I know the internet is full of people complaining but is anyone else having a great time playing 40k right now. The core rules are decent with a few tweaks, most which the ITC has provided. Further most the internet rage cheese are things i've never actually seen in real life. Additionally i've found the few times that cheese is present, the issues can be resolved by talking to you opponent and working out a fair list for each side. Additionally the production quality on both models and codex are beautiful.
I'm having a grand time playing with my friends. We're all fairly casual players, so our games are filled with banter and stuff like that, so its all great fun.
But my issues stem from the fact that I play orks and that I can't find a decent gaming group, despite living in Denver. I have to drive 40 minutes one way to find a hobbytown that even has people show up regularly.
But I did get a game in at the GW store on Saturday, and I brought my bully boyz formation (meganobz) v. eldar. He had like 15 ish str 8 ap 2 guns, and in turn 2 I went from 15 meganobz to 1.
I'll admit that has a lot to do with playing orks, but still. It's hard to say you're having fun when 80% of your army is wiped out in one shooting phase with no saves.
And I could have list tailored, but that's not exactly fair either. I came in wanting to play meganobz and I just happened to play against lance spam.
Anyways. Balance issues aside, I feel as if the rules are decent, and could be great with some actual FAQ support from GW, and ITC helps a lot to fill in the gaps.
And even though I play orks, I think I would have more fun if I could find a decent gaming group/store.
But my issues stem from the fact that I play orks and that I can't find a decent gaming group, despite living in Denver. I have to drive 40 minutes one way to find a hobbytown that even has people show up regularly.
But I did get a game in at the GW store on Saturday, and I brought my bully boyz formation (meganobz) v. eldar. He had like 15 ish str 8 ap 2 guns, and after turn 2 I went from 15 meganobz to 1.
I'll admit that has a lot to do with playing orks, but still. It's hard to say you're having fun when 80% of your army is wiped out turn 2 with no saves.
And I could have list tailored, but that's not exactly fair either. I came in wanting to play meganobz and I just happened to play against lance spam.
Anyways. Balance issues aside, I feel as if the rules are decent, and could be great with some actual FAQ support from GW, and ITC helps a lot to fill in the gaps.
And even though I play orks, I think I would have more fun if I could find a decent gaming group/store.
How close are you to the Springs? We have a fairly large group that plays every Friday.
not terribly close, I'm afraid - at least an hour. Maybe I'm just picky, but there's 3 game stores within a 15 minute drive of my house, but no one plays at any of them that I know of.
You can PM me with the place and time and I might give it a shot, but it annoys me a bit having to drive an hour to get a game in when there's plenty of opportunities close to home.
I'm loving the game at the moment. As others have said, I think it has a lot to do with the group you play in. I have a great local club and really look forward to the gaming night each week.
I'd much rather a close fought game that resulted in a loss than wiping my opponent off the board in 2-3 turns.
So is everywhere else right now, from my experience. The complaints aren't just an internet phenomenon.
. Further most the internet rage cheese are things i've never actually seen in real life. Additionally i've found the few times that cheese is present, the issues can be resolved by talking to you opponent and working out a fair list for each side.
Cheese isn't the root of my current disatisfaction with the game... the overall state of the rules, combined with several mechanics that are just pants-on-head stupid, is.
As such, I'm still enjoying playing, but that's because I've stopped playing in tournaments entirely, have given up on getting games in at the local games club, and am just playing at home with a couple of people I know well, with rules modified where necessary to suit ourselves.
As such, I'm still enjoying playing, but that's because I've stopped playing in tournaments entirely, have given up on getting games in at the local games club, and am just playing at home with a couple of people I know well, with rules modified where necessary to suit ourselves.
The best way really, in my opinion that is. Avoid the douche nozzles, and play with folk you know you can have a laugh with while you're at it.
The best way really, in my opinion that is. Avoid the douche nozzles, and play with folk you know you can have a laugh with while you're at it.
Prior to 6th edition, I had maybe 3 tournament games and a bare handful of club games that I didn't enjoy. In 20 years.
So no, not the best way at all, IMO. Yes, this way I play with people I know... but I get in about a quarter of the gaming that I used to, against the same two people over and over again.
Considering the rulebook is an incoherent pile of gak, and the codices were written by complete gakkers and the prices being too damn high; not really.
The only thing stopping me from moving game system is the fact nobody plays WHFB or AoS, or WH, or Infinity, or anything else.
Are you kidding? You could write an entire book on the many aspects of terrible game design in the 40k rules. It's an unbelievably bad game that survives entirely by sheer inertia and awesome stories. The rules are just that thing you put up with so that you can play with your beloved models.
Most of the games I play are really fun.The last game I was playing started out as a total curb stomp, but my opponent was able to get back in the fight halfway through and make a big comeback before the game ended with me narrowly in the lead. I'm still getting cool stories out of games with models I love and people I like hanging out with. Even most of my tournament games have been enjoyable, except for when I occasionally get paired with a beatface list, but I still usually find some fun in it.
Is the game perfectly balanced? God no. Do the rules still facilitate some fun and close games? I'd say yes. I wish it was as good a balanced tournament game as it was a casual/beer and pretzels game, but since I play almost exclusively the latter I'm having a good time.
Quickjager wrote: A new guy came to the store recently and stole some stuff of mine... got an eye out for him now.
I don't trust new guys now.
Wow that sucks, I think I had a blast template and a few dice get taken by accident (I assume ) and even that made me feel paranoid about people taking my stuff.
As to the OP. I really enjoy the game (when its not a stomp) but I just don't get enough time to play as of late due to work and madam Ethereal needing more help at home with Da Boy and the few months old Snotling. My wallet on the other hand really doesn't like 40k.
- a really great FLGS, truly great, very grateful to them
- a few key friends who happen to be very fair gamers
- WhatsApp existing to organise games more easily
The 7th ed rules and the cheesy combinations OP mentioned are actually minor factors.
The 7th ed rules are fine IMHO; not great, not bad, a bit bloated but it's fine.
The cheesy combinations have been used, then countered effectively by the more experienced players, so our FLGS crowd generally view those as "1-trick ponies". When someone brings the cheese and it backfires on them, they're very unlikely to try it again, so our area sort of self-balances.
I find I can't enjoy the game any more thanks to the rules (and to some extent the new fluff)
I was looking at getting back into the game and picked up some space wolves. Then GW dropped the last Space Wolves codex, with the sled, murderguy the murdering dreadnought murderer and whatever the hell that flying thing was.
I never even got paint on the wolves I was building, I just lost all interest.
I think a lot of my problems also come down to just seeing other companies doing things so much better with their products. 40k doesn't even seem to be able to decide if it wants to be a skirmish game or a mass battle game. Seriously including titans in a game were you draw LoS from model to model not unit to unit and have to remove the closest model and count who is and who isn't in melee combat speaks volumes about the designers in charge of it.
I'm getting in fewer games against a smaller array of opponents than I think I ever have before, There's less and less new blood and people are just losing the will to keep up with the insane power race and constant rules negotiations.
I'm having a blast. There is a FLGS near work that I go to once a week that has a regular crowd of 6+ people, plus others that rotate in and out. Combine that with an even closer FLGS to home that I can schedual games with weekly gives me plenty of people to play with.
That said, I am still fairly new at the game (been participating since April), and everyone that I've played against so far has been great. None of TFG or anything like that. Also no tournaments.
I will say this though. The main draw for me, even more so than actually playing the game, is the list building. It's like crack. Spending hours tweaking a list in battlescribe, looking over various combinations to eke out that perfect list that does what you want it to do, then having it all come together during the next weekly match? Pure bliss. Sure I could hunt for a net list and use that, but that's no fun.
Then next week get stomped by a another player who is wise to your tricks and have to do it all over again!
No new people, who may have unfinished or bad armies to play against make 7th ed, not fun for an IG player. I don't think I had a single game this edition that I could have called fun.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm getting in fewer games against a smaller array of opponents than I think I ever have before, There's less and less new blood and people are just losing the will to keep up with the insane power race and constant rules negotiations.
Yes, I am. I've been playing for about 8 months this time round, it's brilliant fun.
I'm pretty sick of the moany tossers online though. If you don't like the price of the models or the current state of the rules and your aren't enjoying it, piss off and find something else to do with your time. There are plenty of other hobbies out there to try.
It's a real buzz kill when you are new to a hobby, enthusiastic and want to talk about your excitement but all you read are negative comments about something you are really enjoying.
I had my best game ever yesterday - my first battle against Orks. Liftadroppas are hilarious and the powerlevel is equal to my CSMs. Neither of us are particularly competitive, but we do want to win, so it was a very even game, which I lost in the end.
Do I think GW could improve the overall level of the game? Yes. Do I think it's fun as is? Yes.
pumpinchimp wrote: Yes, I am. I've been playing for about 8 months this time round, it's brilliant fun.
I'm pretty sick of the moany tossers online though. If you don't like the price of the models or the current state of the rules and your aren't enjoying it, piss off and find something else to do with your time. There are plenty of other hobbies out there to try.
It's a real buzz kill when you are new to a hobby, enthusiastic and want to talk about your excitement but all you read are negative comments about something you are really enjoying.
rowboatjellyfanxiii wrote: Considering the rulebook is an incoherent pile of gak, and the codices were written by complete gakkers and the prices being too damn high; not really.
The only thing stopping me from moving game system is the fact nobody plays WHFB or AoS, or WH, or Infinity, or anything else.
