Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Even though the game has become much more balanced for casual players with 8th edition, 40k isn't really fun for me. What comes after building your list feels really bland to me because the decision you make don't really matter, apart from deployment at least.

I think this has something do do with the way movement, unit coherency and line of sight works.
In contrast to Warhammer 40k, where the movement completely unrestricted and the field of view is 360°, in similar games like Warhammer Fantasy or X-Wing, moving requires thinking.
In 40k you basically can determine the optimal move by a checklist consisting of questions like "Can I deal more damage to my opponent if I move there?" and "Will I score points for a marker if I move there?".
In Warhammer Fantasy, there were a lot more things that needed to be considered. What I liked a lot about it was how the rules often encouraged flanking and vanguard
skirmishes and how that (under certain restrictions that were popular in Germany) lead to armies that consisted of units supporting each other instead of spam-the-best-3-damage-dealers lists. (Of course Fantasy had its flaws, but IMO those flaws were mostly due to the codices, not due to the basic rules).

Unit coherency and field of view were quite different in WHFB as well. Especially the part where most units could only shoot units in from of them seems quite interesting for 40k. This way one could distinguish normal "rank&file" infantry from elite units, which could be given something similar to the skirmisher rule. I didn't think of anything yet, so that's why I didn't post this on Proposed Rules forum.



Do you think a movement and unit coherency system close to that of Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition would make the game more tactical than it is now?

I definitely agree that the simplicity and freedom of movement and LoS in 40k dumbs down the overall tactical depth of the game. I'm not sure something like WH's old system translates that well because it's quite difficult to determine what the front of a unit mounted on round bases is. Something based around the squad leader might make sense.

Like you, I'd like to see something changed to give more depth to target selection and movement but I'm not sure what. Perhaps something as simple as reducing all ranges would help.. Warmachine did that and it led to a more dynamic game because units had to move to get in range to do anything. Epic also had a similar approach for most of its units.

Can you explain why the movement of X-Wing takes so much more thought than 40k, for someone who doesn't play it but is planning on picking it up soon?

You do have 360 degree movement and LoS in 40k. That's why terrain is so crucial. You should probably use more of it. It's what makes 40k so fun. It used to have a lot more interactions too, if you are saying that you want them back again well pretty much everyone agrees with you. I hear good things about Urban Conquest in this regard actually, though it is pricey.

Also please remember that you're one a 40k forum, not an XWing one. I'd like to hear you out but you're going to have to explain the comparison you are making a bit better!

Older editions had weapons that couldn't be fired at all after moving, weapons that couldn't hurt certain targets, and weapons that were efficient answers to a narrower range of targets (ex. a battlecannon in 7e is a good thing to shoot at a squad of heavy foot, but it's not great at taking hull points off vehicles). WHFB movement wouldn't be very feasible, but taking a leaf out of that sort of 4e/5e-era rules might produce some extra depth.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Older editions had weapons that couldn't be fired at all after moving, weapons that couldn't hurt certain targets, and weapons that were efficient answers to a narrower range of targets (ex. a battlecannon in 7e is a good thing to shoot at a squad of heavy foot, but it's not great at taking hull points off vehicles). WHFB movement wouldn't be very feasible, but taking a leaf out of that sort of 4e/5e-era rules might produce some extra depth.

i can agree with this. I really miss older editions, though I love the army balance of 8th there's no reason it couldn't have been done for 5th.

SHUPPET wrote:Can you explain why the movement of X-Wing takes so much more thought than 40k, for someone who doesn't play it but is planning on picking it up soon?

You do have 360 degree movement and LoS in 40k. That's why terrain is so crucial. You should probably use more of it. It's what makes 40k so fun. It used to have a lot more interactions too, if you are saying that you want them back again well pretty much everyone agrees with you. I hear good things about Urban Conquest in this regard actually, though it is pricey.

Also please remember that you're one a 40k forum, not an XWing one. I'd like to hear you out but you're going to have to explain the comparison you are making a bit better!

