Let me level with you here. I started 40k back when Tau got their 6th Ed codex, which incidently was when the Riptide came out, and I'm not gonna lie - I loved that thing. The design was cool, and it was one of the largest things in the game at that point, so it caught my eye. I eventually started playing Tau against my friend's Necrons, and I tried out the Riptide against his army, 1250 matches usually... And it felt wrong.
Not gonna lie, removing entire squads with the Ion Accelerator was both fun and fulfilling to do, but something about using that large a model, with that kind of defenses was just wrong. It didn't feel like it fit in. It wasn't a counter to anything on his table edge in particular, and even if he had some Riptide-like model to balance it out, it would work like that, because we would happily target the small, hopeless infantry models, who has no hope against those monsters. I stopped using it for that reason, and soon enough I began playing Orks, who have been much more fun and engaging.
I though the Riptide would be the last "big model" when it came out - It seemed natural to have such a large mech as a part of the Tau army, but that was it. Everyone else used tanks, or the occasional Carnifex, with only Tau having the knowhow to make large trotting mechs in any way other than Titans.
And then came the Wraithknight. And Imperial Knight. Before all those were the Dreadknight, which got buffed. Then came the Orkanauts. The Centurions arguably qualify... And now, the Stormsurge, in squads of three.
...
Anyone remember when a Hammerhead was a dangerous tank against big models? When the Leman Russ where the anti-MeQ tank? When the Basilisk was hailed as a powerful ordnance piece in its own right, and the long ranged S 9 AP 3 was seen as pretty insane for the point cost?
I'm tired of big models. I wanna get back to tanks and infantry, to grinding infantry battles and tank duels. I'm tired of every new large model has to be the next big thing, eclipsing the last (unless it's an Ork thing, of course), instead of being mildly balanced towards each other, the way infantry is. I'm tired of everything being judged by its ability to down a Wraithknight (Oh, Breachers can' kill a Wraithknight? Must be gak then!). I'm tired of Dreadnoughts being small, inconsiquencial model, aside the towering Knights.
Please tell me I'm not the only one who doesn't like how this is going.
Most of the big stuff is either ancient or re-imagined ancient stuff from the earliest editions of 40k.
During those times, they were designed solely for the large-scale battle games where space marines were 6mm tall and the Imperial Knight was the size of a modern space marine.
Unfortunately, it seems that big stompy robots sell. For the last five or six years, GW has been trying to bring the old 6mm scale Epic 40k to the 28mm scale main game... and that's the source of all your woes.
Best thing to do here is for you to either change game system entirely (a popular choice) or just all agree not to use the big stompy robots.
Those big toys don';t really affect my games that much . Most of the players here don't like to spamm them. Its the no brainer formations and detachments with huge buffs that I don't like.
oldzoggy wrote: Those big toys don';t really affect my games that much . Most of the players here don't like to spamm them. Its the no brainer formations and detachments with huge buffs that I don't like.
Oh, screw formations too. There's really no trick to them, it's just spam-rewarding.
Furyou Miko wrote: Most of the big stuff is either ancient or re-imagined ancient stuff from the earliest editions of 40k.
During those times, they were designed solely for the large-scale battle games where space marines were 6mm tall and the Imperial Knight was the size of a modern space marine.
Unfortunately, it seems that big stompy robots sell. For the last five or six years, GW has been trying to bring the old 6mm scale Epic 40k to the 28mm scale main game... and that's the source of all your woes.
Best thing to do here is for you to either change game system entirely (a popular choice) or just all agree not to use the big stompy robots.
The Rogue Trader rules would have handled all those Knights, super-heavy walkers, tanks, etc. It was only the manufacturing issues that stopped them, I think.
I started with RT and 2nd Ed and dropped out about the time 3rd Ed was released (for non-gaming reasons). I came back in properly just before 7th Ed. I was used to loads of infantry with a few supporting tanks. A dreadnought meant something.
Now, you're right, it's all about bigger models and more firepower. It's been well documented that 40k is an arms race - buy the newest and biggest or prepared to be stomped. Fortunately, I only play with close buddies - the same guys I played with back in the early 90s, and they were friends before we gamed together - so we have a similar mindset. We've never actually spoken about it, but we just don't throw money at winning - I have Eldar, but no WK, the Ork player doesn't have a Gorka/Morkanaut or Stompa. We don't spam any units. We all have pretty balanced armies with a mix of troop, elite, heavy and fast attack units. We have fun!
We'd stand no chance at a FLGS (and certainly not a a tourney), but that's not what we're in it for. We play together and have fun together, so we're happy. GW can keep releasing big models at £70-£100 each, we just won't buy them.
For those who do want to buy them - go for it, I've no issue with that, and I wouldn't try to convince them otherwise. As long as everyone's having fun, it's all good!
oldzoggy wrote: Those big toys don';t really affect my games that much . Most of the players here don't like to spamm them. Its the no brainer formations and detachments with huge buffs that I don't like.
Oh, screw formations too. There's really no trick to them, it's just spam-rewarding.
Well no the spamminess isn't the problem most of the nasty ones aren't spammy at all.
The real problem with them is the huge boon if you field them in that way. Making anything that you field outside those formations over costed reducing the freedom of the players and nerfing the older armies..
Nope.
I just jumped on the bandwagon with a purchase of 5 Imperial Knights so I can run any 40K formation.
I also have plans to pick up Questoris Knights models in the future for 30K.
I like only having to worry about 3 to 4 models on the field.
It simplifies the strategy for me, and lessens the number of rules I will forget.
That way I, as a newcomer, can play games that prep me for harder armies.
Like Necrons, and Chaos Daemons.
Mantorok wrote: Nope.
I just jumped on the bandwagon with a purchase of 5 Imperial Knights so I can run any 40K formation.
I also have plans to pick up Questoris Knights models in the future for 30K.
I like only having to worry about 3 to 4 models on the field.
It simplifies the strategy for me, and lessens the number of rules I will forget.
That way I, as a newcomer, can play games that prep me for harder armies.
Like Necrons, and Chaos Daemons.
I guess I can see your point, but when my last opponent took a Knight and a Wyvern against my 500 pt infantry Ork army, that point falls a bit null to me. Sure, easier for your to have a few cool and powerful models, but what about the rest of us, who still want to play the old way?
I have to agree with the OP. Modern 40k sometimes feels like a skirmish game with oversized toys. Rather than the 28mm wargame based around a company of infantry with some support units it used to be. I wouldn't mind it as much if GW was as good at designing large models as they are at making infantry. Mechanical design isn't really a strength of theirs.
The game I got into was 40k. But now I seem to be playing some sort of Anime-based game, where everyone and their dog has a giant robot suit; and anyone not in a giant robot suit is about as effective as a Cornish Pasty.
I think what annoys me most though is that basically every single one of these giant robots is better than other units in every way. For example, I can understand big units having more wounds/hull-points and having larger guns than regular infantry and tanks, but why are they also faster? It's like GW were terrified that if they made them appropriately ponderous, anyone using them might have to engage their brains at some stage - supporting them with other units, planning where they needed them to be in a few turns etc. But, no, they're just better in every way. And they can score, too - otherwise troops without giant mech-suits might actually serve a purpose.
I suspect that GW think an Airbus would be perfectly capable of accelerating to maximum speed instantaneously, and performing an emergency stop in mid-air. Because when you're suitably large, the laws of physics only apply to you when it's convenient.
Incidentally, anyone who brings up 'suspension of disbelief' on this matter deserves to be force-fed their own keyboard.
Oh, one other thing, these models are unbelievably boring to fight against. Many weapons outright don't work on them (I love it when half my guns become window-dressing), they ignore basically the entire damage table (I guess all those exposed wires and guns aren't important), and they suffer no loss in effectiveness until the very last wound/hull-point is removed.
I guess I can see your point, but when my last opponent took a Knight and a Wyvern against my 500 pt infantry Ork army, that point falls a bit null to me. Sure, easier for your to have a few cool and powerful models, but what about the rest of us, who still want to play the old way?
That's pretty messed up. You shouldn't be bringing Knights at lower than 1000pts if you ask me.
I don't see why they can't incorporate that as a rule for the IK Codex.
FW does it with the Questoris, there are all kinds of weird stipulations for their larger models.
And I think its not unreasonable to say no GMC or Superheavy at sub-1000pts game.
The smallest formation I can even take is a Gallant Lance which is 990 base. for three knights
If you want to run a knights army, you should understand that you cannot play smaller points games.
I guess I can see your point, but when my last opponent took a Knight and a Wyvern against my 500 pt infantry Ork army, that point falls a bit null to me. Sure, easier for your to have a few cool and powerful models, but what about the rest of us, who still want to play the old way?
That's pretty messed up. You shouldn't be bringing Knights at lower than 1000pts if you ask me.
I don't see why they can't incorporate that as a rule for the IK Codex.
FW does it with the Questoris, there are all kinds of weird stipulations for their larger models.
And I think its not unreasonable to say no GMC or Superheavy at sub-1000pts game.
The smallest formation I can even take is a Gallant Lance which is 990 base. for three knights
If you want to run a knights army, you should understand that you cannot play smaller points games.
Why understand rules, when you can go UNBOUND? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The game is fun and fine for those who like it and for those that don't then your going to have to find another way to have fun, I've been playing and collecting since 3ed and every edition that comes out I adapt to it and build army's that I think I'll have a good time playing with and also will be a competitive army. It's a hobby, buy new stuff, paint new stuff and play new editions. Biggest pet pec is people that play 7ed with 2 and 3ed models
vipoid wrote:
I think what annoys me most though is that basically every single one of these giant robots is better than other units in every way. For example, I can understand big units having more wounds/hull-points and having larger guns than regular infantry and tanks, but why are they also faster? It's like GW were terrified that if they made them appropriately ponderous, anyone using them might have to engage their brains at some stage - supporting them with other units, planning where they needed them to be in a few turns etc. But, no, they're just better in every way. And they can score, too - otherwise troops without giant mech-suits might actually serve a purpose.
A Knight may only take one step every three seconds, but each of those steps represents a good thirty seconds of jogging for an infantryman. that is why they are so fast.
A Knight may only take one step every three seconds, but each of those steps represents a good thirty seconds of jogging for an infantryman. that is why they are so fast.
1) Many of them aren't stepping at all - they're moving as jump infantry.
2) Most are as fast as skimmers moving at full speed in the movement phase. That's well beyond what any sort of 'long stride' should be able to accomplish.
The Wise Dane wrote: Why understand rules, when you can go UNBOUND? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I don't think unbound should exist.
I mean, that's my gut reaction.
Looking deeper, I understand wanting to take unusual armies and interesting models.
I get that GW doesn't want to restrict their game, and they want to let the players form their own way to play, but I'm just not sure if its right to be an option.
vipoid wrote:
I think what annoys me most though is that basically every single one of these giant robots is better than other units in every way. For example, I can understand big units having more wounds/hull-points and having larger guns than regular infantry and tanks, but why are they also faster? It's like GW were terrified that if they made them appropriately ponderous, anyone using them might have to engage their brains at some stage - supporting them with other units, planning where they needed them to be in a few turns etc. But, no, they're just better in every way. And they can score, too - otherwise troops without giant mech-suits might actually serve a purpose.
