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.

terranarc wrote:So, what IS a competitive ruleset anyway? How the hell do you have an uncompetative ruleset?

Balanced? An "uncompetitive" ruleset is a ruleset that's poorly balanced, and/or one that I would say is also poorly written and therefore hard to understand. All the things people complain the most about 40k, but no one wants to fix because in their mind "competitive" is a dirty word because they knew one or two guys that were self-proclaimed "competitive" gamers that were dicks.

If 40k was more competitive we wouldn't have these issues where some units are obviously bad and never used, and others are obviously good and you never see a list without them. Making the game more competitive (and more balanced) would allow more variety in armies, because you aren't shackled to one or two choices that you must spam in order to win.

Sidstyler wrote:

terranarc wrote:So, what IS a competitive ruleset anyway? How the hell do you have an uncompetative ruleset?

Balanced? An "uncompetitive" ruleset is a ruleset that's poorly balanced, and/or one that I would say is also poorly written and therefore hard to understand. All the things people complain the most about 40k, but no one wants to fix because in their mind "competitive" is a dirty word because they knew one or two guys that were self-proclaimed "competitive" gamers that were dicks.

If 40k was more competitive we wouldn't have these issues where some units are obviously bad and never used, and others are obviously good and you never see a list without them. Making the game more competitive (and more balanced) would allow more variety in armies, because you aren't shackled to one or two choices that you must spam in order to win.

^ This.

The biggest problem with 40k are the WAAC types that roll with things like Longfang spam, MSU spam, etc. As a Tau player, there are certain units (*coughVespidcough*) that are practically useless and take up FOC slots better saved for more useful units. Obviously, there are these units present in every army, which is a real shame. Why even have these units if you know that many of the folks that spend the most money on the hobby won't buy them? I think the FOC needs to be eliminated, and each specific unit needs to have its own limit on what you can take. I dunno...just my 2 cents. Unfortunately, I'm not too confident in GW's ability to balance out the game when each new Codex creeps up in power level. I am anxious to see the changes that take place in 6th ed, though. It'll be nice to have a (hopefully) fresh, new take on the game.

I wonder if there's a way to keep the codexes around without relying on them for Army Lists.

Current, simple, balanced lists should be online -- and updated frequently.

Good thing i didnt buy this editions hardback rulebook.

Deadshot wrote:I was at GW and they still had 40k books on display with the price tag. When I whispered this rumour to the staff on duty they said, well, basically, bull.

This is strange. They are usually quite dead on and on the ball with these things. With the amount of other stores and the website removing it i doubt its bull.

I was once told that Tervigon and Thunderwolves couldnt be done because of the chapterhouse lawsuit in Jan by one of them though. Majority are good people.

Sidstyler wrote:If 40k was more competitive we wouldn't have these issues where some units are obviously bad and never used, and others are obviously good and you never see a list without them.

That has nothing to do with a game being competitive. Magic, one of the most competitive games on the market, with clear, concise rules is a prime example of this - 99% of all cards in any given non limited format are utterly worthless. Balance* does not equal competitiveness and vice versa.

*balance in Magic is different to balance in 40k, but the point stands.

His Master's Voice wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:If 40k was more competitive we wouldn't have these issues where some units are obviously bad and never used, and others are obviously good and you never see a list without them.

That has nothing to do with a game being competitive. Magic, one of the most competitive games on the market, with clear, concise rules is a prime example of this - 99% of all cards in any given non limited format are utterly worthless. Balance* does not equal competitiveness and vice versa.

*balance in Magic is different to balance in 40k, but the point stands.

Or they could go the way Infinity did and make every unit balanced for it's point cost. There no reason money should be more important then a soild balance game system. What they only had like 30 years to get it right, guess they need more time.

oldone wrote:I can believe this as GW is targeting kids, whose parents wont be happy that she brought timmy that large expensive book only a month or so later to be asked to buy a book which even has a higher price than the first one. If I was a parent I would say no I wont be buying you anything more from there.

They've long priced themselves out of kids and teenagers.

-Loki- wrote:

Lovepug13 wrote:I hope that wound allocation isn't completely changed....I have just collected a 1.5k nob biker list lol

That's the risk you run when you build an army around exploiting a particular rule. Everyone running Draigowing is going to face the same dilemma.

Its possible they change it, but Id be a bit surprised if they got rid certain SC rules and not others...like Draigo and Belial unlocking terminators as troops. If anything Id say they would make it so a regular SM company master can have that same rule...as they should, allowing players to run a 1st company army regardless of the chapter they play. Though that might have to wait for an update to the regular marine codex.

Of course this is GW, and its entirely possible they nerf that rule...as it would cause all Draigo/deathwing players to have to restructure their armies and buy tactical squads.