This.
Also, it doesn't help that the armies I own are either OP to the point where no one has any fun (Necrons), or underpowered and boring (DE, IG).
I'm hoping my experiences might improve once Corsairs are released (or, as I like to think of them - Codex Dark Eldar: Good Version).
Selym wrote: Apart from the fact that I'm lucky to see a game per month, no. As an AM player, I'm having a terrible time.
As a BT player, I'm still not having much.fun, aside from ruthlessly shanking Ultramarines at every opportunity.
Why are you having a terrible time?
Aside from the poor rules in the BRB and the fact an average game takes around 6 hours with my opponents, my AM are, without fail, tabled on or before T3.
I'm having fun. Playing orks, proxying orks as other stuff too. We've got a bunch of models that anyone can pick and play with - sm, tau, eldar, fb stuff. So, i'm trying new things every game and it's great. Balance is worse than mediocre all in all. For example, played as eldar last time and can tell you that eldar are easy mode. Especially after orks and ig.
Core rules can be easilly improved. It's just the state of GW rule team. If they simply gave up on rulewriting like they did with whfb, it'd be much better. We'd allready being using homebrew ones that are superior to GW rules (see 9-th age project). But as is, they're saying: "OK, our rules suck but you should still buy them cause they're official!". And that makes homeruling much harder as there actually IS an official book. No matter how bad it is.
So, i basically wish GW sigmarized 40k so that we could still get cool models and play with our own mishmash of 4-7 ed with improvements. And this way they could spend more money on stuff that actually brings people in the hobby: models and background, rather than forces people out of it: crappy rules.
koooaei wrote: I'm having fun. Playing orks, proxying orks as other stuff too. We've got a bunch of models that anyone can pick and play with - sm, tau, eldar, fb stuff. So, i'm trying new things every game and it's great. Balance is worse than mediocre all in all. For example, played as eldar last time and can tell you that eldar are easy mode. Especially after orks and ig.
Core rules can be easilly improved. It's just the state of GW rule team. If they simply gave up on rulewriting like they did with whfb, it'd be much better. We'd allready being using homebrew ones that are superior to GW rules (see 9-th age project). But as is, they're saying: "OK, our rules suck but you should still buy them cause they're official!". And that makes homeruling much harder as there actually IS an official book. No matter how bad it is.
So, i basically wish GW sigmarized 40k so that we could still get cool models and play with our own mishmash of 4-7 ed with improvements. And this way they could spend more money on stuff that actually brings people in the hobby: models and background, rather than forces people out of it: crappy rules.
That's what happened with Epic Armageddon. The game's core rules were fairly solid, and it still spawned a fan made pseudo-official ruleset.
Selym wrote: Apart from the fact that I'm lucky to see a game per month, no. As an AM player, I'm having a terrible time.
As a BT player, I'm still not having much.fun, aside from ruthlessly shanking Ultramarines at every opportunity.
Why are you having a terrible time?
Aside from the poor rules in the BRB and the fact an average game takes around 6 hours with my opponents, my AM are, without fail, tabled on or before T3.
Not to sound like "that guy" but have you considered that maybe the issue is the players or yourself. Some armies require more list building considerations than others and AM is certainly easy to beat if the list is sloppy, but against more experienced players I have much trouble winning against them, even with my eldar! The opponents skill also matters as poor opponents typically take too long to play and make many "mistakes" that always benefit their army.
The rules in the book are the most well written in decades, it just takes some effort to improve your game to the point that the brb doesn't feel like a handicap.
Take this with a grain of salt but our lfgs sees plenty of Orks, tyranids, grey knight, and dark eldar players winning against necron and eldar players who have consistantly placed high in competitive events. It's up to the players to have fun, not a book!
Selym wrote: Apart from the fact that I'm lucky to see a game per month, no. As an AM player, I'm having a terrible time.
As a BT player, I'm still not having much.fun, aside from ruthlessly shanking Ultramarines at every opportunity.
Why are you having a terrible time?
Aside from the poor rules in the BRB and the fact an average game takes around 6 hours with my opponents, my AM are, without fail, tabled on or before T3.
Not to sound like "that guy" but have you considered that maybe the issue is the players or yourself. Some armies require more list building considerations than others and AM is certainly easy to beat if the list is sloppy, but against more experienced players I have much trouble winning against them, even with my eldar! The opponents skill also matters as poor opponents typically take too long to play and make many "mistakes" that always benefit their army.
The rules in the book are the most well written in decades, it just takes some effort to improve your game to the point that the brb doesn't feel like a handicap.
Take this with a grain of salt but our lfgs sees plenty of Orks, tyranids, grey knight, and dark eldar players winning against necron and eldar players who have consistantly placed high in competitive events. It's up to the players to have fun, not a book!
I have considered it, and after many games and army builds, and then moving to playing Black Templars, I have concluded that whatever the hell is going on, I'm unable to win.
As a BT player, I have much more success, even when I couldn't remember how half my units worked. And my vehicles are magically far more durable than in the AM, despite having less AV and armour saturation.
As such, I'm still enjoying playing, but that's because I've stopped playing in tournaments entirely, have given up on getting games in at the local games club, and am just playing at home with a couple of people I know well, with rules modified where necessary to suit ourselves.
I'm legitimately interested to hear what your house rules are.
I still have fun in all my games. Even playing DA before our new codex. I get less games in than I want, but that is just because my personal life is busy, not because of the game.
I guess it helps that all the gaming areas in any conceivable driving distance aren't filled with.... unfavorable players.
Also, I really enjoy maelstrom. I don't care what the Internet says, I have yet to have a game where my opponent and I didn't enjoy it.
Admittedly not played against the new factions as much, especially since I moved earlier in the year, but 6th and 7th ed are the most fun I've had for a long time. Didn't play much 40k at all 4th and 5th ed.
I remember having good fun with the 3rd ed rule book scenarios, lone scouts manage to win sabotage missions, etc.
I'm having the most fun in 40K I've ever had. Could be that I've been playing with a fun group of guys and gals, and also could be that I don't play in tournaments.
Never seen most of the stuff people complain about on Dakka in real life. I'm sure it happens, just not to the hyperbole and frequency some people would have you believe.
I play multiple games a week and have a blast. People keep complaining about the rules, but I can find VERY few that I actually have a problem with. Reading all the comments about wound allocation just makes me laugh. Some people are mad that they can't cheese the wounds anymore by killing off any model they want. I think most are just older players who have a hard time adapting to change.
Salous wrote: I play multiple games a week and have a blast. People keep complaining about the rules, but I can find VERY few that I actually have a problem with. Reading all the comments about wound allocation just makes me laugh. Some people are mad that they can't cheese the wounds anymore by killing off any model they want. I think most are just older players who have a hard time adapting to change.
Or who played 5th and knew it was mostly a good ruleset. GW doesn't give a feth anymore.
I’m enjoying the do what you want edition but it requires a large enough group of like minded players. We also don’t stick to one way of playing and split time between tournament, apoc, ZM,
Salous wrote: I think most are just older players who have a hard time adapting to change.
Just like the people who like the current rules are moronic GW fanboys who can't would think a bucket of manure was a solid ruleset if it had the GW logo on it.
Insulting strawman arguments just add sooo much to these discussions, don't they?
I have been having an awesome time playing:
X-wing
SW-Armada
Battletech
BT-Alphastrike
Robotech RPG Tactics
Warpath by Mantic using GW40k miniatures.
Oh, you mean playing 40k with GW rules... ummm... great with friends with much house rules... ummm
<sigh> the rules are gak. I tried to like them, honest!
Is it OK if I keep assembling and painting what I have until something "ok" at least happens for an 8th edition?
I really enjoy the game but I don't enjoy the people around me that play. The only opponents I have immediate access to are 2 of my brothers one of which is only 10 and gets into a game only scream, cry, and rage because he doesn't agree with a rule. And the other who is 18 and complains when I use certain armies because their rules are so complex. Personally I think that if you don't like the rules you shouldn't play the game, and I like the complexities because it means the armies are only that much more unique. But it's a choice of playing one of those two or not playing at all.
pumpinchimp wrote: Yes, I am. I've been playing for about 8 months this time round, it's brilliant fun.
I'm pretty sick of the moany tossers online though. If you don't like the price of the models or the current state of the rules and your aren't enjoying it, piss off and find something else to do with your time. There are plenty of other hobbies out there to try.
It's a real buzz kill when you are new to a hobby, enthusiastic and want to talk about your excitement but all you read are negative comments about something you are really enjoying.
They do have a new hobby; aggravating you. It's brilliant fun.
I recently made the choice once again to NOT pick up 40k again (I play Warmachine right now and have for about a year, after debating playing 40k again after close to 15 years out of miniature gaming) in part because I don't have a close-knit group, I would be going to a game shop and basically hoping that someone showed up to play. Even with the local Hobbytown having a 40k community (and not much else there), it's not enough to make up for the approach 40k takes to the game. If I had a group of friends that we could tweak the rules, come up with scenarios and narratives and campaigns, it might be a different story, but as it stands I can't even imagine how 40k holds up as a game you go to the game store to play.
Take a quick tour around YMDC for several hundred examples.
Some points:
-unbalanced forces
-poorly written rules
-waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much rules bloat
-these cause games to take forever
-for some reason, the current army-building rules have encouraged the average size of a game to go up
-this is compounded by everything getting points reductions
-unless you play an elite army, you need 2+ full-size carry cases of stuff to play a game
It depends. If I am playing Mordhiem or Bolt Action I have a reat time but with 40K I suffer as my Guard are outclassed on every level against my opponents armies.