A Knight may only take one step every three seconds, but each of those steps represents a good thirty seconds of jogging for an infantryman. that is why they are so fast.
So that's it then - The game is a simulation of 40k. But why don't we have rules for ammo, for falling over and toppling, maybe even make Marines so powerful that you'll only ever need ten?
That's the thing. It might seem like it's logical, but it's really not - It's just giving buffs to the new cool thing. Riptides, for example, is given 2+ Armour Save, because the material for their armour is hella rare, but all rules completely gloss over the fact the material is so rare that more than one Riptide per Hunter Cadre is highly unusual. So the positive side are there, but the negative aren't. Ergo, the game isn't a simulation, but only pretends to, to make the new stuff more awesome than the old stuff.
The Wise Dane wrote: Why understand rules, when you can go UNBOUND? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I don't think unbound should exist.
I mean, that's my gut reaction.
Looking deeper, I understand wanting to take unusual armies and interesting models.
I get that GW doesn't want to restrict their game, and they want to let the players form their own way to play, but I'm just not sure if its right to be an option.
So you agree with me - The game is in a bad place. Unbound IS a part of the game, you CAN take a Knight in a 500 pt game.
I agree with the OP but for slightly different reasons. Its not that their are giant models that is problematic (except for Tau as it goes against their fluff) but that these giant models do everything better than infantry and vehicles. A giant walker like the Stompa has its place as being this 800+ point monster of a mech but then we have gak like the Wraithknight who is horribly underpriced while being crazy difficult to kill and packs a mean punch. The SHV and GC also tend to ignore most of the game rules which just makes having those special rules or mechanics useless and further separates normal units from the Apoc class models. Also these Super Heavy class models causes an arms race effect which continues to push for more fire power. The lowly guardsmen or ork boy is increasingly becoming out dated and irrelevant because of the growing number of cheap, durable, and killy big units.
Vankraken wrote: I agree with the OP but for slightly different reasons. Its not that their is giant models that is problematic (except for Tau as it goes against their fluff) but that these giant models do everything better than infantry and vehicles. A giant walker like the Stompa has its place as being this 800+ point monster of a mech but then we have gak like the Wraithknight who is horribly underpriced while being crazy difficult to kill and packs a mean punch. The SHV and GC also tend to ignore most of the game rules which just makes having those special rules or mechanics useless and further separates normal units from the Apoc class models. Also these Super Heavy class models causes an arms race effect which continues to push for more fire power. The lowly guardsmen or ork boy is increasingly becoming out dated and irrelevant because of the growing number of cheap, durable, and killy big units.
So you agree with me - The game is in a bad place. Unbound IS a part of the game, you CAN take a Knight in a 500 pt game.
Oh wow, I never thought about it, but you're right.
That is a TERRIBLE model for the game to have.
I'm not opposed to Knights, or GMC, or other Superheavies, but they need stipulations.
Hopefully they will set this in by 8th, or god forbid, release an FAQ/Errata for 7th for this.
Unbound can still exist, but GW needs to place a disclaimer beneath it stating that it is not intended for Tournament use, and should not be played outside of a casual setting with friends.
So you agree with me - The game is in a bad place. Unbound IS a part of the game, you CAN take a Knight in a 500 pt game.
Oh wow, I never thought about it, but you're right.
That is a TERRIBLE model for the game to have.
I'm not opposed to Knights, or GMC, or other Superheavies, but they need stipulations.
Hopefully they will set this in by 8th, or god forbid, release an FAQ/Errata for 7th for this.
Unbound can still exist, but GW needs to place a disclaimer beneath it stating that it is not intended for Tournament use, and should not be played outside of a casual setting with friends.
I don't think that GW would create a FAQ or disclaimer from this, just with the ramping it seems like they are actively trying to kill tournament level 40k, want people just to play causually. Then again this is just my 2 cents.
I honestly haven't had any trouble dealing with big stuff. I've always hated far more the "Death Star" of heavy infantry that uses combined rules to make itself invincible and super powerful.
I find that big stuff like knights and even MCs are not all that hard to deal with. Are there things I hate about them? Totally. Stomp and D-rules I really wish were different (I would change it to "counts as S:10, Always Wounds, Removes D6 wounds/HP instead of 1" and get rid of the "everything dead" result on stomp. Keep D the "kill tough stuff" and Stomp the "Kill Small Stuff".
But are they on the same level as Decurion nonsense or the more ridiculous I-Win Button formations? Not even close.
How to fix this: one LoW per 1000/1500pts. Would prevent/discourage their use in small games whilst allowing them to be used in larger games where they belong imho. Also Knights shouldn't be an army unto themselves imho, just a LoW choice for IoM armies.
I dunno. Playing with the Leviathan detachment in 30k has taught me that most superheavies (at least in that ruleset) have significant weaknesses which can be exploited.
I don't resent the existence of stompy robots, but it is unfortunate how pervasive they've become in the game.
With Tau especially, I quite liked the aesthetic and fighting style that they had before 6th edition. The advent of Mecha-Tau has fethed that up though.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I dunno. Playing with the Leviathan detachment in 30k has taught me that most superheavies (at least in that ruleset) have significant weaknesses which can be exploited.
The general problem is the army around them.
Well, all those models have Vehicle rules, which means that they can actually take damage from your usual weapons - Even an Autocannon can take a dent into a Baneblade... But try doing that to a Wraithknight.
But beside the blatant rule favourization towards Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures, my point is that big and over-the-top models have so much focus put unto them, to a degree that there haven't been new regular vehicles and tanks the last many updates, and the last one to be added (Wyvern, if I recall), is pretty OP against mobs, who, from the start, already had it tough.
I am not sure what game many of you are playing and why it is different than the 40K I play and the major GT's seem to be playing?
Let's think of some of the major winning lists in the meta and classify them as big or small toys;
Small Toyz
1. SM Gladius
2. SM Skyhammer Annihilation
3. Nec Decurion
4. Nec Flayer Pack
5. Ravenwing
6. Super Friends
7. Renegades an heretics Artillery + spawn
8. Renegades of Vraks ZOMBIES!!!
9. Freakshow (Ld shenanigans lists w/ eldar combinations)
10. Summoning based lists (usually CD).
11. Dog Pile KDK 12. Orks biker/tank busta armies
Big Toyz
1. Imperial Knights (usually addy lance or such)
2. CWE Lynx + bikes
3. CWE Wraithknight(s)
4. Tau (may not be as true as crisis suit units look really good)
5. SM Typhon+
6. War Convocation (a single imperial knight)
7. GK nemesis dreads
Ones that are easily arguable either way
CWE Seer Council
Nids Flyrant spam
Cent Star (not even that great anymore but there seems to be a thing for centurions)
These are the lists I can think of off the top of my head that are top tier. Pretty much any other list would give the player 30% or less chance to win against the above.
Now admittedly I don't actually have a problem with the big toyz lists. They play significantly faster and thus don't make you wait 1+ hour before you get your turn like greentide or nids spawning can do however I prefer variety which if you actually list the winning lists there is a fair amount of. I also have been in the game for almost 20 years so my model collection lets me play pretty much any type of army I feel like.
A problem some people may run into is that big toyz lists tend to be popular in metas. This is due to a combination of;
1. They are fast to play. Not just turn time but the setup, transport, etc. are all vastly faster than armies without big toyz.
2. Usually cost less time, energy, and money than hordes of models.
3. Perceived strength. Many players do NOT like their toyz to "die" and thus them to have to put their toys away Big toys you have to experience this less and thus many players prefer them. One of the hardest lessons an IG army player has to learn is to sacrifice huge portions of their army so they can win the game, also how to quickly collect 50+ models off the table as casualties.
4. Look. Many people like painting the bigger models as they have more opportunity to add to the model. It is after all a larger canvas thus you can really take the opportunity to tell a story. IMO this is somewhat counter acted by the ability of squads to combine models to help tell a story but the separate bases make it hard.
Anyways sorry for the long post in what will largely end up as a flame thread but I figured the phenomenon actually deserved a real analysis rather than a simple like or hate.
nudibranch wrote: How to fix this: one LoW per 1000/1500pts. Would prevent/discourage their use in small games whilst allowing them to be used in larger games where they belong imho. Also Knights shouldn't be an army unto themselves imho, just a LoW choice for IoM armies.
Limiting them in smaller games is a great idea, and as long as you're playing with folks who are decent people it should not be an issue. Talking to your opponent before a game should be enough to avoid most problems.
Like most of these threads about spamming broken units/formations it comes down to who you play with. It's a social game that requires social interaction. Talk to people and work things out and everything goes surprisingly smooth.
Yoyoyo wrote: Look at all those lists -- what's missing is plain vanilla no special toppings.
You know what I mean? OP has made a point about the arms race, not just SHV and GMCs.
The problem is that when you have a meta, which is inevitable in a competitive game, which means people are GOING to find and exploit the most broken and capable forms of play.
Just look at Street Fighter, MK, Killer Instinct. They have tiers of characters based on certain advantages of play that some characters have.
Like innately being faster, have more damaging combos, being more "safe", and so on.
These advantages mean that you will ALWAYS see them at Fighting game tournaments.
Sure somebody might take a bad tier character (or vanilla list, do you see the comparison) but it's unlikely for them to win anything in a competitive environment.
So you agree with me - The game is in a bad place. Unbound IS a part of the game, you CAN take a Knight in a 500 pt game.
Oh wow, I never thought about it, but you're right.
That is a TERRIBLE model for the game to have.
I'm not opposed to Knights, or GMC, or other Superheavies, but they need stipulations.
Hopefully they will set this in by 8th, or god forbid, release an FAQ/Errata for 7th for this.
Unbound can still exist, but GW needs to place a disclaimer beneath it stating that it is not intended for Tournament use, and should not be played outside of a casual setting with friends.
... Games Workshop's official line is that Warhammer 40,000 is not intended for Tournament use.
So you agree with me - The game is in a bad place. Unbound IS a part of the game, you CAN take a Knight in a 500 pt game.
I have never seen (my own games or others) somebody actually abuse unbound. Not once. The only time unbound has come up was when people want to run goofy or to match fluff. These types of lists are rarely powergaming or looking to win.
What everyone needs to do before a game is have a friendly discussion about what each player expects from the game.
The problem is that players seem to treat 40K like they are having an online RTS match against a faceless opponent where you are encouraged to take the best units possible and crush your enemy as thoroughly as possible.
40k is not an online RTS game - it is a social game.
The BRB mentions the Narrative over and over again but it often goes unheeded.
All it takes is a minute of talking before actually starting a game with someone.
-is it a friendly story driven game or cutthroat tournament play?
-smaller scale with infantry and maybe 1 vehicle, or lots of super heavies and fortifications?
-is someone playing with a time limit?