Unless they get rid of the FOC...which Im wildly in favor of...Id like to structure my army any way Id like. Simply require a HQ and then its open structure. Just look at SM company structure...the main bulk is tactical companies, but they also have all terminator companies, all devastator companies, all scout companies, etc. Im sure all armies have fluff examples of similar...why not make the game rules allow a player to build theses armies?

Heres the things I would consider neccessary for a rule set.

A: Clarity. Have someone who has taken technical writing courses write the rulebook and have someone other than the designers' wives edit and proofread it. Bring in a wide range of people with varying experience to playtest, don't explain anything other than handing them the manual, and see how rules get interpreted and misinterpreted.

B: Balance. There shouldn't be "you're an idiot if you don't take these" or "you're an idiot if you do take these" options outside of needing certain troop types to fulfill mission objectives.

C: A greater degree of the game's outcome determined by player skill. When people say "competitive" they're actually talking about this. The game having random elements is fine, as long as they're predictable to a degree by players. If you fire 30 lasgun shots at an enemy squad, the number of shots that hit will be a normal distribution curve around 15; that's fine. The stuff like "Roll a d6 and unless you get a 4+ your unit can't charge" is terrible though. Major game decisions shouldn't be left to a flat probability curve with a 16% minimum step. Adding more things like random charges and random powers either reduces the game to a coin flip or causes a serious push for units that mitigate that randomness.

People keep seeing this as a "WAAC vs casuals" argument. The problem is that GW keeps dumping blue shells in their game.

DoctorZombie wrote:They've long priced themselves out of kids and teenagers.

Im a teenager, i havent been priced out, i just have to save for a bit longer to get the kits i want

Teenagers and young, single men (and women) actually have the most spare cash. Teens normally have a summer or part time job, and don't pay morgages or whatever, while single people don't pay for children and just a little less. Kiddies have to rely on mum and dad who pay for bloody everything, and those same mum and dads can't afford hobby themselves, squirreled away for little timmy. My mate's dad is lucky to get one or two small model a year while my mate himself gets maybe a tank and a squad every 3 months.

RogueRegault wrote:
C: A greater degree of the game's outcome determined by player skill. When people say "competitive" they're actually talking about this. The game having random elements is fine, as long as they're predictable to a degree by players. If you fire 30 lasgun shots at an enemy squad, the number of shots that hit will be a normal distribution curve around 15; that's fine. The stuff like "Roll a d6 and unless you get a 4+ your unit can't charge" is terrible though. Major game decisions shouldn't be left to a flat probability curve with a 16% minimum step. Adding more things like random charges and random powers either reduces the game to a coin flip or causes a serious push for units that mitigate that randomness.

You do realise that this is the exact opposite of what most rumours say will happen in 6th edition, right?

PhantomViper wrote:

RogueRegault wrote:
C: A greater degree of the game's outcome determined by player skill. When people say "competitive" they're actually talking about this. The game having random elements is fine, as long as they're predictable to a degree by players. If you fire 30 lasgun shots at an enemy squad, the number of shots that hit will be a normal distribution curve around 15; that's fine. The stuff like "Roll a d6 and unless you get a 4+ your unit can't charge" is terrible though. Major game decisions shouldn't be left to a flat probability curve with a 16% minimum step. Adding more things like random charges and random powers either reduces the game to a coin flip or causes a serious push for units that mitigate that randomness.

You do realise that this is the exact opposite of what most rumours say will happen in 6th edition, right?

Which is why I don't see myself playing much 40k in the next decade...

Are you certain?

Because you invest a lot of time talking about it/criticizing it/running it down/etc.!

Mad4Minis wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Lovepug13 wrote:I hope that wound allocation isn't completely changed....I have just collected a 1.5k nob biker list lol

That's the risk you run when you build an army around exploiting a particular rule. Everyone running Draigowing is going to face the same dilemma.

Its possible they change it, but Id be a bit surprised if they got rid certain SC rules and not others...like Draigo and Belial unlocking terminators as troops. If anything Id say they would make it so a regular SM company master can have that same rule...as they should, allowing players to run a 1st company army regardless of the chapter they play. Though that might have to wait for an update to the regular marine codex.

Of course this is GW, and its entirely possible they nerf that rule...as it would cause all Draigo/deathwing players to have to restructure their armies and buy tactical squads.

Unless they get rid of the FOC...which Im wildly in favor of...Id like to structure my army any way Id like. Simply require a HQ and then its open structure. Just look at SM company structure...the main bulk is tactical companies, but they also have all terminator companies, all devastator companies, all scout companies, etc. Im sure all armies have fluff examples of similar...why not make the game rules allow a player to build theses armies?

Yea eliminating the FOC and reverting to 2nd makes them TONS of cash too. If it mirrors 2nd and it's 25% support (HS) then you could field 6 dakka predators at 2000 points . That's mind blowing, that move alone would sell them more kits, including these precious fliers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
5 annihilation barges!.... yes please!