I like that the rules are more complex as for me it makes a more interesting game overall. I don't think ymdc is a good example for against the game - in fact the rules have been an issue for GW as long as I can remember. There are some things you should discuss with your opponent before the game... It is what it is.
Dozer Blades wrote: I like that the rules are more complex as for me it makes a more interesting game overall. I don't think ymdc is a good example for against the game - in fact the rules have been an issue for GW as long as I can remember. There are some things you should discuss with your opponent before the game... It is what it is.
How about discussing every facet of the game for two and a half hours to "resolve issues", only to find mid-game that you missed out that blast template damage resolution is impossible.
Salous wrote: I think most are just older players who have a hard time adapting to change.
Just like the people who like the current rules are moronic GW fanboys who can't would think a bucket of manure was a solid ruleset if it had the GW logo on it.
Insulting strawman arguments just add sooo much to these discussions, don't they?
Indeed.
The "adaptation" line misses so much. This edition has been out now for over approaching a year and a half, it's not some newfangled thing that people just aren't "adapting" to. There are very real issues with the ruleset at a fundamental level trying to be mutually exclusive things and doing them all very poorly, exacerbated by increasingly absurdly imbalanced army books and loss of any sense of scale. "Pickup" play has been practically destroyed at this point, at least in my experience.
Dozer Blades wrote: I like that the rules are more complex as for me it makes a more interesting game overall. I don't think ymdc is a good example for against the game - in fact the rules have been an issue for GW as long as I can remember. There are some things you should discuss with your opponent before the game... It is what it is.
The problem with this is that you continually run into problems the more complex a ruleset is, especially with 40k increasing it's scale and model count with every edition. You run greater risks of people just forgetting rules, of rules not sufficiently covering every instance they need to cover, of rules that simply don't function properly, and people increasingly simply abandoning many because they become burdensome (e.g. "mysterious" objectives).
I used to like getting all the Codex's and know what each army does and it all made a kind of sense to me.
With 6th/7th that all changed where only the hard-core would be able to collect all the documents that define all the rules of the game for all armies.
Please let me know if any of you actually have achieved this, I would enjoy knowing at least someone knows everything that is going on.
Maybe I am not all that trusting but I hate depending on my opponent to know his stuff, I like to know my opponent's capabilities rather than a surprise at a critical moment.
I CAN honestly say that when me or my friends craft a scenario, we DO have a really good time.
I just wish I did not have to depend on other games to play pick-up games with strangers.
I CAN honestly say that when me or my friends craft a scenario, we DO have a really good time.
actually, that's one thing I've found 7E to be fairly good with.
When its possible to do so (it's usually not) I and my friends like to play "three-army skirmish". Two players play as attackers, and one player defends. Maximum points are usually under 500 points per side, and the "two players" do not use the same army. Each person uses infantry, and can pretty much do whatever they want. The games get quite personal, and often get resolved in a dramatic punch-up between favoured champions of each player.
Dozer Blades wrote: I don't think ymdc is a good example for against the game - in fact the rules have been an issue for GW as long as I can remember.
You realise that's not a point in their favour, right?
Dozer Blades wrote: I like that the rules are more complex as for me it makes a more interesting game overall.
The problem is, the complexity in GW's rules doesn't actually give you more options.
See, I like complex rules when they actually add to the game. I still love D&D 3.5 because I love the freedom offered by its rules. They're complex, sure, but the result is a great deal of freedom. You have rules for mixing classes, for adding templates to monsters and/or characters, for 'levelling up' monsters, for adding class levels to monsters, for creating your own monsters. P,us a *massive* array of spells, classes and feats. Basically, you had the rules to do just about anything. And, because there was DM running the game, you also had a great deal of freedom in what you could do (so you could use feats, spells and skills in imaginative ways - without the designers having to predict and rule them in advance).
In contrast, whilst 40k's rules are very complex, they offer virtually no freedom. Once your units are on the table, you have virtually options beyond where to move and what to shoot/assault. To put it another way, GW's rules are complex not because they need to be to give the players a vast array of options, but because they're badly-written and needlessly convoluted.
I love the game, yes, and love playing, but most of the people at my GW are real turdnuggets when it comes to super power gaming. Case in point an Ork player using feral ork boars as bikers and then adding an allied detachment of chaos demons to it... I loved the concept at first but he had to sully it with summoning stuff which I have a problem with.
Still, my most fun game recently was against cult mechanicus/skitarii non war con and even though I lost I legit had fun.
I wish I could change some rules but since I play pick up games at a local GW I don't think it would be good.
I am having a pretty good time. But it's about the same, maybe a little more, than the level of fun I had back in my initial heyday of late 5th edition.
The store I play at has a pretty big crowd of 40k players, some regular, some not. I've never really seen a 'TFG'. Of course, people bring the occasional strong army, but the players themselves are always easy to get along with, fun, or cool.
The rules themselves are not usually an impediment to the game, in my experience. It's a casual game - minutiae aren't too important, and as long as both players have played more than a few games, they know what they're doing. Pre-game discussions aren't more than a minute or two - or are spread out during deployment, setup, and getting a drink/having a smoke before getting down to the game.
I think the composition of the meta at my local store also plays a factor - about half the players are people new to the game, slow to buy new units [like me], or don't play much due to preferring to paint more. Imperial Knights are rare, Riptides are even rarer, and I've only seen one person with a 30k army of any kind.
Random psychic powers.
Random Warlord abilities
Random charge distance
Casualties from the front
Having to roll LOS and saves one at a time for mixed units
Model-by-model cover
Vehicles having wounds but no armour saves
Unbound army lists
Overwatch being additional rather than replacement shooting
Blasts not getting snap fire
Having a specific phase for psychic powers when multiple armies have no access to psykers
Special rules that do nothing except grant other special rules
Just off the top of my head. And that's not even touching things like blasts or psychic units where the rules are broken and GW just hasn't been bothered to patch them.
The frustrating part is how many of those rules are actually good ideas poorly implemented, or deliberate steps backwards from 5th edition, which was trying to move into being a unit based game instead of focusing so much on individual models.
There is also the random turn by turn objectives that either give you impossible goals of killing units that your opponent might not be fielding or going from objective to objective like you're trying to find where your warlord left the keys to his flagship.
That and the entire system of maelstrom missions are so bad to roll on and keep track of that the cards are effectively a tax on the game.
Personally, I also hate the move towards big models, at the expense of infantry and such.
Especially when said big models are amongst the most boring things in the game, because their rules are just a list of exceptions. "No, you can't do that to them. No, you can't do that either. No, that doesn't work. You certainly can't use that. etc."
Also, combat might as well be going on in a pocket dimension like we're playing a random encounter in Final Fantasy. There's this weird thing whereby being in combat makes you immune to a ton of rules for no adequately explored reason.
Moreover, we seem to be at the point whereby combat has a load of nonsensical constraints, to balance out a load of nonsensical bonuses. e.g. you can't assault from reserve, but you can assault further than you can run. You can't assault out of vehicle, but you can't be shot at in assault - even if you're 3 stories tall. etc.
I don't like random things like psychic powers to be honest... I suppose it's their idea of game balance.
Anyways I won't try to convince anyone that seventh edition is the best... For me like I said I felt it fixed a lot of things I didn't like about sixth edition which really took awhile to get used to. It will be interesting to see where they go with the next edition. Maybe it'll be simplified but I hope not overly so.
vipoid wrote: Personally, I also hate the move towards big models, at the expense of infantry and such.
Especially when said big models are amongst the most boring things in the game, because their rules are just a list of exceptions. "No, you can't do that to them. No, you can't do that either. No, that doesn't work. You certainly can't use that. etc."
So much of this. You can see it in the Tau releases with all these big suits (that fly in the face of the Tau fluff) that have special rules to make them extra durable or deadly instead of focusing on the rich fluff of Tau combined arms tactics and alien auxiliary forces. I much rather play against lots of killable enemies over a few giant mechs or some unkillable deathstar you throw dice at and have a positive result for 1 out of every 100 dice rolled.
I think the issue is that the system really needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. The 3rd edition system was probably okay at the time, but it was never what you'd call 'solid'. And, all they've really done is constantly cram more stuff into it - including stuff like fliers, super heavies and magic (which is was never meant for). Hence why it's just become a bloated mess of rules, exceptions and random tables.
If they want to make them complex, fine, but they need a solid core first - so that they have something to build on and expand around.
vipoid wrote: Personally, I also hate the move towards big models, at the expense of infantry and such.
Especially when said big models are amongst the most boring things in the game, because their rules are just a list of exceptions. "No, you can't do that to them. No, you can't do that either. No, that doesn't work. You certainly can't use that. etc."
Also, combat might as well be going on in a pocket dimension like we're playing a random encounter in Final Fantasy. There's this weird thing whereby being in combat makes you immune to a ton of rules for no adequately explored reason.
Moreover, we seem to be at the point whereby combat has a load of nonsensical constraints, to balance out a load of nonsensical bonuses. e.g. you can't assault from reserve, but you can assault further than you can run. You can't assault out of vehicle, but you can't be shot at in assault - even if you're 3 stories tall. etc.
Ask the Zerg how much being in "assault" protects them from being shot, lol. In fact, stalker plus zealot wall backed up by colossus shooting is death for many Zerg builds.
