand, everything (units, formations, Maelstrom) is overloaded with a boatload of special rules that cross reference all over the Codex and rulebook, to the point that it requires GW official play aids to use. Nebbish, book-lawyerly stuff that flat out detracts from the fun of pushing toys around and making "pew, pew" noises.
GW tailoring rules to competitive types, is completely counter to the "just bring it!" joy for casuals it encourages at the sales counter.
GW has more huge models than ever before, and that's actually a very good thing, because it's easier to play 1,000 points of Knights than it is to wrangle 1,000 points of Guard, to say nothing of 1,000 points of footy Orky Boyz.
The main rule mod I suggest is dropping the how to allocate wounds and simply let the player choose which model takes the hit. Every player I've encountered loves the idea. The other is simply a matter of not playing Maelstrom missions. Again another change that never seems to disappoint anyone.
Not playing is always a better choice than playing a game you won't enjoy.
Thinking about it, I think I have to agree with hating 7E most of all, simply because it added Maelstrom, which is a major fething PITA, while still keeping 6E's Challenges and "Closest First" bullgak. Having played multiple Maelstrom missions, I do not enjoy the random for random's sake. As for wounds, I still allocate wounds a la 4E "owner chooses", and flat out refuse to play 6E/7E closest first.
I think GW has been pretty clear what kind of game Warhammer 40,000 is: a giant sandbox that's what the players themselves make of it and choose to use, like an RPG sourcebook.
I actually like Maelstrom. And if you don't like Maelstrom, you can still play the standard missions.
Challenges in 7th are a lot better than they were in 6th. It isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for characters now that wounds spill into them, and CC characters aren't wasted now that wounds spill out of them.
"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition,
As a sandbox, 40k 7E is an abject failure, simply because the sheer number of special rules and such actually limits what the player can do. The presence of detail detracts from creativity, whereas a blank canvas leaves room for creation. It's not at all like a RPG sourcebook, because RPGs are all about developing your character, and 40k has relatively little options in its current form. If you were to go back to 4E(?), Guard had a variety of Doctrines to choose from so you could theme the army more directly in the rules itself, as opposed to merely model and weapon selection.
I'm glad that you like Maelstrom. For me, it's an excess of recordskeeping, and anti-narrative in the sense that High Command has no fething clue what they want the army to do. Go Left! No, kill those guys. No, go Right! No, go Left again. It's pure nonsense.
Challenges still slow the game down for no obvious reason.
Owner chooses is an excellent method. It's cinematic, in that Heroic and special models survive to the very end. It's also tactical, in that owner can choose to increase or maintain distance to the opponent. Finally, it treats the unit as a unit. And multi-wound is trivially solved simply by requiring the owner to remove the maximum number of models possible, resulting with no more than one partially-wounded model in any unit.
"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition, and it seems like it's open to too much abuse. You could have a giant squad and allocate wounds from shooting onto the models in back, meaning that you'd have to be 100 percent dead or 100 percent stupid not to end up in CC. It's even more abusable with multiwound models. You think Decurion Wraiths are bad now? Imagine if you had to deal five wounds to a five-strong unit before the Necron player even started removing models. "Closest First" does slow the game down, and gets tricky when multiple different saves come into play, but only the most colossal rules lawyer would literally make you take one saving throw at a time.
So go one more edition back. It had things like torrent of fire. In which case if your attacking unit did more wounds than the target unit you got to allocate specific models to make saves. Many a heavy weapon trooper was lost this way. Other Units (snipers mostly) could force a specific model to take a save when 6s to hit were rolled. It was also possible to snipe specific models out due to blocking LOS. By putting a LOS blocking vehicle in front of a unit you could reduce the number of models that could be removed as a casualty. Thus sniping out the heavy weapon or sarg. Some people saw this a cheesy, but what it was in fact was skill and tactics. It actually made vehicle positioning matter. It made unit placement important. Another one of those skils that is just missing from todays game.
Also in 4th with multi wound models in units you had to remove entire models when possible. There was not the spreading around of wounds which is what made TWC and Nob Bikers stupidly powerful in 5th edition. So as soon as you put one wound onto a multi wound model, you had to continue putting wounds onto that model until it died, then moved on to the next one.
I really do think that 4th edition core rules was the most tactical game where the player decisions mattered the most. Pretty much just rip out the vehicle entanglement rules and it was a great mini war game. Now like always not all codexs were created equal, but that wasn't a problem with the core rules. Just Matt Ward.
I did like 4E's wound allocation best. I was never bothered by the heavy weapon guy being the last one in the squad (the weapon can always be picked up by someone else). 4E had some solid mechanics that were unnecessarily messed with.
Other aspects of 4E however...I did not like so much.
i think that this is the last hoorah for 40k and next edition we will be lucky to have army rules at all, codecies will simply stop being printed and new model waes will have in box rules. in addition after that at some point 40k will stop having rules period and be a model range with a set of storybooks cause thats where GW wants to take their entire company one day
ionusx wrote: i think that this is the last hoorah for 40k and next edition we will be lucky to have army rules at all, codecies will simply stop being printed and new model waes will have in box rules. in addition after that at some point 40k will stop having rules period and be a model range with a set of storybooks cause thats where GW wants to take their entire company one day
WHFB introduced random charges and random terrain.
GW added those into 40k.
40k introduced unbound.
GW slipped unbound into WHFB end times.
Age of Sigmar hit, taking that to an extreme.
I'd be surprised if the next edition of 40k doesn't follow the same trend of adding more random and removing more restrictions. It might even get Age of Sigmar'd.
I'd be surprised if the next edition of 40k doesn't follow the same trend of adding more random and removing more restrictions. It might even get Age of Sigmar'd.
And bruva alfabusa's TTS series will become canon.
Grumblewartz wrote: Been playing for 16 years and this is my favorite version of the game. A lot of people claim that the system is broken or some other such comment - hopefully you take that as the extreme exaggeration that it is. It became quite fashionable to pick on GW and pray for its destruction over the last couple years.
I wouldn't call it fashionable. Here in this thread you see a lot of people saying the game is fine with house rules, and some saying it doesn't work. There isn't a majority trend unless you count passive aggressive snipes at others. That is pretty fashionable
Grumblewartz wrote: ome complaints were valid, but the majority have just been...well, an internet fad. Take, for instance, people complaining that GW releases codices that make certain units less viable and others greatly more so. They have been doing that from the start, haha.
The complaints have not been that certain units are becoming less viable, its become that certain factions are completely unplayable. The factions on either end of the spectrum have a very hard time playing against each other without list tailoring both lists, which is something long time 40k players are loathe to do. List tailoring is still a dirty word to most.
Does it help sales - heck yeah - but it also makes the game dynamic, interesting, promotes new unit combinations, etc.
Sales are down, and the largest complaints you see are about these new dynamic combinations that produce rerollable 2+ cover saves. Compared to earlier editions, where the best deathstar was the seer star (rerollable 4++ save, T4, weak attacks without mind war), death stars have become incredibly strong and are often the best thing on the table outside of GMCs. But they aren't fun to play against.
The death of Warhammer Fantasy in large part occurred because units rarely changed and few were added over the span of years. Apocalyptic minded people claim the sky is falling and 40k is dying, but GW's drop in sales can in large part be attributed to the fact that 40k is dependent on people having disposable income and a lot fewer people have that these days.
I don't think you played Warhammer Fantasy.
Warhammer fantasy died because Demons couldn't be beaten by any army. They flat out broke the games back, and it lasted an entire edition. Nothing could take on a demon army.
Later on, demons got toned done but magic got brought way up. The strongest thing in the game became taking a single mage on a flyer, having him move up, and cast Purple Sun or another overpowered spell across the entire enemy army. Elves and VC become insanely strong since they could do this for very cheap. Ogres (who got a ton of new units, including a new cavarly piece, 2 new siege pieces, among others) couldn't fight any army that could do this, since on a 3+ you just removed the model from play and could do it to my entire army. Certain armies were guaranteed to start with those spells due to special items or rules too, so it really was impossible to stop.
Removing guessing ranges from siege weapons made monsters much worse, since Empire just auto-killed anything big (lame). Random charge distances made knights a lot worse, and units becoming more killy made generating CR through breaking ranks nearly pointless. The power increase in the game made tactics less valuable than just spamming one really good spell.
So yeah, a lot of what we are seeing in 40k currently.
Also, while TT games are overall doing better than they have been, 40k is dropping. It is unique in this regard among its peers.
Anyways, the game has changed quite a bit over the last few editions with the introduction of flyers, fortifications, and super heavy vehicles/gargantuan creatures in normal games. IMO this has just added to complexity of the game, which, for me, means that it is more interesting than ever. The game is expensive to get into. On the plus side, the game has been around for such a long time that it is quite easy to buy unpainted models 2nd hand at an affordable cost.
You can get the old stuff that is often not great for cheap, but the newer better models like GMCs are not easy to find.
40k was already needlessly complex and expensive to get into. Now just the rule book and formations can easily run you 200, especially if you play with allies (and according to some posters here, you better be!). In other games, 200 dollars will buy me an entire army if they have a deal going (the all in one battle box for WMH, for example, is 100 for a 35 point list that is usually pretty competitive).
Many of the complaints about 40k, and fantasy, are valid. The setting and models are still excellent, which is why I push new players to proxy games and try out Necromunda instead. That game is, at most, 50 to get into and is a blast to play. You still get to detail about 15 models as well.
Grumblewartz wrote: Been playing for 16 years and this is my favorite version of the game. A lot of people claim that the system is broken or some other such comment - hopefully you take that as the extreme exaggeration that it is. It became quite fashionable to pick on GW and pray for its destruction over the last couple years.
I wouldn't call it fashionable. Here in this thread you see a lot of people saying the game is fine with house rules, and some saying it doesn't work. There isn't a majority trend unless you count passive aggressive snipes at others. That is pretty fashionable
Grumblewartz wrote: ome complaints were valid, but the majority have just been...well, an internet fad. Take, for instance, people complaining that GW releases codices that make certain units less viable and others greatly more so. They have been doing that from the start, haha.
The complaints have not been that certain units are becoming less viable, its become that certain factions are completely unplayable. The factions on either end of the spectrum have a very hard time playing against each other without list tailoring both lists, which is something long time 40k players are loathe to do. List tailoring is still a dirty word to most.
Does it help sales - heck yeah - but it also makes the game dynamic, interesting, promotes new unit combinations, etc.
Sales are down, and the largest complaints you see are about these new dynamic combinations that produce rerollable 2+ cover saves. Compared to earlier editions, where the best deathstar was the seer star (rerollable 4++ save, T4, weak attacks without mind war), death stars have become incredibly strong and are often the best thing on the table outside of GMCs. But they aren't fun to play against.
The death of Warhammer Fantasy in large part occurred because units rarely changed and few were added over the span of years. Apocalyptic minded people claim the sky is falling and 40k is dying, but GW's drop in sales can in large part be attributed to the fact that 40k is dependent on people having disposable income and a lot fewer people have that these days.
I don't think you played Warhammer Fantasy.
Warhammer fantasy died because Demons couldn't be beaten by any army. They flat out broke the games back, and it lasted an entire edition. Nothing could take on a demon army.
Later on, demons got toned done but magic got brought way up. The strongest thing in the game became taking a single mage on a flyer, having him move up, and cast Purple Sun or another overpowered spell across the entire enemy army. Elves and VC become insanely strong since they could do this for very cheap. Ogres (who got a ton of new units, including a new cavarly piece, 2 new siege pieces, among others) couldn't fight any army that could do this, since on a 3+ you just removed the model from play and could do it to my entire army. Certain armies were guaranteed to start with those spells due to special items or rules too, so it really was impossible to stop.
Removing guessing ranges from siege weapons made monsters much worse, since Empire just auto-killed anything big (lame). Random charge distances made knights a lot worse, and units becoming more killy made generating CR through breaking ranks nearly pointless. The power increase in the game made tactics less valuable than just spamming one really good spell.
So yeah, a lot of what we are seeing in 40k currently.
Also, while TT games are overall doing better than they have been, 40k is dropping. It is unique in this regard among its peers.
Anyways, the game has changed quite a bit over the last few editions with the introduction of flyers, fortifications, and super heavy vehicles/gargantuan creatures in normal games. IMO this has just added to complexity of the game, which, for me, means that it is more interesting than ever. The game is expensive to get into. On the plus side, the game has been around for such a long time that it is quite easy to buy unpainted models 2nd hand at an affordable cost.
You can get the old stuff that is often not great for cheap, but the newer better models like GMCs are not easy to find.
40k was already needlessly complex and expensive to get into. Now just the rule book and formations can easily run you 200, especially if you play with allies (and according to some posters here, you better be!). In other games, 200 dollars will buy me an entire army if they have a deal going (the all in one battle box for WMH, for example, is 100 for a 35 point list that is usually pretty competitive).
Many of the complaints about 40k, and fantasy, are valid. The setting and models are still excellent, which is why I push new players to proxy games and try out Necromunda instead. That game is, at most, 50 to get into and is a blast to play. You still get to detail about 15 models as well.
Proving my point, aren't you?
1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.
3. Yes, there are a couple overpowered builds...let's ignore the fact that bike armies are a thing again, flyers have completely changed the dynamic of the game, etc. Please, setup another straw man won't you?
4. I never played fantasy huh? I got into fantasy when you could still buy the product catalogs containing all new pewter models, boxed sets, etc. I started Lizardmen when the army was first released and still have an insane number of single cast skink archers and the saurus warrios with no-glue peg-and-hole right arms. I also have battlefleet gothic chaos fleet, a Lizardmen warmaster army, and Gorka Morka units and books...but, no, because my opinion differs from you I must have never played fantasy. Please, do educate me on why it is that every person got out of the game...after all, our points about why fantasy declined in popularity must be mutually exclusive, right? Go on again about how random charges have ruined the game though, that must be it. Or was it that that one army couldn't be beaten? Like Chaos Warriors in 4th edition when a five man unit could just run through unit after unit because they had such high initiative and could kill your front line before anyone could attack back. It isn't as if there aren't a whole series of other armies to play against...
5. Are you really saying that you cannot find used models online for well below new models? This is just getting ludicrous now.
Is 7th edition 40k broke and unplayable? No. Absolutely no. Did they introduce changes that had a serious impact on tournament play. Yes. Absolutely yes. Are there two universally known types of players and gaming communities - casual and competitive? Surprise answer, yes. Does the decline of the latter herald an end times of 40k? Unbelievably and this may indeed shock you, but no. A lot of us who have played the game for 15+ years are actually getting back into the game because of the new diversity of army builds, the increased number of codices, the ability to more easily customize an army using allies. Is that a large enough number to replace those who rage quit the game because they bought an all-flyer Necron army when no one had anti-air and are suddenly shocked, SHOCKED, that they can't just annihilate their foes with impunity anymore? Who knows. But what is known is that every edition has been accompanied by rage quitters, old timers dropping out because they can't keep up with the changes, etc. It is the nature of the gaming community and it has quite literally always been that way. I still remember players lamenting the end of the Squats when I first started playing and them claiming that the game had lost its soul, it is going to fail, blah blah blah.
Also, for all you people complaining about Maelstrom, what in the literal are you whining about? All the old missions are still there in the book...no one is forcing you to play Maelstrom...what am I missing here?
I would love 40k to get the AoS treatment, with fewer, more characterful Special Rules, everything on one page. Then fill the rest of the books on background, stories and artwork. Win!
Grumblewartz wrote: Been playing for 16 years and this is my favorite version of the game. A lot of people claim that the system is broken or some other such comment - hopefully you take that as the extreme exaggeration that it is. It became quite fashionable to pick on GW and pray for its destruction over the last couple years.
I wouldn't call it fashionable. Here in this thread you see a lot of people saying the game is fine with house rules, and some saying it doesn't work. There isn't a majority trend unless you count passive aggressive snipes at others. That is pretty fashionable
Grumblewartz wrote: ome complaints were valid, but the majority have just been...well, an internet fad. Take, for instance, people complaining that GW releases codices that make certain units less viable and others greatly more so. They have been doing that from the start, haha.
The complaints have not been that certain units are becoming less viable, its become that certain factions are completely unplayable. The factions on either end of the spectrum have a very hard time playing against each other without list tailoring both lists, which is something long time 40k players are loathe to do. List tailoring is still a dirty word to most.
Does it help sales - heck yeah - but it also makes the game dynamic, interesting, promotes new unit combinations, etc.
Sales are down, and the largest complaints you see are about these new dynamic combinations that produce rerollable 2+ cover saves. Compared to earlier editions, where the best deathstar was the seer star (rerollable 4++ save, T4, weak attacks without mind war), death stars have become incredibly strong and are often the best thing on the table outside of GMCs. But they aren't fun to play against.
The death of Warhammer Fantasy in large part occurred because units rarely changed and few were added over the span of years. Apocalyptic minded people claim the sky is falling and 40k is dying, but GW's drop in sales can in large part be attributed to the fact that 40k is dependent on people having disposable income and a lot fewer people have that these days.
I don't think you played Warhammer Fantasy.
Warhammer fantasy died because Demons couldn't be beaten by any army. They flat out broke the games back, and it lasted an entire edition. Nothing could take on a demon army.
Later on, demons got toned done but magic got brought way up. The strongest thing in the game became taking a single mage on a flyer, having him move up, and cast Purple Sun or another overpowered spell across the entire enemy army. Elves and VC become insanely strong since they could do this for very cheap. Ogres (who got a ton of new units, including a new cavarly piece, 2 new siege pieces, among others) couldn't fight any army that could do this, since on a 3+ you just removed the model from play and could do it to my entire army. Certain armies were guaranteed to start with those spells due to special items or rules too, so it really was impossible to stop.
Removing guessing ranges from siege weapons made monsters much worse, since Empire just auto-killed anything big (lame). Random charge distances made knights a lot worse, and units becoming more killy made generating CR through breaking ranks nearly pointless. The power increase in the game made tactics less valuable than just spamming one really good spell.
So yeah, a lot of what we are seeing in 40k currently.
Also, while TT games are overall doing better than they have been, 40k is dropping. It is unique in this regard among its peers.
Anyways, the game has changed quite a bit over the last few editions with the introduction of flyers, fortifications, and super heavy vehicles/gargantuan creatures in normal games. IMO this has just added to complexity of the game, which, for me, means that it is more interesting than ever. The game is expensive to get into. On the plus side, the game has been around for such a long time that it is quite easy to buy unpainted models 2nd hand at an affordable cost.
You can get the old stuff that is often not great for cheap, but the newer better models like GMCs are not easy to find.
40k was already needlessly complex and expensive to get into. Now just the rule book and formations can easily run you 200, especially if you play with allies (and according to some posters here, you better be!). In other games, 200 dollars will buy me an entire army if they have a deal going (the all in one battle box for WMH, for example, is 100 for a 35 point list that is usually pretty competitive).
Many of the complaints about 40k, and fantasy, are valid. The setting and models are still excellent, which is why I push new players to proxy games and try out Necromunda instead. That game is, at most, 50 to get into and is a blast to play. You still get to detail about 15 models as well.
1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.
No faction was invincible in the earlier editions. Many factions were strong, and there was a disparity in power sure. But dexes could play against each other in standard formats and expect a chance at winning. Nowadays that is not the case. A decurion force will pretty much auto win against anything chaos marines care to try.
My point is the disparity in power between factions, not builds, is higher than ever in 40k.
When gk could do this against demons it caused an uproar because until then, no faction just upped and auto failed against a faction. Some factions, many in fact, were regulated to mono builds that varied in power. But no faction was flat out unable to play, as is the case now.
3. Yes, there are a couple overpowered builds...let's ignore the fact that bike armies are a thing again, flyers have completely changed the dynamic of the game, etc. Please, setup another straw man won't you?
It's no strawman. Overpowered units now and back in earlier editions are not comparable. This creates a large power difference than has ever existed before.
Frankly, I can't see how you think this is a strawman, but your response in 2 is not.
4. I never played fantasy huh? I got into fantasy when you could still buy the product catalogs containing all new pewter models, boxed sets, etc. I started Lizardmen when the army was first released and still have an insane number of single cast skink archers and the saurus warrios with no-glue peg-and-hole right arms. I also have battlefleet gothic chaos fleet, a Lizardmen warmaster army, and Gorka Morka units and books...but, no, because my opinion differs from you I must have never played fantasy. Please, do educate me on why it is that every person got out of the game...after all, our points about why fantasy declined in popularity must be mutually exclusive, right? Go on again about how random charges have ruined the game though, that must be it. Or was it that that one army couldn't be beaten? Like Chaos Warriors in 4th edition when a five man unit could just run through unit after unit because they had such high initiative and could kill your front line before anyone could attack back. It isn't as if there aren't a whole series of other armies to play against...
Chaos warrior in 4th had too little attacks to wipe an entire front line reliably. Even if they did, which is rare but can happen, you could smash the flanks with a large unit and have enough static cr to most likely win the combat. With a small cavalry flanking force you'll probably run them down, and invest similar points in both units as one unit of chaos warriors. Chaos warriors were not invincible in this edition, not like demons later on, if you are comparing the two, then you never experienced demons. I don't think chaos warriors are even as strong as Vc or elves were in later editions, but they didn't dominate as much as demons did, so it's hard to argue that point,
Well since you asked for education...I mainly play ogres, though i own 3 other fantasy armies. Ogres recently got new models (quite a few, which runs counter to your point). Lizzie's got a few new models as well, some of them quite good, which again goes against what you said.
Random charge distances, power creep, and magic suicide heroes becoming broken ruined the game. New models have nothing to do it, since many armies got new models.
So our points aren't mutually exclusive, yours is just wrong.
Is 7th edition 40k broke and unplayable? No. Absolutely no. Did they introduce changes that had a serious impact on tournament play. Yes. Absolutely yes. Are there two universally known types of players and gaming communities - casual and competitive? Surprise answer, yes. Does the decline of the latter herald an end times of 40k? Unbelievably and this may indeed shock you, but no. A lot of us who have played the game for 15+ years are actually getting back into the game because of the new diversity of army builds, the increased number of codices, the ability to more easily customize an army using allies. Is that a large enough number to replace those who rage quit the game because they bought an all-flyer Necron army when no one had anti-air and are suddenly shocked, SHOCKED, that they can't just annihilate their foes with impunity anymore? Who knows. But what is known is that every edition has been accompanied by rage quitters, old timers dropping out because they can't keep up with the changes, etc. It is the nature of the gaming community and it has quite literally always been that way. I still remember players lamenting the end of the Squats when I first started playing and them claiming that the game had lost its soul, it is going to fail, blah blah blah.
Also, for all you people complaining about Maelstrom, what in the literal are you whining about? All the old missions are still there in the book...no one is forcing you to play Maelstrom...what am I missing here?
I've played the game for over 20 years, most of my local community has. We've mostly moved on, I play about once a month now. That's down from twice a week, which is what I played in 5th. Your anecdotal evidence not withstanding, sales are down.
Does the game still have that weird problem where they want you to treat each individual member of a squad like an individual as if it were a skirmish game but then you fight with a massive number of models that clearly makes it a mass battle game?
I enjoy 40k but I wish there weren't super formations that gave free wargear or whatever. Those are kinda game-breaking and leave a bad taste in everyone's mouths regarding formations, which is a shame since some are really characterful without being overpowered, and some shore up some serious deficiencies in their armies.
So long as you're playing with likeminded people, it's a good time. The background and aesthetics are second to none for me, and the fun games I have far outweigh the bad ones.
Not as much as before. 40k 7E should be sized at 1500 pts, of which roughly 400 goes into a Knight Titan of some sort. So it's really a 1,000 pt game with a Knight tacked on. That keeps the numbers down, so it's OK as a skirmish.
1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.
No faction was invincible in the earlier editions. Many factions were strong, and there was a disparity in power sure. But dexes could play against each other in standard formats and expect a chance at winning. Nowadays that is not the case. A decurion force will pretty much auto win against anything chaos marines care to try.
My point is the disparity in power between factions, not builds, is higher than ever in 40k.
When gk could do this against demons it caused an uproar because until then, no faction just upped and auto failed against a faction. Some factions, many in fact, were regulated to mono builds that varied in power. But no faction was flat out unable to play, as is the case now.
There are no unplayable factions in 40k. Chaos, Guard, orks... they can all be played, and they can all win. Hell, I have played CSM numerous times with my Necrons, and guess what? CSM have won most of them.
I can't picture them winning tbh. The necrons have too much of an advantage in speed, cc power, toughness and fire power to overcome.
Do you have a list? I've tried using plague marines, cultists with only good models being used, and emperors children to no avail. I can play against necrons with my wolves and ultra marines and do okay.
I don't think guard are unplayable. Orks are borderline. De are in a very bad place however.
Akiasura wrote: Was it against the decurion? Using only CSM?
I can't picture them winning tbh. The necrons have too much of an advantage in speed, cc power, toughness and fire power to overcome.
Do you have a list? I've tried using plague marines, cultists with only good models being used, and emperors children to no avail. I can play against necrons with my wolves and ultra marines and do okay.
I don't think guard are unplayable. Orks are borderline. De are in a very bad place however.
Unfortunately, it really all depends on how strong your opponent's list is.
In regards to CSM, Khorne Daemonkin lists can do pretty well against Necrons using the Gorepack formation and other units.
Akiasura wrote: Was it against the decurion? Using only CSM?
I can't picture them winning tbh. The necrons have too much of an advantage in speed, cc power, toughness and fire power to overcome.
Do you have a list? I've tried using plague marines, cultists with only good models being used, and emperors children to no avail. I can play against necrons with my wolves and ultra marines and do okay.
I don't think guard are unplayable. Orks are borderline. De are in a very bad place however.
Don't remember everything he had, but he had basic CSMtac squad, termies, dreadnaughts, and rhinos equivalents, heldrake along with a flying demon prince an a few other stuff that I don't remember. Biggest thing that stood out to me was how in 2 games on turn one he was able to take out my Ghost arks with his Dreadnaughts. The Demon prince was a good tarpit and owned alot of my stuff in psychic phase, and the heldrake was really good as well. In a few of those games I used Decurion.
Salous, I'm not doubting your games but that is a very odd list to beat well...anyone. Helbrutes are really awful...I can't imagine how he destroyed multiple ghost arks turn 1 with any amount.
A prince owning with powers is very expensive and if not nurgle or tzneetch very easy to kill. I don't know of any good offensive powers we get....I usually take biomancy with mine. What power set did he use?
Maybe we play in different metas. I use plague marines with prince and lord on bike with brand as my strongest list. 2 drakes and either termies or mauler fiends/ forge fiends depending on how many tanks I take. I try to eliminate how str 4 and under shooting performs, and weaken str 6 shooting, but against stronger lists it doesn't seem to matter.
I've run an emperors children list with 6 blastmasters and a ton of termies and drakes, but it performs worse against most lists.
I haven't looked at that formation, but isn't the best thing about it the demons?
Salous wrote: There are no unplayable factions in 40k. Chaos, Guard, orks... they can all be played, and they can all win. Hell, I have played CSM numerous times with my Necrons, and guess what? CSM have won most of them.
Nice anti-humblebrag there.
Normally, we'd expect the reverse. However, if you're up against a very strong player who really knows his list, and you're not rolling well, then, yeah, even Decurion will lose to ordinary CSM.
"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition, and it seems like it's open to too much abuse. You could have a giant squad and allocate wounds from shooting onto the models in back, meaning that you'd have to be 100 percent dead or 100 percent stupid not to end up in CC. It's even more abusable with multiwound models. You think Decurion Wraiths are bad now? Imagine if you had to deal five wounds to a five-strong unit before the Necron player even started removing models. "Closest First" does slow the game down, and gets tricky when multiple different saves come into play, but only the most colossal rules lawyer would literally make you take one saving throw at a time.