I'm going to play 6th to death, I can't wait for 6th, I'm 24, about to start work (well, probably) but I've spent 3 years of university on buying Space Marines. I fething love them, I can't get enough. I'm hooked.

I started the hobby probably at the start of 4th edition. I took a puberty break and got back into it a few years ago. I played my first game about a year ago. 6th edition feels like a chance to join a local gaming group and start fresh with everyone else.

The fact is, regardless of the book almost, that the game will be as competitive as the players are. Look at Formula 1 racing - everyone knows the rules and they're allowed to build a car within those (army lists) and the drivers (players) skill makes the difference beyond that.

Sometimes the best cars just dominate, sometimes exceptional drivers take the gold. As long as everyone is playing by the same rules, the game is competitive.

Saying 6th won't be competitive is nonsense, because the players who care enough will be. Me? I'll be running the same list I'm building now, it'll make the wins and losses more meaningful than a copy-pasted adepticon winners list full of bloody long fangs or whatever.

I just don't see it. I've heard all of this stuff about uncompetitiveness but in 6 months of playing I've never seen any evidence of it.

Belials Deathwing, utterly rinsed by my Orks. Imperial Guard with rules that quite frankly I'm sure they just make up, rinsed by my Orks. By that same token I've fallen foul of the damn Leman Russ (that one perhaps should cost more or at least not be able to be taken in squads). And when I have been taken out it has been by Whirlwinds and other things that do make it difficult to move forward not by supposed special cheating rules.

Grey knights are a great case in point, people have learned to deal with them and now they aren't seen as being any more competitive, hell I've read BR's where Tau have beaten them and Tau badly need those updates.

Imperial Guard are the one army that if a player wanted to be a douche could make a really silly stupidly powerful list with 9 Leman Russ' etc. But with so many armies thats a pretty good game GW managed to create.

Alpharius wrote:Are you certain?

Because you invest a lot of time talking about it/criticizing it/running it down/etc.!

And haven't played a game in months (and before that it was almost a full year since my last game). I imagine if 6th is a steaming pile of horsegak then I'll be playing even less.

Sidstyler wrote:

terranarc wrote:So, what IS a competitive ruleset anyway? How the hell do you have an uncompetative ruleset?

Balanced? An "uncompetitive" ruleset is a ruleset that's poorly balanced, and/or one that I would say is also poorly written and therefore hard to understand. All the things people complain the most about 40k, but no one wants to fix because in their mind "competitive" is a dirty word because they knew one or two guys that were self-proclaimed "competitive" gamers that were dicks.

If 40k was more competitive we wouldn't have these issues where some units are obviously bad and never used, and others are obviously good and you never see a list without them. Making the game more competitive (and more balanced) would allow more variety in armies, because you aren't shackled to one or two choices that you must spam in order to win.

I agree with this whole heartedly. But I reallly don't think its the ruleset. Its the codexes that are the issue. When a codex alloys you to take spam RBacks with spamed long fangs then that is the real issue, at least IMHO.

I never saw a problem with the game until about the newer codexes where written. BA, Wolves, Gaurd, GK's. Balance the codexes and the rules won't be an issue. In my eyes anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unless they get rid of the FOC...which Im wildly in favor of...Id like to structure my army any way Id like. Simply require a HQ and then its open structure. Just look at SM company structure...the main bulk is tactical companies, but they also have all terminator companies, all devastator companies, all scout companies, etc. Im sure all armies have fluff examples of similar...why not make the game rules allow a player to build theses armies?

We all ready have spam armies as it is, this would bring out alot more. I say maybe a littel loser FOC. but to get rid of it would be bad.

Well that big event is this Saturday, June 2nd so I am thinking the announcement of 6th will be then. But that is just my thoughts.

Sidstyler wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Are you certain?

Because you invest a lot of time talking about it/criticizing it/running it down/etc.!

And haven't played a game in months (and before that it was almost a full year since my last game). I imagine if 6th is a steaming pile of horsegak then I'll be playing even less.

You mean less than 1 game in a 12 to 18 month period? You are exactly the type of person gW should care about and try to make happy, someone who doesn't even play the game. You dont even understand the state of the current metabase not having played against all the new codexes! Next we will be asking the opinion of people who drive to work how best to improve mass transit and vegitarians for meat BBQ recipes.

I don't think that the FOC is going to change (no matter how much I'd like it to). The Necron codex, which was allegedly written with 6th Ed. in mind, has a FOC printed in it. So either the FOC is here to stay, or else the idea that the Necron codex being written with 6th Ed. in mind is a lie.


I honestly think that 6th Ed. will just be 5.01 Ed. where you'll see some new USRs like Fliers and Heavy, but I don't expect to see anything miraculous. (but as I've said before, the closer 6th Ed. is to the Pancake edition, the happier I'll be)

I just hope for the structure point rumors to be true...my Necrons will rejoice, glancing everything to death once again after Gauss was nerfed TWICE.