The rules in the book are the most well written in decades
By what possible measure?
Comparing to the inane BS that plagued the previous editions,
Such as in second and 3rd edition we had multiple damage charts for pens and glances, sweeping combats from squad to squad, everyone played "rino rush" marine lists, skimmer were near unkillable with 6s to hit in combat, combat was sloppy and slow with multiple modifiers for everything last being outnumbered and last man standing,
4th brought us broken experimental flyer rules, and sloppy wound allocation rules as well as target priority checks, 5th was a solid rules set but many rules were ambiguous and combat armies were king for no reasonable cause,
6th and 7th I consider the same edition with 7th being a giant FAQ correction, the rules are more inline with being clear (not completely, but better) flyers are no longer a joke, and vehicles are no longer impervious to bad pen rolls......so yes, as someone who has played since 95, this is the best rules set they have released by far!
I would rather have a rule that can be a little muddy that a situation with no rule to use as a reference. If you use YMTC as a gauge of how bad the rules are, just take note of how many of those questions are RAW lawyers who are trying to twist a rule in ways to either benifit themselves or deny another player a rule. Then go back about 8 years in the threads and see how many of the YMTC threads were about actual rules that where unusable for either person. There may still be issues with the rules, but some of the stuff you guys complain about are just silly. " Pulling models from the front is broken, I cant snap shoot Blast weapons, I dont like random charges, I dont like Hull points, ect"........
If some of the guys on here were to stop whining about the game and actually try to embrace the new stuff you might see that the sky isnt falling! As for the game taking hours and needing tons of models to play, try doing a smaller game or play against better people who know their codex and dont take 1 1/2 hours for a movement phase.......
DJ Illuminati wrote: ..so yes, as someone who has played since 95, this is the best rules set they have released by far!
As someone else who has been playing since then, I put it on a fairly even score with 4th edition, which was previously my least favourite edition.
5th edition had its ambiguities, certainly, and vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K. 6th/7th, by contrast, is a mess.
. ..but some of the stuff you guys complain about are just silly. " Pulling models from the front is broken, I cant snap shoot Blast weapons, I dont like random charges, I dont like Hull points, ect"........
Just to be clear, I never said that pulling models from the front is broken. I said that I don't like it.
It forces players to hide their characters and special weapons in the middle of units, which is (in many cases) uncharacterful and is problematic for template weapons. It was an uneccessary 'fix' for a problem that didn't actually exist.
Not being able to snap shoot Blast weapons was a big deal, because there was no corresponding price adjustment for the fact that anything with a Blast suddenly became considerably less useful than anything without.
Random charges I dislike because they are silly as currently implemented. Random charges were a necessary counterbalance to being allowed to measure distances whenever you want to... but should have come with a minimum distance. The idea that your assault unit might move 12", or might only be able to move 2", but won't know for sure until they actually try it is just absurd... It's too big a random variance, and makes no sense.
And I don't dislike Hull points. I dislike that they didn't come with a corresponding saving throw. If they wanted to make vehicles function more like infantry, I would rather they had gone the whole hog and just made all vehicles into Monstrous Creatures and done away with the separate vehicle section entirely.
It's really easy to dismiss opinions you disagree with as 'silly'... but they're not always just the result of someone being unable to adapt. I've adapted to multiple edition changes to date, and for the most part the experience has been positive. I just don't like the particular direction that GW chose to go in with 6th/7th edition, because I feel that it was a significant backwards step.
The rules in the book are the most well written in decades
By what possible measure?
Comparing to the inane BS that plagued the previous editions,
Such as in second and 3rd edition we had multiple damage charts for pens and glances
With vehicles, now we get a situation where they *still* have a damage table, but a second overlapping kill mechanic with "wounds" now too (and no armor saves). The previous editions functionally had a unified chart (glances were just -2 to whatever a pen was) and they merged that into one chart back in 5E anyway.
Instead now we get charts for D weapons, charts for mysterious terrain, charts for mysterious objectives, charts for random/maelstrom objectives, lots of charts for psychic powers, charts for Perils of the Warp, charts for Warlord Traits, charts for Deep Strike mishaps, charts for allies, etc.
skimmer were near unkillable with 6s to hit in combat,
We still have something of a problem with this, the Skimmer gap is still there with the Jink mechanic (particularly coupled with wargear and abilities that enhance/reroll/both/etc cover saves) dramatically increasing Skimmer utility over non-skimmer equivalents, and the Jink mechanic in general has tons of issues (Jink doesn't affect passengers at all, on Bikes it has zero effect on their ability to assault and can Jink in response to Overwatch, FMC's can Jink even when not flying, etc)
combat was sloppy and slow with multiple modifiers for everything last being outnumbered and last man standing
Relative to 2E, you might have a point, but 3E onward? With random charge distances, various initiative pile-in moves, pointless challenge mechanics, "look out sir" wound allocation gimmicks, etc are better how? At least being outnumbered and last man standing were all just Ld modifiers, but aside from that, CC has more slop and is more time consuming now than it was in earlier editions like 3E.
4th brought us broken experimental flyer rules
4th had no flyer rules outside of some FW stuff
and sloppy wound allocation rules
They weren't really sloppy, in fact they were probably the cleanest we've ever had (cover depends on majority of models in the unit being in cover, roll saves equal to wounds, owning player removes as many models of their choice equal to number of failed saves, if as many or more saves are forced as there are models in the unit, the opposing player can force the owning player to take a save on a model of their choice) with the one exception of mixed-save units. No weird "what's closer", or "is that specific model in cover" or spreading wounds through a multi-wound unit or anything.
as well as target priority checks
Aye those were dumb, and particularly harsh on the armies that relied most on shooting (Tau and IG)
5th was a solid rules set but many rules were ambiguous and combat armies were king for no reasonable cause
5th was probably the best set overall (not perfect, but best of what we've got). There was a pretty decent mix of shooting and killy armies that did very well, probably the best overall mix of any edition.
but some of the stuff you guys complain about are just silly. " Pulling models from the front is broken, I cant snap shoot Blast weapons, I dont like random charges, I dont like Hull points, ect"........
Why? There are valid concerns with lots of those. Pulling from the front doesn't really add much "tactical" play, but it does make special weapons easier to kill in mixed-role units and defang them relative to more mono-role units. Not being able to snap-shot template/blast weapons makes Invisibility absurdly broken and doesn't make much sense given the nature of the weapons. Hull points have legitimate gameplay balance issues and there's a clear gap between vehicles and MC's as a result, and, similarly, a big problem with heavy AT guns like Vanquisher cannons actually turning out to be *really* bad anti-tank guns due to the change to HP's over the damage table while reinforcing stuff like autocannon spam instead.
If some of the guys on here were to stop whining about the game and actually try to embrace the new stuff you might see that the sky isnt falling! As for the game taking hours and needing tons of models to play, try doing a smaller game or play against better people who know their codex and dont take 1 1/2 hours for a movement phase.......
people don't always have the luxury of veteran opponents, and while you can play fewer points, there's usually a pretty set standard that most people expect, and it just takes longer to play any particular sized game than older editions because there's just more to roll for.
DJ Illuminati wrote: ..so yes, as someone who has played since 95, this is the best rules set they have released by far!
As someone else who has been playing since then, I put it on a fairly even score with 4th edition, which was previously my least favourite edition.
5th edition had its ambiguities, certainly, and vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K. 6th/7th, by contrast, is a mess.
. ..but some of the stuff you guys complain about are just silly. " Pulling models from the front is broken, I cant snap shoot Blast weapons, I dont like random charges, I dont like Hull points, ect"........
Just to be clear, I never said that pulling models from the front is broken. I said that I don't like it.
It forces players to hide their characters and special weapons in the middle of units, which is (in many cases) uncharacterful and is problematic for template weapons. It was an uneccessary 'fix' for a problem that didn't actually exist.
Not being able to snap shoot Blast weapons was a big deal, because there was no corresponding price adjustment for the fact that anything with a Blast suddenly became considerably less useful than anything without.
Random charges I dislike because they are silly as currently implemented. Random charges were a necessary counterbalance to being allowed to measure distances whenever you want to... but should have come with a minimum distance. The idea that your assault unit might move 12", or might only be able to move 2", but won't know for sure until they actually try it is just absurd... It's too big a random variance, and makes no sense.
And I don't dislike Hull points. I dislike that they didn't come with a corresponding saving throw. If they wanted to make vehicles function more like infantry, I would rather they had gone the whole hog and just made all vehicles into Monstrous Creatures and done away with the separate vehicle section entirely.
It's really easy to dismiss opinions you disagree with as 'silly'... but they're not always just the result of someone being unable to adapt. I've adapted to multiple edition changes to date, and for the most part the experience has been positive. I just don't like the particular direction that GW chose to go in with 6th/7th edition, because I feel that it was a significant backwards step.
YMMV, obviously.
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Yes, please lets return to the days of Eldar Falcons being near indestructable, Landraider spam lists, and Drop pod dreadnaughts flooding the table. I remember 5th being nothing but gunline armies with Vehicle spam winning almost every game.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
Example, you say that you dont like that Vehicles dont get a save against hull points, yet the very nature of the vehicle is that it is immune to small arms fire (need a minimum str to even hurt it) and saves are available, either by jinking, smoke, using cover, invulnerable saves, (sisters eg) or various other ways of protecting your vehicle.