-do either of the players hate something about the game that they would not like to see happen in this one? (flyers, supers, whatever)
-should one of the players get a handicap in points because the armies are so obviously out of wack in power levels?
Talk to each other people, and you will have better games
Automatically Appended Next Post: Imagine a moment where a IG player and an Eldar player talk before a game - the IG mentions hey your scatterbikes are gonna shred my army to pieces, want to make it more fun by letting me add another 3 russes and see if you can still beat me?
chaosmarauder wrote: What everyone needs to do before a game is have a friendly discussion about what each player expects from the game.
The problem is that players seem to treat 40K like they are having an online RTS match against a faceless opponent where you are encouraged to take the best units possible and crush your enemy as thoroughly as possible.
40k is not an online RTS game - it is a social game.
The BRB mentions the Narrative over and over again but it often goes unheeded.
All it takes is a minute of talking before actually starting a game with someone.
-is it a friendly story driven game or cutthroat tournament play?
-smaller scale with infantry and maybe 1 vehicle, or lots of super heavies and fortifications?
-is someone playing with a time limit?
-do either of the players hate something about the game that they would not like to see happen in this one? (flyers, supers, whatever)
-should one of the players get a handicap in points because the armies are so obviously out of wack in power levels?
Talk to each other people, and you will have better games
Automatically Appended Next Post: Imagine a moment where a IG player and an Eldar player talk before a game - the IG mentions hey your scatterbikes are gonna shred my army to pieces, want to make it more fun by letting me add another 3 russes and see if you can still beat me?
Suddenly - better game
Unless, you know, you disagree on things.
I mean, when I hear that patronising advice repeated again and again, I start to get the impression that some groups have developed a hive mind.
They apparently never reach an impasse with, for example, some players wanting something in the game (flyers, super heavies, fortifications or somesuch), and others wanting rid of those things. All you need to do is say you don't like something, and the entire group will immediately agree and accede to remove that thing from their lists.
chaosmarauder wrote: What everyone needs to do before a game is have a friendly discussion about what each player expects from the game.
The problem is that players seem to treat 40K like they are having an online RTS match against a faceless opponent where you are encouraged to take the best units possible and crush your enemy as thoroughly as possible.
40k is not an online RTS game - it is a social game.
The BRB mentions the Narrative over and over again but it often goes unheeded.
All it takes is a minute of talking before actually starting a game with someone.
-is it a friendly story driven game or cutthroat tournament play?
-smaller scale with infantry and maybe 1 vehicle, or lots of super heavies and fortifications?
-is someone playing with a time limit?
-do either of the players hate something about the game that they would not like to see happen in this one? (flyers, supers, whatever)
-should one of the players get a handicap in points because the armies are so obviously out of wack in power levels?
Talk to each other people, and you will have better games
This is an excellent sentiment, but I've rarely seen it actually implemented successfully.
First, many people do like thinking of their opponent as faceless and crushing them. They're not interested in changing their list and if asked to they just attribute it to whining.
On the other hand there's "Casual at all Costs" which regards practically everything as broken and will try to can nearly everything that can beat them.
I've seen Marine players outlaw anything AP3/2 because he felt the Ap mechanics of the game were hugely unfair and if he paid 15 points for his models he should get his armor save.
I've seen people deriding others as "not man enough to play a real game" when they didn't want to fight 3+ knights or other top tier nonsense.
The best bet is simply to play around the power level of the local club meta.
It's fine. It will all get fixed in Age of the Emperor. You can field endless units of boyz without points costs vs those stompy mechs.
On a serious note: I hate formations and the big kits in 40k. I know some people like them, but those people had the option to play apoc. I no longer have the grounds (without being kind of a jerk about it) to say "Sorry, no formation. No gargantuans.", since they are part of the core rules now.
And what happens when the Eldar player says "come on dude Russes are totally broken, my Scatbikes can't even hurt them and you beat my armor save and wound on 2s! Don't be a whiner dude I paid for every one of these shuriken cannons, they cost points the same as your stuff"
In mine, while we have some people who routinely attend tournaments and sometimes want to try some "nasty" lists, they're usually considerate enough to issue a warning in advance. Most of the time we restrict ourselves to somewhat thematic lists, I don't mean exactly super-fluffly lists but at least lists that make some kind of sense, and not designed to win at all costs. So it varies from player to player but, in the case of Tau, more than a single Riptide per side is a rare sight.
Actually, the fact that some guys are tournament players has some beneficial effects. Since the tournaments they usually attend employ a mix of restrictions and house rules, we tend to apply those rules changes as well, so no Lords of War, Invisibility only grants Shrouded + Stealth, etc.
Even with all these self-restrictions, the game is still a mess though, and only bearable thanks to its social factor.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's always wierded me out how people try to assert that winning isn't the main point of 40K.
If winning didn't matter, the game wouldn't require you to keep score.
It's also ironic that a game which apparently isn't designed for tournaments nevertheless features only symmetric, tournament-style missions - as opposed to asymmetric, narrative ones.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I dunno. Playing with the Leviathan detachment in 30k has taught me that most superheavies (at least in that ruleset) have significant weaknesses which can be exploited.
The general problem is the army around them.
Well, all those models have Vehicle rules, which means that they can actually take damage from your usual weapons - Even an Autocannon can take a dent into a Baneblade... But try doing that to a Wraithknight.
But beside the blatant rule favourization towards Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures, my point is that big and over-the-top models have so much focus put unto them, to a degree that there haven't been new regular vehicles and tanks the last many updates, and the last one to be added (Wyvern, if I recall), is pretty OP against mobs, who, from the start, already had it tough.
That right there is your entire problem. Even the souped up forgeworld dreads like the dorito aren't that deadly. There is a gross rules imbalance in favor of monstrous creatures that should be one of the top priorities for the designers in terms of what needs fixing. If monsters gradually lost combat power as they shed wounds, similar to age of sigmar, then we would be in a much better place. Additionally, making grav have no effect on non-skimming vehicles (or immobilize for one turn without removing a hull point, lets say) but buffing it's effect against Monsters (+1 to wound, or automatically ground FMC on an unsaved wound, or both) would help turn that around.
Snipers need to be made more deadly against monsters as well. As it is there are buckets and buckets of dedicated anti-tank weapons, but anti-monster weapons are quite limited, or not very effective outside of grav. That needs to get changed around, maybe by allowing snipers to cause multiple (D3) wounds.
BlaxicanX wrote: It's always wierded me out how people try to assert that winning isn't the main point of 40K.
If winning didn't matter, the game wouldn't require you to keep score.
It's also ironic that a game which apparently isn't designed for tournaments nevertheless features only symmetric, tournament-style missions - as opposed to asymmetric, narrative ones.
Since when is having symmetrical missions mutually exclusive with casual and/or narrative based games? Also, there are plenty of Altar of War etc. missions that are entirely narrative based and non-symmetrical.
I just don't see the reward in forcing 40K to be tournament worthy when it is explicitly stated by the creators not to be.
I would definitely be fed up of Mechwarrior 40k if I'd ever got in on it. As far as my opponents go, we have 1 riptide between us (mine) and nothing any bigger than that.
As far as GW's insistence on continuing to release bigger and stupider monsters though, yes I am completely fed up of it. I would have much preferred it if GW had say, released a new plastic set of warp spiders and/or done a new range of phoenix lords instead of producing the idiotic wraithknight (don't even get me started on the zero armed wonder known as the stormsurge). I play 40k for the infantry and the heroes, not the gigantic monsters/super heavy vehicles. I want my dire avengers to have a cool fire fight with my opponent's tacticals, not remove both units with a shovel because a gigantic gun with no business being in the game one-shotted them. I remember a game where my red scorpion assault marines got into a combat with a squad of sluggas, and after a long and drawn out fight, one assault marine clawed his way out of the mass, victorious. He then proceeded to fly across the field irritating my opponent with his refusal to die. I decided he would be promoted to veteran sergeant of the squad for the next game. I play 40k for that, not for my plucky assault marine and his squad to get wiped from the face of the earth by a nameless artillery strike.
Luckily my opponent pool is pretty small and we can agree on what we want to play, so I don't have to deal with the 'new' 40k, but I feel sorry for those who aren't in that situation.
This why I'm thankful that there are very few of the big stompy things at my LGS. There is a grand whopping total of 2 knights (total) at the store. And one of those is a lovingly converted and painted ork knight that one of my friend built for fun (he loves kitbashing and converting). He's only used it one time in an actual game. And that was at a tournament.
clamclaw wrote: I just don't see the reward in forcing 40K to be tournament worthy when it is explicitly stated by the creators not to be.
The reward is that a balanced game can at the least be easily turned into a narrative game. 40K is neither a good tournament game nor a good narrative game.
I'd advise you to take a look at 30K rules as an example of how a game can have a balanced rule-set while retaining its thematics.
clamclaw wrote: I just don't see the reward in forcing 40K to be tournament worthy when it is explicitly stated by the creators not to be.
The reward is that a balanced game can at the least be easily turned into a narrative game. 40K is neither a good tournament game nor a good narrative game.
I'd advise you to take a look at 30K rules as an example of how a game can have a balanced rule-set while retaining its thematics.
Guess my opinion is wrong for thinking 40K was a good narrative game, thanks for clearing that up!
FW does a stellar job of writing rules, I love the stuff they do. But also take into account 30K is balancing a more limited game. The game originally worked around MEQ's in larger numbers, and then slowly worked in Solar Auxilia and Mechanicus. It's a very smart and effective way to write an internally and externally balanced ruleset, but not something GW can do with 40K proper at this point.
If you really wanted to get down to it a D6 game is never going to be that well balanced. D20 frees up so many stats and options for better variation, but I can't imagine GW ever making a change that integral to the game.
Since when is having symmetrical missions mutually exclusive with casual and/or narrative based games? Also, there are plenty of Altar of War etc. missions that are entirely narrative based and non-symmetrical.
I just don't see the reward in forcing 40K to be tournament worthy when it is explicitly stated by the creators not to be.
The creator of the Gif said its pronounced Jif, and I don't give a feth what he says either.
The GW of today is not the same GW that created 40K in the first place, and their opinions should not be taken seriously.
Edit: removed GW hate rant. It wasn't relevant to the thread, at least not really. Sorry.
Also doesn't 30K only have like 6 or so armies?
With one being titans, and the other Questoris Knights?
That's waaaaay less than 40K.
Guess my opinion is wrong for thinking 40K was a good narrative game, thanks for clearing that up!
np
FW does a stellar job of writing rules, I love the stuff they do. But also take into account 30K is balancing a more limited game. The game originally worked around MEQ's in larger numbers, and then slowly worked in Solar Auxilia and Mechanicus. It's a very smart and effective way to write an internally and externally balanced ruleset, but not something GW can do with 40K proper at this point.
Sure they can. It'd take a lot of work, but it's certainly possible for a company with millions of dollars at its disposal to hire a competent team to write a well-designed game.
Will they? No, because Games Workshop doesn't care if their rules work so long as people continue to buy models, but this discussion is in the context of the hypothetical, and it's certainly hypothetically possible to make a balanced game that also lends itself to narrative play. Plenty of other wargames have done it. Even WHFB was fairly close to being a sensible rules-set before they fethed it up in a bid to sell more models.