It overall saves time and arguments. Multi-wound models are easy; remove whole models. It also allows for your characters to lead from the front. Unless you find it more cinematic for your Marine Captain to be hiding in the back? The current wound allocation are a complete time wasting gak show.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I would love 40k to get the AoS treatment, with fewer, more characterful Special Rules, everything on one page. Then fill the rest of the books on background, stories and artwork. Win!
I'm not looking forward to it. GW will probably make me jump across the table to bite my opponent on the neck to get a charge bonus for my Death Company.
Of course there is very little chance I'll be playing 8th edition anyway if GW remains on its current course.
Between Psychic, Unbound, LOW, allies, formations and FW, 7th is the "Do whattevah" edition.
Yet oddly it works as even the most neglected armies (sisters, CSM) have a plethora of options to patch holes in their books.
Caveat being there is no balance and you usually need 2-5 sources to write a cool list so if;
*You play in a GW store and aren't cartoon tophat rich
*Have a venue full of TFG and tournament mentality
*You can't get past being a one book, one army purist
...you will have a terrible time.
For playing scratchbuilt armies with xeroxed rules (loosely followed) in your friends garage, you'll have a great time.
It's still the most popular wargame despite GW's machinations. However more and more people are ignoring GW altogether and playing older editions (especially 5th) with older models. I at least agree with this and find it the best way to play it.
I'm desperate for AoS style treatment for 40k. Until then the AdMech I buy are more likely to see the table in a special Necromunda Scenario than in 40k. I cannot stomach how many books I would have to buy to field a combined Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus force.
1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.
No faction was invincible in the earlier editions. Many factions were strong, and there was a disparity in power sure. But dexes could play against each other in standard formats and expect a chance at winning. Nowadays that is not the case. A decurion force will pretty much auto win against anything chaos marines care to try.
My point is the disparity in power between factions, not builds, is higher than ever in 40k.
When gk could do this against demons it caused an uproar because until then, no faction just upped and auto failed against a faction. Some factions, many in fact, were regulated to mono builds that varied in power. But no faction was flat out unable to play, as is the case now.
There are no unplayable factions in 40k. Chaos, Guard, orks... they can all be played, and they can all win. Hell, I have played CSM numerous times with my Necrons, and guess what? CSM have won most of them.
"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition, and it seems like it's open to too much abuse. You could have a giant squad and allocate wounds from shooting onto the models in back, meaning that you'd have to be 100 percent dead or 100 percent stupid not to end up in CC. It's even more abusable with multiwound models. You think Decurion Wraiths are bad now? Imagine if you had to deal five wounds to a five-strong unit before the Necron player even started removing models. "Closest First" does slow the game down, and gets tricky when multiple different saves come into play, but only the most colossal rules lawyer would literally make you take one saving throw at a time.
It overall saves time and arguments. Multi-wound models are easy; remove whole models. It also allows for your characters to lead from the front. Unless you find it more cinematic for your Marine Captain to be hiding in the back? The current wound allocation are a complete time wasting gak show.
Yup. Makes the game a complete fustercluck. The wound allocation stupidity is one of the biggest dealbreakers in actually getting me to try 7th.
JohnHwangDD wrote:I would love 40k to get the AoS treatment, with fewer, more characterful Special Rules, everything on one page. Then fill the rest of the books on background, stories and artwork. Win!
I'm not looking forward to it. GW will probably make me jump across the table to bite my opponent on the neck to get a charge bonus for my Death Company.
Of course there is very little chance I'll be playing 8th edition anyway if GW remains on its current course.
Heaven knows what they'll come up with for Tyranid players. Harvest your opponent's... biomass ( ) to get a bonus.
1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.
No faction was invincible in the earlier editions. Many factions were strong, and there was a disparity in power sure. But dexes could play against each other in standard formats and expect a chance at winning. Nowadays that is not the case. A decurion force will pretty much auto win against anything chaos marines care to try.
My point is the disparity in power between factions, not builds, is higher than ever in 40k.
When gk could do this against demons it caused an uproar because until then, no faction just upped and auto failed against a faction. Some factions, many in fact, were regulated to mono builds that varied in power. But no faction was flat out unable to play, as is the case now.
There are no unplayable factions in 40k. Chaos, Guard, orks... they can all be played, and they can all win. Hell, I have played CSM numerous times with my Necrons, and guess what? CSM have won most of them.
BA are pretty damn close to unplayable.
Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons. I have played them in 500, 750, 1000, 1250, and 1500 pt games. My necrons have lost every match. Again, all armies can be played. Sure, some have better units than others, but all codexs have units that are useful, all have combos that can be good. Every match does not have to be a tournament " win at all costs" match. In fact, I would argue that most games of 40k played around the world are not tournament games. As long as you stop trying to break the game by creating "unbeatable" lists, every army can be fun to play, and will be able to win.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Akiasura wrote: Salous, I'm not doubting your games but that is a very odd list to beat well...anyone. Helbrutes are really awful...I can't imagine how he destroyed multiple ghost arks turn 1 with any amount.
A prince owning with powers is very expensive and if not nurgle or tzneetch very easy to kill. I don't know of any good offensive powers we get....I usually take biomancy with mine. What power set did he use?
Maybe we play in different metas. I use plague marines with prince and lord on bike with brand as my strongest list. 2 drakes and either termies or mauler fiends/ forge fiends depending on how many tanks I take. I try to eliminate how str 4 and under shooting performs, and weaken str 6 shooting, but against stronger lists it doesn't seem to matter.
I've run an emperors children list with 6 blastmasters and a ton of termies and drakes, but it performs worse against most lists.
I haven't looked at that formation, but isn't the best thing about it the demons?
I thought helbrutes were bad as well, but his had las cannons on them. Pinned my Ghost Arks turn one and made them explode. From that point onword, my warriors were out in the open and able to be killed easy. Also, all the games we played were 1850 or 2000 pts. As far as the prince goes, I don't remember all the powers he had, all I remember was a very hurtful lance that destroyed my stuff.
The meta in my area changes from person to person. Before the match we will talk and decide if we want to do a regular "fluffy" game, or a "build the best list you can" game. For fluffy games, we let eachother know what we're bringing, and we tailor our lists to make sure that both are equal in power. For the CSM matches, we did not tailor our lists, we played kill points.
Salous, I'm not doubting your games but that is a very odd list to beat well...anyone. Helbrutes are really awful...I can't imagine how he destroyed multiple ghost arks turn 1 with any amount.
A prince owning with powers is very expensive and if not nurgle or tzneetch very easy to kill. I don't know of any good offensive powers we get....I usually take biomancy with mine. What power set did he use?
Maybe we play in different metas. I use plague marines with prince and lord on bike with brand as my strongest list. 2 drakes and either termies or mauler fiends/ forge fiends depending on how many tanks I take. I try to eliminate how str 4 and under shooting performs, and weaken str 6 shooting, but against stronger lists it doesn't seem to matter.
I've run an emperors children list with 6 blastmasters and a ton of termies and drakes, but it performs worse against most lists.
I haven't looked at that formation, but isn't the best thing about it the demons?
I thought helbrutes were bad as well, but his had las cannons on them. Pinned my Ghost Arks turn one and made them explode. From that point onword, my warriors were out in the open and able to be killed easy. Also, all the games we played were 1850 or 2000 pts. As far as the prince goes, I don't remember all the powers he had, all I remember was a very hurtful lance that destroyed my stuff.
Well, a hellbrute has a Bs of 4, so I would think it's a
3+ to hit, 4 to glance, 5+ to pen (AV 13 till first penetrating shot right?), then immobilized, then a second shot to explode (which, wow good rolling t here)? And you didn't have a cover save?
To do that the chances are pretty small. I can't believe it happened twice, he's very lucky. Lascannons are pretty bad anti tank, I use the termies dropped as my anti-tank. I'm guessing your basic troops died to the heldrake? The decurion didn't make them tough enough to survive for a few turns?
The only lance power I know of for CSM is the final pyromancy power. Its a 12" beam thats a melta gun. It's good against a parking lot, but the most amount of models I've ever have it hit was 3. With the limited range you might get to use it twice, and DP's die to a stiff breeze outside of combat. Rolling a 6 for a power is lucky as well, considering pyromancy is very subpar compared to biomancy.
Losing against BA with necrons is also mind boggling. I can make a decurion list (I play at similar point levels) that can get pushed across the board and can't possibly lose to a CSM force or a BA force (barring astronomical die rolls, like your ghost ark). Just...a ton of wraiths and warriors. CSM and Ba lack the firepower to kill them, and the necron force is very fast. Just putting enough wounds to go through a few wraiths with the decurion on requires a large amount of fire power, and they are so fast, its hard to get more than a single turn of shooting at them. Maybe 2 turns if the cover is light before they engage.
Never being able to beat BA with necrons is something I can't imagine. What is your decurion list?
The meta in my area changes from person to person. Before the match we will talk and decide if we want to do a regular "fluffy" game, or a "build the best list you can" game. For fluffy games, we let eachother know what we're bringing, and we tailor our lists to make sure that both are equal in power. For the CSM matches, we did not tailor our lists, we played kill points.
Honestly if I brought helbrutes I'd probably get some funny looks at my local store. We don't list tailor though, pretty much ever. None of the other games require it, since fantasy died off (though it would have been a lot better with it, I'll admit).
Salous, I'm not doubting your games but that is a very odd list to beat well...anyone. Helbrutes are really awful...I can't imagine how he destroyed multiple ghost arks turn 1 with any amount.
A prince owning with powers is very expensive and if not nurgle or tzneetch very easy to kill. I don't know of any good offensive powers we get....I usually take biomancy with mine. What power set did he use?
Maybe we play in different metas. I use plague marines with prince and lord on bike with brand as my strongest list. 2 drakes and either termies or mauler fiends/ forge fiends depending on how many tanks I take. I try to eliminate how str 4 and under shooting performs, and weaken str 6 shooting, but against stronger lists it doesn't seem to matter.
I've run an emperors children list with 6 blastmasters and a ton of termies and drakes, but it performs worse against most lists.
I haven't looked at that formation, but isn't the best thing about it the demons?
I thought helbrutes were bad as well, but his had las cannons on them. Pinned my Ghost Arks turn one and made them explode. From that point onword, my warriors were out in the open and able to be killed easy. Also, all the games we played were 1850 or 2000 pts. As far as the prince goes, I don't remember all the powers he had, all I remember was a very hurtful lance that destroyed my stuff.
Well, a hellbrute has a Bs of 4, so I would think it's a
3+ to hit, 4 to glance, 5+ to pen (AV 13 till first penetrating shot right?), then immobilized, then a second shot to explode (which, wow good rolling t here)? And you didn't have a cover save?
To do that the chances are pretty small. I can't believe it happened twice, he's very lucky. Lascannons are pretty bad anti tank, I use the termies dropped as my anti-tank. I'm guessing your basic troops died to the heldrake? The decurion didn't make them tough enough to survive for a few turns?
The only lance power I know of for CSM is the final pyromancy power. Its a 12" beam thats a melta gun. It's good against a parking lot, but the most amount of models I've ever have it hit was 3. With the limited range you might get to use it twice, and DP's die to a stiff breeze outside of combat. Rolling a 6 for a power is lucky as well, considering pyromancy is very subpar compared to biomancy.
Losing against BA with necrons is also mind boggling. I can make a decurion list (I play at similar point levels) that can get pushed across the board and can't possibly lose to a CSM force or a BA force (barring astronomical die rolls, like your ghost ark). Just...a ton of wraiths and warriors. CSM and Ba lack the firepower to kill them, and the necron force is very fast. Just putting enough wounds to go through a few wraiths with the decurion on requires a large amount of fire power, and they are so fast, its hard to get more than a single turn of shooting at them. Maybe 2 turns if the cover is light before they engage.
Never being able to beat BA with necrons is something I can't imagine. What is your decurion list?
The meta in my area changes from person to person. Before the match we will talk and decide if we want to do a regular "fluffy" game, or a "build the best list you can" game. For fluffy games, we let eachother know what we're bringing, and we tailor our lists to make sure that both are equal in power. For the CSM matches, we did not tailor our lists, we played kill points.
Honestly if I brought helbrutes I'd probably get some funny looks at my local store. We don't list tailor though, pretty much ever. None of the other games require it, since fantasy died off (though it would have been a lot better with it, I'll admit).
His prince and heldrake took out my warriors. Both games were really close, all coming down to the last turn to figure out who would win. The Decurion did help me survive when the ghost Arks went down, but warriors are still easy to kill in CC even with 4+ reanimation.
With the BA matches I did not use Decurion. I only use Decurion when my opponent asks me to, or if we're playing a tournament style game. Most games I use Decurion is when one of my buddies plays his Ad mech formation that gives them all the free upgrades. Some of the closest/best matches I have played was 2k points of Necron Decurion vs that Ad mech formation.
I thought helbrutes were bad as well, but his had las cannons on them. Pinned my Ghost Arks turn one and made them explode.
While this is certainly possible, it doesn't make Helbrutes good, it just means they get *very* lucky. Against a Jinking Ghost Ark, you're looking at about a 1-in-20 chance of any particular Helbrute accomplishing that with a TLLC, for two do to it in the same turn is about 1-in-400, or rolling a "20" on a D20 twice in a row. Possible, but very unlikely most of the time. I wouldn't judge the strength of a unit or an army off of something like that.
The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"
So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.
Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!
One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.
The extreme comments just continue. _______ [insert army name here] is unplayable! _________ [insert weapon/special rule/psychic power] here is unplayable. Blah Blah Blah. There is no serious failing in the game mechanics that was reasonably avoidable. The codex creep is inevitable, since the game has existed for so long, not every army is as popular as the other, and it takes time to update things. That has been an accepted reality of the game since the beginning. Would it be nice if they updated all the codices at the exact same time on the exact same schedule and all work perfectly "balanced" based on some perfect ideal that would make every player on the planet happy - sure, sign me up. It would also be fantastic if they sold all their models for $5 a box set.
If _____ is unbeatable, if _______ is ruining every game, then change the scenario, play a different way, have a narrative campaign, restrict army composition...you know, do what the game was intended for. GW has said countless times - and from the beginning might I add - that the game was never designed for tournament style play. If you aren't seeking to break the game in every army design, then guess what, it plays quite enjoyably. But, no, why not just blame GW for not making an extremely complex game completely and utterly impervious to players seeking to break the system, yeah, it is totally evil GW's fault. I bet they spend their holidays clubbing baby seals too.
It takes time to update? We're seeing the BRB and army books updated 2 years apart from each other. Did Eldar even go 2 years?
The thing isn't just that they release bad rules, it's that they don't care. They could release Blood Angels with a typo giving all their bolters Instant Death. And it would fine.
IF they did FAQs and errata in an attempt to fix it.
They don't, because they don't care.
And it's not simply a matter of having to selectively stop taking good and bad units, no matter how numerous they are. Because then you stop playing the game and making the armies you really want to play because the rules are inhibiting you in the worst way.
Savageconvoy wrote: It takes time to update? We're seeing the BRB and army books updated 2 years apart from each other. Did Eldar even go 2 years?
The thing isn't just that they release bad rules, it's that they don't care. They could release Blood Angels with a typo giving all their bolters Instant Death. And it would fine.
IF they did FAQs and errata in an attempt to fix it.
They don't, because they don't care.
And it's not simply a matter of having to selectively stop taking good and bad units, no matter how numerous they are. Because then you stop playing the game and making the armies you really want to play because the rules are inhibiting you in the worst way.
Pretty sure that's what I said. It takes time and certain armies - the more popular ones - get faster updates. It has always been that way, haha. Stop playing the game because your super favorite army isn't top tier...you do understand how self-centered that sounds right? If only GW did exactly what YOU wanted, it would all be superb huh?
Pretty sure that's what I said. It takes time and certain armies - the more popular ones - get faster updates. It has always been that way, haha. Stop playing the game because your super favorite army isn't top tier...you do understand how self-centered that sounds right? If only GW did exactly what YOU wanted, it would all be superb huh?
No, it hasn't 'always been that way' - I've been into this game for longer than a person really should and 'White Dwarf' was how the codecies and rulebook were updated - and they were doing it just about every month.
If he does what the internet 'meta' says, he's going to be a cheesefesting powergamer even if he isn't; and if he goes fluffy with whatever he likes the look of theres a good chance he's going to get ROFL-stomped by accident when playing against anything with a new codex.
In all seriousness i CANNOT recommend that to ANYONE.
"yeah, the buy-in's only £300 to find out whether or not you want to play"
The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"
So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.
Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!
One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.
I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.
The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"
So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.
Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!
One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.
I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.
I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.
Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.
The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"
So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.
Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!
One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.
I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.
I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.
Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.
Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other. Necrons as a whole do very well against Guard, my best winning % is against guard, but I have lost a few games to the Guard. Only time a Necron player should play Decurion is when they're playing against a new codex like SM, Eldar, and Ad mech, or if they're playing a tournament style list, otherwise it will be alot harder for them to beat necrons.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I would love 40k to get the AoS treatment, with fewer, more characterful Special Rules, everything on one page. Then fill the rest of the books on background, stories and artwork. Win!
This would be a win-win situation for GW.
But according to the rumors, GW seems to plan its games at three stages: AoS with free rules, 40k as it is, and HH as premium game at a higher price segment.
The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"
So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.
Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!
One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.
I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.
I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.
Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.
Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other. Necrons as a whole do very well against Guard, my best winning % is against guard, but I have lost a few games to the Guard. Only time a Necron player should play Decurion is when they're playing against a new codex like SM, Eldar, and Ad mech, or if they're playing a tournament style list, otherwise it will be alot harder for them to beat necrons.
Again, Decurion or no, I haven't seen IG beat the new Necron book at all, and struggles to find any battle reports that showed such.
The idea that a Decurion, of any type, should only be played against certain armies defeats the idea that any army can beat any army in a casual setting, especially when people often run the same list against everyone regardless or build a specific army. If they can't beat a Decurion it doesn't mean they can beat the army, simply put. We're not talking an ultra competitive specific build or kit for a particularly abuseable unit, we're talking the primary core detachment for an entire army. Knights again likewise can be very similar, just running 5 Knights is something many armies just can't contend with.
Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other.
Which works fine in theory, but in reality, it severely limits a lot of opportunities. Some people have to try to not break the game a lot harder than others. Basically it boils down to Timmy plays ba, so can't play x or y because it's cheesy. Tom plays necrons and can't play a through z with 1 - 9 on top because it's cheesy. Thinking about it, in a way it's not fair on imaginary Tom that he is only allowed to play a small amount of his codex because it's so out of whack with what ever else is out there. And who defines who is trying to break the games. We had a post on the forum recently where the guy was complaining about his mate calling his army cheesy because he stuck his troops in transports.
The problem with not trying to break the game is that it's a race to the bottom frankly. it can work, but it puts such s focus on self restraint, self policing, negotiation compromise and playing with one hand tied behind your back. And different players playing different factions have to do this to far greater or lesser extents for an arbitrarily 'fair' fame. And it's potentially a different 'fair' for every player. It almost makes competition and playing better out to be dirty words.
In my mind, There is value in just being able to play a damned game, sans negotiations and just being able to get on with it.
Before you say anything, I play other wargsmes in the aos/forge the narrative style. . I have yet to play flames of war with points. We often play forge the narrative style infinity. We do custom scenarios, and theme the armies to each scenario so that they make sense in the context of the mission and the narrative we are trying to play - recon forces only means that, not a squadron of king tigers. It's great fun. But it needs like minded players, a lot of time to organise and frankly, it has its limitations.
The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"
So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.
Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!
One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.
I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.
I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.
Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.
Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other. Necrons as a whole do very well against Guard, my best winning % is against guard, but I have lost a few games to the Guard. Only time a Necron player should play Decurion is when they're playing against a new codex like SM, Eldar, and Ad mech, or if they're playing a tournament style list, otherwise it will be alot harder for them to beat necrons.
Again, Decurion or no, I haven't seen IG beat the new Necron book at all, and struggles to find any battle reports that showed such.
The idea that a Decurion, of any type, should only be played against certain armies defeats the idea that any army can beat any army in a casual setting, especially when people often run the same list against everyone regardless or build a specific army. If they can't beat a Decurion it doesn't mean they can beat the army, simply put. We're not talking an ultra competitive specific build or kit for a particularly abuseable unit, we're talking the primary core detachment for an entire army. Knights again likewise can be very similar, just running 5 Knights is something many armies just can't contend with.
So, because you have not personally seen it means it does not happen?
I have never said any list could beat any list. I Have been saying any codex can beat any codex. There is no arguing that certain armies have a tougher times against others, and there is no arguing that certain formations are harder to beat than others. Its really simple, in a casual game (the majority of games played) all codexes have a change of winning. When one side brings something that is known to be very powerful vs something that is known to not be able to handle it, bad games happen. You wan't to avoid bad games and have a fun match? Or do you want to always bring the best possible list available and bitch when others can't beat it?
Think of it in sports terms. You have pro teams, and you have college teams. Both play the same game, use the same basic rules, both have certain pieces that can be used in either settings (college players good enough to play pro and start) but if a college team tries to face pro team, guess what would happen. Decide if you want to play "pro" or "college" and don't intermix the two in the same game.
Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other.
Which works fine in theory, but in reality, it severely limits a lot of opportunities. Some people have to try to not break the game a lot harder than others. Basically it boils down to Timmy plays ba, so can't play x or y because it's cheesy. Tom plays necrons and can't play a through z with 1 - 9 on top because it's cheesy. Thinking about it, in a way it's not fair on imaginary Tom that he is only allowed to play a small amount of his codex because it's so out of whack with what ever else is out there. And who defines who is trying to break the games. We had a post on the forum recently where the guy was complaining about his mate calling his army cheesy because he stuck his troops in transports.
The problem with not trying to break the game is that it's a race to the bottom frankly. it can work, but it puts such s focus on self restraint, self policing, negotiation compromise and playing with one hand tied behind your back. And different players playing different factions have to do this to far greater or lesser extents for an arbitrarily 'fair' fame. And it's potentially a different 'fair' for every player. It almost makes competition and playing better out to be dirty words.
In my mind, There is value in just being able to play a damned game, sans negotiations and just being able to get on with it.
Before you say anything, I play other wargsmes in the aos/forge the narrative style. . I have yet to play flames of war with points. We often play forge the narrative style infinity. We do custom scenarios, and theme the armies to each scenario so that they make sense in the context of the mission and the narrative we are trying to play - recon forces only means that, not a squadron of king tigers. It's great fun. But it needs like minded players, a lot of time to organise and frankly, it has its limitations.
Its really not hard to make sure your list is not over the top. From a necron perspective its this. Don't use decurion unless tournament/new codex formation, don't spam wraiths, don't spam particle beamer tomb blades against 5-6+ armor save infantry spam armies. You can bring any unit from the necron codex and still have a balanced game, just don't spam your best top of the line choices.
The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"
So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.
Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!
One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.
I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.
I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.
Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.
Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other. Necrons as a whole do very well against Guard, my best winning % is against guard, but I have lost a few games to the Guard. Only time a Necron player should play Decurion is when they're playing against a new codex like SM, Eldar, and Ad mech, or if they're playing a tournament style list, otherwise it will be alot harder for them to beat necrons.
Again, Decurion or no, I haven't seen IG beat the new Necron book at all, and struggles to find any battle reports that showed such.
The idea that a Decurion, of any type, should only be played against certain armies defeats the idea that any army can beat any army in a casual setting, especially when people often run the same list against everyone regardless or build a specific army. If they can't beat a Decurion it doesn't mean they can beat the army, simply put. We're not talking an ultra competitive specific build or kit for a particularly abuseable unit, we're talking the primary core detachment for an entire army. Knights again likewise can be very similar, just running 5 Knights is something many armies just can't contend with.
So, because you have not personally seen it means it does not happen?
You'll note that I also stated that (at least last time I looked, last month), I found no battle reports where the IG defeated the current Necron book (written or Youtube). I mean, not saying it *can't* happen, but that I wasn't able to find one in about an hour's search despite finding probably ~40 or so battle reports and 8 or 9 months of play now. That kind of stilted result should be indicative that there isn't a reasonable ability of one army to beat the other.
I have never said any list could beat any list. I Have been saying any codex can beat any codex. There is no arguing that certain armies have a tougher times against others, and there is no arguing that certain formations are harder to beat than others. Its really simple, in a casual game (the majority of games played) all codexes have a change of winning. When one side brings something that is known to be very powerful vs something that is known to not be able to handle it, bad games happen. You wan't to avoid bad games and have a fun match? Or do you want to always bring the best possible list available and bitch when others can't beat it?
My point was that bringing relatively casual armies where you aren't bringing the ultra competitive stuff, you can clearly (and commonly) get absurdly stilted matches, as even if they're actively avoiding most or all of the truly abusive stuff like RP Wraiths, the fundamental mechanics of some of these things are just not overcomable by many armies, . Expecting a Necron player to not be able to run a Decurion against half the armies in the game, when it's the core army building mechanic of the army, is often just unrealistic. Likewise, if you're a Knight player running 5 Knights in an 1850 point list, you're not really going out of your way to make a cheesy army, you're really just taking the basic units of your army, and can still routinely curbstomp many armies in three or four turns simply because they can't stop that much 4+ shielded AV13 that can't be shaken/stunned. What's the Knight player to do? They'll basically have to run a different army if they want a more even game.
That's the problem we're running into.
Think of it in sports terms. You have pro teams, and you have college teams. Both play the same game, use the same basic rules, both have certain pieces that can be used in either settings (college players good enough to play pro and start) but if a college team tries to face pro team, guess what would happen. Decide if you want to play "pro" or "college" and don't intermix the two in the same game.
Aye, and that's what many people do, but it also means you're having to leave half the game "out" and spend lots of time with negotiations and often having to miss out on a lot of games. When you have that sort of a divide, the game doesn't really work and you're just patching it after the fact.
TL;DR Sure, any codex can beat any other codex, but that's a somewhat specious argument when it's built on the premise that one side is going to have to actively handicap itself on a game-by-game basis. That's like saying anyone can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match...if his hands are tied and he's taking enough Valium to stun a horse.
Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other.
Which works fine in theory, but in reality, it severely limits a lot of opportunities. Some people have to try to not break the game a lot harder than others. Basically it boils down to Timmy plays ba, so can't play x or y because it's cheesy. Tom plays necrons and can't play a through z with 1 - 9 on top because it's cheesy. Thinking about it, in a way it's not fair on imaginary Tom that he is only allowed to play a small amount of his codex because it's so out of whack with what ever else is out there. And who defines who is trying to break the games. We had a post on the forum recently where the guy was complaining about his mate calling his army cheesy because he stuck his troops in transports.
We play BA vs Necron or Eldar all the time. You just give the BA player some extra stuff, recognizing that it's a pre-2015 codex, and that it's weaker. Same with Guard. Not really that hard to do, man.
If the BA player wants to just use pods for a taxi service, well that's different.
It just boils down to 1850, 2000, 2500 points... if you look at the table (because terrain matters, a lot), look at the 2 armies on side tables undeployed, two experienced players can easily tell within seconds, "Nah, this isn't going to work". So you just tweak it a little. And if you get slaughtered, laugh it off, say, "holy crap that was bad", tweak it more, play again.
TL;DR Sure, any codex can beat any other codex, but that's a somewhat specious argument when it's built on the premise that one side is going to have to actively handicap itself on a game-by-game basis. That's like saying anyone can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match...if his hands are tied and he's taking enough Valium to stun a horse.
At the end of the day, you get out of this game what you put into it. If you're unable or unwilling to communicate and compromise with your opponents, you will not find many enjoyable games. I understand your mind is made up about 40k, you don't like it. That is fine, this game is not for everyone.