Charge distances I agree took a while to adjust to, however with proper deployment and movements I still make 90% of my charges even without a fleet roll, and getting a 12" charge with a unit as a last ditch effort makes for great stories later on. Dealing with random dice rolls are all about hedging your dice and accounting for the variables.......hence why people often bring more than one of a particular unit, you cant expect your unit to work perfectly everytime, your shots to wound everytime, nor are your charges guaranteed.....but planing and accounting for random dice alleviates that issue often.
Pulling models from the front has been asked for in White Dwarf for years, it was always a point of complaints during the old days that I could shoot 40 shots into a guardsman squad and manage to kill everyone in the back of the squad but the flamer that was directly infront of me gets ignored for wounds when the owning player allocates wounds. Pulling from the front makes you think strategically about not only where your models are, but accounting for casualties when the enemy returns fire. It also gets the ability to be realistic as the Sargent or specialist of a squad should almost never be in the front, both in real life, and in 40k. When I was in the army there was a saying "You cant lead from the front", meaning that if the Sgt is in the front, not only will he not be aware of his squads position and status, but he is likely to be the first shot. Pulling models from the front is a simple rule, that is easy to understand, and easy to follow. So, yes, when I hear complaints about rules such as that, I do dismiss it as silly nitpicking. Just as much as me saying that "I dont like to play Monopoly because you only get $200 for passing Go and I feel it should be $500".
The rules in the book are the most well written in decades
By what possible measure?
Comparing to the inane BS that plagued the previous editions,
Such as in second and 3rd edition we had multiple damage charts for pens and glances
With vehicles, now we get a situation where they *still* have a damage table, but a second overlapping kill mechanic with "wounds" now too (and no armor saves). The previous editions functionally had a unified chart (glances were just -2 to whatever a pen was) and they merged that into one chart back in 5E anyway.
Instead now we get charts for D weapons, charts for mysterious terrain, charts for mysterious objectives, charts for random/maelstrom objectives, lots of charts for psychic powers, charts for Perils of the Warp, charts for Warlord Traits, charts for Deep Strike mishaps, charts for allies, etc.
skimmer were near unkillable with 6s to hit in combat,
We still have something of a problem with this, the Skimmer gap is still there with the Jink mechanic (particularly coupled with wargear and abilities that enhance/reroll/both/etc cover saves) dramatically increasing Skimmer utility over non-skimmer equivalents, and the Jink mechanic in general has tons of issues (Jink doesn't affect passengers at all, on Bikes it has zero effect on their ability to assault and can Jink in response to Overwatch, FMC's can Jink even when not flying, etc)
combat was sloppy and slow with multiple modifiers for everything last being outnumbered and last man standing
Relative to 2E, you might have a point, but 3E onward? With random charge distances, various initiative pile-in moves, pointless challenge mechanics, "look out sir" wound allocation gimmicks, etc are better how? At least being outnumbered and last man standing were all just Ld modifiers, but aside from that, CC has more slop and is more time consuming now than it was in earlier editions like 3E.
4th brought us broken experimental flyer rules
4th had no flyer rules outside of some FW stuff
and sloppy wound allocation rules
They weren't really sloppy, in fact they were probably the cleanest we've ever had (cover depends on majority of models in the unit being in cover, roll saves equal to wounds, owning player removes as many models of their choice equal to number of failed saves, if as many or more saves are forced as there are models in the unit, the opposing player can force the owning player to take a save on a model of their choice) with the one exception of mixed-save units. No weird "what's closer", or "is that specific model in cover" or spreading wounds through a multi-wound unit or anything.
as well as target priority checks
Aye those were dumb, and particularly harsh on the armies that relied most on shooting (Tau and IG)
Not being able to snap-shot template/blast weapons makes Invisibility absurdly broken and doesn't make much sense given the nature of the weapons.
Oh no, more rules for things that are optional, its almost like GW is trying to give us options other than Bolters and Lascannons! And am I seriously the only person thet enjoys the heck out of Maelstrom missions, or should we all jsut continue to play boring static games where nothing is worth points until the end of the game?
Yet the draw back to jinking is that the vehicle must now snapshoot, and yet they still go down quickly in CC where as back in 2nd they survived much better than they do now.
With the exception of certain armies, very rarely do you find a CC where you have more than 2 initiative steps to worry about. Challenges are optional,and Look out sir is optional.
correct, 3rd gave us VDR to build flyers and FW gave us rules for them but they were unusable, and even if you did try to have a dogfight, it was a mess
Do you not remember being able to shoot through 12 inches of forest and losing line of sight to anything more than 6" into terrain, or any of the other arbitrary rules of what cover was (back when everything was a 4+ cover) Also we didnt have many multiwound models back then. I personally like the new wounding system as it rewards people for thinking tactically rather than seeing a conga-line of 20 ork boys get a cover save because the 10 in the back are in cover.
Especially at a time when the Meta was Gun-line armies
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Devil wrote: Yes it is very realistic for Kharne the Betrayer to be hiding in the back of his unit.
Yes, It is realistic for Kharne to not only use his men as meatshields, but then engage the opponent in a challenge when he does get to CC (both rules courtesy of 6/7th)
An element of randomness is good and all but the amount of randomness GW stuffs into 40k is absurd. Why can't we just buy our psychic powers/warlord traits? Why does Eldrad only know what powers he's going to take a few seconds before the battle start? Why does Marneus Calgar have varying levels of competence prior to a battle? Why is every point of interest on the battlefield either a bomb, a targeting array or an archeotech grav-wave generator? What does all of this randomness add to the game? Couldn't they just include these rules and make them optional?
Also, when you think about it Maelstrom of War missions are quite silly when you think about it.
"Commander! I need you to take the bunker! It is of the utmost importance!"
"Yes sir!"
"Commander, you've taken the bunker! We have decided that this was indeed a great victory and will add significantly to our success here on the battlefield! Now, we need you to send some troops to seize hill 442!"
"The one I was just on?"
"It is -very- important!"
"The one I have a line of Guardsmen near?"
"Are there any on it?"
"No."
"Then get them on that hill!"
"Commander, good job moving your troops 10 feet! Now, we have identified that you must destroy a unit by shooting it to death! If you shoot 3 or more, this will make victory even more likely!"
"Yes sir!"
"Commander! Now we need you to go find an enemy officer and dispatch him in close combat! This is of the utmost importance to our success here!"
"Why?! You just told me to kill the enemy by shooting!"
"Right, but if you could kill an enemy officer in close combat that would be really nice. OH! And it is of tactical importance that you eliminate an enemy flier!"
TheCustomLime wrote: An element of randomness is good and all but the amount of randomness GW stuffs into 40k is absurd. Why can't we just buy our psychic powers/warlord traits? Why does Eldrad only know what powers he's going to take a few seconds before the battle start? Why does Marneus Calgar have varying levels of competence prior to a battle? Why is every point of interest on the battlefield either a bomb, a targeting array or an archeotech grav-wave generator? What does all of this randomness add to the game? Couldn't they just include these rules and make them optional?
On this point I agree completely, I miss paying points to pick the Psychic power I want, and at my LFGS we dont bother with Mysterious Terrain or Mysterious Objectives as it is too much book keeping and the terrain rules punish anyone that isnt playing SM.
Crimson Devil wrote: If you're a big fan of "Whac-a-mole" than Maelstorm is great.
In 7th the conga line of Orks leds back to a shield generator now. Yeah, Big improvement.
Kharn doesn't know what meat shields are. Those are targets in his way.
You've convinced me. All editions of 40k are crap.
I am a fan of having to think on my feet and make decisions as to if I want to go after the objective listed or discard the card. Maelstrom also gives non SM armies a chance to score early points before they get pounded by the end of the game.
I also hate the Mysterious Objectives, but even then the shield generator only gives them +1 for a 6+ in the open, its tolerable.
Kharne does what he wants!
Automatically Appended Next Post: ou haven't heard of the Green tide/ Void Shield Generator trick? Its like watching an Ork Kite move around.
Cool thing about the 7th ed rules, is that the VSG doesnt work on the boys outside the bubble, hense closest model gets cover equal to his actual cover not the guys in the back.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ou haven't heard of the Green tide/ Void Shield Generator trick? Its like watching an Ork Kite move around.
Cool thing about the 7th ed rules, is that the VSG doesnt work on the boys outside the bubble, hense closest model gets cover equal to his actual cover not the guys in the back.
The ITC ruled differently. From their FAQ: A unit only needs to have a single model at least partially within 12” of a Void Shield Generator for the entire unit to benefit from it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ou haven't heard of the Green tide/ Void Shield Generator trick? Its like watching an Ork Kite move around.
Cool thing about the 7th ed rules, is that the VSG doesnt work on the boys outside the bubble, hense closest model gets cover equal to his actual cover not the guys in the back.
The ITC ruled differently. From their FAQ: A unit only needs to have a single model at least partially within 12” of a Void Shield Generator for the entire unit to benefit from it.
That is a ridiculous ruling as nothing in the VSG rules would imply that that's how the shield works!
Oh no, more rules for things that are optional, its almost like GW is trying to give us options other than Bolters and Lascannons!
Not sure what you mean by this.
And am I seriously the only person thet enjoys the heck out of Maelstrom missions
Maybe.
or should we all jsut continue to play boring static games where nothing is worth points until the end of the game?
Well...normally who holds what when the shooting ends is both a practical and realistic time for that.
That said, the concept of asymmetrical objectives has merit. The execution in the case of 7E's Maelstrom missions is abysmal.