I totally agree with OP. I began Tau in 5th edition and they were primarily a mixed mechanized infantry force. The army felt futuristic and believable. They did have vaguely mecha-like Battlesuits, but they were only to give the army extra flavour and options. By contrast, nowadays Tau are all about gimmick Mecha monsters. It has been almost 10 years since Tau got a new ground vehicle. Worse, the existing vehicles and infantry did not get any new rules or stuff in the new codex (with exception of Breachers).
Pretty much same was done to Tyranids. When I began 40k, I was intrigued by their multitude of options and hordes of infantry. Now, they're just another monster of the week-army. We always say how we're living in HeroHammer era, or TankHammer, or InfantryHammer. Now, we're on MC Hammer era. (groan)
There is another aspect to it, and it comes down to game mechanics. When you shoot a vehicle, number of things can happen: it may lose a weapon or get immobilized. When it is destroyed, it may blow up, or very least leave its burnt-out wreck behind, possibly hindering your other units. These are all believable options based on real life incidents. Similarly, when you shoot an infantry unit, lots of stuff may happen: the unit probably suffers casualties, gradually whittling down its fighting power. You may lose some special weapon or piece of wargear and you now have to do without. The unit might even panic and retreat. Again, all this is intriguing, realistic and provides many tactical dilemmas.
But when you shoot a monstrous creature, what happens? Nothing much. If it fails a save, it suffers a wound. There is no other damage or effect. The monster never panics, it is never stunned and never loses one bit of combat efficiency. It can never blow up, no matter how much flammable fuel or ammunition the 'monster' was carrying according to lore. When it loses its last wound, it is simply removed from play. It doesn't leave a smoking crater, or even a corpse, no matter how gigantic the creature was. It just vanishes without any ado or ceremony. Not only this is very unintuitive and illogical, it is so damn BORING.
Since when is having symmetrical missions mutually exclusive with casual and/or narrative based games?
I don't recall saying they were mutually exclusive with casual games.
But no, you're right. If you're going to do a narrative mission, what you really want is a game where the objectives are utterly generic and have no relevance to either race. Also, both races deploy at basically the same time - like they just happened to stumble onto one another. I guess we're constantly forging the narrative of the two races with malfunctioning radar who just blundered into each other and are now trying to capture random pieces of debris to pretend that there's actually reason they're fighting at all.
I mean, who's want to have one race defending a stronghold until reinforcements arrive, or trying to stop an enemy convey? Nah, better to have something much more generic and devoid of fluff.
To be fair, GW has provided a number of asymmetric missions in its various supplement books.
But that said, it's telling that these missions are only ever provided in supplement books. It's rather odd that a game designer who champions narrative play requires you to pay extra for the narrative missions.
BlaxicanX wrote: To be fair, GW has provided a number of asymmetric missions in its various supplement books.
But that said, it's telling that these missions are only ever provided in supplement books. It's rather odd that a game designer who champions narrative play requires you to pay extra for the narrative missions.
BlaxicanX wrote: To be fair, GW has provided a number of asymmetric missions in its various supplement books.
But that said, it's telling that these missions are only ever provided in supplement books. It's rather odd that a game designer who champions narrative play requires you to pay extra for the narrative missions.
Indeed.
Especially when the 3rd edition codex used to include a variety of asymmetric missions.
No, I really don't know what the problem is here. The only thing in the game that my Dark Eldar army seems to struggle against is Necron Decurion, though admitedly I don't get to play against Craftworld Eldar often and have never taken on Wraithguard/knights but Marines of varying flavours, Tau, AdMech, IG, Chaos and Nids have all offered up good games. Interestingly one of my toughest games has been against Sisters of Battle.
The really big Forge World superheavies are a different matter, but just like bringing a Knight to a 500pt game that isn't a "who would win", only cheese mongers bring those to a regular match and swiftly need to be told to GTFO or play with an actual army.
I've killed enough Dreadknights and Riptides for them not to worry me.
I was hoping they'd make Stealth Suits a troop choices, or some way to make them troop choices. That way I could have an awesome and diverse mechanized army... So I'm guessing you know where I stand on this.
My issue with having bigger things on the table is it takes away a lot of strategy. Movement, cover, line of sight, small arms don't matter as much when a knight or stormsurge can basically see everything or a wraithknight can fly around the table. the game boils down to kill the i titan via shooting before it blows up my army and i dont find that fun.
Since when is having symmetrical missions mutually exclusive with casual and/or narrative based games?
I don't recall saying they were mutually exclusive with casual games.
But no, you're right. If you're going to do a narrative mission, what you really want is a game where the objectives are utterly generic and have no relevance to either race. Also, both races deploy at basically the same time - like they just happened to stumble onto one another. I guess we're constantly forging the narrative of the two races with malfunctioning radar who just blundered into each other and are now trying to capture random pieces of debris to pretend that there's actually reason they're fighting at all.
I mean, who's want to have one race defending a stronghold until reinforcements arrive, or trying to stop an enemy convey? Nah, better to have something much more generic and devoid of fluff.
Sounds to me like you you need to "Forge the narrative, FORGE IT HARDER!". But seriously, I like the core missions but majority of the time we modify or come up with our own missions. Or look into supplement missions. Or look online for ideas. I mean, I for one do not want a more bloated rulebook filled with stuff you can either create yourself or find for free online. But that's just like, my opinion. Man.
Why pay for someone's rules when you need to heavily modify them with your own rules to have a functional game?
If 40K's rules were free, like other rule-sets are, I probably wouldn't feel the need to criticize them too heavily, but as it stands you're expected to pay a not-inconsequential amount of money for the "privilege" of using their rules, thus it's a bit of a slap in the face when the creators of that rule-set basically shrug and say "hey man we have no intention of making good rules, so feel free to modify ours to your heart's content!".
Age of Sigmar's rules are wonky, but it's hard for me to complain too loud considering they're also free. If 40K's rules were free, or like 20 bucks, I probably wouldn't care much then, either.
Backfire wrote: I totally agree with OP. I began Tau in 5th edition and they were primarily a mixed mechanized infantry force. The army felt futuristic and believable. They did have vaguely mecha-like Battlesuits, but they were only to give the army extra flavour and options. By contrast, nowadays Tau are all about gimmick Mecha monsters. It has been almost 10 years since Tau got a new ground vehicle. Worse, the existing vehicles and infantry did not get any new rules or stuff in the new codex (with exception of Breachers).
This is precisely the problem. Following up on something one of the posters mentioned in the first page is the problem that the big units, be they Riptides of Wraithknights of Knights are among the most maneuverable elements on the board. Now in the context of the 4e Tau army, the Riptide's maneuverability might be unremarkable save the nova charge ability, as the whole Tau army was pretty nimble. All Tau vehicles are skimmers that can disregard terrain, mutli-trackers enabled every vehicle to fire a full BS after moving 12", and the old transport rules enabled passengers to disembark after a 12" move. So a Riptide averaging 13" of movement in a army where most things moved 12" or 13" a turn was not particularly remarkable. But it wasn't enough to make an incredibly mobile MC, GW hamstrung most of the smaller models mobility by removing the multi-tracker and A.S.S. from the codex. Now Hammerheads, Skyrays and Devilfish were largely limited to 6" movement, and even piranha needed to slow down if attached gundrones wanted to fire at full BS. Changes is transport rules from 5e to 6e similar restricted Devilfish movement when disembarking passengers. So it wasn't enough for GW to make the big stuff fast, than also crippled most of the smaller units without any real justification, ensuring the new big toys would be one of the few mobile elements on the board. And while at least one could have argued that superheavy walkers and MCs could outpace infantry due to their long strides, it makes far less that they can outmaneuver or outrun sleek jet powered hovertanks.
As many have mentioned, the real problem isn't that superheavies and MC exist, it is that they often have no real weaknesses. They are faster, tougher and possess greater firepower than vehicles and infantry with no apparent drawbacks and often no rationale for many of these strengths. A wraithknight, basically a oversized wraithlord, really ought be as ponderous as its smaller cousin, yet in the game it moves faster than a Tau Hammerhead, when really it is the Hammerhead that should have the advantage of superior maneuverability. Regular vehicles really ought be able to outmaneuver these giants, as they would be far less ponderous in fluff terms and it would actually provide a reason to take them over superheavies and MC given all the additional weaknesses vehicles are subject to. If not just Tau vehicles, but most vehicles including most MBT could move 12" and shoot effectively while MC and superheavy were relegated to 6" moves, you could start talking about groups of vehicles and infantry actually outmaneuvering these giants and bringing them down, which from a fluff perspective would be both plausible and cinematic, and from a game play perspective would increase play balance. But instead we have these large models that are simply better than most vehicles and infantry in ever conceivable way.
I started playing Warhammer 40k way back because I was a fan of Starcraft and Command & Conquer. I was looking for a game that was similar to playing an RTS on tabletop, that made me feel like I was directing troops around and picking priority targets. Now with Fortifications, you can even build a base.
Games like those don't generally have super huge units. Usually if they do, your army can afford ONE of them. They're your Ultimate unit, your big kahuna, your Lord of War. Yet most of these giant mechs and big stompy creatures and super tanks are actually Heavy Supports or HQs or otherwise playable in greater quantities.
Personally? I dislike it. If I could, I'd play a version of 40k where troops were important again, Tanks were once again the SUPPORT part of Heavy Support, and anything big and stompy (Bloodthirster, Hive Tyrant, Riptide, Dreadknight, Wraithknight, Imperial Knight, etc) was left to the Lord of War slot only and you could only bring a single one per CAD or Decurion (with further caveat that you can't take a second unless you run 2000 pts). All the Forgeworld stuff would be allowed still, but a lot of it would also become Lords of War and some of the Heavy Support stuff would have to be toned down to fit the role better.
In this way, you only see one big stompy ultimate badass on the table at a time and most of the game is about Troops supported by tanks. Like it once was and should again be. But I'm just dreaming, no one wants that.
I stopped playing 40K when it became apparent that it was not longer 40K but Appoc all the time. Appoc was fun, but it was a special event, not the norm. Its just not fun as the norm.
I think it's nice of GW to be doing the bigger stuff as it adds some scale to the battles. Previously, unless you were a scratch builder you would only ever read about said giant mechs etc. I frequently caught myself wishing "god it'd be cool if they made a model for that"
angelofvengeance wrote: I think it's nice of GW to be doing the bigger stuff as it adds some scale to the battles. Previously, unless you were a scratch builder you would only ever read about said giant mechs etc. I frequently caught myself wishing "god it'd be cool if they made a model for that"
I guess the lesson here is "be careful what you wish for".
Not sure why all the fear of Unbound is still a thing, since Unbound is just an underperforming detachment with no special rules. Look at all those "game breaking" formations and Unbound looks pretty tame. The tax you pay to play something like Skyhammer or a Battle Company is in the form of units you might not ever field in a CAD, yet the the rule you unlock are far superior to any grouping of models to fill an Unbound list. Afraid of an all WraithKnight list? That's a legal formation when you pay the small tax of the minimal required units. At this point in the game, you should be thanking an Unbound player for not net-listing a metacurion hobby-buster list.