We play BA vs Necron or Eldar all the time. You just give the BA player some extra stuff, recognizing that it's a pre-2015 codex, and that it's weaker. Same with Guard. Not really that hard to do, man.
If the BA player wants to just use pods for a taxi service, well that's different.
It just boils down to 1850, 2000, 2500 points... if you look at the table (because terrain matters, a lot), look at the 2 armies on side tables undeployed, two experienced players can easily tell within seconds, "Nah, this isn't going to work". So you just tweak it a little. And if you get slaughtered, laugh it off, say, "holy crap that was bad", tweak it more, play again.
That only works with relatively small and well knit gaming groups playing casual games that all realize, and acknowledge, the score.
For pickup play, or something like a store league (even if it's not really competitive), that's just not typically a feasible option.
TL;DR Sure, any codex can beat any other codex, but that's a somewhat specious argument when it's built on the premise that one side is going to have to actively handicap itself on a game-by-game basis. That's like saying anyone can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match...if his hands are tied and he's taking enough Valium to stun a horse.
At the end of the day, you get out of this game what you put into it. If you're unable or unwilling to communicate and compromise with your opponents, you will not find many enjoyable games. I understand your mind is made up about 40k, you don't like it. That is fine, this game is not for everyone.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).
40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.
To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.
One thing that is true about the current state is that GW have over the past two editions turned it into a much larger and messier game than it was.
We all know and admit there were balance problems in 4th and 5th edition, without superheavies, D weapons, flyers, formations, Unbound, allies, and scads more special rules and new units. All of these have been added in 6th and 7th, on top of other changes in rules like wound allocation and LoS.
Regardless of whether you like these options or not, they introduce a lot more interactions and chance for things to get complicated and unbalanced.
Therefore I think it must be said that 40K is no longer a game system so much as a sandbox that lets players pick and choose various different options and sections of rules to build up the kind of game they want to play.
Kilkrazy wrote: One thing that is true about the current state is that GW have over the past two editions turned it into a much larger and messier game than it was.
We all know and admit there were balance problems in 4th and 5th edition, without superheavies, D weapons, flyers, formations, Unbound, allies, and scads more special rules and new units. All of these have been added in 6th and 7th, on top of other changes in rules like wound allocation and LoS.
Regardless of whether you like these options or not, they introduce a lot more interactions and chance for things to get complicated and unbalanced.
Therefore I think it must be said that 40K is no longer a game system so much as a sandbox that lets players pick and choose various different options and sections of rules to build up the kind of game they want to play.
Indeed, the problem is that much of the functionality and mechanics are still build around the idea of being a game system rather than a sandbox, particularly things like missions, deployment, etc.
Vaktathi wrote: Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).
40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.
To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.
Game is still fine for pick up games, there is no reason why you can't communicate with other players and come to an agreement. If the other player is unwilling to compromise, then move on and find someone else to play. It is not hard to swap contact information with other players and set up times to play a match. If you're unable or unwilling to take this step to make sure you spend your gaming time wisely, then you're in the wrong hobby.
Vaktathi wrote: Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).
40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.
To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.
Game is still fine for pick up games, there is no reason why you can't communicate with other players and come to an agreement.
Again, they may not have the requisite models with them to play something else or any number of other reasons. It's also super weird to play someone and be like "hey, I think your army is overpowered, so I won't play you unless I get an extra 500 points to play with". That doesn't come off very well to many people, especially if they're not tight gaming pals "in the know". Huge sections of the playerbase pay absolutely no attention to the metagame (or simply refuse to acknowledge it).
If the other player is unwilling to compromise, then move on and find someone else to play.
And this assumes there are other people to play, especially if you don't have all day to wait for other people to finish games. I had to go home without a game a couple of weeks ago because I had zero desire to play a quad-Flyrant nid-list with my CSM's and only had about a four hour gap to play (show up after work at 6pm, generally stay until ten, store closes at 10:30 and I have work the next day at 8am anyway). Well, the other 4 players were already starting games, nid player went home, and when everyone else gets done with their relatively casual games at about nine, there's really no time go get another game in. Not at all an uncommon situation.
It is not hard to swap contact information with other players and set up times to play a match. If you're unable or unwilling to take this step to make sure you spend your gaming time wisely, then you're in the wrong hobby.
At which point we're no longer talking about pickup play...
Vaktathi wrote: Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).
40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.
To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.
Game is still fine for pick up games, there is no reason why you can't communicate with other players and come to an agreement.
Again, they may not have the requisite models with them to play something else or any number of other reasons. It's also super weird to play someone and be like "hey, I think your army is overpowered, so I won't play you unless I get an extra 500 points to play with". That doesn't come off very well to many people, especially if they're not tight gaming pals "in the know". Huge sections of the playerbase pay absolutely no attention to the metagame (or simply refuse to acknowledge it).
If the other player is unwilling to compromise, then move on and find someone else to play.
And this assumes there are other people to play, especially if you don't have all day to wait for other people to finish games. I had to go home without a game a couple of weeks ago because I had zero desire to play a quad-Flyrant nid-list with my CSM's and only had about a four hour gap to play (show up after work at 6pm, generally stay until ten, store closes at 10:30 and I have work the next day at 8am anyway). Well, the other 4 players were already starting games, nid player went home, and when everyone else gets done with their relatively casual games at about nine, there's really no time go get another game in. Not at all an uncommon situation.
It is not hard to swap contact information with other players and set up times to play a match. If you're unable or unwilling to take this step to make sure you spend your gaming time wisely, then you're in the wrong hobby.
At which point we're no longer talking about pickup play...
You can make all the excuses you want, but if you're unwilling to put in the effort, don't expect much in return...
Vaktathi wrote: Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).
40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.
To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.
Game is still fine for pick up games, there is no reason why you can't communicate with other players and come to an agreement.
Again, they may not have the requisite models with them to play something else or any number of other reasons. It's also super weird to play someone and be like "hey, I think your army is overpowered, so I won't play you unless I get an extra 500 points to play with". That doesn't come off very well to many people, especially if they're not tight gaming pals "in the know". Huge sections of the playerbase pay absolutely no attention to the metagame (or simply refuse to acknowledge it).
If the other player is unwilling to compromise, then move on and find someone else to play.
And this assumes there are other people to play, especially if you don't have all day to wait for other people to finish games. I had to go home without a game a couple of weeks ago because I had zero desire to play a quad-Flyrant nid-list with my CSM's and only had about a four hour gap to play (show up after work at 6pm, generally stay until ten, store closes at 10:30 and I have work the next day at 8am anyway). Well, the other 4 players were already starting games, nid player went home, and when everyone else gets done with their relatively casual games at about nine, there's really no time go get another game in. Not at all an uncommon situation.
It is not hard to swap contact information with other players and set up times to play a match. If you're unable or unwilling to take this step to make sure you spend your gaming time wisely, then you're in the wrong hobby.
At which point we're no longer talking about pickup play...
You can make all the excuses you want, but if you're unwilling to put in the effort, don't expect much in return...
Yes, I do believe you've repeated that platitude, but it doesn't actually address any of my above arguments on how the game doesn't function well for pickup play if all players aren't able and willing to accept the metagame problems as you do, if you don't have all day for play, if there isn't a huge number of players to just hop over to if someone can't agree to "reasonable" terms, and if players aren't bringing gigantic collections of models to swap out as necessary. These are all very real issues that many gamers routinely face, and simply hand-waving it away as "well you're just being a stick in the mud" is a rather weak argument for trying to prove the game is otherwise great.
Vaktathi wrote: Yes, I do believe you've repeated that platitude, but it doesn't actually address any of my above arguments on how the game doesn't function well for pickup play if all players aren't able and willing to accept the metagame problems as you do, if you don't have all day for play, if there isn't a huge number of players to just hop over to if someone can't agree to "reasonable" terms, and if players aren't bringing gigantic collections of models to swap out as necessary. These are all very real issues that many gamers routinely face, and simply hand-waving it away as "well you're just being a stick in the mud" is a rather weak argument for trying to prove the game is otherwise great.
You're missing the point. Don't go into your hobbies blind. If players are unwilling to help create an environment to pursue their hobbies in a productive manner, they will not get much out of it. If players are unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure a fun, fairly balanced game for both parties, they will not have fun. This came be said for any game. Name the most balanced miniature war game out there... there are good and bad lists for it, there will be unbalanced games for it. Its apart of the game, its something one must accept if they wish to enjoy their time in the hobby. This is life, you gotta put forth effort. Nothing is handed to us for free. This hobby is not for everyone, if they can't mean the necessary requirements to have fun and enjoy the game, be it communication, money for more miniatures, or a understanding of the state of the codexes, they need to find a new hobby.
Speak to local players, communicate, swap numbers, and you will find that the majority of your games will be fun. If one is unable, or unwilling to do this, they will not enjoy any game. This is the same for all games, be it video games, board games, or 40k.
The thing is, up to 6th edition it was a very different game and did not need nearly so much effort form players just to put together a playable game.
In terms of going in blind, people knew what they were dealing with, and got on with things. People who played earlier editions can't be blamed for not liking the changes since 6th. It isn't the game they signed up for any more.
Since 6th edition, the game has needed more and more effort and money to just keep up with, and sales have been dropping fast.
Vaktathi wrote: Yes, I do believe you've repeated that platitude, but it doesn't actually address any of my above arguments on how the game doesn't function well for pickup play if all players aren't able and willing to accept the metagame problems as you do, if you don't have all day for play, if there isn't a huge number of players to just hop over to if someone can't agree to "reasonable" terms, and if players aren't bringing gigantic collections of models to swap out as necessary. These are all very real issues that many gamers routinely face, and simply hand-waving it away as "well you're just being a stick in the mud" is a rather weak argument for trying to prove the game is otherwise great.
You're missing the point. Don't go into your hobbies blind.
I've been playing this hobby for a great many number of years and many editions, this isn't something I hopped into "blindly". It wasn't the issue before that it is today. 40k has never been perfect by any means, but it's an entirely different can of worms now than it was even just a couple of years ago.
If players are unwilling to help create an environment to pursue their hobbies in a productive manner, they will not get much out of it. If players are unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure a fun, fairly balanced game for both parties, they will not have fun. This came be said for any game. Name the most balanced miniature war game out there... there are good and bad lists for it, there will be unbalanced games for it. Its apart of the game, its something one must accept if they wish to enjoy their time in the hobby. This is life, you gotta put forth effort. Nothing is handed to us for free. This hobby is not for everyone, if they can't mean the necessary requirements to have fun and enjoy the game, be it communication, money for more miniatures, or a understanding of the state of the codexes, they need to find a new hobby.
Again, the sort of effort you're talking about here, where people are going to have to change their entire army or the points levels involved based on their opponent wasn't something that was ever really a thing in previous editions outside of "don't bring a tournament WAAC army to a casual game" as opposed to having to tailor your army not to curbstomp opponents based on what they're playing *all* the time. It's not required in any other tabletop game I can think of like Dropzone Commander or Heavy Gear or Firestorm Armada or Infinity or X-Wing, etc, especially not to the degree that it's required for in 40k to have a good game.
Speak to local players, communicate, swap numbers, and you will find that the majority of your games will be fun. If one is unable, or unwilling to do this, they will not enjoy any game. This is the same for all games, be it video games, board games, or 40k.
Yes, I'm not saying I don't speak with local players and communicate and whatnot, in fact I get most of my games now by pre-arrangement, but I didn't have to do that in the past, and it has meant that in general I get fewer games than I used to (and I know I'm not alone in that), against a smaller variety of armies, and pickup play fundamentally is just not functional in the way it once was.
Vaktathi wrote: Yes, I do believe you've repeated that platitude, but it doesn't actually address any of my above arguments on how the game doesn't function well for pickup play if all players aren't able and willing to accept the metagame problems as you do, if you don't have all day for play, if there isn't a huge number of players to just hop over to if someone can't agree to "reasonable" terms, and if players aren't bringing gigantic collections of models to swap out as necessary. These are all very real issues that many gamers routinely face, and simply hand-waving it away as "well you're just being a stick in the mud" is a rather weak argument for trying to prove the game is otherwise great.
You're missing the point. Don't go into your hobbies blind.
I've been playing this hobby for a great many number of years and many editions, this isn't something I hopped into "blindly". It wasn't the issue before that it is today. 40k has never been perfect by any means, but it's an entirely different can of worms now than it was even just a couple of years ago.
If players are unwilling to help create an environment to pursue their hobbies in a productive manner, they will not get much out of it. If players are unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure a fun, fairly balanced game for both parties, they will not have fun. This came be said for any game. Name the most balanced miniature war game out there... there are good and bad lists for it, there will be unbalanced games for it. Its apart of the game, its something one must accept if they wish to enjoy their time in the hobby. This is life, you gotta put forth effort. Nothing is handed to us for free. This hobby is not for everyone, if they can't mean the necessary requirements to have fun and enjoy the game, be it communication, money for more miniatures, or a understanding of the state of the codexes, they need to find a new hobby.
Again, the sort of effort you're talking about here, where people are going to have to change their entire army or the points levels involved based on their opponent wasn't something that was ever really a thing in previous editions outside of "don't bring a tournament WAAC army to a casual game" as opposed to having to tailor your army not to curbstomp opponents based on what they're playing *all* the time. It's not required in any other tabletop game I can think of like Dropzone Commander or Heavy Gear or Firestorm Armada or Infinity or X-Wing, etc, especially not to the degree that it's required for in 40k to have a good game.
Speak to local players, communicate, swap numbers, and you will find that the majority of your games will be fun. If one is unable, or unwilling to do this, they will not enjoy any game. This is the same for all games, be it video games, board games, or 40k.
Yes, I'm not saying I don't speak with local players and communicate and whatnot, in fact I get most of my games now by pre-arrangement, but I didn't have to do that in the past, and it has meant that in general I get fewer games than I used to (and I know I'm not alone in that), against a smaller variety of armies, and pickup play fundamentally is just not functional in the way it once was.
Well, at this point we're just going in circles. Its a different game than it was before. Things were added, things were taken away. At the end of the day one can still enjoy a game of 40k, just as they did in previous editions. It might take more work, but it also offers more variety. If you don't like the changes, that's fine. Just because it might require more effort does not mean its a bad game.
If by hobby, you mean specifically 40k, then yes, you generally need to plan a game out ahead of time or bring a large collection of models if you want a good game. Especially if you play a faction on either end of the extreme.
If you play an upper tier army, you can't bring a competitive list against a lower tier army. Against another upper tier army, sure, you can, so long as they do. Given the size of 40k armies, this does seem to lend credence to the idea that you must bring an absurd collection or plan ahead, so no pick up games.
If by hobby you mean table top wargaming, then no, no other game works like that. Most other war games have a much smaller model count (not counting historicals), so bringing other models isn't as big a deal, but I don't bring anything more than the one list I'm trying out that week in WMH. I play fine into everything. 40k is very unique in this regard, and it is a recent development. In 5th I was able to bring my CSM against any list and still play a game. The odds might be against me (70:30-60:40 at worst) but not like it is now.
Popularity of a faction shouldn't factor into release schedule. I spent money on my faction, quite a bit, the release schedule should be somewhat even between factions. If you don't release as many new models, fine, but the rules should be updated well. As someone who owns nids, the dex has been gak for a while now. Same with CSM, and it's mind boggling.
I don't know why GW doesn't allow the Dark Elf treatment anymore, but they should.
I love it! The only models I felt any need for in the past 6 months have been some more Daemons, just in case I want to summon some Bloodletters instead of Daemonettes for example.
There's no gaming club for pick-up games in my area anyways, it's all pre-arranged through FB and private arrangements, so regardless of game system you have to arrange some stuff before you play.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I would love 40k to get the AoS treatment, with fewer, more characterful Special Rules, everything on one page. Then fill the rest of the books on background, stories and artwork. Win!
This would be a win-win situation for GW.
But according to the rumors, GW seems to plan its games at three stages: AoS with free rules, 40k as it is, and HH as premium game at a higher price segment.
OK, I get the financials, but I would appreciate a cleanup of the 40k rules - it really doesn't need to be so complicated when nobody plays 40k for the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, if it takes more effort to play the same game as five years ago, I would say it is now worse than it was.
"Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons"
Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.
Martel732 wrote: "Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons"
Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.
CSM and IG would like to have a word with you about being "the worst list in the game".
Martel732 wrote: "Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons"
Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.
Most Necrons are beaten easily in melee, BA player I play against goes melee heavy. Not easy to win when he is about to get most of his army in melee by turn 2 and then sweeps the crons' in CC.
Martel732 wrote: "Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons"
Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.
Most Necrons are beaten easily in melee, BA player I play against goes melee heavy. Not easy to win when he is about to get most of his army in melee by turn 2 and then sweeps the crons' in CC.
Wraiths are one of the best melee units in the game...Necron warriors in decurion are better than tacticals, point for point.
Necrons are not bad in melee, and its hard to generate enough casualties to make them break since they have high command.
I have to ask, what necron lists do you run that you think they are bad in melee? They aren't top tier in melee, but they are probably at the bottom of the top or top of the next highest (lack of an overpowered melee deathstar knocks them out of the top IMO).
Martel732 wrote: "Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons"
Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.
Most Necrons are beaten easily in melee, BA player I play against goes melee heavy. Not easy to win when he is about to get most of his army in melee by turn 2 and then sweeps the crons' in CC.
Wraiths are one of the best melee units in the game...Necron warriors in decurion are better than tacticals, point for point.
Necrons are not bad in melee, and its hard to generate enough casualties to make them break since they have high command.
I have to ask, what necron lists do you run that you think they are bad in melee? They aren't top tier in melee, but they are probably at the bottom of the top or top of the next highest (lack of an overpowered melee deathstar knocks them out of the top IMO).
I don't use Decurion in 90% of my games. Warriors, immortals, tomb blades, death marks... all suck in melee when they go last and have 1/2-1/3 the attacks on first turn on combat. If they lose combat, they have a chance to run, if they run, odds are they're sweeped. Yes, wraiths are good, but my why list is not full of wraiths, I only use wraiths in about half of my games.
Even without the decurion, a RP roll makes them tougher than a marine for similar points. Striking last is rough, but a BA squad charging should do what,
2/3, 2/3, 1/2, 2/3 =8/54 wounds per attack off the charge? (Are they ws 5? Can't recall, assumed they were). That's not a ton of kills (2?). After charging the numbers get a lot worse, most likely inflicting one wound between loss of attacks and lower strength, unless they go bp and cc. In which case you can rapid fire at least once before engangemen.
Striking back is
1/2, 1/2, 1,3 = 1/12, so your most likely losing combat by 2. You're not going to run, odds are, and a BA squad shouldn't reach you unmolested.
Wraiths and tomb blades aren't terrible in melee. I'd put wraiths against any unit in the BA and expect them to win combat.
Not taking wraiths is handicapping yourself, and you can't ignore one of the best cc units in the game and say necrons have bad melee.
Akiasura wrote: Even without the decurion, a RP roll makes them tougher than a marine for similar points. Striking last is rough, but a BA squad charging should do what,
2/3, 2/3, 1/2, 2/3 =8/54 wounds per attack off the charge? (Are they ws 5? Can't recall, assumed they were). That's not a ton of kills (2?). After charging the numbers get a lot worse, most likely inflicting one wound between loss of attacks and lower strength, unless they go bp and cc. In which case you can rapid fire at least once before engangemen.
Striking back is
1/2, 1/2, 1,3 = 1/12, so your most likely losing combat by 2. You're not going to run, odds are, and a BA squad shouldn't reach you unmolested.
Wraiths and tomb blades aren't terrible in melee. I'd put wraiths against any unit in the BA and expect them to win combat.
Not taking wraiths is handicapping yourself, and you can't ignore one of the best cc units in the game and say necrons have bad melee.
BA can bring more than just Tac squads. A 5+ FNP is not a great lifesaver when hits bypass armor saves. 3-2+ armor saves on most SM units can be hard to crack in melee without lychguard, praetorians, overlord, or wraiths. And I do handicap myself in certain games. Creates better games. Also, dice averages don't work so well when most dice are not true 16.666%.
Akiasura wrote: Even without the decurion, a RP roll makes them tougher than a marine for similar points. Striking last is rough, but a BA squad charging should do what,
2/3, 2/3, 1/2, 2/3 =8/54 wounds per attack off the charge? (Are they ws 5? Can't recall, assumed they were). That's not a ton of kills (2?). After charging the numbers get a lot worse, most likely inflicting one wound between loss of attacks and lower strength, unless they go bp and cc. In which case you can rapid fire at least once before engangemen.
Striking back is
1/2, 1/2, 1,3 = 1/12, so your most likely losing combat by 2. You're not going to run, odds are, and a BA squad shouldn't reach you unmolested.
Wraiths and tomb blades aren't terrible in melee. I'd put wraiths against any unit in the BA and expect them to win combat.
Not taking wraiths is handicapping yourself, and you can't ignore one of the best cc units in the game and say necrons have bad melee.
BA can bring more than just Tac squads. A 5+ FNP is not a great lifesaver when hits bypass armor saves. 3-2+ armor saves on most SM units can be hard to crack in melee without lychguard, praetorians, overlord, or wraiths. And I do handicap myself in certain games. Creates better games. Also, dice averages don't work so well when most dice are not true 16.666%.
Right, you need melee units to do damage in melee. I'm not arguing that. You can still shoot all their melee units quite easily, since they are slow, not that tough per points, or just lose to your melee units.
I'm not familiar with BA, what units do they have besides termies (which are bad) and DC that hit harder than a tactical squad, point for point?
The problem with handicapping yourself is it throws your arguments that BA can stand up to necrons right out the window. It suggests that people who say pick up games are dead and deciding lists with your opponent is now mandatory, instead of something unheard of or considered cheating are correct. You can't make claims about the power level of relevant dexes if you're going to pretend certain units don't exist.
Otherwise eldar are quite reasonable because only guardians exist, and tyranids are strictly bottom tier because flyrants arent a factor.
Akiasura wrote: Even without the decurion, a RP roll makes them tougher than a marine for similar points. Striking last is rough, but a BA squad charging should do what,
2/3, 2/3, 1/2, 2/3 =8/54 wounds per attack off the charge? (Are they ws 5? Can't recall, assumed they were). That's not a ton of kills (2?). After charging the numbers get a lot worse, most likely inflicting one wound between loss of attacks and lower strength, unless they go bp and cc. In which case you can rapid fire at least once before engangemen.
Striking back is
1/2, 1/2, 1,3 = 1/12, so your most likely losing combat by 2. You're not going to run, odds are, and a BA squad shouldn't reach you unmolested.
Wraiths and tomb blades aren't terrible in melee. I'd put wraiths against any unit in the BA and expect them to win combat.
Not taking wraiths is handicapping yourself, and you can't ignore one of the best cc units in the game and say necrons have bad melee.
BA can bring more than just Tac squads. A 5+ FNP is not a great lifesaver when hits bypass armor saves. 3-2+ armor saves on most SM units can be hard to crack in melee without lychguard, praetorians, overlord, or wraiths. And I do handicap myself in certain games. Creates better games. Also, dice averages don't work so well when most dice are not true 16.666%.
Right, you need melee units to do damage in melee. I'm not arguing that. You can still shoot all their melee units quite easily, since they are slow, not that tough per points, or just lose to your melee units.
I'm not familiar with BA, what units do they have besides termies (which are bad) and DC that hit harder than a tactical squad, point for point?
The problem with handicapping yourself is it throws your arguments that BA can stand up to necrons right out the window. It suggests that people who say pick up games are dead and deciding lists with your opponent is now mandatory, instead of something unheard of or considered cheating are correct. You can't make claims about the power level of relevant dexes if you're going to pretend certain units don't exist.
Otherwise eldar are quite reasonable because only guardians exist, and tyranids are strictly bottom tier because flyrants arent a factor.
If you have read any of my other posts then you will know that I don't go blindly into matches. I play pre-arranged matches. I don't spam my best units. If I'm going to spend hours on a hobby, I want to make sure that its going to be a fun game, and not a drawn conclusion. Not every 40k player is a TFG who plays WAAC lists who cares more about winning than both players having fun and enjoying the game. With a little communication and brain power, all codexes can have balanced games with other codexs, be it by toning down the list of the more powerful codex or playing maelstrom missions.
I think the whole "just talk it out with your opponent before hand" argument is a bit flawed for a few reasons.
1 - I dont have the cell phone number of anyone who might show up at my FLGS on any given day. So I have to show up to talk.
2 - I have 1850 points of X army. Thats it. I don't have 3000 points of X army with which to trim down to 1850. I have what I have, and in no way shape or form does it have the power to take down 5 knights. Hell, 3 knights plus other stuff would be a significant challenge. Let alone multiple wraith knights in an eldar army.
So because of problems 1 and 2 I'm stuck playing whatever is in the shop and it up to the other guy to have to fit with me. Which isn't to say that it may or may not be possible because maybe they are in the same boat as I am.
and lastly 3 - I dont have half a day to devote to playing just one game. Finding an opponent, agreeing on a power level for the game, rewriting their list, going through all the random rolls, then actually playing the other game.
In the olden days, you could get in two pick-up games in a afternoon. (three if one game turned particularly one sided). Now, its just really hard to get in one pick-up game that both players can enjoy equally.
That is the worst part of the hobby. You can't just go and play a game anymore.
Jayden63 wrote: I think the whole "just talk it out with your opponent before hand" argument is a bit flawed for a few reasons.
1 - I dont have the cell phone number of anyone who might show up at my FLGS on any given day. So I have to show up to talk.
2 - I have 1850 points of X army. Thats it. I don't have 3000 points of X army with which to trim down to 1850. I have what I have, and in no way shape or form does it have the power to take down 5 knights. Hell, 3 knights plus other stuff would be a significant challenge. Let alone multiple wraith knights in an eldar army.
So because of problems 1 and 2 I'm stuck playing whatever is in the shop and it up to the other guy to have to fit with me. Which isn't to say that it may or may not be possible because maybe they are in the same boat as I am.
and lastly 3 - I dont have half a day to devote to playing just one game. Finding an opponent, agreeing on a power level for the game, rewriting their list, going through all the random rolls, then actually playing the other game.
In the olden days, you could get in two pick-up games in a afternoon. (three if one game turned particularly one sided). Now, its just really hard to get in one pick-up game that both players can enjoy equally.
That is the worst part of the hobby. You can't just go and play a game anymore.
1. Pre-arranging games is quite easy in today's world. Most stores has some sort of social media page where players communicate and set up games. If the person who you're playing didn't, swap contact numbers and set up future games.
2. Can't help you here besides telling you to play a smaller game where both sides would be even with the given miniatures, or buy more miniatures. This is not a cheap hobby, never has been, never will be. If cost is a big issue, might wanna look into a different system.
3. Within 5-10 mins one should be able to agree on a type of game, and power level used in the game. If it takes longer, then I would argue that someones social skills are lacking.
I agree. For me the biggest problem is that here no one buys the bad builds or bad armies. So even if guardians are weaker then scater bikes and a prime sucks compering to a dakka tyrant, I won't ever face the first ones, because no body bought those models in the first place. I could technicly play people with old armies from editions past, but those either quit the game very fast or sell the models. And if I try, and I realy did try it both in WFB and w40k, to pre set a game it takes hours to set up all the rules, and offten opponents don't even want to agree to any balancing, because their good army works without it and they don't need it to have fun.
In 5th and even 6th I could just ask someone if he wants to play and play. No it is no longer possible.
Jayden63 wrote: I think the whole "just talk it out with your opponent before hand" argument is a bit flawed for a few reasons.
1 - I dont have the cell phone number of anyone who might show up at my FLGS on any given day. So I have to show up to talk.