Maelstrom missions have a host of problems. First and foremost is the abusrdly random nature often leads to highly imbalanced outcomes. They also quite often run into issues where some armies physically can't achieve certain objectives because either they don't have access to something or an opponent didn't bring something. Meanwhile, other objectives are trivially easy to achieve and have no business being a mission objective "e.g. cast a psychic power in an army with 4 Psykers, though itcan also physically be impossible for many armies like Tau). There's tons of immersion breaking issues with the above problems, in addition to just the ADHD nature of randomly going after vastly different objectives every turn ("is high command on crack? how often are they going to change their minds here?"). Maelstrom missions also tend to disproportionately favor the armies that already on top, those with gobs of mobility and resiliency, Eldar, Necrons, SM's, etc while slower and/or less resilient armies like IG or DE flounder terribly.
Yet the draw back to jinking is that the vehicle must now snapshoot, and yet they still go down quickly in CC
Sure, but that doesn't mean there still isn't a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer gap. Look at tournament results and the only armies you see anywhere near the top place using lots of non-skimmer vehicles are either Gladius forces getting their vehicles for free, or are Knight armies with inherent saves and "we ignore everything" superheavy rules.
The on-demand Jink is huge. Sure it has to snap-fire. But it doesn't effect passengers at all, doesn't effect movement at all, many Jink-capable units have Twin-Linked weapons in the first place, they don't have to do any sort of pre-planning and can declare it as an immediate reaction, and it's a 4+ save.
If you look at Smoke Launchers on the other hand, the situation is much different. They're one-use. They only give a 5+ save. You have to use them pre-emptively (use them too soon and you've wasted them, don't use them soon enough and you're toast, and you can't use them in response to a turn 1 alpha strike), they prevent *all* shooting (not just forcing snap-shots) and the shooting restriction applies to passengers as well, and it prevents the vehicle from moving flat-out.
With the exception of certain armies, very rarely do you find a CC where you have more than 2 initiative steps to worry about.
Sure, but it's still extra steps and movement that add time and complexity.
Challenges are optional
Not if you play Chaos Space Marines, and while they may be "optional" both players get the opportunity to take advantage of that option, so even if you don't want to, your opponent can force it. More to the point, it's rarely used as an actual fluffy "have my cool guy fight your cool guy" mechanic, but as a way to single-out and easily slay the one model that can actually present a threat and do so before it can actually strike back.
,and Look out sir is optional.
And in most cases outright stupid not to take advantage of and often critically important to the builds of many units/armies (e.g. TWC deathstars).
correct, 3rd gave us VDR to build flyers and FW gave us rules for them but they were unusable, and even if you did try to have a dogfight, it was a mess
Given how basically nobody had or tried to use Flyers in these time periods, particularly given how few even had models, it can probably be forgiven.
Do you not remember being able to shoot through 12 inches of forest and losing line of sight to anything more than 6" into terrain, or any of the other arbitrary rules of what cover was (back when everything was a 4+ cover)
Oh I do, and I'm not saying everything in every older edition was better in every respect. We haven't had a perfect edition yet in my opinion.
Also we didnt have many multiwound models back then.
There weren't as many, but they were there. Thousand Sons, Obliterators, Nobz, Tyranid Warriors, etc.
I personally like the new wounding system as it rewards people for thinking tactically rather than seeing a conga-line of 20 ork boys get a cover save because the 10 in the back are in cover.
The problem is that kind of tactical granularity is somewhat, well, absurd at the scale we're playing at. Worrying about where the individual flamer guy in a unit is when you're playing a battle that's got 100+ or 200+ models on the board, with aircraft and superheavy tanks and godzilla like creatures present, is simply forcing in detail where it's neither appropriate nor value adding, particularly when in many cases it disproportionaly hurts multi-role units for no good balance reason.
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Yes, please lets return to the days of Eldar Falcons being near indestructable, Landraider spam lists, and Drop pod dreadnaughts flooding the table. I remember 5th being nothing but gunline armies with Vehicle spam winning almost every game.
The problem wasn't "vehicles" as a whole, it was transports not caring about most of the results, gun-tanks were very easy to negate. Falcons were not unkillable in 5th (that was 4th), particularly with the CC changes. Land Raider spam worked...until someone brought meltaguns (it was never a popular build for a reason). Dreadnoughts were biggest as back-table auto-cannon platforms than anything else, not as drop-podded assault units.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
There's a good number of them. Humongous numbers of unnecessary charts. Underwhelming rules for terrain that isn't GW produced plastic kits. A complete loss of sense of scale as ever bigger units are hamfisted into the game. Formations that give incredibly powerful abilities (and often entire units) and wargear for free and that synergize with other formations. All sorts of abuse of the allies mechanic to take advantage of abilities and synergies that otherwise weren't intended. The ability to take detachments in such a way as to make unit limitations often pointless. Rules sources so varied, widespread, poorly updated and incoherently tracked that almost nobody can keep track of them all, much less afford to actually own them.
Other issues are present as well. We have missions copy-pasted from 6E without proper adaptation such as Big Guns Never Tire or The Scouring, when these missions were created in 6E, Heavy Support & Fast Attack units got bonus scoring abilities and were worth more to kill as a result, but when ported into 7E they did nothing to account for the fact that they made everything scoring but otherwise kept the greater kill value and as a result turned them into a liability for no good reason and contrary to the mission descriptions.
Ultimately the biggest problem is that the game has lots its sense of scale and abstracts in the wrong direction. We have ever more granular mechanics for tiny things that should be irrelevent (what type of blade a particular powerweapon has actually matters now, challenge mechanics, the physical position of each model mattering for wound allocation) while more and more army mechanics get introduced and army sizes increase and bigger and bigger units (which ignore more and more rules) get added.
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Indeed. It's almost as if I mentioned it as something that specifically needed to be fixed.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
But it's ok for you to write off 5th edition solely on the vehicle rules?
7th edition has random everything, has more charts than you can point an accountant at, had army building rules that have generated almost as much confusion in the community as the 4th edition LOS rules, has psychic rules that break the moment your psyker joins a unit, and overall wants to be a mass battle game with skirmish game rules.
Example, you say that you dont like that Vehicles dont get a save against hull points, yet the very nature of the vehicle is that it is immune to small arms fire (need a minimum str to even hurt it) and saves are available, either by jinking, smoke, using cover, invulnerable saves, (sisters eg) or various other ways of protecting your vehicle.
All of which also applies to monstrous creatures. Who wind up being more survivable at an equivalent points cost.
Charge distances I agree took a while to adjust to, however with proper deployment and movements I still make 90% of my charges even without a fleet roll, and getting a 12" charge with a unit as a last ditch effort makes for great stories later on.
Which doesn't change the fact that a dedicated assault unit potentially getting a 2" charge is absurd.
Pulling models from the front has been asked for in White Dwarf for years,
That doesn't make it a good idea, just something that some people have asked for.
Pulling from the front makes you think strategically about not only where your models are, but accounting for casualties when the enemy returns fire
No it doesn't. It makes you bury your special guys in the middle of the unit, and take plasma guns instead of flamers. That's as strategic as it gets.
And it's unnecessary. Micromanagement of individual model placement within the unit is fine in a small skirmish game, but it has no place in a game that can routinely have 100 or more models on each side.
Salous wrote: I play multiple games a week and have a blast. People keep complaining about the rules, but I can find VERY few that I actually have a problem with. Reading all the comments about wound allocation just makes me laugh. Some people are mad that they can't cheese the wounds anymore by killing off any model they want. I think most are just older players who have a hard time adapting to change.
Not so enjoyable when you have a horde army that can't even get to the centre of ther board cause it removes more rows of models than it moves forward.
Oh no, more rules for things that are optional, its almost like GW is trying to give us options other than Bolters and Lascannons!
Not sure what you mean by this.
And am I seriously the only person thet enjoys the heck out of Maelstrom missions
Maybe.
or should we all jsut continue to play boring static games where nothing is worth points until the end of the game?
Well...normally who holds what when the shooting ends is both a practical and realistic time for that.
That said, the concept of asymmetrical objectives has merit. The execution in the case of 7E's Maelstrom missions is abysmal.
Maelstrom missions have a host of problems. First and foremost is the abusrdly random nature often leads to highly imbalanced outcomes. They also quite often run into issues where some armies physically can't achieve certain objectives because either they don't have access to something or an opponent didn't bring something. Meanwhile, other objectives are trivially easy to achieve and have no business being a mission objective "e.g. cast a psychic power in an army with 4 Psykers, though itcan also physically be impossible for many armies like Tau). There's tons of immersion breaking issues with the above problems, in addition to just the ADHD nature of randomly going after vastly different objectives every turn ("is high command on crack? how often are they going to change their minds here?"). Maelstrom missions also tend to disproportionately favor the armies that already on top, those with gobs of mobility and resiliency, Eldar, Necrons, SM's, etc while slower and/or less resilient armies like IG or DE flounder terribly.
Yet the draw back to jinking is that the vehicle must now snapshoot, and yet they still go down quickly in CC
Sure, but that doesn't mean there still isn't a huge skimmer vs non-skimmer gap. Look at tournament results and the only armies you see anywhere near the top place using lots of non-skimmer vehicles are either Gladius forces getting their vehicles for free, or are Knight armies with inherent saves and "we ignore everything" superheavy rules.