I also agree with the point about codexes being the main problem for current balance problems. What makes GK ridiculously overpowered is their codex as they get everything everyone else has and even more for a lower price, forcing you to get in the TFG-zone by tailoring lists specifically against GK (then again, you can never be TFG if you plan to counter GK). Same for BA and their slowed "cheaper transports" rule.

5th ed rules are borderline ok (with the exception of open-topped being a really high risk), just a few minor balance problems. If only 50% of the old playtest codex was true, 40k might get an awesome new ruleset...which is all one can hope for.

*except of a WD GK Codex update that increases all costs by 33,p3% and removes Psi-ammunition.

nkelsch wrote:You are exactly the type of person gW should care about and try to make happy, someone who doesn't even play the game.

I'm sorry? I used to play every week or two. And then started playing less and less until finally I just quit altogether.

GW should care that I quit playing their fething game, and try to get me back into it. You think I'm the only one out there who got fed up and quit?

Or no, I forgot. They already got my money, who cares if I still play or not? It's not like I could ever want to buy more armies or add new units to the ones I have or anything. I forgot GW's whole business model revolved around getting people to buy a few hundred bucks worth of gak during their first visit to the store and then quitting a month later.

Mad4Minis wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

Lovepug13 wrote:I hope that wound allocation isn't completely changed....I have just collected a 1.5k nob biker list lol

That's the risk you run when you build an army around exploiting a particular rule. Everyone running Draigowing is going to face the same dilemma.

Its possible they change it, but Id be a bit surprised if they got rid certain SC rules and not others...like Draigo and Belial unlocking terminators as troops. If anything Id say they would make it so a regular SM company master can have that same rule...as they should, allowing players to run a 1st company army regardless of the chapter they play. Though that might have to wait for an update to the regular marine codex.

Of course this is GW, and its entirely possible they nerf that rule...as it would cause all Draigo/deathwing players to have to restructure their armies and buy tactical squads.

Unless they get rid of the FOC...which Im wildly in favor of...Id like to structure my army any way Id like. Simply require a HQ and then its open structure. Just look at SM company structure...the main bulk is tactical companies, but they also have all terminator companies, all devastator companies, all scout companies, etc. Im sure all armies have fluff examples of similar...why not make the game rules allow a player to build theses armies?

Devastator and Scout companies aren't battle companies though. They are support companies. Usually comapnies 1-5 are battle companies. The Veteran company is however a battle company so the point about Termies & vets stands.

Tau vs GK is a good match up, due to Tau's ability to spam LOW AP weapons that Rapid Fire..

Tau beating GK is not a sign that the GK are NOT overpowered.

Gk arent unbeatable, people just think they are overpowered for the cost or abilities are OP.

Sidstyler wrote:

nkelsch wrote:You are exactly the type of person gW should care about and try to make happy, someone who doesn't even play the game.

I'm sorry? I used to play every week or two. And then started playing less and less until finally I just quit altogether.

GW should care that I quit playing their fething game, and try to get me back into it. You think I'm the only one out there who got fed up and quit?

Or no, I forgot. They already got my money, who cares if I still play or not? It's not like I could ever want to buy more armies or add new units to the ones I have or anything. I forgot GW's whole business model revolved around getting people to buy a few hundred bucks worth of gak during their first visit to the store and then quitting a month later.

Take it easy there..... If you aren't going to play, fair enough, let the thread carry on about the removal of the old rulebook and the possible introduction of a 6th edition, not your personal experience with GW

I like the look of most of the pancake edition. it does seem a bit over-complicated in places though.

The whoel "assault before shooting" thing confused me but havign read it, i dont thin it woudl make a massive difference to the game. It woudl also stop arguements like "If i shoot this transport, can i assault the unit inside/another unit".

Sidstyler wrote:GW should care that I quit playing their fething game, and try to get me back into it.

If someone gets out of my restaurant ranting about my dishes, I don't try to get him back (it's more than likely that he will rant again in the future for wathever reason), i just try to replace him with fresh clients. You spent your money in the past, so you did your part in their business.

Different case is the typical teenage break: no money, too many girls, studies, "life sucks" feelings, girls again, first jobs, party with first pays... Those people are willing to get back into the hobby, so just new awesome plastic minis that you can compare with your dusty old metal ones is enough to grant them a second try.

Deadshot wrote:My mate's dad is lucky to get one or two small model a year while my mate himself gets maybe a tank and a squad every 3 months.

Parenthood is slavery in so many ways but I'm sure his dad prefers having just one model if his son can have a few squads.



And about BRB... I am waiting for this new book since I reentered the hobby almost two years ago. It's my opportunity to start new rules and learn them properly from the first day.