2 - I have 1850 points of X army. Thats it. I don't have 3000 points of X army with which to trim down to 1850. I have what I have, and in no way shape or form does it have the power to take down 5 knights. Hell, 3 knights plus other stuff would be a significant challenge. Let alone multiple wraith knights in an eldar army.
So because of problems 1 and 2 I'm stuck playing whatever is in the shop and it up to the other guy to have to fit with me. Which isn't to say that it may or may not be possible because maybe they are in the same boat as I am.
and lastly 3 - I dont have half a day to devote to playing just one game. Finding an opponent, agreeing on a power level for the game, rewriting their list, going through all the random rolls, then actually playing the other game.
In the olden days, you could get in two pick-up games in a afternoon. (three if one game turned particularly one sided). Now, its just really hard to get in one pick-up game that both players can enjoy equally.
That is the worst part of the hobby. You can't just go and play a game anymore.
I hear you on these problems. I've gotten so used to pre-organizing my games, that I can't really remember the last time I had a game that wasn't (outside a tournament)! It just works so well towards having a good time that the idea of just bringing an army with me to play whoever shows up doesn't even enter into my mind. Whenever I meet a new player, I direct them to the forum where our community gathers to pre-organize games, I give them my email address, and I make a sincere effort to showing them that I look forward to our game.
The suggestion to play smaller games is a good one! You don't need to play 1850. In fact, I'm loving the 500 point Combat Patrols right now for their speed and ferocity! 1000 point games are also really cool.
Worst case scenario, just say no! If they want to play with their 5-Knight armies, just say that isn't the game you're looking to play. This game's about your enjoyment too. If you honestly can't get a game in without there being multiple super-heavies on the table, then I don't know what to say aside from find a different FLGS or find the group of players that limit themselves!
We play BA vs Necron or Eldar all the time. You just give the BA player some extra stuff, recognizing that it's a pre-2015 codex, and that it's weaker. Same with Guard. Not really that hard to do, man.
If the BA player wants to just use pods for a taxi service, well that's different.
It just boils down to 1850, 2000, 2500 points... if you look at the table (because terrain matters, a lot), look at the 2 armies on side tables undeployed, two experienced players can easily tell within seconds, "Nah, this isn't going to work". So you just tweak it a little. And if you get slaughtered, laugh it off, say, "holy crap that was bad", tweak it more, play again.
That only works with relatively small and well knit gaming groups playing casual games that all realize, and acknowledge, the score.
For pickup play, or something like a store league (even if it's not really competitive), that's just not typically a feasible option.
Admittedly a long time ago (like 3e) I did play quite a few pickup games at a gaming club, and this was always what we did if someone had an obviously inferior army. I think, looking at today's armies, if someone looks at an average Tyranid or Blood Angels or Guard army and looks at an average Decurion or Warhost or Maniple, and can't acknowledge that the two armies aren't equivalent, it hardly matters; I would rather pass than play with them, regardless of what I have
I've had Eldar since Rogue Trader, and have always taken out some stuff if my opponent is playing some army that is obviously weaker when playing them; Grey Knights too (never had this problem with BA, hand rarely with DE). It's usually something along the lines of, "You think we'll be cool if I take out this?" and move some of my units to the side. On the odd occasion, I could be wrong, too. An opponent might decline, and just win the game, maybe because they're very clever, or I misjudged their army, or misunderstood some little trick
Jayden63 wrote: 2 - I have 1850 points of X army. Thats it. I don't have 3000 points of X army with which to trim down to 1850.
In the olden days, you could get in two pick-up games in a afternoon. (three if one game turned particularly one sided). Now, its just really hard to get in one pick-up game that both players can enjoy equally.
Maybe you should play "casual" 1500 pt games instead of fixed 1850 pt games.
Jayden63 wrote: I think the whole "just talk it out with your opponent before hand" argument is a bit flawed for a few reasons.
1 - I dont have the cell phone number of anyone who might show up at my FLGS on any given day. So I have to show up to talk.
2 - I have 1850 points of X army. Thats it. I don't have 3000 points of X army with which to trim down to 1850. I have what I have, and in no way shape or form does it have the power to take down 5 knights. Hell, 3 knights plus other stuff would be a significant challenge. Let alone multiple wraith knights in an eldar army.
So because of problems 1 and 2 I'm stuck playing whatever is in the shop and it up to the other guy to have to fit with me. Which isn't to say that it may or may not be possible because maybe they are in the same boat as I am.
and lastly 3 - I dont have half a day to devote to playing just one game. Finding an opponent, agreeing on a power level for the game, rewriting their list, going through all the random rolls, then actually playing the other game.
In the olden days, you could get in two pick-up games in a afternoon. (three if one game turned particularly one sided). Now, its just really hard to get in one pick-up game that both players can enjoy equally.
That is the worst part of the hobby. You can't just go and play a game anymore.
I hear you on these problems. I've gotten so used to pre-organizing my games, that I can't really remember the last time I had a game that wasn't (outside a tournament)! It just works so well towards having a good time that the idea of just bringing an army with me to play whoever shows up doesn't even enter into my mind. Whenever I meet a new player, I direct them to the forum where our community gathers to pre-organize games, I give them my email address, and I make a sincere effort to showing them that I look forward to our game.
The suggestion to play smaller games is a good one! You don't need to play 1850. In fact, I'm loving the 500 point Combat Patrols right now for their speed and ferocity! 1000 point games are also really cool.
Worst case scenario, just say no! If they want to play with their 5-Knight armies, just say that isn't the game you're looking to play. This game's about your enjoyment too. If you honestly can't get a game in without there being multiple super-heavies on the table, then I don't know what to say aside from find a different FLGS or find the group of players that limit themselves!
Yeah, one must remember that 1850 is actually a *large* army, and a relatively long game. At any point level, it CAN be frustratingly hard to win long-term if you ONLY have X points of models, and your opponent owns 2X points of models, or X points of models that happens to be a lopsided matchup. Invariably, if you are in a fairly competitive meta, you'll end up with a guy who sees you, swaps something in, and you're screwed, if they know what you're going to field.
Frankly, the person who wants to play 1850 points of Space Wolves models that he likes and struggled to cobble together exactly that army and the person who wants to play 5 imperial knights with a case of other stuff... these two people want to play different games. They're better off at different tables.
But the hobby hasn't really changed. It has been like this since the 90s Hell people used to complain about the folks who had too many rhinos, lol.
AtraUnam wrote: I'm selling my entire army. Armies are balanced around narrative rather than gameplay.
In other words they aren't balanced at all where it matters.
Key is finding a group that approaches things the same way. I've been playing since Rogue Trader and the only reason I still enjoy playing today is because my group is all on the same page on approach to the game and power level for things. If I had to rely on playing in local stores in pickup games regularly I'd probably be thinning out my own collection as well. I save in store gaming for things like Bloodbowl and Flames of War which are much better balanced and controlled games than 40k has become.
The 1850 number was just something I picked out. The point I was trying to make was some people just have what they have. A 1500 point of X army may not be able to compete against 3 Kinghts. A 1000 point army may have no way of competing against a single Wraithknight.
The point is that there are models that break the game at any point level if the other guy doesn't tailor. And some players just don't have the models to do said tailoring.
With the bringing in of Appoc level models into what we used to call standard games has changed the state of 40K. And not for the better IMO. Which is what the OP is originally asking.
Akiasura wrote: Even without the decurion, a RP roll makes them tougher than a marine for similar points. Striking last is rough, but a BA squad charging should do what,
2/3, 2/3, 1/2, 2/3 =8/54 wounds per attack off the charge? (Are they ws 5? Can't recall, assumed they were). That's not a ton of kills (2?). After charging the numbers get a lot worse, most likely inflicting one wound between loss of attacks and lower strength, unless they go bp and cc. In which case you can rapid fire at least once before engangemen.
Striking back is
1/2, 1/2, 1,3 = 1/12, so your most likely losing combat by 2. You're not going to run, odds are, and a BA squad shouldn't reach you unmolested.
Wraiths and tomb blades aren't terrible in melee. I'd put wraiths against any unit in the BA and expect them to win combat.
Not taking wraiths is handicapping yourself, and you can't ignore one of the best cc units in the game and say necrons have bad melee.
BA can bring more than just Tac squads. A 5+ FNP is not a great lifesaver when hits bypass armor saves. 3-2+ armor saves on most SM units can be hard to crack in melee without lychguard, praetorians, overlord, or wraiths. And I do handicap myself in certain games. Creates better games. Also, dice averages don't work so well when most dice are not true 16.666%.
Right, you need melee units to do damage in melee. I'm not arguing that. You can still shoot all their melee units quite easily, since they are slow, not that tough per points, or just lose to your melee units.
I'm not familiar with BA, what units do they have besides termies (which are bad) and DC that hit harder than a tactical squad, point for point?
The problem with handicapping yourself is it throws your arguments that BA can stand up to necrons right out the window. It suggests that people who say pick up games are dead and deciding lists with your opponent is now mandatory, instead of something unheard of or considered cheating are correct. You can't make claims about the power level of relevant dexes if you're going to pretend certain units don't exist.
Otherwise eldar are quite reasonable because only guardians exist, and tyranids are strictly bottom tier because flyrants arent a factor.
If you have read any of my other posts then you will know that I don't go blindly into matches. I play pre-arranged matches.
I have read your posts. The original conversation we were having is that pick up games are dead because the power variance between factions (not lists, factions now) is too high to allow people to just show up and play. Obviously if you sit down and allow a BA player to take an optimized list, and you refuse to take any good units, then you can get a 50/50 game.
The problem is when you make sweeping statements like "Beating necrons with CSM/BA is easy, I do it/can't beat them!", and it turns out you're playing in an extremely casual meta. We even run some numbers to show how bad BA are, and you throw them out the window without refuting them. You claim Necron CC is bad, but don't want to include any of the necron units that are actually...good at melee.
You're arguing from a completely different viewpoint from most posters involved in this conversation, and trying to assume otherwise.
I don't spam my best units. If I'm going to spend hours on a hobby, I want to make sure that its going to be a fun game, and not a drawn conclusion.
I play a few other table top hobbies. For 3rd-5th edition, I didn't need to pre-arrange or list tailor anything to have a fun game. In other games, where I spend hours as well, I don't need to do so to have a fun game. This is unique to 40k about halfway through 6th and its gotten worse now.
Not every 40k player is a TFG who plays WAAC lists who cares more about winning than both players having fun and enjoying the game.
No one is claiming that everyone is like that, or that anyone is like that at all.
Believe it or not, people are perfectly able to disagree about the power differences between units/factions and not be TFG. I don't think you are TFG because you think BA and CSM are fine as is, when most people would argue otherwise.
Unless you are implying that anyone who disagrees with you about units/factions is TFG, I don't see your point here.
With a little communication and brain power, all codexes can have balanced games with other codexs, be it by toning down the list of the more powerful codex or playing maelstrom missions.
It's not about a little communication or brain power, so lets not make passive aggressive comments because people disagree with you on the internet.
Take, for example, any of the many riptide threads. They often reached several pages, roughly over 6, and no consensus was reached.
Is the riptide overpowered? Is it just the upgrade that is overpowered? If so, by how much? How do we fix it? Is it worth taking without the upgrade, or should we just up the points? Can I play it against some armies and not others? What if I want to play 2 games that day?
It's a huge model that is pretty expensive, if I had one I'd want to field it. But it would obliterate my CSM without even trying. It does fine against other lists (guard, for example). So if you have two games set up with a CSM and Guard player, do you take it or not? Do you adjust the point cost? How much and on what?
Maelstorm missions require heavy house rules to be fair. Drawing a bad card or something else that's random can ruin it for you. Faster armies, which are generally the stronger armies anyway (outside of DE) benefit a lot more than the slower armies, so if anything those missions make the system run worse.
Currently, I play with 6 other people at a friends house. We don't bother at the FLGS anymore since it became too difficult. We play once a month, at most, and generally don't care too much about what we throw down. Mostly, we play because we have such large collections and want to use them so our wives don't throw them out.
We have a lot more fun playing Necromunda, Mordenheim, or WMH which just involves bringing our stuff to a store. Necromunda can be a pain with terrain but its still a fun game and can be played without list building or a debate on power levels.
Martel732 wrote: "Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons"
Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.
CSM and IG would like to have a word with you about being "the worst list in the game".
IG aren't great... but they're not 'that' bad.
They lack their own formations and don't have any exceptionally great units (though they do have some 'good' ones), but they're still fairly usable. Admittedly I do struggle with mine but I still get roughly a 50-50 win-loss rate. Would be nice to see a new 'dex for them but they haven't really had any real new units (bar those that used to be forgeworld) in about 3 editions now?
Jayden63 wrote: I think the whole "just talk it out with your opponent before hand" argument is a bit flawed for a few reasons.
1 - I dont have the cell phone number of anyone who might show up at my FLGS on any given day. So I have to show up to talk.
2 - I have 1850 points of X army. Thats it. I don't have 3000 points of X army with which to trim down to 1850. I have what I have, and in no way shape or form does it have the power to take down 5 knights. Hell, 3 knights plus other stuff would be a significant challenge. Let alone multiple wraith knights in an eldar army.
So because of problems 1 and 2 I'm stuck playing whatever is in the shop and it up to the other guy to have to fit with me. Which isn't to say that it may or may not be possible because maybe they are in the same boat as I am.
and lastly 3 - I dont have half a day to devote to playing just one game. Finding an opponent, agreeing on a power level for the game, rewriting their list, going through all the random rolls, then actually playing the other game.
In the olden days, you could get in two pick-up games in a afternoon. (three if one game turned particularly one sided). Now, its just really hard to get in one pick-up game that both players can enjoy equally.
That is the worst part of the hobby. You can't just go and play a game anymore.
1. Pre-arranging games is quite easy in today's world. Most stores has some sort of social media page where players communicate and set up games. If the person who you're playing didn't, swap contact numbers and set up future games.
2. Can't help you here besides telling you to play a smaller game where both sides would be even with the given miniatures, or buy more miniatures. This is not a cheap hobby, never has been, never will be. If cost is a big issue, might wanna look into a different system.
3. Within 5-10 mins one should be able to agree on a type of game, and power level used in the game. If it takes longer, then I would argue that someones social skills are lacking.
I'm trying not to just sound flippant here, but i don't think you've thought through how things end up working.
yes, it's easy to casually arrange a game, but i find it's an eldar/necron player who's most up for a game without requiring pre-stipulations for the game/forces. Mainly because of thier codecies.
Realisticly there is no way of having 'even' sides - this was GW's only job with the rulebooks and they deliberately f***ed it up to promote sales. Prices were actally quite reasonable back in the early ninteys - my pocket money was a fiver a week and i could buy a new addition to my army each week - sometimes i'd save up and get a mail order troll to send me some bits!
I agree - It should only take 5-10 mins (takes less when im fighting Tau Tse Tung - he's a good bloke) but have you ever tried to reason to an eldar or necron player that they should tone thier force down for you? It aint going to happen in 10 mins!
Lastly - To answer your post waaay back (i've been really busy!) i also like an apocalypse game (5000+) but there is no point in me bringing a warhound and 4 imperial knights to a table which has a revenant, a scorpion grav-tank and two wraithknights - if the wraithknights weren't bad enough the damn revenant is just as hardcore but also ignores 2/3 of all firing directed at it including MY ranged D, cause, y'know, reasons..
I actually want to give that lot a go because of the fluff of imperial vs eldar knight households, but like it has been shown in threads on dakka in recent months, there is no point in trying to match that kind of points and rules imbalance.
The Psychic Phase was a negative development, IMO. It's like stopping a game of 40k for a game of Yahtzee, and it no longer feels like a Sorcerer of Tzeentch is casting powers, but rather the dude in the Cheetos-stained AC/DC shirt across the table.
There are too many special rules. There are just too many. I hardly ever play a game that doesn't require significant time looking up rules.
Lords of War can be a bit much, and some things like Imperial Knights, which should be Lords of War, are not appropriately classified, IMO.
Other than that, I'm still enjoying the game, and none of the above ruins the experience for me. It's helpful to have opponents who are more into models and fluff than power-gaming.
Even if you are into fluff, the game ca be quite a bad experience.
How does a fluffy Saim-Hann or Iyanden army fare vs. let's say a fluffy Deathwing or CSM army ?
Having a game that's aimed at casuals isn't bad, but IMO current 40k is at best aimed at casuals with enough in-depth game knowledge so they can discuss list beforehand and reach a mutual conclusion of what's balanced against each other.
Martel732 wrote: "Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons"
Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.
CSM and IG would like to have a word with you about being "the worst list in the game".
They're better than BA; especially with FW in play.
It isn't simple or cheap enough to be for casuals, and it isn't balanced enough for competitive play, and isn't well written enough to provide for a good narrative experience.
Martel732 wrote: "Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons"
Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.
Most Necrons are beaten easily in melee, BA player I play against goes melee heavy. Not easy to win when he is about to get most of his army in melee by turn 2 and then sweeps the crons' in CC.
Shoot them. In the face. They die. BA have no deathstars, and no good way to get invisibility. BA, point for point, do not have good durability and only average assault efficacy compared to other assault lists. And we don't get skyhammer, either. BA, ironically, aren't that great at assault. The fact that the rules of the game make BA mediocre at assault is a knock right there, given that that's the BA entire reputation. The Nids are in a similar boat, but at least they have a pentaflyrant crutch.
I miss the days when the only pre-game discussion was about how many points a side and maybe what mission. Sure it wasn't perfect back then but it was no where near as bad as it is now. With the additions of Knights, formations, LoW, and allies has just added more imbalance issues into a game that already had imbalance issues.
If you can find people that all agree on how to play wither being casual or competitive then go have fun. 40k is what you make it to be. Where this creates problems is when people can't agree because they have different views on how they want to play. I have this issue with my friends. Some think formations are all fair while some don't, others hate allies, and some think some units(dreadknights for example) should be limited to one only. It is a mix of casual and competitive players that can't agree and the games usually end on turn 3 or 4 in a landslide. I am on the verge of not playing with them any more due to this.
The only games I have enjoyed lately are with my brother since we agree not to be jerks to each other when making a list and our games are usually 50/50 that come down to the last couple of turns.
I only got into the game a few years ago so I can't say what balance issues there were back in the day, but at the moment it's just power-creep bonanza. If you're going to get back into it, and people at your FLGS play Eldar, you will NEED to impose changes to them. Namely ranged D weapons will need to be toned down a bit. I find 2d3 wounds on a 6 is reasonable and noone will usually argue that.
Aside from Ranged D, limitations on formations are also advised. IMO just CADs is how the game should be. That being said, the new codexes all having formations, they are fairly balanced against eachother's super-formations. Battle companies(AKA space marine parking lot) are very strong, as are skyhammer formations. Aspect hosts for eldar are very common, fire dragons and warp spiders with BS5 are scary. Decurion for necrons. Orks kinda got screwed with theirs nothing really as strong as free transports, although calling a WAAAGH every turn is pretty badass. Space puppies and Dark Angels kinda got more of the same as their SM bros, although DA got a pretty strong land speeder formation that can overwatch within 24". DA have replaced Tau as the undisputed overwatching kings of the universe. Tau Codex drops soon apparently, I'm waiting to see if they buff their overwatch to be even better than DA or give them something else.
Overall, I agree with most of the posts here. The rules favor casual play, if you wanna go to a tournament, bring a cheesy build or prepare to get stomped by 10 free razorbacks/tough necrons/ranged D+BS5 aspect warriors/Drop pod relentless devastators.
General state of 40K? I've just started fielding my fun Ork trukk boy army when Dark Angels super overwatch is just released and New Tau cheesebots are 'round the corner....
The general state of 40K is pretty terrible. I hate how the game is basically Apocalypse now, there is no distinction. Superheavies, formations, EVERYTHING is kosher and that drives me insane. Building a TAC list is impossible, and unless you play regularly with a specific group of people you will have a very hard time settling on an agreed upon interpretation of the rules. I really, really miss the simplicity of 5th edition.
creeping-deth87 wrote: The general state of 40K is pretty terrible. I hate how the game is basically Apocalypse now, there is no distinction. Superheavies, formations, EVERYTHING is kosher and that drives me insane. Building a TAC list is impossible, and unless you play regularly with a specific group of people you will have a very hard time settling on an agreed upon interpretation of the rules. I really, really miss the simplicity of 5th edition.
This is what we hear so often. Its no longer a pure pick-up game as it has been in the 5th edition.
The game has changed so much since I started (2nd) that it honestly makes me a bit upset that I've collected so many minis over the years. The addition of all this Apoc style stuff (Flyers, Superheavies, D-Weapons, etc) has taken much of the fun out of the game for me.
I remember seeing a predator on the board with triple Las setup, and being scared of it doing good damage. I remember Land Raiders being worth their points. I look at it now and its just gone so far (in a bad way imho) from its roots that it doesn't resemble the past editions much past the models.
Not to mention that the prices have gotten so high that I feel like I don't see many new players at events.
Not that I don't enjoy playing still, because I do love playing- I just don't see myself buying any more models or having any of my friends decide to pick up the game without borrowing one of my armies.
Before APOC players had to set up special games with agreed upon limits for various things. These games would take all day to play. And from what I understand they could be pretty fun, but you had to devote your time to it. The rest of us would bring our X point army and play any number of people and games with X point armies just by showing up and having a good time. No special planning necessary.
Now APOC players pretty much have to do the same thing, So nothing has really changed for them, but the show up and game players are now forced to deal with the things that kept us from being APOC players in the first place.
creeping-deth87 wrote: The general state of 40K is pretty terrible. I hate how the game is basically Apocalypse now, there is no distinction. Superheavies, formations, EVERYTHING is kosher and that drives me insane. Building a TAC list is impossible, and unless you play regularly with a specific group of people you will have a very hard time settling on an agreed upon interpretation of the rules. I really, really miss the simplicity of 5th edition.
That is one of the two main reasons I dumped 40K.
I never wanted to play Apocalypse. When it was a separate optional rulebook that was fine. People who liked it could play it, and people who didn't, didn't have to worry about all the Apocalypse stuff.
Basically the problem is that GW don't think about what customers want from GW's games, they think about what GW want from customers, i.e. more money. So they changed the game to offer expensive options for large models -- in other words, Apocalypse, Planet Strike and so on. Not everyone was interested, so GW tried to make it compulsory by including the extra rules into the core rulebook. The result was that a lot of people dropped out of playing the game at all. The extra sales of Apocalypse type stuff (and doublr price codexes, etc) to the remaining players doesn't seem to have compensated for the loss of sales to people who dumped the core game.
Indeed, Apo games were totally different in the past from regular 40k pickup games. We play Apo regularly at a bimonthly basis with 5000 pts per player and 2 to 4 players per side. Its usually a great laugh.
What's even worse is that they had some mechanics for limiting the power of at least some of the Apoc stuff, like the Escalation bonuses if your opponent had a LoW and you didn't, or *gasp* points costs for formations, that they just decided to not bother with anymore.
The unbounded games make the situation even worse.
Okay, I want to field 3 Dreadknights, one Seer Council on Jetbikes, an Ork Stompa, and some cheap fearless meat units. Happy hunting. But what does the opponent say?
Even in our Apo games, each player can only field one army without allies. Before this house rule, I fielded the units above and whatnot. Even in Apo games, my opponents were complaining about this.
Vaktathi wrote: What's even worse is that they had some mechanics for limiting the power of at least some of the Apoc stuff, like the Escalation bonuses if your opponent had a LoW and you didn't, or *gasp* points costs for formations, that they just decided to not bother with anymore.
Kilkrazy wrote: That is one of the two main reasons I dumped 40K.
I never wanted to play Apocalypse. When it was a separate optional rulebook that was fine. People who liked it could play it, and people who didn't, didn't have to worry about all the Apocalypse stuff.
Basically the problem is that GW don't think about what customers want from GW's games, they think about what GW want from customers, i.e. more money. So they changed the game to offer expensive options for large models -- in other words, Apocalypse, Planet Strike and so on. Not everyone was interested, so GW tried to make it compulsory by including the extra rules into the core rulebook. The result was that a lot of people dropped out of playing the game at all. The extra sales of Apocalypse type stuff (and doublr price codexes, etc) to the remaining players doesn't seem to have compensated for the loss of sales to people who dumped the core game.
This I think is a concise summary of the issue.
It has been clearly said by the company they feel they are a model company not a game company: hence the recent store name changes.
We are seeing less of the old rules being grandfathered into the new and new rules could use more play-testing so playability is becoming... limited.
I do like the models, I can "forge the narrative" and have some pretty epic (pun intended) battles.
I did like how in 6th they tried to compile all the special rules so the game was more modular, they still feel they need to create special rules in codex's so it was a rather fruitless exercise.
I find I have to set it up like a historic Napoleonic battle where the story and the scenario are there to be played out, how fair it is to be I can try to balance by objectives (defender has half force remaining after turn X gains a VP... etc).
In summary: GW is not interested in investing in a good game, just models that happen to have rules so you can play with them.
Since they do not do market research, I think it would be important to identify the population of their target customer and how much disposable income they have available to GW specifically.
It is becoming a limited enough population that may not be able to sustain GW even with the best of efforts.
Kilkrazy wrote: Basically the problem is that GW don't think about what customers want from GW's games, they think about what GW want from customers, i.e. more money. So they changed the game to offer expensive options for large models -- in other words, Apocalypse, Planet Strike and so on. Not everyone was interested, so GW tried to make it compulsory by including the extra rules into the core rulebook. The result was that a lot of people dropped out of playing the game at all. The extra sales of Apocalypse type stuff (and doublr price codexes, etc) to the remaining players doesn't seem to have compensated for the loss of sales to people who dumped the core game.
While I see where you're coming from as an ex-40k player, I really don't think that's necessarily the case for 40k, although I do believe it is what happened with Fantasy.
Yes, GW has been working excessively hard to maximize the extent to which they monetize their customer base. And yes, they clearly overreached on Fantasy in particular, with the push for Hordes of expensive models, high-dollar centerpieces, all codified in ever-more expensive rulebooks and so forth. That's why 8E collapsed and GW had to retrench with a radically streamlined (for GW), FREE! AoS ruleset and army lists. While I appreciate the streamlining, it's a good first step.
IMO, the biggest problem with 40k is that GW probably doesn't actually play their own game the way that their customers do. That is, they don't have the casual / collector gamer (in)frequency of play, in which someone might only play once each weekend, 2 or 3 weekends each month, several months each year. Instead, they have this high-detail ruleset that really requires constant play to stay on top of. It's a deep contradiction in terms of what the product requires to play, and what the customer is willing to bear. In a sense, the inclusion of then-Apocalypse units and such isn't really a problem per se, aside from the extreme level of detail that some of these units possess.
Should GW finish the AoS experiment and conclude it to be a success, then one can only hope 40k gets a similar streamlining of the core rules, army lists, and unit datasheets. If all of the information is presented one a single page with no cross-reference required, then Apocalypse units aren't really a problem. That would do wonders in terms of aligning GW's rules with their purported casual / collector player base.
If all of the information is presented one a single page with no cross-reference required, then Apocalypse units aren't really a problem.
I find that all players with armies without a WK class LoW would disagree with that. The game is already as unfun as possible for some people, if others could suddenly start puting down apocalyps units GW would achive a miracle and make the game expiriance even worse.
The idea that GW isn't using AoS as a test case for 40k is just silly. Don't get hung up over AoS releasing without points values, or the temporary situation in which a few armies lack Knights. Everybody will get Knight-class units of some flavor, and they will all be "balanced" by the time that GW moves 40k to an AoS framework.
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 mashing away health points rather than actualy fearing that IG battle cannon.