As to big model having LoS across the table, you are obviously nit playing with enough tall terrain. Stop playing on planet Bowling Ball! 7th is game that requires tall LoS blocking terrain to balance out most armies. If you are still using 5th Ed style terrain, no wonder the game sucks for!
And on large models in low point games, have you ever tried, you know, talking with your opponent before deciding on a game? That whole communicating your needs thing, so there are less feel-badsies. Not every game is 'Ard Boyz. You don't have to be a Dick to win a game. Speak up, share your thoughts, work out a setup to meets both of your goals. Remember, the majority of people going to tournaments know they aren't going to win, they just want to experience a tournament while maintaining the illusion that might stand a chance if they just play hard enough. People that win tournaments win during list building, and hone their lists through playing hundreds of games versus other players doing the exact same thing. Yet even they are playing because they rnjoy the hobby. So, just enjoy the hobby!
angelofvengeance wrote: I think it's nice of GW to be doing the bigger stuff as it adds some scale to the battles. Previously, unless you were a scratch builder you would only ever read about said giant mechs etc. I frequently caught myself wishing "god it'd be cool if they made a model for that"
I guess the lesson here is "be careful what you wish for".
Not really. Sure GW has made some questionable/ludicrous decisions rules wise, but I still appreciate the models
jeffersonian000 wrote: Not sure why all the fear of Unbound is still a thing, since Unbound is just an underperforming detachment with no special rules. Look at all those "game breaking" formations and Unbound looks pretty tame. The tax you pay to play something like Skyhammer or a Battle Company is in the form of units you might not ever field in a CAD, yet the the rule you unlock are far superior to any grouping of models to fill an Unbound list. Afraid of an all WraithKnight list? That's a legal formation when you pay the small tax of the minimal required units. At this point in the game, you should be thanking an Unbound player for not net-listing a metacurion hobby-buster list.
As to big model having LoS across the table, you are obviously nit playing with enough tall terrain. Stop playing on planet Bowling Ball! 7th is game that requires tall LoS blocking terrain to balance out most armies. If you are still using 5th Ed style terrain, no wonder the game sucks for!
And on large models in low point games, have you ever tried, you know, talking with your opponent before deciding on a game? That whole communicating your needs thing, so there are less feel-badsies. Not every game is 'Ard Boyz. You don't have to be a Dick to win a game. Speak up, share your thoughts, work out a setup to meets both of your goals. Remember, the majority of people going to tournaments know they aren't going to win, they just want to experience a tournament while maintaining the illusion that might stand a chance if they just play hard enough. People that win tournaments win during list building, and hone their lists through playing hundreds of games versus other players doing the exact same thing. Yet even they are playing because they rnjoy the hobby. So, just enjoy the hobby!
SJ
I suppose this is true, but it still doesn't float my boat - So just because I can do a lot of work before I get to the meat of the game, everything is fine? That only shows that the game doesn't work unless heavily modified and adapted, which just shows that the game can't stand on it's own. When I've payed I-don't-know-how-much on miniatures and rules, I don't want to have to get a major in game balance as well - I assume the game can do that for me. But apparently not, and now I have to take in the reins and guide the mess instead. That's not fun, that's a chore.
Also, most of the stuff you just mentioned is stuff I already do. Last game, I played a tournement match against someone I've already beaten once (My Orks against his Space Wolves - A combination of bad placement and rolls gave me the win), and we agreed to a rematch. He asked me if I was still playing Orks, to which I answered yes. "Then I'll pick my Imperial Guard instead", he said, which I was cool with - I had seen his models, and they looked like good fun. I didn't wanna ask for the specifics, since it was a competition.
So, time comes to place models on the table, and what does he place? One Wyvern as his Imperial Guard, and the Obsidian Knight. Just under 500, our chosen point niveau. I have an Ork Warboss with 'Ard Armour, Bosspole and Headwoppa's Killchoppa, an ten-Ork 'Ard Armour mob, another with Shootas instead, a Trukk, ending with eight Lootas. Ask me if I had fun, I fukken dare you.
So I not only lost the game, I lost my good demeanour that night. Afterwards, he came over to ask if I was okay despite it all, which I gave him gak for, since he would've known that I wouldn't like a fight against gak like that... And then he gives it to me: He just wanted to use the Knight. I thought he just wanted to win, but really, he just wanted to use the model in a game. So, he just wanted to use the model that the company tries to push, simply because it's new and cool. He bought it because it was awesome, ad because he wanted to have fun, and what he got was a game that wasn't at all geared towards using it. Unless, of course, you modify it like you say.
I don't really care if this means something to you are not, but I know this was enough for me to simply not play against Knights anymore, and to solidify my pessimism towards them.
Having played 40K since Rogue Trader, and my first army being a Dark Angels army when they were still black color, I can say that 40K has never been better, overall, as now.
Why? Because it's so diverse. It's always been a broken game system from a competitive stand point, but there's never been this many models and rule- and campaign books available.
40K is whatever you and the guys you play with want it to be. I have always been a big proponent of the 'something for everyone' approach.
Back in the day it was obvious that us players decided together. Like, we would make silly stuff like, hey let's play 40K with just one unit vs one unit outside on the terrace. We even played 40K in small kids sand boxes when I was like 10 years old. Sure I've also played in about a hundred tournaments, but there really is no one way to play this game. If you like the skirmish stuff, go for it. If you like mech warrior, go for it. If you like narratives, go for it. If you like composition restrictions and a tournament rule set, go for it.
It's a bit sad to have to hold negotiations about what to exclude from the game rules, because they are so gakky, before you even get to the stage of picking an army.
A good game ought to work fine from its standard rules.
That's where GW went wrong. Things like forts, fliers and Knights basically don't fit into the structure of 40K as a large skirmish involving a weak company of infantry supported by a couple of vehicles.
However GW in their desperation to sell more models without the trouble of inventing a new game, produced all these extras. It would have been all right if they were optional, like in the days of Apocalypse, but GW had to try and force everyone to accept them as standard game units.
It didn't work, and 40K started a serious decline of popularity from 6th edition.
1) power creep. In second edition a space marine was 30 points. Now he's 14 points. So you need twice as many models (yay for GW revenue) to play.
2) however games with twice as many models take forever so you need bigger weapons that can remove more models quickly.
3) people then complain the basic models just die easily and so need some strategic value - thus bigger, stronger formations (skyhammer wtf?).
4) the armies are based on fluff not balance. Which is fine. But combined with the natural variations in formation balance this can just knock things over.
As well as the natural competitive path which tends towards min-maxing units so that armies become very good at one thing, this just leads to an arms race and further in balance.
I think what could help, actually is more decurion style formations, but more restrictions. Bigger core choices (50% of army price, say) and then a maximum of one each aux choice. So no tiny core choice with spam of mech warrior formations or units bolted on...?
Titans worked in Epic, because the entire game was built around them. Infantry were added so there would be more than just the robots, but really, titans were the draw, and they had some pretty in depth rules.
40k is the opposite. The rules are still essentially an update of 3rd edition (with some 2nd ed mechanics thrown in). Fact is, 40k wasn't exactly the most solid foundation to use in the first place, but it worked well enough, because it was simple enough. Now, so much stuff has been piled on to a flimsy base, it starting to collapse, and its weaknesses are starting to show through. More often than not, these super-heavies are just Walkers +1 (or +2, or+3...). Same goes for the tanks.
There's nothing wrong with having these large models. I mean, 40k incorporates just about every other sci-fi trope out there, why not giant robots? But in order to make these things work, you need to build a game for them, instead of trying to shoehorn these very square pegs into a very round hole.
I think, in order to have a game that is tactical, balanced and incorporates a large range of units, from infantry to flyers to super heavies, you need at least three things:
1. An activation system. In Epic, Titan armies aren't OP because they don't get as many activations. An made primarily of infantry/tanks can, quite realistically, outmaneuver and shred an army of all titans.
2 .Abstraction. 40k has way to many unique weapons and special rules, not even considering artifacts and formations and psychic powers...
3. Fire-grouping. Why does no one use this mechanic? Let units combine fire the achieve an effect more than the sum of its parts. Simple. Now, I'm not saying infantry should be able to fire-group and destroy titans, but tank formations and artillery on the other hand, should. Of course, super-heavies themselves should be barred from using formations and thus, fire-grouping.
But I guess that would all be too hard, so hey, lets just rely on gimmicks to drive sales instead!
Back in the good old days, before Allies, Unbound and formations, the codexes and Force Chart provided limits on army composition. Before 6th edition, in other words.
I completely understand that a Knight Titan or a Tidal Barrage is a cool model that lots of people want to buy. And having paid £90 for it, they are going to want to use it in as many games as possible. However if it spoils the game for too many people, it was a bad idea.
Sales are down 25% since the introduction of all these super new rules and expensive giant kits. Doesn't that show how popular and successful they really are with the wider player base?
Sales are down 25% since the introduction of all these super new rules and expensive giant kits. Doesn't that show how popular and successful they really are with the wider player base?
No. It really doesn't. In fact those two things might have no correlation whatsoever.
You shouldn't be having a conversation on what to exclude. Rather, you should be talking about what to expect. Bad experiences are rooted in failed expectations. If your opponent let you know that they really really wanted to field a Knight, and you let them know it was ok, then both of you will have a better experience from just a simple conversation. Your opponent letting you know that they would be taking a Knight while you quietly drop a Skyhammer Annahilation force on them is just you being a Dick.
Tournaments are a different setting, but then you already know what to expect.
Sales are down 25% since the introduction of all these super new rules and expensive giant kits. Doesn't that show how popular and successful they really are with the wider player base?
No. It really doesn't. In fact those two things might have no correlation whatsoever.
But we'll never know because GW does no research to find out why their sales are sliding. Could be the move to 1-man stores, could be the change in rules, could be a number of things or even all of them contributing, collectively, towards the decline. GW's strategy of late is to throw gack at the wall and see what sticks, in the past year, loads of gack.
I'm starting to believe in the theory that there's a core of 10-20% of GW customers keeping the company afloat by buying literally everything that they produce.
20% of your customers buy 80% of your product, and 20% of your produce provides 80% of your revenue. Or there about.
Where GW rides off on the crazy train is their assumption that their clientele is 80% collector, 20% gamer. The models are good, but they aren't that good. 4 out of 5 being gamers with that 5th one just collecting is closer to reality.
Yes - in terms of the massve cock up re points /Stupid OPness of the various Mecha units - also that most of them end up being creatures for absolutely no reason except to make them more OP
I like the Wraith Knight and Imperial Knight models so bought them - I can't stand the Riptide or Stormsurge models so won't be buying them - the stealth suit is a maybe but I can get better models from other manufacturers.........
Just ask for a AoS style rule set. Then you get to balance it yourself and there's no issue. Or hand the rule writing over to a company that knows what they're doing like FFG, and actually have an awesome game.