In X-Wing,
1) Movement is 'discrete', not continuous, which introduces bumping/blocking as a tactical concept.
2) Different ships have different maneuver dials, which is a much higher grade of detail than 6" or 14" and fly or not fly.
3) There are 3 difficulties for the maneuvers, the highest gives your your stress which mainly prevents it from taking action that e.g. boost its offense/defense or reposition and the easiest clearing stress.
4) All ships have a blind spot where they can't attack enemy ships, some can take actions to make that blind spot smaller or rotate their turnable weapons if they have any, so if you can get your ship into that blindspot, you can basically get some rounds of free shots.
5) The most fun thing about X-Wing is that the winner is often determined by mind games, guessing what your opponent does or thinks you will do, and playing smarter than your opponent, when both sides don't make obvious mistakes. This works because both players decide what their units will do at the same time.

But to be fair, in X-Wing there is some kind of alternating activation, which is what makes the system good. But it is really hard to apply this to 40k without changing all the base concepts.


As for terrain, of course it makes the game better, especially balance-wise, but IMO it doesn't make it much more tactical at least for many armies. If you have lots of flying units in your codex, then I totally agree with you, but if you don't...

AnomanderRake wrote:Older editions had weapons that couldn't be fired at all after moving, weapons that couldn't hurt certain targets, and weapons that were efficient answers to a narrower range of targets (ex. a battlecannon in 7e is a good thing to shoot at a squad of heavy foot, but it's not great at taking hull points off vehicles). WHFB movement wouldn't be very feasible, but taking a leaf out of that sort of 4e/5e-era rules might produce some extra depth.

I only know 7th and 8th edition of 40k, so I cannot comment on that.

WHFB rules of course won't work in current 40k but I think some basic principles of its movement/field of view rules should be easily applicable.
Changing your facing gave you penalties if you don't pass a moral test, this should be applicable to 40k as well. If your unit wants to shoot at a unit that is far away from the unit you shot before, you would have to move including penalties for moving and shooting heavy weapons, which would reward clever deployment and flanking, it would make LoS block even more valuable.

Also big units needing a 'formation' to work while small units can act more flexibly would help with some current issues.

SHUPPET wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Older editions had weapons that couldn't be fired at all after moving, weapons that couldn't hurt certain targets, and weapons that were efficient answers to a narrower range of targets (ex. a battlecannon in 7e is a good thing to shoot at a squad of heavy foot, but it's not great at taking hull points off vehicles). WHFB movement wouldn't be very feasible, but taking a leaf out of that sort of 4e/5e-era rules might produce some extra depth.

i can agree with this. I really miss older editions, though I love the army balance of 8th there's no reason it couldn't have been done for 5th.

IMO I think 7th would have been a good edition if the codices had not been that fethed up.

Adding alternating actions to 40k is trivially easy, I do that constantly with my buddies and the game is all the better for it. Even GW does that to some extent with Kill Team, though I like the Bolt(gun) Action approach myself. That really doesn't require almost any changes on the mechanical core, but has massive impact on the tactics players use and promotes counterplay and priorizing timing.

I don't know, there are armies that require multiple squads to do something in the game, while others can delete whole squads or vehicles with a single unit. this makes the gap between both type of armies huge. Because the first type does not only suffer from having fewer models and not countering opposing units, but themselfs losing whole units.

Karol wrote:
I don't know, there are armies that require multiple squads to do something in the game, while others can delete whole squads or vehicles with a single unit. this makes the gap between both type of armies huge. Because the first type does not only suffer from having fewer models and not countering opposing units, but themselfs losing whole units.

Not sure whether I understood correctly, but isn't this just an issue with the 'game designers' not being able to do basic maths?

I don't think it is a question of math, maybe design paradigma. Instead of GW making 2-3 playable armies and then assigning costs to make the units they want people to use fit in to armies, they glue the costs of units to some sort of template that gives us something like a castellan on one side and stompa on the other side.

I can't imagine how for non swarm or super efficient armies a system why we rotate moving&shoting with units could be balanced. I move and shot with some strikes, kill some chaff. the IG players castellan deletes two of my units. To me that is even worse then IGYG.

Ah ok we're talking about different things.