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.
i have been playing for a very long time (aka rogue trader) from my own experience this games been losing more players than gaining. Most of them do not like where this game has been going. So they have been leaving sens 6th but 7th seems to really chase many more off. The ones i see left have been the ones who power game and some of the hobby gamers. My self i treating it like i treated 2ed with this game feels like to me. I will now play with select friends and maybe go to a tournament if i deem it worth my time. The big part here is my time. This game now takes to long to play for me. This is coming from a ork player that could play full 5 to 7 rounds in 30 minutes in 3erd and 4th. 5th took me hour to two hours. 6th started to take me realy long times( wood just make tournament time rounds.. then 7th just got out of hand very rarely i could get 4 rounds in 2 1/2 hours if i was lucky just like it did in 2ed. I also see so many tournaments no longer running which is sad in it self. for the ones who are positive keep playing and for those who are not be patient for the game will change like it has in the past .
I've been enjoying 7th edition. Yeah there are some balance issues, but instead of complaining my group has learned the new game meta and we have just as much fun. Nothing is unbeatable in the game (except maybe eldar FW stuff) and tournament outcomes show the constant bitching about the cheese flavor of the month isn't founded. If you actually play the game beyond theoryhammer and obsessing on BoLs and Dakka and are frustrated with the current state of the game, then find your enjoyment elsewhere until it changes, or perhaps try narrative campaigns with friends.
A hobby is meant to be enjoyable. If you aren't having fun, make it fun or move on.
madfjohn wrote: i have been playing for a very long time (aka rogue trader) from my own experience this games been losing more players than gaining. Most of them do not like where this game has been going. So they have been leaving sens 6th but 7th seems to really chase many more off. The ones i see left have been the ones who power game and some of the hobby gamers. My self i treating it like i treated 2ed with this game feels like to me. I will now play with select friends and maybe go to a tournament if i deem it worth my time. The big part here is my time. This game now takes to long to play for me. This is coming from a ork player that could play full 5 to 7 rounds in 30 minutes in 3erd and 4th. 5th took me hour to two hours. 6th started to take me realy long times( wood just make tournament time rounds.. then 7th just got out of hand very rarely i could get 4 rounds in 2 1/2 hours if i was lucky just like it did in 2ed. I also see so many tournaments no longer running which is sad in it self. for the ones who are positive keep playing and for those who are not be patient for the game will change like it has in the past .
Sounds like you have issues, I finish 2k battles it 2 hours or less easy. If its taking you longer than 2 hours to finish a regular game, then you need to learn the rules and stop pausing the game even 10 mins to look something up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tankman131 wrote: I've been enjoying 7th edition. Yeah there are some balance issues, but instead of complaining my group has learned the new game meta and we have just as much fun. Nothing is unbeatable in the game (except maybe eldar FW stuff) and tournament outcomes show the constant bitching about the cheese flavor of the month isn't founded. If you actually play the game beyond theoryhammer and obsessing on BoLs and Dakka and are frustrated with the current state of the game, then find your enjoyment elsewhere until it changes, or perhaps try narrative campaigns with friends.
A hobby is meant to be enjoyable. If you aren't having fun, make it fun or move on.
Good post, but unfortunately the flavor of the month is to hate on 40k.
madfjohn wrote: i have been playing for a very long time (aka rogue trader) from my own experience this games been losing more players than gaining. Most of them do not like where this game has been going. So they have been leaving sens 6th but 7th seems to really chase many more off. The ones i see left have been the ones who power game and some of the hobby gamers. My self i treating it like i treated 2ed with this game feels like to me. I will now play with select friends and maybe go to a tournament if i deem it worth my time. The big part here is my time. This game now takes to long to play for me. This is coming from a ork player that could play full 5 to 7 rounds in 30 minutes in 3erd and 4th. 5th took me hour to two hours. 6th started to take me realy long times( wood just make tournament time rounds.. then 7th just got out of hand very rarely i could get 4 rounds in 2 1/2 hours if i was lucky just like it did in 2ed. I also see so many tournaments no longer running which is sad in it self. for the ones who are positive keep playing and for those who are not be patient for the game will change like it has in the past .
Sounds like you have issues, I finish 2k battles it 2 hours or less easy. If its taking you longer than 2 hours to finish a regular game, then you need to learn the rules and stop pausing the game even 10 mins to look something up.
Hrm, probably not. I cannot recall a tournament that does not allocate at least 2 hours and 15 minutes to 1850pt games, and at least 2 hour and 30 minutes to 2000pt games, and that's with time between rounds for setup and moving tables and lunch. Even with those time limits, it's not uncommon to see games run out of time, and these are ostensibly experienced tournament players.
Time depends very much on the precision of play, the mission being played, and the armies involved. Saying that everyone should always be able to finish a 2000pt game in under 2 hours or they're simply lacking knowledge of the rules is absurd.
Tankman131 wrote: I've been enjoying 7th edition. Yeah there are some balance issues, but instead of complaining my group has learned the new game meta and we have just as much fun. Nothing is unbeatable in the game (except maybe eldar FW stuff)
while nothing is literally unbeatable, there are lots of things that are just beyond the reasonable ability (assuming the dice don't roll lottery-odds stilted) of many armies to defeat, particularly if not hardcore tailoring, and no amount of "adapting" or "learning" is going to change that when it's just the simple fact of the statistical odds.
There's a reason if you look at top ten/top tewnty placings in tournaments you see largely the same four or five kinds of armies, and there's many armies that consistently don't break the top 25 or even 33% (without being hamfisted in as an allied contingent to a stronger army). Take a look at the BAO or Adepticon results and see how high Imperial Guard placed for example in their Championships.
and tournament outcomes show the constant bitching about the cheese flavor of the month isn't founded.
Big tournaments have geneally borne out exactly what people thought was going to place well. There hasn't been a tremendous amount of surprise really. Have you looked at the BAO/Adepticon/NOVA/etc results?
7th edition killed my gaming group. Just too much stuff to disagree on and it felt like games were already won or lost depending on the approach to list building. Switched to Infinity and having a great time.
LVO: goes to tyranids
BAO: goes to a daemon/CSM army
Adepticon: goes to daemons
Nova: goes to space puppies
I doubt you can say daemons Or nids are the best codex with a straight face and the furries just got their classic wuffstar.
http://www.torrentoffire.com/7287/nova-2015-recap http://www.torrentoffire.com/6866/adepticon-army-breakdown-stats-stats-stats Armies that are considered gimped at times succeeded while armies that are considered overpowered are beaten or aren't as successful as the "sky is falling" predictions seen on forums so often said. Yes, eldar did well in tournaments, they are popular right now and have some pretty hard to beat armies. Yet tof shows Orks were successful at adepticon, one of the weakest army lists. The tournaments show that a codex may make it possible for a weaker player to do a little better, but more than that it shows that skill in playing the game is a greater determiner.
If this was TLR, the main gist is Get gud and stop complaining. Take it as a challenge worth facing and have fun with it.
I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.
These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.
The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.
But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.
When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.
Savageconvoy wrote: I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.
These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.
The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.
But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.
When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.
your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.
Savageconvoy wrote: I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.
These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.
The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.
But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.
When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.
your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.
So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.
I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.
Savageconvoy wrote: I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.
These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.
The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.
But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.
When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.
your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.
So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.
I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.
I have played against CSM 3 times with my necrons, CSM won twice...
your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.
Have you ever considered your approach is equally annoying?
Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?
Savageconvoy wrote: I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.
These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.
The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.
But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.
When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.
your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.
So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.
I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.
I have played against CSM 3 times with my necrons, CSM won twice...
Which is a non-answer. Ok yay, you won. How, and how can other CSM players use the same methods on a consistent basis against competitive build Necron armies top put themselves on an even footing?
This is the kind of information that is lacking. Anyone can say "well I did it", telling people how, and against what kind of opposing army, and explaining how it's consistently replicatable for others against common Neron army builds (not an opponent's intentionally toned down "nice-play" army), is what's needed to back up the claim that "you just need to get gud".
Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?
it should be annoying, because you're not doing anything but whining about whining, and not telling anyone anything that many don't already try to do but that simply isn't as simple or as possible as you make it out to be.
Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?
If the manner in which you constantly repeat it, yes.
In other words, telling people to just 'git gud' and 'stop bitching' is not productive and as annoying, if not more so, than the people raising very valid points that you struggle to counter.
Savageconvoy wrote: I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.
These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.
The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.
But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.
When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.
your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.
So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.
I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.
I have played against CSM 3 times with my necrons, CSM won twice...
Which is a non-answer. Ok yay, you won. How, and how can other CSM players use the same methods on a consistent basis against competitive build Necron armies top put themselves on an even footing?
This is the kind of information that is lacking. Anyone can say "well I did it", telling people how, and against what kind of opposing army, and explaining how it's consistently replicatable for others against common Neron army builds (not an opponent's intentionally toned down "nice-play" army), is what's needed to back up the claim that "you just need to get gud".
Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?
it should be annoying, because you're not doing anything but whining about whining, and not telling anyone anything that many don't already try to do but that simply isn't as simple or as possible as you make it out to be.
When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.
40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.
Savageconvoy wrote: I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.
These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.
The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.
But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.
When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.
your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.
Savageconvoy wrote: I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.
These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.
The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.
But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.
When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.
your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.
So, do you have any particularly stellar advice on how say, CSM's can handle Eldar or Necrons that's beyond the simplistic "shoot the killy things, kill the shooty things"? For the most part these power-armies play the same way they did before, they're just *that* much stronger and their weaknesses significantly more mitigated, the tactics to fight them remain the same, they're just less effective. It's not like there's any new secret weakness built into these armies that most players just aren't getting.
I mean, the sky is falling aspect has some very good arguments and data backing it up, the "well just get gud" argument has largely been responding with platittudes and hand-waving responses like yours above.
I have played against CSM 3 times with my necrons, CSM won twice...
Which is a non-answer. Ok yay, you won. How, and how can other CSM players use the same methods on a consistent basis against competitive build Necron armies top put themselves on an even footing?
This is the kind of information that is lacking. Anyone can say "well I did it", telling people how, and against what kind of opposing army, and explaining how it's consistently replicatable for others against common Neron army builds (not an opponent's intentionally toned down "nice-play" army), is what's needed to back up the claim that "you just need to get gud".
Enjoying a game and telling people to stop bitching and learn to communicate with their opponent to create balanced games where both sides have fun is annoying to you?
it should be annoying, because you're not doing anything but whining about whining, and not telling anyone anything that many don't already try to do but that simply isn't as simple or as possible as you make it out to be.
When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.
40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.
40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.
According to your profile you only started gaming this year. I suggest you actually educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets before clambering upon your soapbox again. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 5th edition it was a (fairly) balanced rules set that was suitable for tournament play. GW also fostered this part of the game with their own sponsored tournaments such a Throne of Skulls and 'Ard Boyz.
Besides, a balanced ruleset, that is built for tournaments benefits everyone. Not just these apparent spawn of Satan tournament players, it also benefits these casual players. Why do you think this massive disparity in power between lists only exists in 40k? There is a reason for that, and that reason is the slapdash approach to the rules.
Grimtuff wrote: According to your profile you only started gaming this year. I suggest you actually educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets before clambering upon your soapbox again. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 5th edition it was a (fairly) balanced rules set
Indeed, even now I still play 4th edition games when I can. But of course those players are a minority as most people want to keep honing their 7th ed tactics.
Grimtuff wrote: According to your profile you only started gaming this year. I suggest you actually educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets before clambering upon your soapbox again. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 5th edition it was a (fairly) balanced rules set
Indeed, even now I still play 4th edition games when I can. But of course those players are a minority as most people want to keep honing their 7th ed tactics.
Re-reading what I put (and I can't edit as you quoted it! ) I should clarify I'm including 5th in that statement. It sounds like I'm only referring to RT through to 4th.
5th only got bad towards the end when Grey Knights appeared.
Martel732 wrote: 5th got bad as soon as the Space Wolves showed up. Let's not kid ourselves here.
If you say so. IMOSW were fine. They were in the A tier of codexes, powerful, but not game breaking. GK's however were only an utterly different level to the rest of the game they were the single S tier codex of the edition that could stomp everything and make Daemons pointless to to take against them.
Martel732 wrote: 5th got bad as soon as the Space Wolves showed up. Let's not kid ourselves here.
If you say so. IMOSW were fine. They were in the A tier of codexes, powerful, but not game breaking. GK's however were only an utterly different level to the rest of the game they were the single S tier codex of the edition that could stomp everything and make Daemons pointless to to take against them.
SW were on an utterly different level when they dropped as well. Drop podding huge amounts of firepower into peoples faces and then daring them to charge them. Yeah. Real fair against those 3rd and 4th ed codices that were still in use by most armies. Even other 5th ed lists like space marines were completely inferior in every way at the time.
Grey Knights were codex: psyammo. Once that was taken away, they became just another marine rip-off army with a smaller body count.
Then IG came out and were tabling standard marine lists in 3 turns. The 5th ed IG were the proto-Tau/Eldar.
When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments.
That's hardly all I talk about, but they're something we have actual data for.
You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.
Right, you don't have to.
However, you don't have control over what your opponent wants to play however if you aren't willing to just pass on playing them. I've seen no suggestions on how to use many of these lower tier armies to engage many of these higher end armies, even if they're not spamming gobs of the most powerful things.Even in casual settings, a lot of armies don't have to bring anything near their most powerful units & abilities to absolutely dominate some of these weaker armies.
Your only response when challenged on the "well just get gud" count has been, ultimately, to ask players of high-power armies to bring weaker lists or just deflect onto "well you're playing the game wrong". That's not really answering anything.
40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments.
The problem is that it's not really built for anything. It's bad for tournaments. It's terrible for pickup play. It's not even particularly good for narrative play because of the vast power disparities and the fundamental nature of the mission, setup, and deployment rules that are still fundamentally built around a "competitive' foundation but with nothing to really build on them. There's very little in the way of narrative supplement support the way other games like Battletech had, or the way Flames of War has, or Infinity, or RPG's like D&D do, what little narrative 40k material there is largely boils down to "here's some formations you can use anywhere and some minorly changed rulebook missions, take anything you want and go at it, oh and there's no campaign structure outside of a simple linear pre-determined story"
40k's first edition was really what you're talking about and was really far better built for casual/narrative play, but also really advocated having a 3rd party GM.
There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.
And now you are deflecting off onto an entirely different point without answering any of the above questions.
Martel732 wrote: 5th got bad as soon as the Space Wolves showed up. Let's not kid ourselves here.
5E *very* definitely had its issues, and one can probably fairly point to each book that came out in that edition and note that it probably had a fair proportion of balance issues (SW's being SM's/CSM's+1 with ALL THE MISSILE SPAM, IG with 130pt Vendettas, BA's with "we can spam ANYTHING", GK's with 5pt psybolt ammo and dirt cheap fire support units and their absurd Purifier abilities, SM's with "ALL VULKAN ALL THE TIME", etc).
5E wasn't perfect by any means. It was however wayyyyy better than what we have now, and far more functional as a basic pickup game.
Vaktathi wrote: That's hardly all I talk about, but they're something we have actual data for.
There isn't really 'data'. A lot of tournaments have different FAQs and scoring, there are always rules glitches and oversights in the actual play itself, nobody talks about terrain, and of course there's freak occurrences like a 1000pt deathstar suiciding itself on a Perils roll. Much less shadier subjects, which is a can of worms I won't open.
Somebody mentioned Blizzard never looked at forum chatter, they looked at true data and metrics. You need to be careful with these kinds of forums. Nobody is objective and their observations are usually coming with some kind of preexisting confirmation bias.
Vaktathi wrote: That's hardly all I talk about, but they're something we have actual data for.
There isn't really 'data'. A lot of tournaments have different FAQs and scoring, there are always rules glitches and oversights in the actual play itself, nobody talks about terrain, and of course there's freak occurrences like a 1000pt deathstar suiciding itself on a Perils roll. Much less shadier subjects, which is a can of worms I won't open.
And those are fair points, and when I bring up tournament results I generally try and avoid specifics and focus more on trends (e.g. X army consistently places highly in every major tournament while Y army doesn't appear anywhere near the top in any event, etc).
Somebody mentioned Blizzard never looked at forum chatter, they looked at true data and metrics. You need to be careful with these kinds of forums. Nobody is objective and their observations are usually coming with some kind of preexisting confirmation bias.
To be fair, their forums also make places like Dakka look like havens of civility and ivory-tower intellectual discussion. I remember Blizzard forums, but nothing positive.
That said, large, consistent complaints on forums usually ended up getting addressed (eventually) as there was usually a reason for their existence.
Vaktathi wrote: That's hardly all I talk about, but they're something we have actual data for.
There isn't really 'data'. A lot of tournaments have different FAQs and scoring, there are always rules glitches and oversights in the actual play itself, nobody talks about terrain, and of course there's freak occurrences like a 1000pt deathstar suiciding itself on a Perils roll. Much less shadier subjects, which is a can of worms I won't open.
And those are fair points, and when I bring up tournament results I generally try and avoid specifics and focus more on trends (e.g. X army consistently places highly in every major tournament while Y army doesn't appear anywhere near the top in any event, etc).
Somebody mentioned Blizzard never looked at forum chatter, they looked at true data and metrics. You need to be careful with these kinds of forums. Nobody is objective and their observations are usually coming with some kind of preexisting confirmation bias.
To be fair, their forums also make places like Dakka look like havens of civility and ivory-tower intellectual discussion. I remember Blizzard forums, but nothing positive.
That said, large, consistent complaints on forums usually ended up getting addressed (eventually) as there was usually a reason for their existence.
That's true. I remember at the release of wow, people were very upset about the strength of paladins and how weak the other tanks were. Warriors in particular, which I played, were viewed as incredibly difficult to level and not really worth it. Its a far cry from where the game is today. Really, WoW has evolved quite a bit (though I haven't played in years), and even though I don't play many blizzard games, they have done an excellent job and are a model company. Riot is also similar in how it responds to complaints. I don't play LoL or any of their games, but from what my family tells me, the forums are toxic but the balance is mostly good (I think the draft pick system has a lot to do with this, but that's purely speculative).
GW used to listen to customers a bit. I remember when I got into fantasy, my second army was dark elves. Which, like many of my armies, was bought 2nd hand from a man getting married. I didn't realize how bad the book was until I started going through it, and going to druchii.net. It got so bad, that the website managed to produce a fan made dex that was fairly balanced and widely accepted (similar to the living rulebooks that exist for the specialist games). Eventually, GW released a document adopted many of their changes without releasing a new army book. This was huge and got people really excited.
Why they don't do things like this anymore I'll never understand. I remember how excited a lot of fantasy players became, especially ogres and dwarves, since they suffered from being ignored quite a bit at the time.
Tankman131 wrote: LVO: goes to tyranids
BAO: goes to a daemon/CSM army
Adepticon: goes to daemons
Nova: goes to space puppies
I doubt you can say daemons Or nids are the best codex with a straight face and the furries just got their classic wuffstar.
http://www.torrentoffire.com/7287/nova-2015-recap http://www.torrentoffire.com/6866/adepticon-army-breakdown-stats-stats-stats Armies that are considered gimped at times succeeded while armies that are considered overpowered are beaten or aren't as successful as the "sky is falling" predictions seen on forums so often said. Yes, eldar did well in tournaments, they are popular right now and have some pretty hard to beat armies. Yet tof shows Orks were successful at adepticon, one of the weakest army lists. The tournaments show that a codex may make it possible for a weaker player to do a little better, but more than that it shows that skill in playing the game is a greater determiner.
If this was TLR, the main gist is Get gud and stop complaining. Take it as a challenge worth facing and have fun with it.
Daemons are the best Codex,
There, I said it, and I believe it.
Well, Daemons / Eldar. SM and Crons are close 2nds.
Especially under most tournament rules which restrict D-Weapons / Superheavies/GMCs, daemons are an effective counter to everything that is good against non-daemon forces. They are fast, resilient in combat, and the standard ~20 warp charge lists used are sufficiently flexible to summon whatever is needed to deal with the current opponent. The things that Daemons aren't particular good at dealing with (massed high armor, walkers, d-weapons) are generally bad things to take against most other armies. The things which are good to take against most other armies (eg Grav, haywire) are neutered against daemons as they really only have one target type in the army (T4 2W 5++ or better save).
Simplifying an issue down to looking at 'one of X codex placed in the top 10 in Y tournament' is pretty silly as you really need to look at which builds of those armies did well. Competitie nids, for example, are building armies around 4 models in the codex and ignoring every other choice. Orks are doing alright with the Green Tide (+ void shield?) build, but again you're not seeing 90% of models.
The problem with the 'state of 40k', or the 'get gud' attitude, is that so many people either don't know what those good 10% of models are or are unwilling to purchase another $1000 worth of models to be on a level playing field with an army they ostensibly already own. Or be told 'the best way to play Dark Eldar is to play Eldar instead...'
If two equally skilled player went and bought everything they thought looked cool, one from C:CSM and one from C:Eldar, and tried to play a game, the CSM player would get brutalised. And assuming they both progress at the same level of skill, the CSM has to continue buying better and better units until he's left with Nurgle Bikers and Helldrakes, while the C:Eldar player can still be trotting along with whatever he bought the first time, and the C:CSM would still be barely able to hold their own. God forbid the Eldar player decides to play a 'fluffy' Saim Hann or Iyanden force...
Salous wrote: When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.
Really? Last time I played 40k the different play styles basically came down to 'shoot the biggest threat first'. Not much in the way of control lists, area denial, maneuvering, etc.
Salous wrote: 40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.
I see the state of the game still includes players who get defensive, passive aggressive or outright hostile at players who *gasp* think trying to win might be an acceptable thing to do in a game.I suppose I am glad I dismissed the notion of getting back into the game recently in favour of diving back into Infinity.
When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.
40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.
Because when armies cost so much, people build theirs based on random or bad models and not the best there are. And if they want to buy more then 1500pts they don't go for another good 1500pts army, but for more of bad or random units from the first codex. And the feeling of wasted money someone gets after losing one game after another is just nothing. Just like the knowladge that reselling the army is impossible, because no one willl buy an army GW decided to nerf. At the same time the fun an eldar player has from winning every edition is nothing too. For sure he is not having fun, because he wins. No winning is bad, and people should be ashamed about it. He feels good, because of the 50+pages story he wrote for his army, in rhyme .
Salous wrote: When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.
Really? Last time I played 40k the different play styles basically came down to 'shoot the biggest threat first'. Not much in the way of control lists, area denial, maneuvering, etc.
Salous wrote: 40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.
I see the state of the game still includes players who get defensive, passive aggressive or outright hostile at players who *gasp* think trying to win might be an acceptable thing to do in a game.I suppose I am glad I dismissed the notion of getting back into the game recently in favour of diving back into Infinity.
I see players who don't play anymore still bitching because they don't have the necessary personal skills to create a gaming group that nurtures fun, competitive matches without WAAC lists.
Salous wrote: When talking about 40k games all you talk about is competitive armies and tournaments. You don't have to play a list filled with the best units in the codex that you found off the internet. Thats the great thing about 40k, there are so many different armies filled with different units and play styles.
Really? Last time I played 40k the different play styles basically came down to 'shoot the biggest threat first'. Not much in the way of control lists, area denial, maneuvering, etc.
Salous wrote: 40k is a game, a casual game at that. Its not built for tournaments. There is no "pro" league, you aren't going to make a living off playing it. Winning or losing a match means nothing. Its not built to break the game by creating unbeatable armies that revolve around huge blobs of unkillable melee units that juggle wounds by constantly look out siring to the best armor/ inv save. See the game for what it is, play it for what it is and im sure you will have fun.
I see the state of the game still includes players who get defensive, passive aggressive or outright hostile at players who *gasp* think trying to win might be an acceptable thing to do in a game.I suppose I am glad I dismissed the notion of getting back into the game recently in favour of diving back into Infinity.
I see players who don't play anymore still bitching because they don't have the necessary personal skills to create a gaming group that nurtures fun, competitive matches without WAAC lists.
Yeah, cos as it happens I consider having to build a community to be a massive negative when it comes to getting into games...
Who doesn't?
Does anyone want to have to find not just people interested in the game, but are interested in playing the game you think it should be played?
Also fun is subjective etc, etc, and thanks for the insult..
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Filch wrote: i can't wait for GW to Sigmarize wh40k. No more argument about competitive play. No more neck beard know it alls.
Sad thing is in my area 40k getting AoS'd would only attract the neck beards. I might be a bit biased but I find the local competitive players gravitate towards warmachine and X wing were they can pit their skill against their opponents, the local neck beards animatedly stick with 40k and buy and sell whole armies each time the meta starts to change, staying on top of the cheesiest lists they can. AoS lost a lot of players but the one WAAC player in the area dived right in eagerly since the few restrictions that were holding him back were removed.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
After a while, with this kind of threads, it's just a matter of silently sitting at the corner, waiting for the time when (inevitabily) someone comes and blames the players for the dismal state of the game (the company which makes the models and publishes the rules can't be at fault, ever). Then you draw the popcorn out and enjoy the show.
Korinov wrote: After a while, with this kind of threads, it's just a matter of silently sitting at the corner, waiting for the time when (inevitabily) someone comes and blames the players for the dismal state of the game (the company which makes the models and publishes the rules can't be at fault, ever). Then you draw the popcorn out and enjoy the show.
Standard conversation here nowadays. Apparently competitive playerbases are the cause of a game's downfall.
People should learn from the examples of Dota, LoL, etc on how competitive players KILL. THE. GAME. Look at how they destroyed the games. Clearly it's their fault the games collapsed the way they did.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right?
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right?
I'm not sure he's hearing you, standing so high on that soapbox as he is...
The argument for 40K to be competitive and balanced is so lost I'm slightly surprised it's still going on.
If I rolled up to a game with a fluffy fun list and my opponent put down the current FOTM of a deathstar unit and whatever the newest big robot thing is... I'm going to lose, no question of it. In much the same way as if I took a PvE levelling character in an MMO into a PVP zone. They are mutually incompatible styles of play and the rules would require a page one rewrite to make them otherwise.
Which isn't going to happen. Any attempt at balancing 40K would inevitably result in severe restrictions being put on (for example) the preposterously oversized and overpowered units that are GW's thing these days, and they're not going to do that because Player A has bought his Imperial Knights/Riptides/Whatever and he wants to use them. All. The. Time. That genie is out of the bottle now and there's no way to put it back in.
And even if they did, the truly 'competitive' players are still going to mathhammer the best possible combo of units that the 'balanced' rules still allow and field that instead.
Sure, GW could do more - a lot more - to at least provide the illusion of balance, but until they get past the idea that Anyone should be able to field Anything in a 'friendly' game they won't.
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys know that 40k works for both competitive play, narrative play, and casual play?
What 40k doesn't do is auto-filter its playerbase so you end up playing with the right people.
No, what it doesn't do is create an environment were two people can play without having to have a same idea of 'what the game should be'.
Other games don't really divide their playerbases into 'competitive' and 'casual' players. Everyone is just a 'gamer'.
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys know that 40k works for both competitive play, narrative play, and casual play?
What 40k doesn't do is auto-filter its playerbase so you end up playing with the right people.
No, what it doesn't do is create an environment were two people can play without having to have a same idea of 'what the game should be'. Other games don't really divide their playerbases into 'competitive' and 'casual' players. Everyone is just a 'gamer'.
Well, WMH is starting to (if one is to believe their forums); but not even close to the same toxic gulf there is in 40k.