The jury is out on AoS's popularity. Certainly the DakkaDakka forums have as many people frantically dissing the game as frantically bigging it up, but that is a minority of the whole membership, which itself is a minority of the wargaming public. Maybe GW are selling skip loads to people who never comment on forums.
The only way we will know how well AoS is doing is if there is another massive fall in GW's sales reported in January. That would indicate that AoS had totally failed to replace WHFB.
However this is getting off the thread topic.
if GW decided to AoSify 40K, I would be pleased. I would rather play a free 3/4-assed ruleset than not play an expensive double-assed one, which is what we've got at the moment.
I'd probably stop playing. Especially since my only remaining army wouldn't 'be ported over-- because, let's face it, GW has basically forgotten about Sisters except as trivia to include in novels occasionally.
Kilkrazy wrote: The jury is out on AoS's popularity. Certainly the DakkaDakka forums have as many people frantically dissing the game as frantically bigging it up, but that is a minority of the whole membership, which itself is a minority of the wargaming public. Maybe GW are selling skip loads to people who never comment on forums.
The only way we will know how well AoS is doing is if there is another massive fall in GW's sales reported in January. That would indicate that AoS had totally failed to replace WHFB.
However this is getting off the thread topic.
if GW decided to AoSify 40K, I would be pleased. I would rather play a free 3/4-assed ruleset than not play an expensive double-assed one, which is what we've got at the moment.
I quite like the AoS war scroll thing and I think it would work with 40K. All your information to use that unit being on 1 sheet. Having to scroll through several hundred pages of rules to find one is a pain. The battleshock would need some tweaking though.
Melissia wrote: I'd probably stop playing. Especially since my only remaining army wouldn't 'be ported over-- because, let's face it, GW has basically forgotten about Sisters except as trivia to include in novels occasionally.
If they did go AoS the sisters would more than likely get ported over, Bretonnia did so if they still sell the models then there would be a port.
Melissia wrote: I'd probably stop playing. Especially since my only remaining army wouldn't 'be ported over-- because, let's face it, GW has basically forgotten about Sisters except as trivia to include in novels occasionally.
If they did go AoS the sisters would more than likely get ported over,
That would require them to make new models, and they're decidedly against doing that for Sisters.
Melissia wrote: I'd probably stop playing. Especially since my only remaining army wouldn't 'be ported over-- because, let's face it, GW has basically forgotten about Sisters except as trivia to include in novels occasionally.
If they did go AoS the sisters would more than likely get ported over,
That would require them to make new models, and they're decidedly against doing that for Sisters.
They are still selling them though and if still selling will make rules for them
I don't see why GW would not make a War Scroll for Sisters. It's easy enough, after all, comparing their 40K stats with SMs and IG. There are a few special weapons and abilities (faith points) that would need a bit more thought.
However if Sisters got dropped, and if I had a Sisters army, I would just use it as a Femarine army.
Kilkrazy wrote: The jury is out on AoS's popularity. Certainly the DakkaDakka forums have as many people frantically dissing the game as frantically bigging it up, but that is a minority of the whole membership, which itself is a minority of the wargaming public. Maybe GW are selling skip loads to people who never comment on forums.
The only way we will know how well AoS is doing is if there is another massive fall in GW's sales reported in January. That would indicate that AoS had totally failed to replace WHFB.
What we know for sure is that success begets more new releases, and failure begets the executioner's axe... eventually. So, NEXT Christmas, if there are a lot of AoS new releases (and I'm not talking reboxes), we'll know that AoS has been a success for GW. Similarly, to keep it on topic, the giant stompy robots are working for GW in terms of sales, so GW produces more giant stompy robots and ever-larger weapons platforms.
The reason the game isn't about infantry and tanks anymore is because people aren't buying Cadians and Lehman Russes -- or Scions and Tauroxes, to modernize it. The most popular model last year (WD reader's choice) was Imperial Knight, with most of the runners-up also giant stompys, and I'm sure that this year, the Reader's Choice will also be some big splashy model. It's not going to be the Harlequin Avatar, one of the assassins, the Librarian, or the cool Chaplain Interogator; people are going to vote for stuff like Skarbrand, Stormsurge, Ghostkeel, Knight Venator, Celestant Prime, etc.
Now, going back to the January financials, we actually won't learn much at all about AoS versus WHFB if the numbers are weak, because in the several last half-years, there hasn't been a giant focus on Fantasy compared to this one. GW spent a whole freakin' 3 months AoS, a game setting that accounted for single digit percentage of sales for many years; if they had put a similar effort in WHFB 9e, one would have expected the numbers to be weak compared to the previous half-year, because WHFB just has a much smaller fanbase. On the other hand, Space marines, Tau, HH Box, some big FW releases, and a window of "cheap" FW shipping all landed this half year, which may compensate for some of that lost sales.
I think if the revenue numbers for this half year are even close to the last half-year, GW will be thrilled -- and likely, they'd have big splashy $150 models like Skarbrand, Stormsurge and Tidewall to thank for it.
I was thinking it would be neat for army building to include something like auxiliary forces.
The idea would be for the match you make a force that is 25% larger (so say 2000 point force for a 1500 point game)
This would allow for tactically deploying your force for what you might face - hordes, supers, or whatever.
Then in deployment you can actually only deploy or reserve 75% of your army.
This could clear up a lot of issues where people aren't prepared to face a certain army - or even reduce the effectiveness of their own army if they know they will curb stomp their opponent and actually want a closer game.
The reason the game isn't about infantry and tanks anymore is because people aren't buying Cadians and Lehman Russes -- or Scions and Tauroxes, to modernize it. The most popular model last year (WD reader's choice) was Imperial Knight, with most of the runners-up also giant stompys, and I'm sure that this year, the Reader's Choice will also be some big splashy model. It's not going to be the Harlequin Avatar, one of the assassins, the Librarian, or the cool Chaplain Interogator; people are going to vote for stuff like Skarbrand, Stormsurge, Ghostkeel, Knight Venator, Celestant Prime, etc.
GW customers spoke with their wallets and bought up tons of the giant stompy creatures. I see no reason fort them to stop making the next Big Bad Mech.
The community here represents a minority of the hobby itself. I would say 90% of the people I wargame with never go on Dakka or any forums, but are very involved with the game. These people enjoy playing with Wraith Knights, Imperial Knights, etc.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The tax you pay to play something like Skyhammer or a Battle Company is in the form of units you might not ever field in a CAD, yet the the rule you unlock are far superior to any grouping of models to fill an Unbound list.
I don't think Skyhammer even qualifies as having a tax. The formation requires 2 Assault squads and 2 Devastator squads. Granted, not everyone takes two dev squads but it's hardly a tax to do so given the special rules that come with it. If you really see it as a tax, they can be taken without weapons and be standard Space Marines. My CSM Havocs don't even cost any more than standard CSMs so I'd lose zero points doing so.
Picture it... ordinary Space Marines with Turn 1 Deep Strike for free...
jeffersonian000 wrote: The tax you pay to play something like Skyhammer or a Battle Company is in the form of units you might not ever field in a CAD, yet the the rule you unlock are far superior to any grouping of models to fill an Unbound list.
I don't think Skyhammer even qualifies as having a tax. The formation requires 2 Assault squads and 2 Devastator squads. Granted, not everyone takes two dev squads but it's hardly a tax to do so given the special rules that come with it. If you really see it as a tax, they can be taken without weapons and be standard Space Marines. My CSM Havocs don't even cost any more than standard CSMs so I'd lose zero points doing so.
Picture it... ordinary Space Marines with Turn 1 Deep Strike for free...
Well, I wouldn't call it a "tax" either, because after all, you're having to use crappy unit A as a prerequisite of fielding good unit B. However, absent the formation bonuses, most people wouldn't field 2 assault and 2 devastator squads in their army
I do like that these formations make it reasonable to field stuff like infantry and tanks that were pretty much useless in the age of big stompy robots. For instance, 3 land raider formation is pretty cool, as is Skyhammer, Gladius, and so on, which bring the game a bit back to its roots, if that's the way you want to roll your dice.
If only it WAS Mechwarrior, stupid Tau have Monstrous Creatures instead of god damn Walkers, which as stated above, is only because GW wanted to move product and doesnt give a gak about balance nor logic, they'll make money by screwing over the vast majority of the other races, allowing Tau and Eldar to have "Massive Robots" that use Monstrous Creature rules simply because Walkers are terrible, easily destroyed and Monstrous Creatures are infinitely better.
Monsterous Creatures die pretty easily, it's Gargantuan Creatures that are harder to deal with but even then, is there an army that struggles to field anything that can take them down?
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.
That's a legitimate possibility, but it still doesn't make sense - If they are given rules that are better than others, and that was the goal all the way through, how could they then miss making them more espensive point-wise? I mean, if the point was to make them better, they should've known that that'd be unbalanced, unless they changed up to prices to reflect it.
In the end, I don't think that's the gist of it, really - Even with the Wraitknight costing 800 pt, it would still feel wrong, simply because how little thought it takes to play it - It soars through the table, shoots all those powerful guns with few to no difficulties... A Baneblade can get D weapons, sure, but it's low to the ground, moves slowly and isn't actually all that strong defensive-wise. It can be exploded, shaken and can get weapons removed, and has no saves. Gargantuans have a native FNP, and then come their save, and the fact that they can't be exploded or shaken... Even the damn Monstrous Creatures get Invul. Saves!
I think it's just bs, really.
Also, why always Invul.? What if the Riptide Shield reduced all S of enemy guns shooting at it by -1 or something like that? That'd be much more interesting!
I love big stompy robots, they let me and my friends get 1850-2000 point games done in less than two hours. I get one day a month to throw models on the table, I want to get as many games as possible in when that day comes around.
That said, I have a pretty significant amount of houserules that we have enacted to facilitate more balanced games. (Including point tweaks and adjustments to various core rules)
I make a specific point of avoiding MC's/GMC's as I find that my army has to dedicate a butt-ton of firepower to putting just one, more than it would cost to kill a tank of similar points cost. Hell, the only one that I have faced in recent memory was the GK baby harness and that was bad enough (killing my Inquisitor, a tank and half a section of Infantry in two turns).
Therion wrote: Having played 40K since Rogue Trader, and my first army being a Dark Angels army when they were still black color, I can say that 40K has never been better, overall, as now.
Why? Because it's so diverse. It's always been a broken game system from a competitive stand point, but there's never been this many models and rule- and campaign books available.
40K is whatever you and the guys you play with want it to be. I have always been a big proponent of the 'something for everyone' approach.
Back in the day it was obvious that us players decided together. Like, we would make silly stuff like, hey let's play 40K with just one unit vs one unit outside on the terrace. We even played 40K in small kids sand boxes when I was like 10 years old. Sure I've also played in about a hundred tournaments, but there really is no one way to play this game. If you like the skirmish stuff, go for it. If you like mech warrior, go for it. If you like narratives, go for it. If you like composition restrictions and a tournament rule set, go for it.