If weapon/unit facing and restricted movement were a thing alongside maybe shorter weapon ranges across the board, I don't think Castellan knights and similar things would be that op, in both i go you go and alternating activation as they can only kill things in a small corridor in one round and turning would give some light penalties, so you could outmaneuver it.

Trollbert wrote:
Even though the game has become much more balanced for casual players with 8th edition, 40k isn't really fun for me. What comes after building your list feels really bland to me because the decision you make don't really matter, apart from deployment at least.

I think this has something do do with the way movement, unit coherency and line of sight works.
In contrast to Warhammer 40k, where the movement completely unrestricted and the field of view is 360°, in similar games like Warhammer Fantasy or X-Wing, moving requires thinking.
In 40k you basically can determine the optimal move by a checklist consisting of questions like "Can I deal more damage to my opponent if I move there?" and "Will I score points for a marker if I move there?".
In Warhammer Fantasy, there were a lot more things that needed to be considered. What I liked a lot about it was how the rules often encouraged flanking and vanguard
skirmishes and how that (under certain restrictions that were popular in Germany) lead to armies that consisted of units supporting each other instead of spam-the-best-3-damage-dealers lists. (Of course Fantasy had its flaws, but IMO those flaws were mostly due to the codices, not due to the basic rules).

Unit coherency and field of view were quite different in WHFB as well. Especially the part where most units could only shoot units in from of them seems quite interesting for 40k. This way one could distinguish normal "rank&file" infantry from elite units, which could be given something similar to the skirmisher rule. I didn't think of anything yet, so that's why I didn't post this on Proposed Rules forum.



Do you think a movement and unit coherency system close to that of Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition would make the game more tactical than it is now?

There's still a fair amount of thought to movement, it mainly just shows up around the assault phase. Learning how to screen properly to prevent consolidation into your main line, set up charges that can tie up multiple units, and trapping enemy units takes some doing.

It is nowhere near as deep as X-Wing can be, but it's about the best 40k has been since I started in 5th.


The problem everyone keeps forgetting is everyone wants to add more complication to a game that is far too big to use it. It's the same problem armor facings, specific weapon arcs, templatesetc. All face. There can be 200+ infantry on the table, over a dozen vehicles, massive super heavy walkers, etc. Etc. It's just way too much to fool with. In order to make all that work with a more nuanced rank and flank system you would need to lock units to movement trays which just does not feel right for 40k and eliminates a lot of ability to move through terrain. City fights in particular would be almost impossible.

If 40k dropped down to say 1,000pts on a 6x4 table I could see it maybe working out. Anything bigger points wise you'd need to play in planet bowling ball just to fit the ranked up formstions

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Trollbert wrote:
Even though the game has become much more balanced for casual players with 8th edition, 40k isn't really fun for me. What comes after building your list feels really bland to me because the decision you make don't really matter, apart from deployment at least.

I think this has something do do with the way movement, unit coherency and line of sight works.
In contrast to Warhammer 40k, where the movement completely unrestricted and the field of view is 360°, in similar games like Warhammer Fantasy or X-Wing, moving requires thinking.
In 40k you basically can determine the optimal move by a checklist consisting of questions like "Can I deal more damage to my opponent if I move there?" and "Will I score points for a marker if I move there?".
In Warhammer Fantasy, there were a lot more things that needed to be considered. What I liked a lot about it was how the rules often encouraged flanking and vanguard
skirmishes and how that (under certain restrictions that were popular in Germany) lead to armies that consisted of units supporting each other instead of spam-the-best-3-damage-dealers lists. (Of course Fantasy had its flaws, but IMO those flaws were mostly due to the codices, not due to the basic rules).

Unit coherency and field of view were quite different in WHFB as well. Especially the part where most units could only shoot units in from of them seems quite interesting for 40k. This way one could distinguish normal "rank&file" infantry from elite units, which could be given something similar to the skirmisher rule. I didn't think of anything yet, so that's why I didn't post this on Proposed Rules forum.



Do you think a movement and unit coherency system close to that of Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition would make the game more tactical than it is now?