40k is somewhat unique in that its playerbase is at war with itself.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
He's not wrong though. There is merit in what salous has to say here. As a player, you are directly responsible for the fun you have. Why should you 'have to' provide input into your fun? Easy. Because you will only get out what you are willing to put in. This doesn't change the fact that the eldar codex is on a completely different level to the chaos codex or whatever, and it doesn't make it ok either. I personally dislike the fact that one codex has to play down and limit itself to such a huge level to accomodate the other. It can be worked around however.
To be honest, there is great merit in having a game you can play right out of the box. Warmachine. Steamroller. Select point size, swap lists, roll for scenario, off you go. But this is not the only way to play, and this should be seen as the 'one true way' or the 'right' way. Do not casually dismiss the idea of a group of mates who are willing to play up or down, discuss things in advance, and accomodate Their opponents. There is as much merit in having a game where you sit in the driving seat, write up your own missions and scenarios rather than 'line up and charge', sort stuff out with your opponents and build a great game. Because everyone wants something different, and it's an interesting way of making some very cool and involving scenarios and scratch that creative itch.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish. Now, I agree with you - games should be balanced. Game designers should seek to build robust games that can cater to a wide variety of styles. Other games do this. 40k is not that game. 40k is a broken mess. So much of it could be built so much better. You can wish it to be all you want, but you'll go nowhere. The sad reality on the ground is that yes, if you want to enjoy 40k, you have to put in some legwork. The good news is that this can be incredibly rewarding. Remember, the argument that 'the game is wrong. The same should change to suit me' can just as easily be turned on its head with the question 'is the game wrong? Does it need to change Or is it the gamers attitudes that could change to accomodate the game? Should the players not try to adapt, and try different ways of playing the game?'
Different perspectives. Different ways of playing games. I genuinely encourage you to try it. We do it with our historicals, flames of war, and sometimes infinity as well.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
He's not wrong though. There is merit in what salous has to say here. As a player, you are directly responsible for the fun you have. Why should you 'have to' provide input into your fun? Easy. Because you will only get out what you are willing to put in. This doesn't change the fact that the eldar codex is on a completely different level to the chaos codex or whatever, and it doesn't make it ok either. I personally dislike the fact that one codex has to play down and limit itself to such a huge level to accomodate the other. It can be worked around however.
To be honest, there is great merit in having a game you can play right out of the box. Warmachine. Steamroller. Select point size, swap lists, roll for scenario, off you go. But this is not the only way to play, and this should be seen as the 'one true way' or the 'right' way. Do not casually dismiss the idea of a group of mates who are willing to play up or down, discuss things in advance, and accomodate Their opponents. There is as much merit in having a game where you sit in the driving seat, write up your own missions and scenarios rather than 'line up and charge', sort stuff out with your opponents and build a great game. Because everyone wants something different, and it's an interesting way of making some very cool and involving scenarios and scratch that creative itch.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish. Now, I agree with you - games should be balanced. Game designers should seek to build robust games that can cater to a wide variety of styles. Other games do this. 40k is not that game. 40k is a broken mess. So much of it could be built so much better. You can wish it to be all you want, but you'll go nowhere. The sad reality on the ground is that yes, if you want to enjoy 40k, you have to put in some legwork. The good news is that this can be incredibly rewarding. Remember, the argument that 'the game is wrong. The same should change to suit me' can just as easily be turned on its head with the question 'is the game wrong? Does it need to change Or is it the gamers attitudes that could change to accomodate the game? Should the players not try to adapt, and try different ways of playing the game?'
Different perspectives. Different ways of playing games. I genuinely encourage you to try it. We do it with our historicals, flames of war, and sometimes infinity as well.
The point is though, that a tight ruleset, would benefit the people wanting to play pick up games, it would benefit the more competitive minded people and it would still have no impact on the people who are going to put the 'legwork' in to change it up. An all over the place mess, doesn't benefit either of the first two and the people who are going to change it up are still going to change it up so it doesn't really affect them.
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys know that 40k works for both competitive play, narrative play, and casual play?
What 40k doesn't do is auto-filter its playerbase so you end up playing with the right people.
No, what it doesn't do is create an environment were two people can play without having to have a same idea of 'what the game should be'.
Other games don't really divide their playerbases into 'competitive' and 'casual' players. Everyone is just a 'gamer'.
Well, WMH is starting to (if one is to believe their forums); but not even close to the same toxic gulf there is in 40k.
Really? I roll through their forums pretty often and it's not really that toxic. I think the worst forum is the Khador forum, but it's gotten a lot better since the recent errata which nerfed the two strongest control casters in the game. Khador hated seeing either one of them on the field, now (when they get their new big guy with that absurdly long range gun) they won't have a problem with them. Especially with butcher3. If Denny, who used to be the strongest caster in the strongest faction, feats on butcher, he just casually rolls up and kills her. Makes the game way less lopsided.
Even the factions who lost their strong casters haven't been complaining and have been pretty optimistic in trying new things.
Usually the worse I hear on those forums is cryx's "Why isn't the Inflictor out yet?". Honestly they have some of the most positive gaming forums I've ever been on.
40k is somewhat unique in that its playerbase is at war with itself.
Well, unique in tabletop gaming. It's actually pretty similar to the LoL, HoS, or WoW forums. It also reminds of DnD 4e forums. Many players were very bitter over 4e who had been playing since 1 or 2e, and made their stance known on the forums.
I remember when Warseer used to be called Whineseer, and dakka used to be the more reasonable forum. Now dakka is players insulting each other, waiting for GW to die or the game to get fixed, and the occasional "gut good".
I miss the tactics forum.
jonolikespie wrote: Other games don't really divide their playerbases into 'competitive' and 'casual' players. Everyone is just a 'gamer'.
"Rec league"
"NCAA"
Plenty of games discriminate between competitive and casual. You just don't realize it!
As best as I can tell those are sport things, I was talking about tabletop gaming.
Even then though, I played little league when I was 8 and we still tried to win. No one told us we were wrong for playing that way, we just weren't pitted against 14 year olds for obvious reasons.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish
How do you force eldar, necron and sm players who are clearly having fun to make the game fun for you? Your not having fun, but they do, so they won't care. Unless your a store owner you can't force them to do anything and unless your a local important person you won't be able to enforce house rules that make only your army stronger.
Same with the walk away thing. You can't use w40k models in other games, and you won't start new games when your w40k can't get sold.
Or is the deal with it just some version of use your infinite stash of money ?
40k players argue over the context of the game -- powerlisting, abusing imba mechanics, and exploiting rules quirks.
Pushing your 10x Kabalites onto an objective to score a VP in pursuit of winning isn't what people get annoyed at.
Conversely, if Roger Clemens was chucking 90mph fastballs in Little League at 8 year olds, or at a 16 year old girl in rec league, you don't think it's a little out of place? Everyone's trying to win after all.
That's why sportsmanship and social skills are important. A gifted pitcher with no understanding of when it's not appropriate to bring his A game, is not just a TFG but actually dangerous to other people -- can you imagine beaning some poor girl in a beer league and then claiming she was crowding the plate?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makumba wrote: How do you force eldar, necron and sm players who are clearly having fun to make the game fun for you?
Do people factor in buy in cost when they start throwing around these ideas? It's not something like a sport where someone just has to put less effort in to make it a casual setting. Sometimes it's having to completely go out of your way to purchase and build bad models just so that you can "even" the playing field.
Develop a casual group? Yeah it seems perfectly reasonable to try and get people to pay hundreds into a game to try and get to decent point values. The hours spent modeling wysiwyg and possibly painting. And the flexibility to completely stop using models they spent hundreds on and many hours creating for the sake of casualness.
Just dropping the game has the same issue. Some people have gotten upset when people that no longer play respond in these threads. Guess what? Those people probably spent thousands on the game and countless hours modeling and painting. Shelving an army is painful.
I shelved a Tau army that I spent a lot of time putting together.
I shelved an Eldar army I was in the progress of making. I got the Wraith set they were selling around the beginning of 7th and was putting in a lot of time into modeling them to swap between different weapons. 7th hit and now I can't even feel decent about making them because I'd probably be considered a TFG just for pulling them out at the shop.
I want to get into 40K again, like I'm sure many others do as well. I have all the models to get back into it. But I can't. The rules are just bad. We've tried having group discussions and making a gentleman's agreement on what "should" be brought into games so we don't start going into insane competitive lists. But that's still models getting shelved or in some cases entire armies not being able to be used.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right?
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
He's not wrong though. There is merit in what salous has to say here. As a player, you are directly responsible for the fun you have. Why should you 'have to' provide input into your fun? Easy. Because you will only get out what you are willing to put in. This doesn't change the fact that the eldar codex is on a completely different level to the chaos codex or whatever, and it doesn't make it ok either. I personally dislike the fact that one codex has to play down and limit itself to such a huge level to accomodate the other. It can be worked around however.
To be honest, there is great merit in having a game you can play right out of the box. Warmachine. Steamroller. Select point size, swap lists, roll for scenario, off you go. But this is not the only way to play, and this should be seen as the 'one true way' or the 'right' way. Do not casually dismiss the idea of a group of mates who are willing to play up or down, discuss things in advance, and accomodate Their opponents. There is as much merit in having a game where you sit in the driving seat, write up your own missions and scenarios rather than 'line up and charge', sort stuff out with your opponents and build a great game. Because everyone wants something different, and it's an interesting way of making some very cool and involving scenarios and scratch that creative itch.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish. Now, I agree with you - games should be balanced. Game designers should seek to build robust games that can cater to a wide variety of styles. Other games do this. 40k is not that game. 40k is a broken mess. So much of it could be built so much better. You can wish it to be all you want, but you'll go nowhere. The sad reality on the ground is that yes, if you want to enjoy 40k, you have to put in some legwork. The good news is that this can be incredibly rewarding. Remember, the argument that 'the game is wrong. The same should change to suit me' can just as easily be turned on its head with the question 'is the game wrong? Does it need to change Or is it the gamers attitudes that could change to accomodate the game? Should the players not try to adapt, and try different ways of playing the game?'
Different perspectives. Different ways of playing games. I genuinely encourage you to try it. We do it with our historicals, flames of war, and sometimes infinity as well.
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
Kilkrazy wrote: That's an ad hominem argument and also a bit rude to everyone who disagrees with you.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right?
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Thats the whole point... Players create the environment that they play in. Players have the decision and ability to create fun games. If they're unable to do that, then they're the ones at fault.
Why in the hell should they have to do that? That is not a positive thing. All that says is 40k is a game where two people can't meet in a game store, set up a game and have fun with each other without more than exchanging names. That is a huge negative.
He's not wrong though. There is merit in what salous has to say here. As a player, you are directly responsible for the fun you have. Why should you 'have to' provide input into your fun? Easy. Because you will only get out what you are willing to put in. This doesn't change the fact that the eldar codex is on a completely different level to the chaos codex or whatever, and it doesn't make it ok either. I personally dislike the fact that one codex has to play down and limit itself to such a huge level to accomodate the other. It can be worked around however.
To be honest, there is great merit in having a game you can play right out of the box. Warmachine. Steamroller. Select point size, swap lists, roll for scenario, off you go. But this is not the only way to play, and this should be seen as the 'one true way' or the 'right' way. Do not casually dismiss the idea of a group of mates who are willing to play up or down, discuss things in advance, and accomodate Their opponents. There is as much merit in having a game where you sit in the driving seat, write up your own missions and scenarios rather than 'line up and charge', sort stuff out with your opponents and build a great game. Because everyone wants something different, and it's an interesting way of making some very cool and involving scenarios and scratch that creative itch.
If you're not having fun, you either walk away and play something else, continue doing the same old thing for the same frustrations, or do something about it. Take charge of your own game. Your argument boils down to 'why should I have to do anything about it', with all the associated hand waving away of responsibility and entrenchment of entitlement. It's naive, short sighted and more than a bit selfish. Now, I agree with you - games should be balanced. Game designers should seek to build robust games that can cater to a wide variety of styles. Other games do this. 40k is not that game. 40k is a broken mess. So much of it could be built so much better. You can wish it to be all you want, but you'll go nowhere. The sad reality on the ground is that yes, if you want to enjoy 40k, you have to put in some legwork. The good news is that this can be incredibly rewarding. Remember, the argument that 'the game is wrong. The same should change to suit me' can just as easily be turned on its head with the question 'is the game wrong? Does it need to change Or is it the gamers attitudes that could change to accomodate the game? Should the players not try to adapt, and try different ways of playing the game?'
Different perspectives. Different ways of playing games. I genuinely encourage you to try it. We do it with our historicals, flames of war, and sometimes infinity as well.
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
And this answers any of the questions how? Or are you still not going to answer them and go on about how people are unable or unwilling and fill your posts with ad hominem?
I have to ask this, as it is amusing to understand. I play sisters, ever since 3rd edition actually, and have recently repacked them after trying them out for 7th and probably sticking to infinity from now on. The reason? My store has a large majority that uses Necrons, IK, and DA. I have played nearly a hundred games this year, and can honestly say my win count is in the single digits. This is not through lack of trying, as I have taken the best I can and have allied in inquisition and Space Wolves here and there. But the sheer one sidedness of all of these losses has killed my love of the game. So please, people who say all I need to do is 'git gud', explain to me how my army can win against anyone with enough effort
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
People might be inclined to take you seriously if you didn't act like an ass. Straight up man, your post above adds nothing of any value to the conversation. None. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.
This discussion is about the state of 40k. That state is one of unbalanced mess that is only getting more complicated and more expensive while also not being particularly good for competitive games, casual games, and any shade in between. Yes, players can invest tons of effort and compromises to make something work in 40k. But, if that's the case, wouldn't it be incredibly obvious that the state of 40k is flat out bad? If you need to put in that much effort to make the game work when nearly every other game currently on the market works out of the box the way its intended to, it means 40k is not in a good position.
You can like it all you want, and that's fine, but again, seeing as this thread is about the state of 40k, most people agree its not good or at least could be dramatically improved. Your own arguments support that statement too. If the game needs tons of compromising and only playing with close friends and ensuring you're all on the same power level and developing your own sets of FAQs and other houserules, that pretty much makes the game, well, bad.
Oh, posting politely might help your case. Right now, its been a lot of personal attacks and snide remarks with no backing.
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
People might be inclined to take you seriously if you didn't act like an ass. Straight up man, your post above adds nothing of any value to the conversation. None. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.
This discussion is about the state of 40k. That state is one of unbalanced mess that is only getting more complicated and more expensive while also not being particularly good for competitive games, casual games, and any shade in between. Yes, players can invest tons of effort and compromises to make something work in 40k. But, if that's the case, wouldn't it be incredibly obvious that the state of 40k is flat out bad? If you need to put in that much effort to make the game work when nearly every other game currently on the market works out of the box the way its intended to, it means 40k is not in a good position.
You can like it all you want, and that's fine, but again, seeing as this thread is about the state of 40k, most people agree its not good or at least could be dramatically improved. Your own arguments support that statement too. If the game needs tons of compromising and only playing with close friends and ensuring you're all on the same power level and developing your own sets of FAQs and other houserules, that pretty much makes the game, well, bad.
Oh, posting politely might help your case. Right now, its been a lot of personal attacks and snide remarks with no backing.
First off, it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k. Second, I question how you can judge the state of 40k off this thread. Just because the loud minority rants and raves on these forums does not mean the game is bad.
Lastly, I'm sorry that you gain nothing from my posts. Possibly you're unable to see someone else's point of view if it conflicts with your own?
Savageconvoy wrote: Do people factor in buy in cost when they start throwing around these ideas? It's not something like a sport where someone just has to put less effort in to make it a casual setting. Sometimes it's having to completely go out of your way to purchase and build bad models just so that you can "even" the playing field.
Develop a casual group? Yeah it seems perfectly reasonable to try and get people to pay hundreds into a game to try and get to decent point values. The hours spent modeling wysiwyg and possibly painting. And the flexibility to completely stop using models they spent hundreds on and many hours creating for the sake of casualness.
Just dropping the game has the same issue. Some people have gotten upset when people that no longer play respond in these threads. Guess what? Those people probably spent thousands on the game and countless hours modeling and painting. Shelving an army is painful.
I shelved a Tau army that I spent a lot of time putting together.
I shelved an Eldar army I was in the progress of making. I got the Wraith set they were selling around the beginning of 7th and was putting in a lot of time into modeling them to swap between different weapons. 7th hit and now I can't even feel decent about making them because I'd probably be considered a TFG just for pulling them out at the shop.
I want to get into 40K again, like I'm sure many others do as well. I have all the models to get back into it. But I can't. The rules are just bad. We've tried having group discussions and making a gentleman's agreement on what "should" be brought into games so we don't start going into insane competitive lists. But that's still models getting shelved or in some cases entire armies not being able to be used.
Are people in your area so set against Tau and Eldar that they don't believe that the armies can be played in a casual setting? If that's really the case, you're better off finding a new group, and hopefully one where people aren't so dead set against allowing people to field entire factions. In my experience, the easy way to avoid being overly competitive is to avoid spamming certain units and to be upfront with your opponent about what you are bringing. For Tau, let them know if you're planning on bringing more than one Riptide. For Eldar, let them know if you're bringing jetbikes or Wraith units (the Wraithknight is another story altogether).
Warhammer 40k just doesn't really work well as a "pick up and play" sort of game. You have to know the group of people you're playing and what kind of games you can expect in that group. I compare it to tabletop RPGs, in that you need to be familiar with the DM and the kind of group you'll be joining.
Martel732 wrote: " it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k. "
Patently untrue, as many different people have different definitions of "balanced".
It is true that people have different definitions of balanced. However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
Martel732 wrote: " it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k. "
Patently untrue, as many different people have different definitions of "balanced".
It is true that people have different definitions of balanced. However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
90% is an extremely overoptimistic number. Just look at the disagreement on the boards about which armies are the weakest/strongest. Also, what's the negotiation for BA vs Eldar look like? Do BA get double pts? Triple pts? 1.5 X pts? How bad is bad?
Salous wrote: However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here
I'm not offended, but there are realistic limits to how successful that approach can be. Plus, it's tedious and I shouldn't have to do it to begin with.
Martel732 wrote: 90% is an extremely overoptimistic number. Just look at the disagreement on the boards about which armies are the weakest/strongest. Also, what's the negotiation for BA vs Eldar look like? Do BA get double pts? Triple pts? 1.5 X pts? How bad is bad?
It should go somewhat like this:
Eldar player: "So, what lube do you like best?"
BA player: "I don't care. Just... be gentle, senpai..."
Salous wrote: First off, it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k. Second, I question how you can judge the state of 40k off this thread. Just because the loud minority rants and raves on these forums does not mean the game is bad.
Lastly, I'm sorry that you gain nothing from my posts. Possibly you're unable to see someone else's point of view if it conflicts with your own?
1. Patently untrue, as people have varying definitions of what is balanced.
2. While they may have a negative impression of the current game, many of the posters in this thread have been around a long time (much longer than me) and have seen how the game has changed in ways that they view as for the worse. I might disagree with their opinion, but that doesn't make their opinion any less relevant.
3. Pot, there's someone one the line fro you named Kettle. He's here to discuss the subject of blackness, and how it relates to blatant hypocrisy on your part.
Salous wrote: However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here
It's not an issue of communication and social skills, but rather that things just aren't as simple as they're often being made out to be and quite often people just aren't going to see eye to eye or have the time to deal with that. We pay for rules for a reason, having to no only re-write them, but get two people to agree to re-write them and agree on how to do so, basically every game, is often just not possible, and simply shouldn't be necessary to the extent that it is.
Martel732 wrote: " it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k. "
Patently untrue, as many different people have different definitions of "balanced".
It is true that people have different definitions of balanced. However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
90% is an extremely overoptimistic number. Just look at the disagreement on the boards about which armies are the weakest/strongest. Also, what's the negotiation for BA vs Eldar look like? Do BA get double pts? Triple pts? 1.5 X pts? How bad is bad?
The Eldar player can't bring Scatbikers, Wraithknights, and anything with a D-weapon. The Blood Angel player can bring whatever they want.
Salous wrote: However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here
Well when the people posting such things tend to just insult everyone else suggesting that they, in fact, have quite poor social skills themselves....
Regardless, a few pages back I posted a series of questions about the riptide and how to balance it.
This was largely ignored by Salous. I would like to know how he would go about balancing it so that it can be played against the vast majority of armies, other than "don't take it".
It's a very controversial unit. Some people feel its weak, some that the upgrade is too much, some that its just beneath eldar levels of strong...its not something everyone can look at and decide instantly how to balance it.
Honestly, I'd rather invest my "social skills" into having a good time and getting excited about the game I'm playing. I want to meet new people who are into the game, start a league (possibly with narrative style games), and generally focus on having fun. All the other table top games, and this one up until recently, worked this way.
I don't want to debate with my opponent about how to balance his really good looking unit that he just dropped quite a bit of money on so we can actually play a game.
The answer is not simple. Personally, I enjoy the game and play Eldar and my opponents have fun as well. But, I am also selective with whom I play with.
However, to simply blame GW for not writing balanced rules is not totally correct, nor incorrect. 40K has NEVER been a balanced game. I've literally played since the RT era, and many times you can figure out the outcome in a lot of games simply by looking at the two opposing army lists. Should GW do more to balance codexes? Absolutely. However, they haven't done so since they created Codexes (2nd edition) and that has not changed.
Social contracts are important, especially when it comes to 40K. This game has so many lopsided matchups that it does and has always required some interaction between players prior to playing a game. I will concede that there may be a bit more pregame discussion in 7th than in previous editions, but these pregame discussions are nothing new. Go back a decade and these discussions still occurred, but may have been more revolved around tourney vs non tourney lists. Now, there is LoW, FW, # of Detachments, ITC format, NOVA missions, Maelstrom or not, Invisibility etc....
At the end of the day, 40K is just one of those games that can be quite difficult. It has never had a tight set of rules, but we are so passionate about the game that it can drive us all a bit crazy. These days, I'll prearrange a game with someone via FB or attend a tourney in which all the pregame discussion is already established within the parameters of the event.
Salous wrote: However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here
Well when the people posting such things tend to just insult everyone else suggesting that they, in fact, have quite poor social skills themselves....
Regardless, a few pages back I posted a series of questions about the riptide and how to balance it.
This was largely ignored by Salous. I would like to know how he would go about balancing it so that it can be played against the vast majority of armies, other than "don't take it".
It's a very controversial unit. Some people feel its weak, some that the upgrade is too much, some that its just beneath eldar levels of strong...its not something everyone can look at and decide instantly how to balance it.
Honestly, I'd rather invest my "social skills" into having a good time and getting excited about the game I'm playing. I want to meet new people who are into the game, start a league (possibly with narrative style games), and generally focus on having fun. All the other table top games, and this one up until recently, worked this way.
I don't want to debate with my opponent about how to balance his really good looking unit that he just dropped quite a bit of money on so we can actually play a game.
Sorry for not addressing your question. I'm a busy man these days, fighting off all the socially inept gamers here.
I have not played riptides much, but when I did I saw no problems with them. However, it also depends on which army you're playing against. Don't spam them, and don't use them against lists that have no counter to it. If bringing that one Unit means you win, leave it.
Martel732 wrote: " it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k. "
Patently untrue, as many different people have different definitions of "balanced".
It is true that people have different definitions of balanced. However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
90% is an extremely overoptimistic number. Just look at the disagreement on the boards about which armies are the weakest/strongest. Also, what's the negotiation for BA vs Eldar look like? Do BA get double pts? Triple pts? 1.5 X pts? How bad is bad?
The Eldar player can't bring Scatbikers, Wraithknights, and anything with a D-weapon. The Blood Angel player can bring whatever they want.
Sad part is that its still not remotely fair even with those changes.
Salous wrote: However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here
Well when the people posting such things tend to just insult everyone else suggesting that they, in fact, have quite poor social skills themselves....
Regardless, a few pages back I posted a series of questions about the riptide and how to balance it.
This was largely ignored by Salous. I would like to know how he would go about balancing it so that it can be played against the vast majority of armies, other than "don't take it".
It's a very controversial unit. Some people feel its weak, some that the upgrade is too much, some that its just beneath eldar levels of strong...its not something everyone can look at and decide instantly how to balance it.
Honestly, I'd rather invest my "social skills" into having a good time and getting excited about the game I'm playing. I want to meet new people who are into the game, start a league (possibly with narrative style games), and generally focus on having fun. All the other table top games, and this one up until recently, worked this way.
I don't want to debate with my opponent about how to balance his really good looking unit that he just dropped quite a bit of money on so we can actually play a game.
I have not played riptides much, but when I did I saw no problems with them. However, it also depends on which army you're playing against. Don't spam them, and don't use them against lists that have no counter to it. If bringing that one Unit means you win, leave it.
Okay, how much is spamming them? 2 or 3? I want to say 3 because it has a cute nick name (Triptide) but that's hardly conclusive.
What armies can't handle them? What is a counter to them, exactly?
Let's say someone just bought it and wants to play it (its a pretty expensive model to leave at home, and annoying to bring with you if you won't end up playing against it). How should he mod it to play against Chaos Marines?
And I specifically asked for no "don't take it". Assume someone just bought 1 or 2 because its a brilliant model and they want it on the table.
First off, it does not make much effort to set up a balanced game of 40k.
Two issues here. The first is that it does for many people, and often enough, the solution is just not to play person X because of the balance gap. This is not a solution, this is a problem. It also ignores all those who either don't bring a massive collection to the store to constantly adjust and swap based on who happens to be there, or people who simply don't have a large army. It also means that the theoretical compromise may not (and would likely often) be that one or both players are not playing the force they want to play.
Again, problems with the game. The fact they can be worked around (any problem has a workaround) does not excuse that the problem exists and should not exist and that it reflects poorly on the state of 40k, especially its 7th iteration.
Second, I question how you can judge the state of 40k off this thread. Just because the loud minority rants and raves on these forums does not mean the game is bad.
I judge the state of 40k for myself and myself alone, as do you for yourself. That's why we're here, discussing. You also don't know how much these viewpoints are reflective of the 40k population at large. Judging by the growing popularity of a dozen other wargames, its fairly safe to assume many players are either not happy with the state of the game, or largely apathetic and have moved on. But we don't know that for sure, either way. So its probably best we don't assume that any one viewpoint represents a vocal minority either way, because for all we know, your ranting and raving could very well be the vocal minority.
Lastly, I'm sorry that you gain nothing from my posts. Possibly you're unable to see someone else's point of view if it conflicts with your own?
No, your posts add nothing because they're either nothing but insults, like the one I quoted, or filled with them.
Again, want to be taken seriously? Stop acting like an donkey-cave.
Grimtuff wrote: According to your profile you only started gaming this year. I suggest you actually educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets before clambering upon your soapbox again. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 5th edition it was a (fairly) balanced rules set
Indeed, even now I still play 4th edition games when I can. But of course those players are a minority as most people want to keep honing their 7th ed tactics.
Re-reading what I put (and I can't edit as you quoted it! ) I should clarify I'm including 5th in that statement. It sounds like I'm only referring to RT through to 4th.
5th only got bad towards the end when Grey Knights appeared.
Yes 5th brought in some good things- like a more simple vehicle damage table, removing the domino effect from consolidation moves and making rending not so OP. It did however bring in some bad things like the disappearing wound shenanigans. The 'run' move isn't bad in itself but it did hail the start of what 7th edition is now- a faster, arguably dumbed-down affair rather than the more chess-like decision making of 4th ed.
40k is heading towards being AoS'd. Played it a year and a half ago, wondering what the hell kind of crap game GW was having us play. Kinda forgot about it until my buddy and I were talking about AoS. But it's been in development. Expect the beardy rules and such to be alive and well when it hits.
Atm, we try to get into 30k or HH.
Here the actual 40k rules will be used but the formation of armies is much tighter than in 40k.
What we hope are more balanced games as its just Marines vs. Marines.