The on-demand Jink is huge. Sure it has to snap-fire. But it doesn't effect passengers at all, doesn't effect movement at all, many Jink-capable units have Twin-Linked weapons in the first place, they don't have to do any sort of pre-planning and can declare it as an immediate reaction, and it's a 4+ save.
If you look at Smoke Launchers on the other hand, the situation is much different. They're one-use. They only give a 5+ save. You have to use them pre-emptively (use them too soon and you've wasted them, don't use them soon enough and you're toast, and you can't use them in response to a turn 1 alpha strike), they prevent *all* shooting (not just forcing snap-shots) and the shooting restriction applies to passengers as well, and it prevents the vehicle from moving flat-out.
With the exception of certain armies, very rarely do you find a CC where you have more than 2 initiative steps to worry about.
Sure, but it's still extra steps and movement that add time and complexity.
Challenges are optional
Not if you play Chaos Space Marines, and while they may be "optional" both players get the opportunity to take advantage of that option, so even if you don't want to, your opponent can force it. More to the point, it's rarely used as an actual fluffy "have my cool guy fight your cool guy" mechanic, but as a way to single-out and easily slay the one model that can actually present a threat and do so before it can actually strike back.
,and Look out sir is optional.
And in most cases outright stupid not to take advantage of and often critically important to the builds of many units/armies (e.g. TWC deathstars).
correct, 3rd gave us VDR to build flyers and FW gave us rules for them but they were unusable, and even if you did try to have a dogfight, it was a mess
Given how basically nobody had or tried to use Flyers in these time periods, particularly given how few even had models, it can probably be forgiven.
Do you not remember being able to shoot through 12 inches of forest and losing line of sight to anything more than 6" into terrain, or any of the other arbitrary rules of what cover was (back when everything was a 4+ cover)
Oh I do, and I'm not saying everything in every older edition was better in every respect. We haven't had a perfect edition yet in my opinion.
Also we didnt have many multiwound models back then.
There weren't as many, but they were there. Thousand Sons, Obliterators, Nobz, Tyranid Warriors, etc.
I personally like the new wounding system as it rewards people for thinking tactically rather than seeing a conga-line of 20 ork boys get a cover save because the 10 in the back are in cover.
The problem is that kind of tactical granularity is somewhat, well, absurd at the scale we're playing at. Worrying about where the individual flamer guy in a unit is when you're playing a battle that's got 100+ or 200+ models on the board, with aircraft and superheavy tanks and godzilla like creatures present, is simply forcing in detail where it's neither appropriate nor value adding, particularly when in many cases it disproportionaly hurts multi-role units for no good balance reason.
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Yes, please lets return to the days of Eldar Falcons being near indestructable, Landraider spam lists, and Drop pod dreadnaughts flooding the table. I remember 5th being nothing but gunline armies with Vehicle spam winning almost every game.
The problem wasn't "vehicles" as a whole, it was transports not caring about most of the results, gun-tanks were very easy to negate. Falcons were not unkillable in 5th (that was 4th), particularly with the CC changes. Land Raider spam worked...until someone brought meltaguns (it was never a popular build for a reason). Dreadnoughts were biggest as back-table auto-cannon platforms than anything else, not as drop-podded assault units.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
There's a good number of them. Humongous numbers of unnecessary charts. Underwhelming rules for terrain that isn't GW produced plastic kits. A complete loss of sense of scale as ever bigger units are hamfisted into the game. Formations that give incredibly powerful abilities (and often entire units) and wargear for free and that synergize with other formations. All sorts of abuse of the allies mechanic to take advantage of abilities and synergies that otherwise weren't intended. The ability to take detachments in such a way as to make unit limitations often pointless. Rules sources so varied, widespread, poorly updated and incoherently tracked that almost nobody can keep track of them all, much less afford to actually own them.
Other issues are present as well. We have missions copy-pasted from 6E without proper adaptation such as Big Guns Never Tire or The Scouring, when these missions were created in 6E, Heavy Support & Fast Attack units got bonus scoring abilities and were worth more to kill as a result, but when ported into 7E they did nothing to account for the fact that they made everything scoring but otherwise kept the greater kill value and as a result turned them into a liability for no good reason and contrary to the mission descriptions.
Ultimately the biggest problem is that the game has lots its sense of scale and abstracts in the wrong direction. We have ever more granular mechanics for tiny things that should be irrelevent (what type of blade a particular powerweapon has actually matters now, challenge mechanics, the physical position of each model mattering for wound allocation) while more and more army mechanics get introduced and army sizes increase and bigger and bigger units (which ignore more and more rules) get added.
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Indeed. It's almost as if I mentioned it as something that specifically needed to be fixed.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
But it's ok for you to write off 5th edition solely on the vehicle rules?
7th edition has random everything, has more charts than you can point an accountant at, had army building rules that have generated almost as much confusion in the community as the 4th edition LOS rules, has psychic rules that break the moment your psyker joins a unit, and overall wants to be a mass battle game with skirmish game rules.
Example, you say that you dont like that Vehicles dont get a save against hull points, yet the very nature of the vehicle is that it is immune to small arms fire (need a minimum str to even hurt it) and saves are available, either by jinking, smoke, using cover, invulnerable saves, (sisters eg) or various other ways of protecting your vehicle.
All of which also applies to monstrous creatures. Who wind up being more survivable at an equivalent points cost.
Charge distances I agree took a while to adjust to, however with proper deployment and movements I still make 90% of my charges even without a fleet roll, and getting a 12" charge with a unit as a last ditch effort makes for great stories later on.
Which doesn't change the fact that a dedicated assault unit potentially getting a 2" charge is absurd.
Pulling models from the front has been asked for in White Dwarf for years,
That doesn't make it a good idea, just something that some people have asked for.
Pulling from the front makes you think strategically about not only where your models are, but accounting for casualties when the enemy returns fire
No it doesn't. It makes you bury your special guys in the middle of the unit, and take plasma guns instead of flamers. That's as strategic as it gets.
And it's unnecessary. Micromanagement of individual model placement within the unit is fine in a small skirmish game, but it has no place in a game that can routinely have 100 or more models on each side.
Well, these sum up my views nicely. Have an exalt each.
Selym wrote: Apart from the fact that I'm lucky to see a game per month, no. As an AM player, I'm having a terrible time.
As a BT player, I'm still not having much.fun, aside from ruthlessly shanking Ultramarines at every opportunity.
Why are you having a terrible time?
Aside from the poor rules in the BRB and the fact an average game takes around 6 hours with my opponents, my AM are, without fail, tabled on or before T3.
How big are the battles you play? 1850 takes around 4 hours for me (with 100+ minis), and it's moving the Cultists that takes time. Scale it down a notch if the time is an issue
But how are you getting tabled with AM and how long have you played for? Granted, they're not top tier, but IG aren't bad, and they are the only ones that consistently table my CSMs! Leman Russ battle tanks (S8 AP3 large blast), Wyverns (makes infantry go poof!), Pask, etc. While none of this is uber awesome, these units are damn solid. I would ask experienced IG players at your local club and on the net for advice, maybe even look up D4Chan's guide. But if you're relatively new (less than 20-30 games), you will be getting pummeled. If you were a beginner, I just posted a wee article on ways of improving your learning curve and experience
Selym wrote: Apart from the fact that I'm lucky to see a game per month, no. As an AM player, I'm having a terrible time.
As a BT player, I'm still not having much.fun, aside from ruthlessly shanking Ultramarines at every opportunity.
Why are you having a terrible time?
Aside from the poor rules in the BRB and the fact an average game takes around 6 hours with my opponents, my AM are, without fail, tabled on or before T3.
How big are the battles you play? 1850 takes around 4 hours for me (with 100+ minis), and it's moving the Cultists that takes time. Scale it down a notch if the time is an issue
But how are you getting tabled with AM and how long have you played for? Granted, they're not top tier, but IG aren't bad, and they are the only ones that consistently table my CSMs! Leman Russ battle tanks (S8 AP3 large blast), Wyverns (makes infantry go poof!), Pask, etc. While none of this is uber awesome, these units are damn solid. I would ask experienced IG players at your local club and on the net for advice, maybe even look up D4Chan's guide. But if you're relatively new (less than 20-30 games), you will be getting pummeled. If you were a beginner, I just posted a wee article on ways of improving your learning curve and experience
Started 40k in 2007, and joined the IG in 2012.
My my Battlecannins almost never do anything, I rarely am able to kill vehicles, and my games range from 500 points to 1750 with minimal difference in timescale.
ChazSexington wrote: Leman Russ battle tanks (S8 AP3 large blast), Wyverns (makes infantry go poof!), Pask, etc. While none of this is uber awesome, these units are damn solid.
Sorry, but the LRBT has been terrible since 6th. S8 AP3 isn't remotely as useful as people seem to think, and even less so when it forces all your other weapons to snap-fire.
I took a break from 40K last Fall and began playing again this past September (about a one year break). By the end of 6th edition, I was becoming very frustrated with the direction of the game and 7th didn't seem to improve much in my opinion, so I walked away for awhile.
Fast forward a year later and I've played several games and an 18 person tourney and enjoyed each and every game. I looked at my army and what was available and opted to play my style of game and learn to tune out a lot of the negativity permeating around the internet. So far, I've had no real issues and am back at painting minis again as well.