There's still a fair amount of thought to movement, it mainly just shows up around the assault phase. Learning how to screen properly to prevent consolidation into your main line, set up charges that can tie up multiple units, and trapping enemy units takes some doing.

It is nowhere near as deep as X-Wing can be, but it's about the best 40k has been since I started in 5th.


The problem everyone keeps forgetting is everyone wants to add more complication to a game that is far too big to use it. It's the same problem armor facings, specific weapon arcs, templatesetc. All face. There can be 200+ infantry on the table, over a dozen vehicles, massive super heavy walkers, etc. Etc. It's just way too much to fool with. In order to make all that work with a more nuanced rank and flank system you would need to lock units to movement trays which just does not feel right for 40k and eliminates a lot of ability to move through terrain. City fights in particular would be almost impossible.

If 40k dropped down to say 1,000pts on a 6x4 table I could see it maybe working out. Anything bigger points wise you'd need to play in planet bowling ball just to fit the ranked up formstions

You're certainly correct considering which parts of movement currently require thinking, main problem is that with shooting being king 95% of the time some players still won't have to think about movement because neither their nor their opponents army will consider multi-model melee units.

And I would absolutely welcome the standard game size being smaller if their were some changes. To me more units basically mean that the decisions you have to take in the game need to be clearer so you can actually finish a game in 3 to 4 hours.

Trollbert wrote:

And I would absolutely welcome the standard game size being smaller if their were some changes. To me more units basically mean that the decisions you have to take in the game need to be clearer so you can actually finish a game in 3 to 4 hours.

For fun, Trollbert, try this with maybe 1000-1500 points:

1) Ditch player turns, there is only the game round where all players act.
2) At the beginning of each round, players count the number of units they have and put as many coloured chips/tokens/dice whatever in a bag. Add one for the starting player as determined by the scenario.
3) Draw blindly from the bag until the colour of things changes.
4) The player indicated by the colour of the first group of draws takes a mini-turn with as many units as there were draws (ie. a draw of black, black, black, red would indicate the player with black tokens activating three units and the red player going after them). Go full move-psychic-shoot-fight routine but not morale yet. Chargers strike in Fight phase, as well as those who were charged or heroically intervened. A unit that gets charged in multiple miniturns gets to fight back in all of them. Obviously every unit can only be activated once. After this miniturn is done, draw from the bag again, starting the next activation set with the chip that stopped the previous one (in the previous example the red one).
5) All lasting effects like psionic buffs last until the end of the round (want to get most out of them? Cast them early on.), things like Orders are given on the commander's activation and happen on the target's activation. Counterplay aplenty.
6) When all activations are done, handle Morale.
7) Repeat through the game.

Solves many problems you might have with the current rules, if you have good company to play with.

Trollbert wrote:

AnomanderRake wrote:Older editions had weapons that couldn't be fired at all after moving, weapons that couldn't hurt certain targets, and weapons that were efficient answers to a narrower range of targets (ex. a battlecannon in 7e is a good thing to shoot at a squad of heavy foot, but it's not great at taking hull points off vehicles). WHFB movement wouldn't be very feasible, but taking a leaf out of that sort of 4e/5e-era rules might produce some extra depth.

I only know 7th and 8th edition of 40k, so I cannot comment on that...

The way to think about it is that every edition between 4th and 7th progressively tore down restrictions on what you could do. In 4th infantry had to be standing still to Rapid Fire or move and fire heavy weapons, nobody was anything like as morale-immune as they were in 7th, vehicles couldn't move and fire Ordnance weapons (the Heavy type didn't exist)...

SHUPPET wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Older editions had weapons that couldn't be fired at all after moving, weapons that couldn't hurt certain targets, and weapons that were efficient answers to a narrower range of targets (ex. a battlecannon in 7e is a good thing to shoot at a squad of heavy foot, but it's not great at taking hull points off vehicles). WHFB movement wouldn't be very feasible, but taking a leaf out of that sort of 4e/5e-era rules might produce some extra depth.

i can agree with this. I really miss older editions, though I love the army balance of 8th there's no reason it couldn't have been done for 5th.