Salous wrote: However, a little communication and social skills will solve 90% of those situations. At the end of the day, social skills is the key. There is no help for people unable or unwilling to do it.
Suggesting that communication and social skills can solve problems is a good way to offend people around here
Well when the people posting such things tend to just insult everyone else suggesting that they, in fact, have quite poor social skills themselves....
Regardless, a few pages back I posted a series of questions about the riptide and how to balance it.
This was largely ignored by Salous. I would like to know how he would go about balancing it so that it can be played against the vast majority of armies, other than "don't take it".
It's a very controversial unit. Some people feel its weak, some that the upgrade is too much, some that its just beneath eldar levels of strong...its not something everyone can look at and decide instantly how to balance it.
Honestly, I'd rather invest my "social skills" into having a good time and getting excited about the game I'm playing. I want to meet new people who are into the game, start a league (possibly with narrative style games), and generally focus on having fun. All the other table top games, and this one up until recently, worked this way.
I don't want to debate with my opponent about how to balance his really good looking unit that he just dropped quite a bit of money on so we can actually play a game.
Sorry for not addressing your question. I'm a busy man these days, fighting off all the socially inept gamers here.
I have not played riptides much, but when I did I saw no problems with them. However, it also depends on which army you're playing against. Don't spam them, and don't use them against lists that have no counter to it. If bringing that one Unit means you win, leave it.
What should we call this kind of attitude? l2talk? L2negotation?L2Beg? L2Social? Talkmoar?
Are people in your area so set against Tau and Eldar that they don't believe that the armies can be played in a casual setting?
It's a combination of things. First off I'm limited in what models I actually have. Secondly there is a large stigma against playing Tau or Eldar, either that they are just not fun to play against or things they've always had are suddenly too good for them to have. Third, look at the Proposed Rule section for what people think needs to be done to balance Tau or any other army. This isn't really something that amateurs can really do reliably and almost will never agree with.
If that's really the case, you're better off finding a new group, and hopefully one where people aren't so dead set against allowing people to field entire factions.
Again, that's the problem. There are no other gaming groups within a half hour drive for me and even that one is mostly dried up. I'll be lucky if I can walk into the store and even see a 40K army that isn't on a display shelf now.
And it's impossible to bring in new players because of the poor balance issues and the buy in cost.
Warhammer 40k just doesn't really work well as a "pick up and play" sort of game. You have to know the group of people you're playing and what kind of games you can expect in that group. I compare it to tabletop RPGs, in that you need to be familiar with the DM and the kind of group you'll be joining.
The difference with those games is that you actually have narrative and less competitive group environment. In 40K you have two players directly acting against each other.
For example, you can't have a table top RPG tournament. It's just impossible. You can set up 40K tournaments. The game is supposed to be set so you can literally bring what ever you want to the field and play a nice friendly game. But it's not like that at all.
TheCustomLime wrote: What should we call this kind of attitude? l2talk? L2negotation?L2Beg? L2Social? Talkmoar?
Most people call it "normal behaviour". Every time you play social drinking games with people, you discuss rules first because they tend to vary by geography and social group. King's cup, beer pong, spoons, whatever.
Online gamer-types are notorious for poor social adjustment, and that's not exactly a news flash
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Savageconvoy wrote: For example, you can't have a table top RPG tournament. It's just impossible. You can set up 40K tournaments. The game is supposed to be set so you can literally bring what ever you want to the field and play a nice friendly game. But it's not like that at all.
I've seen battle reports that focus on custom missions and multi-game narrative, and honestly it looks a lot more fun (to me at least) than typical ITC Maelstrom type games.
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
This... This doesn't help salous. Really, it doesn't, nor does it need to be said. People would be a lot more willing to listen if you were less abrasive and more inclusive. Personally, I put it down to a lack of knowledge. People really know one way of playing, and it can be daunting to imagine playing wargames in an entirely different way. Gaming cultures are a thing. Let's face it - you go abroad, it's often easier to get a McDonald's than try the local cuisine due to its unfamiliarity, no matter how amazing it might be. same thing here. Show them the other path, and show them the value of it and what can be done with it - ultimately, it's about being positive and selling a message of empowerment. Certainly garners a dad better response than your cheap shots, passive aggressive comments and nasty jabs.
jonolikespie wrote:But there is absolutely nothing stopping you doing any of that with warmahordes, infinity, x wing, etc.
Indeed there isn’t. And if you’d read my post, you’d also see that that is precisely how we play flames of war, historicals, infinity etc. However, what those games don’t have is battles in the forty first millennium, with space marines duelling with chainswords, and tyranids and titans and all that other sheer insanity against a backdrop of hundred kilometre high skyscrapers, millennia old battleships, insane gods and even more insane mortals, and all that grotesque nihilism and mind numbing horror, as well as apocalyptic wars on a scale that is almost beyond comprehension. You play 40k to play in that world. You play the way I suggest to get the most out of your games that you possibly can.
jonolikespie wrote:
40k doesn't have rules for building scenarios.
So? The whole point of ‘players being in the driving seat’ is that the players can come up with interesting scenarios. You don’t need gw to tell you how to play. You don’t need to play out of a book either. If that’s your outlook – that you need someone to tell you how to do this, then you’ve already failed at ‘being creative’. In your games of 40k or whatever else, have you ever thought ‘wouldn’t it be cool if…’ Well, what I suggest is ‘yes, it would be cool. So, how do we go about organising it’ followed by being practical, and actually organising that game as both a scenario, and organising thematic armies that fit that scenario. Doesn’t have to be hard.
jonolikespie wrote:
My argument is not that I don't want to do the work, it's that forcing players to do the work adds nothing to the game while detracting from it.
It doesn't sound like you are saying you don't want to do the work, it sounds like you are saying you are unfamiliar with other styles of gaming and don't know how to make other styles of play work due to lack of familiarity.
I disagree about it adding nothing. It’s an attitude shift. Playing a scenario out of the book does not let me be creative. It does not let me add my own touches, to write my own script or bring my ideas to life. It does not allow for imaginative and clever scenarios. It also means that you’re more likely to end up playing against like minded opponents who want the same things out of their games as you.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
The point is though, that a tight ruleset, would benefit the people wanting to play pick up games, it would benefit the more competitive minded people and it would still have no impact on the people who are going to put the 'legwork' in to change it up. An all over the place mess, doesn't benefit either of the first two and the people who are going to change it up are still going to change it up so it doesn't really affect them.
I don’t recall tight rules sets coming up in the chat to Jonolikespie conversation – I was responding to the argument that ‘why should I take charge of my own games’ and the sheer horror of discussing things with opponents and possibly accommodating them. Lets also be clear that wargames should have a direction, and don’t necessarily need to accommodate all styles of play. You don’t need a ‘magic button’. There is no ‘one size fits all’ game suitable for everything.
But Lets be clear. I enjoy having a tight, well written rules set. But I will disagree with you to an extent. And I will point out your post is indicative of my earlier point about players changing their attitudes to suit a game, rather than changing a game to suit an attitude. You talk about pick-up games as a thing. Well, what about games that are not meant to be pick-up games? No, wait – here me out. As I said earlier, there is great value in games designed to be played out of the box. But it is not the only way to play. Or the right way. PUGs are fine, but are essentially only the arcade setting, rather than the simulation. One could argue that PUGs themselves offer limited, or even no value (depending on your perspective) and instead represent a very lazy, intellectually dead, creatively stifling, and smug, entitled gaming culture that is unwilling to be proactive and shoulder responsibility for their own hobby and enjoyment. Not that I agree with that statement – I’m trying to be dramatic. I enjoy pugs, but games (eg warmachine) need to be built to be pug friendly to accommodate them. I also would argue that pugs are not necessarily representative of how a lot of wargamers play their games. I also enjoy other ways of playing my wargames, so don’t view ‘pug friendly’ as a requirement for a good wargame. Some of the best I’ve ever played have been at my mates house, where over the course of an evening we set up the board, organise thematic forces and discuss victory conditions or any house rules, set out multi layered ‘stories’ and mission creep, and over the following evenings (hey, we work, and have other commitments and can’t do twelve hour game days; I’m not sure if we’d even want to!) play it out. This wouldn’t work for pugs. I actually cant imagine playing FOW in a PUG form after this. Its just so boring and light. Like I said, its an attitude shift where I do feel that while PUGs are fun, and have a viable and necessary niche (great basis for a tournament format, ease of play, universality of play, time constraints etc), players should also acknowledge that they can get so much more out of their games than ‘just’ a pug, and that a requirement for the former isn’t necessarily relevant in aiming for the latter.
If you’re interested – get away from pugs and tournaments for a wee bit and try and expand your horizons if you’ve never done this before – not necessarily ‘play different games’, but rather ‘play the same games, but play them in different ways’. I’m quite serious. try and find some old historical players. Talk to them. See how they play their games, join in if you can and try and take some notes. I’ve learned a lot from those old boys and its done nothing but enhance my enjoyment of this hobby.
Makumba wrote:
How do you force eldar, necron and sm players who are clearly having fun to make the game fun for you?
No, I just play with nice people. I don't have to 'force' anyone - I just explain that no, I'm not having fun, and no, I don't like getting roflstomped- I like being a participant in games.
Makumba wrote:
Your not having fun, but they do, so they won't care.
Why not? Doing the gaming version of clubbing baby seals isn't fun either, unless you are a socially inept loser with no empathy. If they're the kind of players that just want to roll dice against helpless opponents, they are shallow, mannerless bullying cowards with no shred of decency or morals, and are no better than those bullies on the playground when we were kids - in other words, they aren't worth me giving them the time of day, let along partnering up for a wargame.
Makumba wrote:
Unless your a store owner you can't force them to do anything and unless your a local important person you won't be able to enforce house rules that make only your army stronger.
Course I can. Because I have social skills and can talk to my mates and bring them on side with interesting scenarios and clever mission ideas. 'Wouldn't it be cool if...' Is usually answered with 'yeah, let's do it'. You'd be amazed with how far a simple chat with decent folks can get when organising games. It's just a shame you play with losers and tfg, but really, the fact that you refuse to better yourself, and step beyond that mentality yourself and see how stifling self destructive and narrow minded it is means I have little sympathy for you.
Makumba wrote:
Same with the walk away thing. You can't use w40k models in other games, and you won't start new games when your w40k can't get sold.
Why not? I've had no issues selling any of my old taus on Facebook. And yes, you can still use 40k models in other games, assuming they are appropriate stand ins. I'm planning on using my rhinos and kasrkin as generic sci fi human troopers from now on.
Makumba wrote:
Or is the deal with it just some version of use your infinite stash of money ?
Oh I wish I had infinity money. I really do. I have to be clever with my purchases. I have a mortgage and a car to pay for, and a girlfriend to feed and mind. Hobby money is quite a bit down the list of things I need to spend money on. So I am smart with it.
But in the meantime, assume the truth that my gaming budget is quite small, and the time I can give towards gaming is even more limited, I can just chat to my fellow gamers and bring them onside with playing our games. It's called 'socialising' and it offers some remarkable rewards. You'd be amazed how a chat with decent folks can clear up any amount of grievances and lead to common ground. Maybe you should leave your group and try and find some nicer people, eh?
TheCustomLime wrote: What should we call this kind of attitude? l2talk? L2negotation?L2Beg? L2Social? Talkmoar?
Most people call it "normal behaviour". Every time you play social drinking games with people, you discuss rules first because they tend to vary by geography and social group. King's cup, beer pong, spoons, whatever.
Online gamer-types are notorious for poor social adjustment, and that's not exactly a news flash
I'm not referring to pre-game discussions as a whole because most people do it. I'm talking about the strange attitude that all of 40k's problems can be waved away if you just talk to your opponent. Eldar overpowered? Just talk to your opponent. Your army can't fight it's way out of a paper bag? Get to talking, m8. Don't like how your opponent brings his favorite army which is completely broken and refuses to change it because he has nothing else? Talk harder you socially inept loser.
It's just as blindly broad and arrogant as the "L2p" attitude. Sure, talking can help settle some rules disputes but it is hardly a solution to the myriad of problems 40k has.
I'm quite astounded by the implication of "they enjoy pick up games/ competition, so they can't come up with scenarios or modify the rules and don't have the social skills to do so".
Once again I'll reiterate, The current set of rules isn't good for anybody, having to fix things to make it work doesn't make it good, whereas a solid base rules set improves it things for everyone. Strangely enough I could (before the current rules set killed 40k in my area) socialise my way out of a wet paper bag, and come up with scenarios, campaigns and alter the rules. But when I have to alter the rules to fix the base game, then there's probably something wrong.
A good rules set does not stop creativity, it in fact makes it easier
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I'm quite astounded by the implication of "they enjoy pick up games/ competition, so they can't come up with scenarios or modify the rules and don't have the social skills to do so".
It isn't my implication though - I play and enjoy pick up games, tournaments and genuinely love coming up with scenarios and modifying the rules. if what I said came across the way you claim, I can only apologise. I do know, however that there are a lot of gamers out there that are only familiar with a certain way of playing. I was one of them. Meeting those older historical players really opened my eyes, and let me learn the value of other gaming 'styles'. I simply encourage others to do the same - i see enablement and empowerment in this as a good thing.
As to social skills - let's be fair - they various gaming subcultures do attract a lot of maladjusted and socially inept people.
Once again I'll reiterate, The current set of rules isn't good for anybody, having to fix things to make it work doesn't make it good, whereas a solid base rules set improves it things for everyone.
I will agree with you. I think the 40k rules are rubbish, and have been for a long time. I think they are crude, clunky, bloated and sluggish. Having to fix things doesn't make it good. At all. My point is less on the 'fixing' and more on the 'diy' approach - as I said, I play this way with flames of war, infinity and various historicals. I think there is a tendency to focus in on 'the rules' rather than different approaches to gaming.
Strangely enough I could (before the current rules set killed 40k in my area) socialise my way out of a wet paper bag, and come up with scenarios, campaigns and alter the rules. But when I have to alter the rules to fix the base game, then there's probably something wrong.
]
I'll agree again. 40k is far from perfect. There is so much wrong with it. And I've said that previously. If anything, my suggestion is more about making the best out of a bad situation, and being practical with the reality on the ground.
A good rules set does not stop creativity, it in fact makes it easier
Hmm, I think you are on the right track. In my mind, what is necessary though for creativity is both the will to be creative, and good scenario and game design tools moreso than game balance or 'good rules'. Let's be clear as well - I am not dismissing good rules sets - there is a reason I adore warmachine and infinity over 40k after all.
To be fair, warmachine is a brilliant game, with excellent rules but is pretty light on scenario design tools. If anything, I would need to use the same creative approach to designing scenarios and appropriate mission rosters in infinity, fow, warmachine, historicals or even forty-k. The tightness and clarity of warmachine rules set doesn't necessarily aid me any more in designing my own scenarios any more than 40ks clunky rules. They may aid in the in-game 'flow' but that is partly a separate issue.
I think a universal 'diy' approach to scenario/mission design etc is actually a completely separate thing altogether from a 'good rules set. The quality of the rules, I'd argue is merely incidental to how clever you can be in designing your own games.
Obviously though, elegant rules help the flow of a game better than crude and clunky ones. And good rules lead to more interesting interactions than bad ones.
Good points though mozzy - internet beers are on me for this one
Warhammer 40k just doesn't really work well as a "pick up and play" sort of game. You have to know the group of people you're playing and what kind of games you can expect in that group. I compare it to tabletop RPGs, in that you need to be familiar with the DM and the kind of group you'll be joining.
To paraphrase what I said earlier in the thread...
I suggest you educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 6th edition came along it was a (fairly) balanced rules set that was suitable for tournament play. GW also fostered this part of the game with their own sponsored tournaments such a Throne of Skulls and 'Ard Boyz.
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
This... This doesn't help salous. Really, it doesn't, nor does it need to be said. People would be a lot more willing to listen if you were less abrasive and more inclusive. Personally, I put it down to a lack of knowledge. People really know one way of playing, and it can be daunting to imagine playing wargames in an entirely different way. Gaming cultures are a thing. Let's face it - you go abroad, it's often easier to get a McDonald's than try the local cuisine due to its unfamiliarity, no matter how amazing it might be. same thing here. Show them the other path, and show them the value of it and what can be done with it - ultimately, it's about being positive and selling a message of empowerment. Certainly garners a dad better response than your cheap shots, passive aggressive comments and nasty jabs.
While I agree that Salous could use some work with how he approaches people who disagree with him (which is cutting off his social skills argument at the knees), I doubt it's lack of knowledge. Some of the people here have vast experience with table top gaming outside of 40k, and it involves many different ways of playing. He's just started this year.
Myself, I've played Mordenheim, Blood Bowl (not a fan), Necromunda, and Gorka morka. All of these games are narrative games that involve a league creating some house rules and creating stories. They are excellent games that involve an agreed upon contract, especially since the game is no longer supported.
For larger games, I play 40k since 3rd dropped, and Fantasy since 4th. I own, between the two, over 10 armies. I tried infinity and own 4 armies in WMH.
For Role playing games, I've played every dnd ever, BESM, d20 modern, Exalted 1e/2e (which requires more house rules than anything known to man), all of nWOD and oWOD, and too many others to think of.
The point is, I've played many games. No game has been as difficult to play as 40k has become lately (though fantasy comes close, I think that was my local player base being elf/VC heavy). Exalted and the specialist games don't work without a series of house rules and social contracts, and I've had no problem doing that. I've run a DnD amazing race style game that included 20+ players in teams of 4, and didn't have an issue, even though the teams often attacked each other (which was hilarious, since it was in 3rd edition and that game had horrible balance).
I still have yet to get an answer to my simple question about the Riptide, from anyone. This is starting to suggest it can not be answered with anything other than "don't take it", which for an expensive centerpiece seems odd.
I find your travel analogy suspicious as well. I've been to many countries across the board, and have more stomach issues than a diabetic grandmother, and always sample the local cuisine exclusively. Any group I've toured with, everyone has done the same. I can't imagine going to Japan and eating McDonalds.
jonolikespie wrote:But there is absolutely nothing stopping you doing any of that with warmahordes, infinity, x wing, etc.
Indeed there isn’t. And if you’d read my post, you’d also see that that is precisely how we play flames of war, historicals, infinity etc. However, what those games don’t have is battles in the forty first millennium, with space marines duelling with chainswords, and tyranids and titans and all that other sheer insanity against a backdrop of hundred kilometre high skyscrapers, millennia old battleships, insane gods and even more insane mortals, and all that grotesque nihilism and mind numbing horror, as well as apocalyptic wars on a scale that is almost beyond comprehension. You play 40k to play in that world. You play the way I suggest to get the most out of your games that you possibly can.
No one will argue the setting isn't fantastic. That and the money we all have invested is most likely the reason any of us are here today.
What we are suggesting is that you can put in way less effort, focus on having fun, and have a same result.
Have you tried Death Watch, DH, or any of those games? They are excellent, and deliver the setting in a way the 40k does not. They require relatively few house rules (and some great ones are freely available on the forums and have been extensively playtested by the community).
jonolikespie wrote:
40k doesn't have rules for building scenarios.
So? The whole point of ‘players being in the driving seat’ is that the players can come up with interesting scenarios. You don’t need gw to tell you how to play. You don’t need to play out of a book either. If that’s your outlook – that you need someone to tell you how to do this, then you’ve already failed at ‘being creative’. In your games of 40k or whatever else, have you ever thought ‘wouldn’t it be cool if…’ Well, what I suggest is ‘yes, it would be cool. So, how do we go about organising it’ followed by being practical, and actually organising that game as both a scenario, and organising thematic armies that fit that scenario. Doesn’t have to be hard.
When the rule books are expensive, you expect something of value out of them. Old specialist games, and fantasy back in the day, had narrative league style rules that were excellent. It serves as a good jumping off point for people to set up games and modify them.
There is not a single game out there that doesn't place players in the driving seat. If you and your friends want to create house rules and league games, that's not a problem. But if I am spending that much for a game, I shouldn't have to do so just to play.
As I've stated, so far no one has been able to balance the riptide. This suggests that it takes some effort to rewrite the game. I mean, it's one model. How hard can it be to balance it across the game?
jonolikespie wrote:
My argument is not that I don't want to do the work, it's that forcing players to do the work adds nothing to the game while detracting from it.
It doesn't sound like you are saying you don't want to do the work, it sounds like you are saying you are unfamiliar with other styles of gaming and don't know how to make other styles of play work due to lack of familiarity.
I didn't get that from him at all. Table top gaming isn't super common, I imagine most people who do it play games like DND, other board games, or even other table top games nowadays. Not many people jump into the ocean before dipping their tool in a pool, in terms of finances.
I disagree about it adding nothing. It’s an attitude shift. (1) Playing a scenario out of the book does not let me be creative. (2) It does not let me add my own touches, to write my own script or bring my ideas to life. (3) It does not allow for imaginative and clever scenarios. (4) It also means that you’re more likely to end up playing against like minded opponents who want the same things out of their games as you.
1) You can modify the scenario to be creative, if you wanted to. Any group that'll agree to a scenario made up now should agree to a modified one. Or a new one, so it doesn't detract from anything at all.
2) Sure it does. You can easily create your own scenarios or narrative elements based on what they wrote, and even improve upon it. This isn't a game, where a knowledge of modding is required. Just people willing to agree with you, which you'd need anyway.
3) Again, it does. Either the ones provided are clever or imaginative (maybe you've never played a game where those existed?) or you create your own.
4) I don't see how scenarios in a book makes it any harder/easier to find like minded gamers. It might make it easier, since you all bought the same book, but I doubt it makes it harder.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
The point is though, that a tight ruleset, would benefit the people wanting to play pick up games, it would benefit the more competitive minded people and it would still have no impact on the people who are going to put the 'legwork' in to change it up. An all over the place mess, doesn't benefit either of the first two and the people who are going to change it up are still going to change it up so it doesn't really affect them.
I don’t recall tight rules sets coming up in the chat to Jonolikespie conversation – I was responding to the argument that ‘why should I take charge of my own games’ and the sheer horror of discussing things with opponents and possibly accommodating them. Lets also be clear that wargames should have a direction, and don’t necessarily need to accommodate all styles of play. You don’t need a ‘magic button’. There is no ‘one size fits all’ game suitable for everything.
Honestly, you haven't suggested anything that wouldn't fight in a tight rules situation. Your scenarios might end up different if the rules were better, but you could still create narrative games and scenarios as long as people agreed with you. Not any different from now. Casual and competitive should refer to skill levels, not list selection.
But Lets be clear. I enjoy having a tight, well written rules set. But I will disagree with you to an extent. And I will point out your post is indicative of my earlier point about players changing their attitudes to suit a game, rather than changing a game to suit an attitude. You talk about pick-up games as a thing. Well, what about games that are not meant to be pick-up games? No, wait – here me out. As I said earlier, there is great value in games designed to be played out of the box. But it is not the only way to play. Or the right way. PUGs are fine, but are essentially only the arcade setting, rather than the simulation. One could argue that PUGs themselves offer limited, or even no value (depending on your perspective) and instead represent a very lazy, intellectually dead, creatively stifling, and smug, entitled gaming culture that is unwilling to be proactive and shoulder responsibility for their own hobby and enjoyment. Not that I agree with that statement – I’m trying to be dramatic. I enjoy pugs, but games (eg warmachine) need to be built to be pug friendly to accommodate them. I also would argue that pugs are not necessarily representative of how a lot of wargamers play their games.
How would you argue the bolded?
Warmachine also has different scenarios that you can play, and they provide it for you. They have different tournament styles as well. There is nothing stopping you from playing a competitive or casual game with the WMH ruleset, other than you don't want to put the effort in.
I also enjoy other ways of playing my wargames, so don’t view ‘pug friendly’ as a requirement for a good wargame. Some of the best I’ve ever played have been at my mates house, where over the course of an evening we set up the board, organise thematic forces and discuss victory conditions or any house rules, set out multi layered ‘stories’ and mission creep, and over the following evenings (hey, we work, and have other commitments and can’t do twelve hour game days; I’m not sure if we’d even want to!) play it out. This wouldn’t work for pugs.
It wouldn't work for pugs, obviously (you need to spend a lot of time coming up with everything) but you have failed to explain why it wouldn't work for a PUG friendly game.
I actually cant imagine playing FOW in a PUG form after this. Its just so boring and light. Like I said, its an attitude shift where I do feel that while PUGs are fun, and have a viable and necessary niche (great basis for a tournament format, ease of play, universality of play, time constraints etc), players should also acknowledge that they can get so much more out of their games than ‘just’ a pug, and that a requirement for the former isn’t necessarily relevant in aiming for the latter.
You have missed the argument entirely I'm afraid. A PUG friendly game allows you to still do what you want to do, make up scenarios and such, while still allowing people who want to invest less to enjoy the game.
Unless you can come up with a reason a game like WMH can't be house ruled to include additional scenarios, that isn't "no one will do it" (up those social and creative skills!) or "I don't like the setting" (which while fair, isn't the point), your argument doesn't really fly.
If you’re interested – get away from pugs and tournaments for a wee bit and try and expand your horizons if you’ve never done this before – not necessarily ‘play different games’, but rather ‘play the same games, but play them in different ways’. I’m quite serious. try and find some old historical players. Talk to them. See how they play their games, join in if you can and try and take some notes. I’ve learned a lot from those old boys and its done nothing but enhance my enjoyment of this hobby.
Many of us have, and find that 40k requires more work than those games, and you get less out of it.
Games like FoW have scenarios built into them, most wargames do, that get modified in some way. Step 1 in those games is never "toss out the entire ruleset, you're in charge!".
Makumba wrote:
How do you force eldar, necron and sm players who are clearly having fun to make the game fun for you?
No, I just play with nice people. I don't have to 'force' anyone - I just explain that no, I'm not having fun, and no, I don't like getting roflstomped- I like being a participant in games.
Then you should have no problem answering my Riptide question, with an answer that isn't "don't take it". After all, we are friends, I just spent a month painting this bad boy and a decent chunk of change on it. I want to play it with all of our friends!
Makumba wrote:
Your not having fun, but they do, so they won't care.
Why not? Doing the gaming version of clubbing baby seals isn't fun either, unless you are a socially inept loser with no empathy. If they're the kind of players that just want to roll dice against helpless opponents, they are shallow, mannerless bullying cowards with no shred of decency or morals, and are no better than those bullies on the playground when we were kids - in other words, they aren't worth me giving them the time of day, let along partnering up for a wargame.
Not going to address this, other than to say the right way to handle people spitting on eldar, necron, or sm players isn't to further insult them.
Makumba wrote:
Unless your a store owner you can't force them to do anything and unless your a local important person you won't be able to enforce house rules that make only your army stronger.
Course I can. Because I have social skills and can talk to my mates and bring them on side with interesting scenarios and clever mission ideas. 'Wouldn't it be cool if...' Is usually answered with 'yeah, let's do it'. You'd be amazed with how far a simple chat with decent folks can get when organising games. It's just a shame you play with losers and tfg, but really, the fact that you refuse to step beyond that mentality yourself and see how stifling self destructive and narrow minded means I have little sympathy for you.
You were doing really good until here with not insulting people.
If your side wants to claim the "social skills" high ground, they should try displaying them in the forums. Maybe you're one of those people who only gets aggressive online, but either way it reflects poorly on you and your argument.
And again, you are missing the argument.
Makumba wrote:
Same with the walk away thing. You can't use w40k models in other games, and you won't start new games when your w40k can't get sold.
Why not? I've had no issues selling any of my old taus on Facebook. And yes, you can still use 40k models in other games, assuming they are appropriate stand ins. I'm planning on using my rhinos and kasrkin as generic sci fi human troopers from now on.