This 100% Someone putting down a few Knights now was like someone setting down 3 land raiders a few editions ago. If you knew your army couldn't compete, then you said so and the opponent either changed their force or you moved on. I can understand if people are annoyed about the tournament scene, since you can't exactly say no, but then again the tournament scene was always filled with people looking to break the game. And that is what it really boils down to. It is all about the group you play with.
I am running a narrative campaign right now and everyone is having a blast. The missions are definitely not always balanced and there are usually army composition restrictions, but people are just having fun mixing it up and playing for a purpose. If you have a theme to your battles that is more than just "my army vs your army," then the game's diversity is a boon, not a hindrance.
To the OP's original question, I am very, very happy that the game continues to evolve. It would have been horrible if we were stuck in one edition of the game forever.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.
So why don't Eldar and Tau use that technology to boost their tanks or aircraft?
^ All of this.
Why the hell have no one thought of a big Tau skimmer-tank Lord of War, with a really big gun running the length of the tank, with other guns working out of tandem with the first gun or something?
Imateria wrote: Monsterous Creatures die pretty easily, it's Gargantuan Creatures that are harder to deal with but even then, is there an army that struggles to field anything that can take them down?
Tau MCs do not die easily lol Soooooo many math hammer threads have been on Dakka about how many Lascannons you need to take down a single Riptide, and it's not pretty.
There used to be a time where a MC like a Daemon Prince was considered tough, these days, anything lower than T6 shouldn't be considered monstrous, by any means. A measly Biker can have the same Toughness as a Might Eternal Warrior of the Damnos and immiterium. These days MCs from the out dated Chaos as a faction are terrible.
Either over costed, or filling no niche. Gargants are just a slap in the face to the Plethora of MCs that SHOULD be considered Gargants from the Chaos Faction.
Bloodthirsters
Lords of Change
Keepers of Secrets
Great Unclean Ones
These SHOULD BE Gargantuan Creatures, but GW likes to gimp "Bad guy" factions. Because the world of 40k needs a punching bag. Daemon Princes just need their stupid EW back, but hey, what can we do but wish.
Imateria wrote: Monsterous Creatures die pretty easily, it's Gargantuan Creatures that are harder to deal with but even then, is there an army that struggles to field anything that can take them down?
I'll return from the dead to throw in my 2 cents. For the Tau, and maybe for the Orks, the big stompy robot things feels a little natural. I'll argue that the Riptide and Morka/Gorka could stay in, espeically since most people consider the Morka/Gorka a little underpowered. Do I miss the days when Leman Russes were considered a major threat? As an IG player, yes, heck yes. Superheavies were for Apocalypse, and even if I brought a Baneblade, it would likely get stomped to the curb. So yes, I wish we were still in a place where the IG's best tanks could actually do something.
For Formations, I'm even more upset, not just because they award spamming, but because I thought they could have been cool, thematic, and added a lot of flavor to different armies, by representing the sub-armies. The different Hive Fleets, IG Regiments, Necron Tomb Worlds, etc., etc. Instead, we got gamebreakers, and even worse from my point of view, IG, the one faction most likely to actually have formations, doesn't get them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.
That's a legitimate possibility, but it still doesn't make sense - If they are given rules that are better than others, and that was the goal all the way through, how could they then miss making them more espensive point-wise? I mean, if the point was to make them better, they should've known that that'd be unbalanced, unless they changed up to prices to reflect it.
In the end, I don't think that's the gist of it, really - Even with the Wraitknight costing 800 pt, it would still feel wrong, simply because how little thought it takes to play it - It soars through the table, shoots all those powerful guns with few to no difficulties... A Baneblade can get D weapons, sure, but it's low to the ground, moves slowly and isn't actually all that strong defensive-wise. It can be exploded, shaken and can get weapons removed, and has no saves. Gargantuans have a native FNP, and then come their save, and the fact that they can't be exploded or shaken... Even the damn Monstrous Creatures get Invul. Saves!
I think it's just bs, really.
Also, why always Invul.? What if the Riptide Shield reduced all S of enemy guns shooting at it by -1 or something like that? That'd be much more interesting!
There is a point at which technology is so superior that no amount of points can compensate. If you took a modern destroyer and dropped it into Salamis, it doesn't matter if the Greeks and Persians had a combined 100,000 ships and ganged up on you... you could just plow through them all until they were sunk.
In a way, fluffwise, the Eldar/Necron are like this: they are civilizations that are *millions* of years old that could, at the height of their power do things that humans, Orks, Tyranid and Tau in 40k can't even imagine. Though their civilizations have declined, their technology and bio-physical enhancement hasn't (much), and therefore, fluffwise it makes sense that Eldar can wipe out vastly superior numbers -- like Phoenix Lord Maugan Ra single-handedly destroying a Tyranid army.
Of course, deific powers create slight problems in a war game if you're the side that doesn't have them
However I did not think we were dicussing the appropriate points costs for units, only their relation to faction technology.
But my view is that GW ruined 40K when they spooged the Apocalypse, Allies, Formations, Forts, Flyers and Unbound rules into the basic game.
Having done all that damage to playability and balance in order to sell more model kits, it's not surprising that GW would continue their career of destruction with items like the Storm Keel and Dagger Board Surge.
What do points costs matter any more? Don't worry about working out a list; there's no Force Chart. Here's a Formation. Buy the Formation and get combat bonuses. If the bonuses aren't enough, buy a few Allied Knight Titans.
I love the big stuff. But I don't use them every single game. We always chat about what kind of game we are going to play beforehand, so sometimes it is one with no bigger things than an LR tank.
I also play a lot of Kill Team, which has just infantry, and sometimes a light vehicle or two.
Therion wrote: Having played 40K since Rogue Trader, and my first army being a Dark Angels army when they were still black color, I can say that 40K has never been better, overall, as now.
Why? Because it's so diverse. It's always been a broken game system from a competitive stand point, but there's never been this many models and rule- and campaign books available.
40K is whatever you and the guys you play with want it to be. I have always been a big proponent of the 'something for everyone' approach.
Back in the day it was obvious that us players decided together. Like, we would make silly stuff like, hey let's play 40K with just one unit vs one unit outside on the terrace. We even played 40K in small kids sand boxes when I was like 10 years old. Sure I've also played in about a hundred tournaments, but there really is no one way to play this game. If you like the skirmish stuff, go for it. If you like mech warrior, go for it. If you like narratives, go for it. If you like composition restrictions and a tournament rule set, go for it.
This 100% Someone putting down a few Knights now was like someone setting down 3 land raiders a few editions ago. If you knew your army couldn't compete, then you said so and the opponent either changed their force or you moved on. I can understand if people are annoyed about the tournament scene, since you can't exactly say no, but then again the tournament scene was always filled with people looking to break the game. And that is what it really boils down to. It is all about the group you play with.
I am running a narrative campaign right now and everyone is having a blast. The missions are definitely not always balanced and there are usually army composition restrictions, but people are just having fun mixing it up and playing for a purpose. If you have a theme to your battles that is more than just "my army vs your army," then the game's diversity is a boon, not a hindrance.
To the OP's original question, I am very, very happy that the game continues to evolve. It would have been horrible if we were stuck in one edition of the game forever.
I'm glad that someone agrees. The first tournament game I ever played was with my Tyranid army, when they had just been introduced to 40K for the first time ever. I played against a Space Wolf army that had nothing but 10-15 Terminators (can't remember) with Assault Cannons on every model, lead by a Librarian with a Warp Jump Generator and Thunder Hammer / Storm Shield. I was tabled in two turns. I didn't kill a single model. I can't imagine what year it was, but it's in the 90's.
It only got me more interested in the game. I realised the game is nuts and that if you go to tournaments you'll see all sorts of crazy stuff. It was exciting. It still is. And still if I play against my buddies at my house, we either pick some evenly matched forces to go against each other, or we test some 'tournament builds' out. Like I said, the game is what we want it to be. People who think the game is in a bad state now are just really new or living in fairy tale land. The game is in a great shape, as virtually everything from the 40K background material can now be represented on the table tops one way or the other.
angelofvengeance wrote: Here's a thought- ask Sad Panda if there's any Sisters in the pipeline. A pretty trustworthy source..
There's been "Sisters in the pipeline" for about a decade now. I'll believe it when I actually see a goddamned press release. Better yet, I'll believe it when I'm holding the plastic models in my hands.
Haha, yeah, that sounds about right. I had something similar. I was using Orks and the guy I played against had Khorne Berserker Bikers. That was back when you could overrun a unit and charge into the next, then immediately resolve the combat in the same turn. The game has always been insanely unbalanced, but that is what I have always liked. I like have a weaker force trying to beat a stronger one. Or, playing a meat grinder mission (which we always used to do in the old days) and just see if you could survive for 5 turns.
Therion wrote: Having played 40K since Rogue Trader, and my first army being a Dark Angels army when they were still black color, I can say that 40K has never been better, overall, as now.
Why? Because it's so diverse. It's always been a broken game system from a competitive stand point, but there's never been this many models and rule- and campaign books available.
40K is whatever you and the guys you play with want it to be. I have always been a big proponent of the 'something for everyone' approach.
Back in the day it was obvious that us players decided together. Like, we would make silly stuff like, hey let's play 40K with just one unit vs one unit outside on the terrace. We even played 40K in small kids sand boxes when I was like 10 years old. Sure I've also played in about a hundred tournaments, but there really is no one way to play this game. If you like the skirmish stuff, go for it. If you like mech warrior, go for it. If you like narratives, go for it. If you like composition restrictions and a tournament rule set, go for it.
This 100% Someone putting down a few Knights now was like someone setting down 3 land raiders a few editions ago. If you knew your army couldn't compete, then you said so and the opponent either changed their force or you moved on. I can understand if people are annoyed about the tournament scene, since you can't exactly say no, but then again the tournament scene was always filled with people looking to break the game. And that is what it really boils down to. It is all about the group you play with.
I am running a narrative campaign right now and everyone is having a blast. The missions are definitely not always balanced and there are usually army composition restrictions, but people are just having fun mixing it up and playing for a purpose. If you have a theme to your battles that is more than just "my army vs your army," then the game's diversity is a boon, not a hindrance.
To the OP's original question, I am very, very happy that the game continues to evolve. It would have been horrible if we were stuck in one edition of the game forever.
I'm glad that someone agrees. The first tournament game I ever played was with my Tyranid army, when they had just been introduced to 40K for the first time ever. I played against a Space Wolf army that had nothing but 10-15 Terminators (can't remember) with Assault Cannons on every model, lead by a Librarian with a Warp Jump Generator and Thunder Hammer / Storm Shield. I was tabled in two turns. I didn't kill a single model. I can't imagine what year it was, but it's in the 90's.
It only got me more interested in the game. I realised the game is nuts and that if you go to tournaments you'll see all sorts of crazy stuff. It was exciting. It still is. And still if I play against my buddies at my house, we either pick some evenly matched forces to go against each other, or we test some 'tournament builds' out. Like I said, the game is what we want it to be. People who think the game is in a bad state now are just really new or living in fairy tale land. The game is in a great shape, as virtually everything from the 40K background material can now be represented on the table tops one way or the other.