IMO I think 7th would have been a good edition if the codices had not been that fethed up.

This is called "30k". (Sort of. There are balance bugs in 30k (phosphex, Augmented Inductii, the Typhon) but it's mostly "7th with sane people writing the army books.")

Solves many problems you might have with the current rules, if you have good company to play with.

wouldn't armies with few units that have to chip opposing armies instead of deleting whole units, be at a huge disadvatege? Specially if their first pull was low. If I for example get to move, shot and cast with one unit, am not really doing much. Specially when turn 1 I maybe out of range of shoting and melee. If them my opponent draws an activation of 3 units, Then he will just kill off the units I did not move yet, making the pool of my next movment even smaller. Same with objective caping or clearing. If my units can't clear 20-30 models of an objective, but my opponent can easily kill 5 GK strikes or termintors then moving on to objective becomes even less important then now. Now i can at least score it in my turn. If there is no my turn, and everything resolves at the end of one big phase for both of us, I would not be able to hold an objective period.

Karol wrote:

Solves many problems you might have with the current rules, if you have good company to play with.

wouldn't armies with few units that have to chip opposing armies instead of deleting whole units, be at a huge disadvatege? Specially if their first pull was low. If I for example get to move, shot and cast with one unit, am not really doing much. Specially when turn 1 I maybe out of range of shoting and melee. If them my opponent draws an activation of 3 units, Then he will just kill off the units I did not move yet, making the pool of my next movment even smaller. Same with objective caping or clearing. If my units can't clear 20-30 models of an objective, but my opponent can easily kill 5 GK strikes or termintors then moving on to objective becomes even less important then now. Now i can at least score it in my turn. If there is no my turn, and everything resolves at the end of one big phase for both of us, I would not be able to hold an objective period.

That could be the case on planet bowling ball, but with plenty of terrain I haven't yet run into that problem personally. Usually I run marine-heavy Death Guard against infantry based Imperial Guard with some Russes in an urban hellscape where almost everyone gets +1 or +2 cover and -1 to hit (from Cities of Death). This type of alteration fundamentally changes the flow and feel of the game, your Grey Knights might well benefit from it especially on the lower point values. Of course trying to kill units off to reduce activations is a tactical consideration here but that is a part of making the game more about situational tactical choices and less of an exercise in spreadsheet statistics.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Can you explain why the movement of X-Wing takes so much more thought than 40k, for someone who doesn't play it but is planning on picking it up soon?

Two reasons:

1) You have to commit to a move before knowing where everyone is going to be. You can't just decide to move 12" directly to the optimal firing position and immediately kill a unit, you have to look at the board state, anticipate where your opponent is probably going to go, and commit to a counter. Your success depends on your skill at making that prediction.

2) You have limited movement distance/angle on each turn. This leads to situations where you have to plan your moves over multiple turns and recovering from a bad decision is not immediate. And in general you spend a lot more time thinking about picking a move this turn to set up for next turn, while still making this turn as useful as possible (even if only by avoiding enemy fire while you reposition). It's not like 40k where the only thing that matters is distance and many units have enough movement speed that even distance isn't much of a factor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trollbert wrote:
Do you think a movement and unit coherency system close to that of Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition would make the game more tactical than it is now?

More tactical? Maybe. Reasonable? No. 40k is a pseudo-modern game with a heavier melee component than would be realistic, not a medieval-era game with blocks of infantry lined up in neat rows. The mechanics of WHFB would be extremely poorly suited to the fluff of 40k and IMO kill the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
I don't know, there are armies that require multiple squads to do something in the game, while others can delete whole squads or vehicles with a single unit. this makes the gap between both type of armies huge. Because the first type does not only suffer from having fewer models and not countering opposing units, but themselfs losing whole units.

You're missing a key part of how alternating activation works: being able to activate expendable units to stall until your opponent commits their key threats. In your example the knight player has few units, has to activate their knight with no good targets (because you've hidden all of your important stuff), and then has to stand there helplessly as you activate your attack and remove the knight from the table. Activation count is so powerful that in Armada they had to impose a two-per-list limit on the cheapest units because everyone was taking 3+ of them to have more activations in their list. And you'll see the same thing in other games, taking nothing but death stars and expecting to win is not a sensible plan.