I use my minis for many of our specialist games, so for the most part its fine. I don't know any game that uses TLoS off hand, so it shouldn't be a big deal to use them.
They work amazing in Death Watch and Dark Heresy.
Makumba wrote:
Or is the deal with it just some version of use your infinite stash of money ?
Oh I wish I had infinity money. I really do. I have to be clever with my purchases. I have a mortgage and a car to pay for, and a girlfriend to feed and mind. Hobby money is quite a bit down the list of things I need to spend money on. So I am smart with it.
But in the meantime, I can just chat to my fellow gamers and bring them onside with playing our games. It's called 'socialising' and it offers some remarkable rewards. You'd be amazed how a chat with decent folks can clear up any amount of grievances and lead to common ground. Maybe you should leave your group and try and find some nicer people, eh?
Again, you shouldn't have a problem answering the riptide question then.
The reason people bring up infinite money is that if your answer to my riptides is to "leave them at home" then I need to buy something else to bring it. If your answer to every powerful unit is to do this, the cost of fielding a 1850 point force quickly rises, as I may need 3k points to pick and chose from so I can play everyone at my local store. The riptide doesn't make a good proxy atm either (though the new codex might change that).
Tl;Dr
You are misrepresenting the other sides arguments and not really addressing them. It'd help if you did.
Sarigar wrote:The answer is not simple. Personally, I enjoy the game and play Eldar and my opponents have fun as well. But, I am also selective with whom I play with.
However, to simply blame GW for not writing balanced rules is not totally correct, nor incorrect. 40K has NEVER been a balanced game. I've literally played since the RT era, and many times you can figure out the outcome in a lot of games simply by looking at the two opposing army lists. Should GW do more to balance codexes? Absolutely. However, they haven't done so since they created Codexes (2nd edition) and that has not changed.
Social contracts are important, especially when it comes to 40K. This game has so many lopsided matchups that it does and has always required some interaction between players prior to playing a game. I will concede that there may be a bit more pregame discussion in 7th than in previous editions, but these pregame discussions are nothing new. Go back a decade and these discussions still occurred, but may have been more revolved around tourney vs non tourney lists. Now, there is LoW, FW, # of Detachments, ITC format, NOVA missions, Maelstrom or not, Invisibility etc....
At the end of the day, 40K is just one of those games that can be quite difficult. It has never had a tight set of rules, but we are so passionate about the game that it can drive us all a bit crazy. These days, I'll prearrange a game with someone via FB or attend a tourney in which all the pregame discussion is already established within the parameters of the event.
Warhammer 40k just doesn't really work well as a "pick up and play" sort of game. You have to know the group of people you're playing and what kind of games you can expect in that group. I compare it to tabletop RPGs, in that you need to be familiar with the DM and the kind of group you'll be joining.
To paraphrase what I said earlier in the thread...
I suggest you educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 6th edition came along it was a (fairly) balanced rules set that was suitable for tournament play. GW also fostered this part of the game with their own sponsored tournaments such a Throne of Skulls and 'Ard Boyz.
These two pieces of anecdotal evidence seem to contradict each other. And yes, some of the senior players at the FLGSs that I frequent have told me about the history of their experience with the game. From what they've told me and from what I've read about previous editions (especially 5th), I'm going to have to go with Sarigar's word. No offense.
While GW may have supported tournaments before, they don't do it know and that's what matters. GW has made it clear what kind of game they want. The players can modify it to their wishes if they so choose, but 40k has never been balanced enough for tournament play in the same sense as Warmahordes and X-Wing are now.
Kilkrazy wrote:What's the point of owning a Riptide and leaving it at home?
Tau were at best 2nd tier from 3rd edition to 6th edition, and had only about four or five viable units in their codex.
Then along comes the 6th edition codex and makes them awesome, and suddenly Tau players are supposed to leave all the awesome units at home?!?!?
Could be worse. You could play Eldar, and not get to bring units at all!
Warhammer 40k just doesn't really work well as a "pick up and play" sort of game. You have to know the group of people you're playing and what kind of games you can expect in that group. I compare it to tabletop RPGs, in that you need to be familiar with the DM and the kind of group you'll be joining.
To paraphrase what I said earlier in the thread...
I suggest you educate yourself on this game's history and the past rulesets. 40k's devolution into it's current fustercluck state of "casual at all costs" and "forge the narrative" stuff is a very recent thing. Up until 6th edition came along it was a (fairly) balanced rules set that was suitable for tournament play. GW also fostered this part of the game with their own sponsored tournaments such a Throne of Skulls and 'Ard Boyz.
These two pieces of anecdotal evidence seem to contradict each other. And yes, some of the senior players at the FLGSs that I frequent have told me about the history of their experience with the game. From what they've told me and from what I've read about previous editions (especially 5th), I'm going to have to go with Sarigar's word. No offense.
You see where I said "fairly". Compared to what is happening in the game nowadays 5th (and prior editions), whilst they had their share of problems were far more suitable and balanced rulesets. In the grand scheme of wargaming they were not great. Ever, especially when put up against things like Malifaux and WMH. But we're comparing 40k to 40k.
Martel732 wrote: It's not my fault I don't want to play games against lists that table me from 60" away with little to no effort or risk.
You're getting soft in your old age Martel
Nah, I just already played that game in 2nd. New Tau = old CSM.
Seriously; the Riptide doesn't give a feth about any unit in my codex. Zero feths given. If I wanted to feel so helpless, I'd go play Starcraft on the Korean server. But even then, they are doing it with skill, not because GW says so.
It's not my fault I don't want to play games against lists that table me from 60" away with little to no effort or risk.
It's GW's fault that they wrote a codex for Tau who had spent 11 years in the wilderness that was grossly overpowered, with fab new models any Tau player was eager to get their hands on.
While I agree that Salous could use some work with how he approaches people who disagree with him (which is cutting off his social skills argument at the knees), I doubt it's lack of knowledge. Some of the people here have vast experience with table top gaming outside of 40k, and it involves many different ways of playing. He's just started this year.
As you say - some do. Some probably don't. All I'm saying is that not everyone is familiar with different directions.
Myself, I've played Mordenheim, Blood Bowl (not a fan), Necromunda, and Gorka morka. All of these games are narrative games that involve a league creating some house rules and creating stories. They are excellent games that involve an agreed upon contract, especially since the game is no longer supported.
For larger games, I play 40k since 3rd dropped, and Fantasy since 4th. I own, between the two, over 10 armies. I tried infinity and own 4 armies in WMH.
For Role playing games, I've played every dnd ever, BESM, d20 modern, Exalted 1e/2e (which requires more house rules than anything known to man), all of nWOD and oWOD, and too many others to think of.
The point is, I've played many games. No game has been as difficult to play as 40k has become lately (though fantasy comes close, I think that was my local player base being elf/VC heavy). Exalted and the specialist games don't work without a series of house rules and social contracts, and I've had no problem doing that. I've run a DnD amazing race style game that included 20+ players in teams of 4, and didn't have an issue, even though the teams often attacked each other (which was hilarious, since it was in 3rd edition and that game had horrible balance).
That's.. A lot of games. Wish I had the time to do this.
I still have yet to get an answer to my simple question about the Riptide, from anyone. This is starting to suggest it can not be answered with anything other than "don't take it", which for an expensive centerpiece seems odd.
With respect, what was the question? I'm sorry - it wasn't originally directed at me.
I find your travel analogy suspicious as well. I've been to many countries across the board, and have more stomach issues than a diabetic grandmother, and always sample the local cuisine exclusively. Any group I've toured with, everyone has done the same. I can't imagine going to Japan and eating McDonalds.
;
No one will argue the setting isn't fantastic. That and the money we all have invested is most likely the reason any of us are here today.
What we are suggesting is that you can put in way less effort, focus on having fun, and have a same result.
Have you tried Death Watch, DH, or any of those games? They are excellent, and deliver the setting in a way the 40k does not. They require relatively few house rules (and some great ones are freely available on the forums and have been extensively playtested by the community).
I've not tried any of the RPGs. I walked away from gw in a big way - my last stronghold is an appreciation for forgeworlds imperial armour and Horus heresy books. To be honest, most of my gaming focus is warmachine/infinity with some historicals on the side.
When the rule books are expensive, you expect something of value out of them. Old specialist games, and fantasy back in the day, had narrative league style rules that were excellent. It serves as a good jumping off point for people to set up games and modify them.
There is not a single game out there that doesn't place players in the driving seat. If you and your friends want to create house rules and league games, that's not a problem. But if I am spending that much for a game, I shouldn't have to do so just to play.
You are right - and I've said as much. I play this way with a multitude of games.
I didn't get that from him at all. Table top gaming isn't super common, I imagine most people who do it play games like DND, other board games, or even other table top games nowadays. Not many people jump into the ocean before dipping their tool in a pool, in terms of finances.
The question isn't about 'how many games they play', it's the mentality behind how they play - it's about 'do they play different games, but in the same way', or 'do they play the same game. But in different ways'.
I disagree about it adding nothing. It’s an attitude shift. (1) Playing a scenario out of the book does not let me be creative. (2) It does not let me add my own touches, to write my own script or bring my ideas to life. (3) It does not allow for imaginative and clever scenarios. (4) It also means that you’re more likely to end up playing against like minded opponents who want the same things out of their games as you.
1) You can modify the scenario to be creative, if you wanted to. Any group that'll agree to a scenario made up now should agree to a modified one. Or a new one, so it doesn't detract from anything at all.
2) Sure it does. You can easily create your own scenarios or narrative elements based on what they wrote, and even improve upon it. This isn't a game, where a knowledge of modding is required. Just people willing to agree with you, which you'd need anyway.
3) Again, it does. Either the ones provided are clever or imaginative (maybe you've never played a game where those existed?) or you create your own.
4) I don't see how scenarios in a book makes it any harder/easier to find like minded gamers. It might make it easier, since you all bought the same book, but I doubt it makes it harder.
1. Modifying the scenario isn't playing the scenario out of the book.
2. Which is The point I was making - doing your own thing. Using x as a base is fine.
3. Ha. Cute.
4.
Not that I agree with that statement – I’m trying to be dramatic. I enjoy pugs, but games (eg warmachine) need to be built to be pug friendly to accommodate them. I also would argue that pugs are not necessarily representative of how a lot of wargamers play their games.
How would you argue the bolded?
Warmachine also has different scenarios that you can play, and they provide it for you. They have different tournament styles as well. There is nothing stopping you from playing a competitive or casual game with the WMH ruleset, other than you don't want to put the effort in.
For the bolder: Clear, concise tight rules and universal scenarios that cater to organised play. Basically what you need to play against a total stranger who doesn't speak your language. Prime territory for pugs. Hence pug friendly. Open ended gaming options and massive variety - not so much 0pug friendly.
Regarding warmachine - yes. I've said as much previously.
It wouldn't work for pugs, obviously (you need to spend a lot of time coming up with everything) but you have failed to explain why it wouldn't work for a PUG friendly game.
Never said that? I said catering for pugs isn't necessity for a games company. It's not helpful, but it's not wrong either. s my baseline, I don't regard 40k as a pug friendly game - I would argue it requires negotiation and compromise to make it work. But you can have immense amounts of fun with 40k. But with the caveat - different hoops to jump through.
You have missed the argument entirely I'm afraid. A PUG friendly game allows you to still do what you want to do, make up scenarios and such, while still allowing people who want to invest less to enjoy the game.
Unless you can come up with a reason a game like WMH can't be house ruled to include additional scenarios, that isn't "no one will do it" (up those social and creative skills!) or "I don't like the setting" (which while fair, isn't the point), your argument doesn't really fly.
I never said this. I never implied this - if it came across that way, I apologise. Heck, I play fow and infinity this way.
Many of us have, and find that 40k requires more work than those games, and you get less out of it.
Games like FoW have scenarios built into them, most wargames do, that get modified in some way. Step 1 in those games is never "toss out the entire ruleset, you're in charge!".
You'd be surprised. Read my posts mate. You'll find I sit firmly in the 'plays warmachine' and can't really be bothered with 40k. It requires far more work than pug games - sure I just don't see that as a bad thing. For those that enjoy 40k, or want to do so, there is a way. Some people enjoy doing all that kind of work, and for some, the infinityverse or wmhiverse just doesn't do it for them. Fair play, if that's their thing...
Then you should have no problem answering my Riptide question, with an answer that isn't "don't take it". After all, we are friends, I just spent a month painting this bad boy and a decent chunk of change on it. I want to play it with all of our friends!.
Assuming that I have to use the game as is, I'd say play the riptide, or play all your riptide so, but balance the scenario around it. 40k is a poorly constructed game, so I. happy to aos it, and ignore the force org chart and points and aim for actual balance that the dartboard balance gw's points system has actually created- I see no point in using an unreliable metric as a measurement of balance.
Genuine questions - what do you want to achieve with your riptides. Why are the tau fielding all those riptides? What are they up against? Are they on the offence, or defense? Is it a defense against hopeless odds? Breach the enemy fortifications? Kill the stompa? What makes sense for the opposing army roster, given the narrative! There is a lot of scope there for building a very interesting story here, and here is how I'd start to do it. Work with me, and help me build an interesting game scenario where you get to use your toys. But it's how I'd approach 40k as a whole.
If your side wants to claim the "social skills" high ground, they should try displaying them in the forums. Maybe you're one of those people who only gets aggressive online, but either way it reflects poorly on you and your argument.
Internet and tone is my guess. I'm not trying to be aggressive.
The reason people bring up infinite money is that if your answer to my riptides is to "leave them at home" then I need to buy something else to bring it. If your answer to every powerful unit is to do this, the cost of fielding a 1850 point force quickly rises, as I may need 3k points to pick and chose from so I can play everyone at my local store. The riptide doesn't make a good proxy atm either (though the new codex might change that).
No, it's one of makumbas usual jabs towards me- apparently I'm super rich. I wish I was.
But to be honest, I don't see any issues with having a sideboard to your main force. Variety is the spice of life - I see little point Of Only fielding a single army list who h never varies.
Are you talking about pug dogs or is it some modern acronym?
To me the thing about current 40K is that I could invest large amounts of time, money and energy in trying to get the game work well, but for the same amount of resources I can get several other games all to work well and have more varied and just better wargaming experiences.
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys know that 40k works for both competitive play, narrative play, and casual play?
What 40k doesn't do is auto-filter its playerbase so you end up playing with the right people.
Competitive play needs a balanced set of rules that can't be rendered down to a handful of Best options and armies. Casual play needs a low buy-in and rules that can be quickly understood with a minimum of quibbling or confusion. Narrative play needs rules for consistently advancing a story (rather than one where warlords might be feeling like a master of infiltration one day and fearsome the next).
Great post, but the people in this thread have the minds made up. They're either unable or unwilling to take matters into their own hands and have fun. If its not done for them they're lost. I imagine this is how they got things done as a child... cry, bitch, and moan till their parents fixed every problem and did everything for them.
People might be inclined to take you seriously if you didn't act like an ass. Straight up man, your post above adds nothing of any value to the conversation. None. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.
This discussion is about the state of 40k. That state is one of unbalanced mess that is only getting more complicated and more expensive while also not being particularly good for competitive games, casual games, and any shade in between. Yes, players can invest tons of effort and compromises to make something work in 40k. But, if that's the case, wouldn't it be incredibly obvious that the state of 40k is flat out bad? If you need to put in that much effort to make the game work when nearly every other game currently on the market works out of the box the way its intended to, it means 40k is not in a good position.
You can like it all you want, and that's fine, but again, seeing as this thread is about the state of 40k, most people agree its not good or at least could be dramatically improved. Your own arguments support that statement too. If the game needs tons of compromising and only playing with close friends and ensuring you're all on the same power level and developing your own sets of FAQs and other houserules, that pretty much makes the game, well, bad.
Oh, posting politely might help your case. Right now, its been a lot of personal attacks and snide remarks with no backing.
I don't think anyone would argue that the core rules are good - no scenario support, not balanced, not supported by GW post release (no FAQ/Errata). GW themselves state over and over that they're a company for collectors and the rules aren't a priority.
It really is a game for the 'collector' target audience now - people who get fun from collecting Citadel minis and occasionally putting them on a table. Some people may spend time to tighten up the rules or create scenarios, but that's secondary to the fun they get from collecting Citadel minis.
If you're one of these players it's probably never been a better time to play GW games - little or no restrictions on what of your collection you can plonk on the tabletop.
What'll be interesting is if GW can sustain itself in the long term with this plan. Players who liked a tighter ruleset have left or are leaving, and at the moment GW don't seem to be recruiting enough collectors to replace those leaving
If I'm not mistaken, GW has stated on record that their core audience are the 'collectors'. I put that in quotes because its a rather vague and nebulous term that I don't think even GW knows what it really means for them, besides 'a person who buys whatever we sell'.
As for the game being designed for them, sure, I suppose, but even then its still poor. The RPGs by FFG are probably better suited for something like that really.
I think the issue is that the game is just not good at doing anything in particular. Its not good for competitive play due to the balance and vague rules. Its not a casual game because of the money and time investment, and even here, balance and poor rules writing hurts. Its not good for narrative play due to a lack of scenarios, campaign backing, rules that work at odds against the fluff, and again, poor balance and writing.
The advantaged the game has really boils down to its ubiquity. Its also supported by some cool models that have cool backgrounds. That's about it. Now, for anyone who says that putting in 'X' amount of effort can fix the game, they might as well put in the same effort to simply port over their models into another system that doesn't have these problems.
Kilkrazy wrote: Then along comes the 6th edition codex and makes them awesome, and suddenly Tau players are supposed to leave all the awesome units at home?!?!?
That's what certain people are suggesting Eldar players do.
Screw that.
If you have a "non-competitive" Codex, simply step up and ask for a points handicap when you're playing a stronger Codex.
Or just L2P.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: If I'm not mistaken, GW has stated on record that their core audience are the 'collectors'. I put that in quotes because its a rather vague and nebulous term that I don't think even GW knows what it really means for them, besides 'a person who buys whatever we sell'.
GW gaming *IS* for hobbyist collectors, as opposed to gamers.
Consider that 40k is completely playable with generic units, yet what is this whole push for bitz customization, parts swaps and so forth. The whole business of personalizing a unique army and and scratchbuilding and so on is collector behavior. Why else the fetish for the original RT / 2E models or Forgeworld. That's all collector mentality.
GW gaming *IS* for hobbyist collectors, as opposed to gamers.
A bit of a contradiction eh? Wouldn't gaming by its nature be for gamers?
Regardless, the issue becomes since when has this been a thing? When I started 40k, it was very much supportive of 'gamers' or whatever vague term you'd like to use.
Now, it doesn't know what it wants to be. Which is the issue.
Consider that 40k is completely playable with generic units, yet what is this whole push for bitz customization, parts swaps and so forth. The whole business of personalizing a unique army and and scratchbuilding and so on is collector behavior. Why else the fetish for the original RT / 2E models or Forgeworld. That's all collector mentality.
Isn't every non-historical wargame about creating a unique and personalized army? From what I've seen, conversions and scratch builds are encouraged in many other games.
Point is, its hard to nail down what a collector really is, and it also neglects that people can be a part of many of these vague definitions people like to try and pigeon-hole other hobbyists in.
Sort of. The other part of the collector mentality that GW doesn't seem to understand are those who collect things for the perceived value they may one day have, such as comic collectors.
When you have scratch-built, or modified, the original model? It now has no collector value.
Elemental wrote: Competitive play needs a balanced set of rules that can't be rendered down to a handful of Best options and armies. Casual play needs a low buy-in and rules that can be quickly understood with a minimum of quibbling or confusion. Narrative play needs rules for consistently advancing a story (rather than one where warlords might be feeling like a master of infiltration one day and fearsome the next).
Hence ITC-style tournament environments with active management, low-points chill games between friends with simple units and a more relaxed attitude to rules, and campaign managers who ensure logical progression over multiple games.
You are 100% right in your assessment but all of these options are out there if you take the time to explore!
What else can they really do? They just try pulling the top tier stuff down a bit. Aside from just re-writing the basic rules, I don't see how they could do anything else.
Because what it basically does is punish people for wanting to play the army as-written and, moreso, simply creates other problems with power-builds in other areas, rather than attempting make all armies balanced, internally and externally, because that is a major, major undertaking.
But again, aside from writing everything from scratch there isn't much they can do. It's a lot of work just to get the competitive aspects of subpar armies up to the competitive level, much less attempting to bring balance as a whole.
If anyone would have the means to do this, it would be the TO since they may have means to play test the rules with a large community.
The game has bloated to a point where it just isn't a reasonable undertaking to do that. In 6th I was able to make an army list using 6 books. Now with the Codex: Imperium of Man I'm sure it's even more insane to try and just touch the army books without making massive overhauls to the BRB.
But again, this is something that GW should have done. If they want to say they aren't a game company then they shouldn't make so many fething rule books.
Kind of my point. The ITC rules, and those from other tournament organizers and such, are bandaids on a sucking chest wound. The game, fundamentally, is broken, and broken badly. There should not be the "learning curve" there is to 40K. One should not expect to drop $500+ for a game to play with one's friends and then expect to have to lose a dozen (or more) times just to kind of get an inkling of an idea of what it is you're doing... or find out that the $500 you spent on those pieces of plastic will *never* win a game against the $500 your friend spent on his other pieces of plastic.
Ok, so I've read all the comments, as well as done some research, and this is the way I see it (objectively, since I haven't played in 10 years).
• People have been complaining that the sky is going to fall in on GW since 2009. Complaining that it'll go bust within the year, etc: It's still open, and doing reasonably well. True, there are some areas they can do better in such as dialogue with the customers (who aren't just customers, but members of a community), as well as bearing in mind the psychological needs of the customers (which is community - people play 40k for fun, and for the sense of community that comes with it).
• AoS: Mixed reviews, but overall it seems to be selling quite well, and most people I speak to say that they enjoy it once they tried it.
• Tryrannid players spend a lot of time washing the tears off their models.
Myc wrote: Ok, so I've read all the comments, as well as done some research, and this is the way I see it (objectively, since I haven't played in 10 years).
• People have been complaining that the sky is going to fall in on GW since 2009. Complaining that it'll go bust within the year, etc: It's still open, and doing reasonably well. True, there are some areas they can do better in such as dialogue with the customers (who aren't just customers, but members of a community), as well as bearing in mind the psychological needs of the customers (which is community - people play 40k for fun, and for the sense of community that comes with it).
• AoS: Mixed reviews, but overall it seems to be selling quite well, and most people I speak to say that they enjoy it once they tried it.
• Tryrannid players spend a lot of time washing the tears off their models.
I think that depends on how you define a couple of things.
Is GW doing 'reasonably' well if they are still pulling a profit but if sales have been falling year on year for a long time now? It is a controlled slide but it will inevitably end at a point where you can't raise prices or cut costs enough to actually turn a profit.
As for AoS, there is a lot of talk of the starter set selling, but the sigmarines that followed seem to be gathering dust on the shelves and they are then 90% of the actual AoS products released now. I tried to find some painted up on CoolMini and in like 10 pages worth of sigmarine pics there were about 6 of them that weren't from the starter set models and store owners here on Dakka are saying the same. Starter sold, nothing since.
Myc wrote: Ok, so I've read all the comments, as well as done some research, and this is the way I see it (objectively, since I haven't played in 10 years).
• People have been complaining that the sky is going to fall in on GW since 2009. Complaining that it'll go bust within the year, etc: It's still open, and doing reasonably well. True,
Sort of. They remain profitable following some major internal restructuring, but their revenues is basically in continuous decline for the last 11 years. Couple that with the fact that their prices have skyrocketed, and the fundamental conclusion is that they're selling less stuff to fewer people. Doesn't mean they're going bye-bye tomorrow, but it does mean that their player/customer base is shrinking at a steady rate.
• AoS: Mixed reviews, but overall it seems to be selling quite well, and most people I speak to say that they enjoy it once they tried it.
As jonolikespie said, the starter sets seem to have sold fairly well, but after the initial July rush, there's a very large sense of "fizzle out" in a lot of places.
In my own personal experience, the only sales I've seen of AoS Sigmarines and Khrone stuff has been for 40k proxies in BA and KDK armies, but haven't seen anyone actually play AoS recently, basically after the interested people tried a couple games it seems to have largely fallen by the wayside.
Why not? Doing the gaming version of clubbing baby seals isn't fun either, unless you are a socially inept loser with no empathy. If they're the kind of players that just want to roll dice against helpless opponents, they are shallow, mannerless bullying cowards with no shred of decency or morals, and are no better than those bullies on the playground when we were kids - in other words, they aren't worth me giving them the time of day, let along partnering up for a wargame.
But they aren't helpless those that play necron, eldar, tyranid tyrant armies or sm bikers lists are doing fine and they make most of the people playing. Those with BA or IG or CSM are the minority, so they have to do what the majority wants. Specialy as doing something would mean that someone has to buy bad models. Can you imagine 2 CSM , 1 BA and IG player making almost 30 people buy bad units ? Or telling people like GK players that we don't want them to run draigo, cenurion and tigurius. They should buy bad GK units and stop using ally. That will work for sure.
No, I just play with nice people. I don't have to 'force' anyone - I just explain that no, I'm not having fun, and no, I don't like getting roflstomped- I like being a participant in games.
I don't see how forcing others to buy models they don't want is suppose to be nice. People here would think it is crazy.
Course I can. Because I have social skills and can talk to my mates and bring them on side with interesting scenarios and clever mission ideas. 'Wouldn't it be cool if...' Is usually answered with 'yeah, let's do it'. You'd be amazed with how far a simple chat with decent folks can get when organising games. It's just a shame you play with losers and tfg, but really, the fact that you refuse to better yourself, and step beyond that mentality yourself and see how stifling self destructive and narrow minded it is means I have little sympathy for you.
You mean like tournament scenarios? My army sucks at those,in fact my army sucks for 7th, because it was writen as if the rules for winning were the same as they were in 5th or 4th ed. Using tournament scenarios won't help, most people have optimized lists anyway. And if I write something that favors my army, they will just say no.
Why not? I've had no issues selling any of my old taus on Facebook. And yes, you can still use 40k models in other games, assuming they are appropriate stand ins. I'm planning on using my rhinos and kasrkin as generic sci fi human troopers from now on.
Because tau are still ok, and getting a new codex now. No one here plays IG and no one runs IG as ally as there are other armies. Some months ago I could have had sold some of the wyverns, now even those don't sell. If people are ok with you to use w40k models in warmahordes or ifinity, then your more lucky then I am. Here neither the people, not the shop owners supporting those games accepts such stuff.
But in the meantime, assume the truth that my gaming budget is quite small, and the time I can give towards gaming is even more limited, I can just chat to my fellow gamers and bring them onside with playing our games. It's called 'socialising' and it offers some remarkable rewards. You'd be amazed how a chat with decent folks can clear up any amount of grievances and lead to common ground. Maybe you should leave your group and try and find some nicer people, eh?
Our play group is made out of people from the same 2 schools, out of the 4 people I play against 2 are my family and 1 my aunts husbands son and one is my boyfriend. Aside for getting married it is impossible to get more socialized with the 20+people here . And chating will get me nothing. When 7th started I already felt that it is going to suck for me, so I ask If I can use the special characters from the old IG codex . The anwser in every time was "no". Then I tried to play non mealstorm missions, because my army is impossible to win them. The anwser was always "no" too.
And leaving the group is impossible. The other one is in the part of town supported by the other football team from my town, and it is dangerous for me to go there or to take a 3 hour train trip to another city, and that is not counting the time needed to get to the station or it getting late.
are you whining about? All the old missions are still there in the book...no one is forcing you to play Maelstrom...what am I missing here?
) to get a bonus.