Even with the Wraitknight costing 800 pt, it would still feel wrong, simply because how little thought it takes to play it - It soars through the table, shoots all those powerful guns with few to no difficulties... A Baneblade can get D weapons, sure, but it's low to the ground, moves slowly and isn't actually all that strong defensive-wise. It can be exploded, shaken and can get weapons removed, and has no saves. Gargantuans have a native FNP, and then come their save, and the fact that they can't be exploded or shaken... Even the damn Monstrous Creatures get Invul. Saves!
A baneblade is just as fast (12" per turn) - and doesn't have to slow down for difficult terrain, unlike superheavy walkers and gargantuan creatures.
It can't lose weapons, can't be shaken or stunned. It can take explodes results, but those generally need a 6, or a 5 at best.
It has more HP than a gargantuan generally has wounds.
It has no save, but it can get cover saves (it is, as noted, low to the ground) and its AV14 glacis plate makes it immune to a lot of stuff that can wound gargantuan creatures.
Yes, it'll take a lot of scatterlasers, autocannons, poison and sniper rifles to take wounds off a wraithknight. But if you've got them, they can do something to the knight, and not to the tank.
Ever since 7th, i've wanted to see a gundam wing: an army of like 1 dreadknight, 1 wraith knight, 1 imperial knight, 1 riptide, etc etc. No interest in doing it, but the thought of it is cool, would have to be unbound though.
vipoid wrote: With regard to Gargantuan Creatures, I don't see why they should be basically immune to poison and sniper weapons.
I mean, Super Heavy vehicles aren't immune to Meltas or Haywire.
Please GW hear this and act on it. Make Super Heavies immune to Melta, Haywire and possibly Armourbane.
Hell no. It was bad enough when they were immune to Entropic Strike. Now you want to take away literally every weapon my Sisters have to kill them?
Forgot about the sisters :/
I was referring more to Marines, Necrons, Eldar, Tau, etc
You can't just "refer" to specific armies. They all have the same special rules, and any rule for a super heavy like "shots or attacks with the armorbane special rule made by space marine models loses that special rule when attacking super heavies" would be a huge dick move and would make the game needlessly complicated.
Even with the Wraitknight costing 800 pt, it would still feel wrong, simply because how little thought it takes to play it - It soars through the table, shoots all those powerful guns with few to no difficulties... A Baneblade can get D weapons, sure, but it's low to the ground, moves slowly and isn't actually all that strong defensive-wise. It can be exploded, shaken and can get weapons removed, and has no saves. Gargantuans have a native FNP, and then come their save, and the fact that they can't be exploded or shaken... Even the damn Monstrous Creatures get Invul. Saves!
A baneblade is just as fast (12" per turn) - and doesn't have to slow down for difficult terrain, unlike superheavy walkers and gargantuan creatures.
It can't lose weapons, can't be shaken or stunned. It can take explodes results, but those generally need a 6, or a 5 at best.
It has more HP than a gargantuan generally has wounds.
It has no save, but it can get cover saves (it is, as noted, low to the ground) and its AV14 glacis plate makes it immune to a lot of stuff that can wound gargantuan creatures.
Yes, it'll take a lot of scatterlasers, autocannons, poison and sniper rifles to take wounds off a wraithknight. But if you've got them, they can do something to the knight, and not to the tank.
Okay, there's some things I hadn't thought about there... But still, that doesn't account for that you actually can get an Explodes! roll, and can damage it easier with Melta and Haywire, which isn't the case with Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures. Also, the fact that they have armour saves isn't at all the same as being in cover, since you have to be 50% covered to gain cover with a Vehicle, and that save is almost surely less than the 3+/2+ that Gargantuans and Monstrous Creatures get, plus the Invul. and FNP some get.
Okay, there's some things I hadn't thought about there... But still, that doesn't account for that you actually can get an Explodes! roll, and can damage it easier with Melta and Haywire, which isn't the case with Monstrous and Gargantuan Creatures. Also, the fact that they have armour saves isn't at all the same as being in cover, since you have to be 50% covered to gain cover with a Vehicle, and that save is almost surely less than the 3+/2+ that Gargantuans and Monstrous Creatures get, plus the Invul. and FNP some get.
No, but gargantuans instead have to contend with sniper, poison, graviton and fleshbane (their versions of Gauss/Entropic Strike and Haywire) and Instant Death (their version of explodes).
Whilst as inevitably T6+ models, they can't take Instant death purely from the strength of a weapon, there are plenty of weapons which either have the instant death trait permenantly (like the Balesword or Rod of Torment), get it conditionally (Most Haemonculus weapons, The Axe of Khorne, 30k Paragon Blades) or can be granted it (Force weapons and the Death Incarnate warlord trait)
Such weapons cause extra wounds, just like an explodes result, and also take feel no pain away into the bargain, and even in the hands of a space marine generally have the strength to cause a wound on a T8 monster where they'd be unable to touch an AV13 walker.
The armour save is a bit of a mixed bag.
When you're talking about shooting a baneblade vs a wraithknight (let's stick with the same example), then different weapons are good at the two targets.
Yes, a wraithknight has a 3+ save and Feel No Pain. BUT - massed S6/S7 fire will do nothing whatsoever to the baneblade's AV14 glacis plate, even if it's sat in the open.
So if you're comparing the two, it's only really S8+ weapons that matter. Which need a 6 to chip a hit off the tank, and a 4 to hurt the walker. The latter has an armour save....but how often is a S8 weapon not also AP3 or better? Hades autocannons and rupture cannons are the only weapons that spring to mind, so that 3+ save doesn't really mean a lot.
The Hierophant/Tau'Nar's 2+ save is a damn sight scarier, but even then, the majority of S9/S10/Destroyer weapons that have a meaningful chance of hurting it at range are also AP2 - heavy gauss, lascannons, lances, railguns, etc. etc.
In reality poison and sniper weapons are 33% as good against GCs as against MCs.
No, they aren't (not sniper, anyway)
Whilst only a '6' wounds, that 6 triggers an AP2 wound. So whilst you're not getting any wounds on rolls of a '4' or '5', there's good odds they'd have bounced off the armour anyway. Going from shooting a sniper rifle at a monstrous to gargantuan creature costs you about 40% effectiveness (assuming it has a 3+ armour save and no invulnerable.
I didn't say they were useless, I said they were virtually useless.
Poison in particular is all but worthless against them, and few races can put out as many cheap sniper shots as Tau. In fact, to use DE again, the cheapest snipers we can get are 70pts for a single shot.
I guess I can see your point, but when my last opponent took a Knight and a Wyvern against my 500 pt infantry Ork army, that point falls a bit null to me. Sure, easier for your to have a few cool and powerful models, but what about the rest of us, who still want to play the old way?
That's pretty messed up. You shouldn't be bringing Knights at lower than 1000pts if you ask me.
I don't see why they can't incorporate that as a rule for the IK Codex.
FW does it with the Questoris, there are all kinds of weird stipulations for their larger models.
And I think its not unreasonable to say no GMC or Superheavy at sub-1000pts game.
The smallest formation I can even take is a Gallant Lance which is 990 base. for three knights
If you want to run a knights army, you should understand that you cannot play smaller points games.
Anyone remember when there were points barriers for certain units? Granted it was mainly special characters (Abaddon back in 3rd? Required 2K+ points to field iirc). Perhaps some units should have the same restriction, but then you are artificially limiting people who genuinely want to use Knights because they are big stompy robots, not because of their power level.
jeffersonian000 wrote:Nope.
Always wanted to play this style of game at this scale. Been waiting for almost 30 years, and now I get to relive a second childhood. Woot!
SJ
I'm in this camp here, I don't care much for power levels or points-efficiency, hell I field Vanguard Vets duel-wielding Bolt and Plasma pistols because its cool. Yeah it feels like all IoM factions field one Knight, but I have to be the smarter commander when building a list and playing to account for them and adjust accordingly. I don't expect someone to not use a powerful unit for fairness's sake, this is a wargame, fairness goes out the window when dealing with filthy Xenos and Heretics!
I personally love the escalating arms race feel of current 40K, we can't expect to sit around, forever fielding the same infantry + transport + tank formations. If anything we need more stompy robots and monstrous creatures. I shouldn't look at a Close Combat Carnifex and think "Ah, a bullet sponge", I should be soiling my power-armoured panties in fear of what will happen when he gets to my lines. The same applies to the humble Dreadnaught. Is anyone scared of a CQC Dread anymore? Its an engine of destruction and zeal for Emperors sake, relegated to being a rifleman at best (same as the poor lil' Carnifex).
Except for those lists that don't have stompy robots. Or have gakky stompy robots that are walkers and not the blessed GMCs. Sure, BA have access to IK, but IK are bad, imo, and don't add much to BA, who are admittedly even worse.
7th edition has added super heavies, the mechs you spoke about, and formations. All this has done is make people spend more cash, because if you take a formation you get bonuses for taking a ridiculous amount of troops.
For example, The lion's blade from the dark angels really isn't balanced or fluffy. Where are the elites? The Ravenwing? If you take a loaded Lion's blade you can't really afford to add these other options in 1500-1850 point games.
All 7th has done was turned 40k from a medium scale skirmish game to a game of large scale apocalypse battles. I liked apocalypse, not not for my everyday 40k needs.
I remember building lists where I had to sit down and think of a balanced list with two required troop choices and one required hq... games were a challenge and a blast back then. I am assuming this (well, and making expensive codex books obsolete in less than 14 months) is why most flgs in central WI have dropped 40k tournaments. I used to see 20 folks laying every week, now I'm lucky to see two playing eachother in a casual game. All I see played in X-Wing, card games, and occasional LOTR and AOS (yes, more AOS than 40k).
BlaxicanX wrote: It always weird me out when people try to assert that winning isn't the main point of 40K.
If winning didn't matter, the game wouldn't require you to keep score.
THe object of the game is to win, yes, but the point is to have fun overall, if you lose a game do you not still have fun? You should against a good opponent/friend.
BlaxicanX wrote: It always weird me out when people try to assert that winning isn't the main point of 40K.
If winning didn't matter, the game wouldn't require you to keep score.
THe object of the game is to win, yes, but the point is to have fun overall, if you lose a game do you not still have fun? You should against a good opponent/friend.
I disagree. 40k is an interesting game at that, actually, since most games doesn't seem to have one way or other that is sure to make the game fun or not, but my experience with the game is that one thing in particulr makes the game less fun for both parts - When one side is losing early, or simply is being pummeled into the ground. For the losing part, it often results in passive aggresiveness and snark out of frustration, and to the winning part, it results in guilt and uneasy cheeriness because them knowing that the loser isn't having fun, and that they have it too easy.
I have legitimately never seen anyone get mad outside that context while playing 40k.
Big toys you have to experience this less and thus many players prefer them. One of the hardest lessons an 
shhhh, don't tell anyone. Join the rebellion. Demand Age of Calgar be made.