WH40K, X-Wing, and WHFB all represent massively different types of warfare:

X-Wing is fighter dogfights

WHFB is medieval warefare (with magic)

WH40K is a Late 19th Century and Modern Warfare mash-up with magic with a scifi overlay

There is simply no reason they should operate similarly when it comes to movement and combat.

Now could 40K Movement be more tactical? Sure, if played at a different scale. Look at Kill Team, Necromunda, and Adeptus Titanicus for games that play differently in the same setting. All different scales that 40K, which makes that possible.

 Sherrypie wrote:


That could be the case on planet bowling ball, but with plenty of terrain I haven't yet run into that problem personally. Usually I run marine-heavy Death Guard against infantry based Imperial Guard with some Russes in an urban hellscape where almost everyone gets +1 or +2 cover and -1 to hit (from Cities of Death). This type of alteration fundamentally changes the flow and feel of the game, your Grey Knights might well benefit from it especially on the lower point values. Of course trying to kill units off to reduce activations is a tactical consideration here but that is a part of making the game more about situational tactical choices and less of an exercise in spreadsheet statistics.

Well here no one plays less then 2000pts, plus from what I understand cities of death are optional, I would have to buy the box and they litterly force people to play with the rules. May as well try to use FW or soemthing like that. In general my expiriance with terrain and blocking Line of sight, is that good armies generally ignore it. Either they are super tall like castellans or knights, or have crazy movment like eldar. I guess someone could over saturate the table with tons of LoS blocking terrain, but then it would just be an auto lose vs IG and orc swarms. And as IG are in almost half the imperial armies played, it would help GK in no way.

Terrain and the tactical problems that they provide, gives the skilled commander either an advantage or the enemy a disadvantage.

I dont understand how people keep complaining 8th isnt tactical. They removed the excessive minutiae (finally) and left a smooth (altho not best) game that everybody can enjoy. All you have to do is play on an appropriately terrain'd board and think about turn 2 or 3 when you deploy. Use the CA18 &19 special missions with the new rules and you'll have an in depth and fun game(if everyone has same intent).

Trollbert wrote:
Even though the game has become much more balanced for casual players with 8th edition, 40k isn't really fun for me. What comes after building your list feels really bland to me because the decision you make don't really matter, apart from deployment at least.

I think this has something do do with the way movement, unit coherency and line of sight works.
In contrast to Warhammer 40k, where the movement completely unrestricted and the field of view is 360°, in similar games like Warhammer Fantasy or X-Wing, moving requires thinking.
In 40k you basically can determine the optimal move by a checklist consisting of questions like "Can I deal more damage to my opponent if I move there?" and "Will I score points for a marker if I move there?".
In Warhammer Fantasy, there were a lot more things that needed to be considered. What I liked a lot about it was how the rules often encouraged flanking and vanguard
skirmishes and how that (under certain restrictions that were popular in Germany) lead to armies that consisted of units supporting each other instead of spam-the-best-3-damage-dealers lists. (Of course Fantasy had its flaws, but IMO those flaws were mostly due to the codices, not due to the basic rules).

Unit coherency and field of view were quite different in WHFB as well. Especially the part where most units could only shoot units in from of them seems quite interesting for 40k. This way one could distinguish normal "rank&file" infantry from elite units, which could be given something similar to the skirmisher rule. I didn't think of anything yet, so that's why I didn't post this on Proposed Rules forum.



Do you think a movement and unit coherency system close to that of Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition would make the game more tactical than it is now?

Tactical depth in the movement phase made more sense when most games were skirmish sized. As games grew larger, rules like that just made the game tedious.

There's nothing stopping you from adding Dangerous Terrain and LOS-blocking units as a home rule, if that makes it more flavorful. Totally understand why someone would want all that back.