Are there rules issues? Absolutely. Just like in RT, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th edition. I personally do not like the wound allocation rules combined with LoS and the lack of concise terrain rules. However, there have been several clubs/organizations who have released their FAQs, army list construction, etc... in which to utilize within one's own gaming group that keeps issues down to a minimum. With all that in mind, I was able to play three very fun and challenging tourney games with zero rules issue debates.
Since I've come back to the game, I've found most of the negativity regarding the game on the internet and substantially less negativity on the tabletop.
I just want to point out that vehicles CAN be damaged by small arms fire. Anyone whom has ever had a squad of Marines of other S4 (or in the Tau's case S5) armed unit get on the flank of a chimera (or chimera chassis based tank) or the rear of a Leman Russ/other heavy tank will know the agonising pain and fury you feel as a hail of what should be ineffectual small arms fire sandblasts you tank to oblivion.
Apart from that I find that 7th, especially maelstrom (that certain opponents of mine like to play because they just know how static my army is), to be an unwieldy and overbloated rules that make no sense at all in most cases and add nothing to the game.
Tbh I enjoy 7th, but not really because of the rules.
The cover rules are horrific imo when compared to 3rd or 5th, the from front model removal is either broken or highly abused and the unbalances are really obvious.
However back in the day I was part of a gaming group that liked to be competitive, army lists changed every month or so and everyone poured money into the game. We enjoyed it because we felt back in 5th most armies would have a chance. If I still played with them it would be a massive issue.
Now I play with a group of 5 guys and also a club that plays for enjoyment of the game and narrative.
"Ohhh my LRBT just scattered it's shot through three buildings, hit 4 guys and did sweet FA, imagine that scene in a film and how much those firewarriors much of shat themselves"
And we have a hell of a time, we even take the piss out of the game system a bit during the games. Bar the ork player who likes to be a rule lawyer despite not knowing most the rules and shouts unfair play everytime his opponent doing well.
"Vehicles were too strong... but beyond that, it was the tightest ruleset that GW have released for 40K" WTF?!?!?!? You just cited the very thing that made 5th a weak rules set.
Indeed. It's almost as if I mentioned it as something that specifically needed to be fixed.
Please enlighten me as to how 7th is a mess by comparison, I see lots of people say that the rules are Gack, but no one bothers the explain other than to cite a couple of rules at best, and even then many of the issues are minor nit-picking on average.
But it's ok for you to write off 5th edition solely on the vehicle rules?
7th edition has random everything, has more charts than you can point an accountant at, had army building rules that have generated almost as much confusion in the community as the 4th edition LOS rules, has psychic rules that break the moment your psyker joins a unit, and overall wants to be a mass battle game with skirmish game rules.
Example, you say that you dont like that Vehicles dont get a save against hull points, yet the very nature of the vehicle is that it is immune to small arms fire (need a minimum str to even hurt it) and saves are available, either by jinking, smoke, using cover, invulnerable saves, (sisters eg) or various other ways of protecting your vehicle.
All of which also applies to monstrous creatures. Who wind up being more survivable at an equivalent points cost.
Charge distances I agree took a while to adjust to, however with proper deployment and movements I still make 90% of my charges even without a fleet roll, and getting a 12" charge with a unit as a last ditch effort makes for great stories later on.
Which doesn't change the fact that a dedicated assault unit potentially getting a 2" charge is absurd.
Pulling models from the front has been asked for in White Dwarf for years,
That doesn't make it a good idea, just something that some people have asked for.
Pulling from the front makes you think strategically about not only where your models are, but accounting for casualties when the enemy returns fire
No it doesn't. It makes you bury your special guys in the middle of the unit, and take plasma guns instead of flamers. That's as strategic as it gets.
And it's unnecessary. Micromanagement of individual model placement within the unit is fine in a small skirmish game, but it has no place in a game that can routinely have 100 or more models on each side.
It is funny how viewpoints can make each of these views seem wrong to the other.
I think a more competitive player focus makes most rules "good" to a degree: that player will "adapt" they so proudly like to claim as long as the rules are clear.
It just needs to be remembered that not all of us are willing to adapt to rules we do not agree with rather than an "inability".
It appears the 6th-7th edition rules can appeal more to those who enjoy gambling a bit more.
Plus, we cannot forget those that enjoy the "fluff" more than an actual game, so being allowed to do whatever you want is key to them.
I like my tabletop games to be the nearest thing to a "simulator" of those books / movies we are inspired by. I am unsure that is what insaniak likes but what he has pointed out I agree with.
If the character leads dramatically from the front and the flamer guy roasts guys as he is running forward in a book I want to see that.
If the rules do not allow that "simulation" to happen, I think of them as garbage.
The pulling models from the back is not necessary, you can say you only have to pull from within weapons range but it adds chunkiness again to the game.
The unit is to be considered a dynamic entity, if every single model and it's exact position is critical rather than the squad, we are playing a skirmish game.
Go dust off Necromunda or some Kill-team <500 pt odd game.
I play slow enough, I really am not into 40k gaming to micromanage: I want to be a general not a sergeant.
Epic is not a supported game.
If we want those big games, with big armies and big stomping creatures / titans / vehicles the focus on squad tactics makes more sense than individual models.
I want my rules clean, that is why I am looking at Mantic's Maelstrom rules... GW should look into it.
I want Kharn in the front where he belongs, cutting down those silly enough who get in front of him, THOSE are the epic moments.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ou haven't heard of the Green tide/ Void Shield Generator trick? Its like watching an Ork Kite move around.
Cool thing about the 7th ed rules, is that the VSG doesnt work on the boys outside the bubble, hense closest model gets cover equal to his actual cover not the guys in the back.
The ITC ruled differently. From their FAQ: A unit only needs to have a single model at least partially within 12” of a Void Shield Generator for the entire unit to benefit from it.
That is a ridiculous ruling as nothing in the VSG rules would imply that that's how the shield works!
That's exactly how the VSG works RAW. The attack came from outside 12" of the VSG, shooting at an unit that is within 12" of a VSG. There is nothing along the lines of 'a unit can only benefit from a void shield if its closest model to the attacking unit is within 12" of the projected void shield."
FAQ for Jink is another example. It's implied that Skimmers that are Immobilised (ie unable to move) can't Jink but it was worded so poorly that they can still Jink.
Back on topic, no, not as much as I would like. I play armies that are deemed weaker in comparison to others (Orks, BA, DE and 3> Flyrant Nids) so against the powerhouse armies, I'm fighting an uphill battle, combined with the amount of rules that favour some armies over others (such as MC getting cover from having toes in terrain, such as a Wraithknight whereas as Land Raider has to be 25%) covered. That's just one example of imbalance. Others include random charge length, overwatch, flyers and FMC's deployment, psychic phase, etc, etc. It's a complicated ruleset, but unlike Infinity (which I'm getting into), the rules for 40k are inconsistent at best.
I dunno, maybe it's just the armies I play. Maybe it's Maybelline.
Salous wrote: I play multiple games a week and have a blast. People keep complaining about the rules, but I can find VERY few that I actually have a problem with. Reading all the comments about wound allocation just makes me laugh. Some people are mad that they can't cheese the wounds anymore by killing off any model they want. I think most are just older players who have a hard time adapting to change.
Not so enjoyable when you have a horde army that can't even get to the centre of ther board cause it removes more rows of models than it moves forward.
Build better army lists and im sure you will do just fine. Nothing wrong with horde lists. Also, using terrain helps alot.
40k is alive and well here in Western Massachusetts. Just had a big gaming day this past Saturday with 10 of my closest 40k buddies.
7th is the best rule set yet IMHO. I do agree that codex creep has caused the pregame conversation to become mandatory, but in our group of friends it's super easy to either use, or not use some of the more powerful combos.... or units.
kronk wrote: I've met some fun new players recently and am enjoying the game.
New players?
No sign of new players here.
No sign of players here.
No joke. I used to have 6 friends who played 40k. Now I have two. One is at University, the other moved to another country (from England to Wales / still counts). Aside from that, there is one wargaming group in the area, none of them will touch 40k with a 900-foot pole, and then I have a GW in the next town over, who regularly disallows actual games, in favour of setting up a diorama for the fething non-existent newcomers.
kronk wrote: I've met some fun new players recently and am enjoying the game.
New players?
No sign of new players here.
No sign of players here.
No joke. I used to have 6 friends who played 40k. Now I have two. One is at University, the other moved to another country (from England to Wales / still counts). Aside from that, there is one wargaming group in the area, none of them will touch 40k with a 900-foot pole, and then I have a GW in the next town over, who regularly disallows actual games, in favour of setting up a diorama for the fething non-existent newcomers.
I dont blame them, hell the only thing that keeps me playing 40K is that it is almost impossible to get a game of anything else within the local area.
If you live near Preston then look up Red Steel Gaming, we have a hell of a lot of 40K players (read: all of us)
kronk wrote: I've met some fun new players recently and am enjoying the game.
New players?
No sign of new players here.
No sign of players here.
No joke. I used to have 6 friends who played 40k. Now I have two. One is at University, the other moved to another country (from England to Wales / still counts). Aside from that, there is one wargaming group in the area, none of them will touch 40k with a 900-foot pole, and then I have a GW in the next town over, who regularly disallows actual games, in favour of setting up a diorama for the fething non-existent newcomers.
I dont blame them, hell the only thing that keeps me playing 40K is that it is almost impossible to get a game of anything else within the local area.
If you live near Preston then look up Red Steel Gaming, we have a hell of a lot of 40K players (read: all of us)
) and even that made me feel paranoid about people taking my stuff.