But, honestly, I personally prefer a larger game with more streamlined set of rules. In previous editions, it was always tempting to take huge lists, the price you used to pay is 4 - 8 hour games and a lot of time spent looking up rules. Glad to be free from that.

The problem is GW can't seem to decide what 40k is supposed to be. It continues to write rules that seem to indicate they want a skirmish type game, though 8ths rules are a bit more friendly to large games, compared to the game just collapsing in a larger game under 7th. It really comes down to your player to figure out how big the average game should be and then add some house rules to adjust the complexity of the game.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
The problem is GW can't seem to decide what 40k is supposed to be. It continues to write rules that seem to indicate they want a skirmish type game, though 8ths rules are a bit more friendly to large games, compared to the game just collapsing in a larger game under 7th. It really comes down to your player to figure out how big the average game should be and then add some house rules to adjust the complexity of the game.

I think at this point 40k is probably closer to epic than a skirmish game.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Terrain and the tactical problems that they provide, gives the skilled commander either an advantage or the enemy a disadvantage.

I dont understand how people keep complaining 8th isnt tactical. They removed the excessive minutiae (finally) and left a smooth (altho not best) game that everybody can enjoy. All you have to do is play on an appropriately terrain'd board and think about turn 2 or 3 when you deploy. Use the CA18 &19 special missions with the new rules and you'll have an in depth and fun game(if everyone has same intent).

I tried out some of the CA missions, they don't help to make GK more valid at all. In fact the closer range and the focus on movment and relocation, when reserves don't work the way they use to makes GK just as bad as they were before the CA. But I get you, all the people that still play w40k around here play the good builds and good armies, all those who could afford it switched games. Playing a bad army in 8th is not fun. And to be honest I am scared to think how bad w40k had to be to GKs, if what they have in 8th is considered good ,balanced and fun.

Dude we get it, you did no research and picked an army that is bad this edition and refuse to either ask your opponent to tone their lists down or apparently play in an area that only has players who want to smash face. Yes grey knights are lower tier but they can ally in anything from the IOM to help them out a bit.

I don't have money to buy more stuff, and even If I had I would be too scared for two things to happen. GW nerfing the stuff I just bought or removing it from the game.

And I did research. I asked the person I bought the models from, and I asked on two forums. In every place I was told that GK are hard to play, but can be good etc.

I don't know what toning down means. If it is people buying a new army to play against me, then yes you are right, people don't do stuff like that here. But to be honest what does my personal problem with GK have to do with anything here.

Someone else playing GK would have the same problem. And I don't think that playing a different army is the way to fix factions.

Karol wrote:
I don't have money to buy more stuff, and even If I had I would be too scared for two things to happen. GW nerfing the stuff I just bought or removing it from the game.

And I did research. I asked the person I bought the models from, and I asked on two forums. In every place I was told that GK are hard to play, but can be good etc.

I don't know what toning down means. If it is people buying a new army to play against me, then yes you are right, people don't do stuff like that here. But to be honest what does my personal problem with GK have to do with anything here.

Someone else playing GK would have the same problem. And I don't think that playing a different army is the way to fix factions.

Toning down means if I knew my opponent is playing a weaker faction, I don't take a three knight smash captain list. I take some less competitive options so we both can have a good game and have a chance to win, depending on the dice. Such a move is common in my area because most of the players I play with don't get much enjoyment of just crushing a person. If the game is pretty much determined by our lists, I find that a dull game.

From what I expiriance right now it is other people not wanting to play against me at all. Tables here are paid for per hour, and games vs me, as others told me, are not fun. So I guess you are right. I don't think people care for others fun though, maybe if they are friends or family, or if they have to play you. Can't really drop games vs the store owners son, no matter how unfun those games are, because if he aint happy, his dad aint happy, and if his dad aint happy people don't have a place to play.

Yea things in your country things are very different than my area. I have my own table at my house and a dedicated gaming group that meets about twice a week to play something, (mostly blackstone these days but we still do a game or two a month). I also have two stores in my area that I play at.

I've never heard of a store charging money to play at a table, let alone per hour. That sounds like a terrible way to build up a player base who will end up spending money at your store any way since they will be there for hours.