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.

I think we all have to admit that the competitive player will always destroy the casual player in any tabletop, no matter how well balanced the factions are.
And while there is an inherent imbalance between Blood Angels and Eldar, it's still possible to play an enjoyable game if the Eldar player isn't a dick! For the record, my main army is actually Blood Angels, so I know what I'm talking about

Or when I love the idea of saim hann biker eldar and my mate loves blood Angels?

Just don't equip every bike with a special weapon, it's gonna be a lot more fun.

I think we all have to admit that the competitive player will always destroy the casual player in any tabletop, no matter how well balanced the factions are.

the first time I played in a tournament I was using my boyfriends eldar list, it was a team tournament and they lost a player. I was 4 weeks in to playing the game and my IG werent fully assembled by then. In fact my first won game in w40k was also my first game of w40k. And I wasn't playing vs a bad army either, and my opponent was an expirianced table top player.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'm not sure that GW is necessarily loosing money just because they have a poor business model. If they'd have been doing things the way they do them now ten years ago, they'd still be doing quite well.

Aside from the fact that you're really only guessing, what difference does that even make?

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

IMO, it is more the emergence of new and probably objectively better companies on the fantasy/sci-fi market that is causing GW profits to go down.
It seems to me that people take the opinion 'Why bother throwing money at GW when I can throw less money at a better organised company with a better written rule set to back it up?'

To which the logical response is 'who's fault is that'? GW have been writing rules for longer than any of these other companies, so why are their rules among the worst on the market, instead of the best? Likewise, they've had far longer than any of their competitors to get organised.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

To para-phrase something I saw on the forums about a year ago, "GW used to be the 400 pound gorilla in the near-empty room when it came to non-historical wargaming. Now it's still the 400 pound gorrila, just surrounded by 200 pound chimps"

Actually, I'd say that GW are now a 600 pound gorilla. Tragically, the extra 200 pounds is made of fat and tumours. Also, it appears to be suffering from terminal-flatulence.

 vipoid wrote:

To which the logical response is 'who's fault is that'? GW have been writing rules for longer than any of these other companies, so why are their rules among the worst on the market, instead of the best? Likewise, they've had far longer than any of their competitors to get organised.

I find it especially dumb that most of their competition is on their second editions of their game because they released a game, let it go for a while, then reeled it in and revised it, aiming to work out all the kinks and learn from any mistakes, then put out a fixed up, better, 2nd edition which is good enough to stand up for many more years than a GW edition ever has.

GW has had 7 tries at 40k and it is as broken as ever, the companies that are growing right now got it right the second or third time.

 vipoid wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'm not sure that GW is necessarily loosing money just because they have a poor business model. If they'd have been doing things the way they do them now ten years ago, they'd still be doing quite well.

Aside from the fact that you're really only guessing, what difference does that even make?

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

IMO, it is more the emergence of new and probably objectively better companies on the fantasy/sci-fi market that is causing GW profits to go down.
It seems to me that people take the opinion 'Why bother throwing money at GW when I can throw less money at a better organised company with a better written rule set to back it up?'

To which the logical response is 'who's fault is that'? GW have been writing rules for longer than any of these other companies, so why are their rules among the worst on the market, instead of the best? Likewise, they've had far longer than any of their competitors to get organised.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

To para-phrase something I saw on the forums about a year ago, "GW used to be the 400 pound gorilla in the near-empty room when it came to non-historical wargaming. Now it's still the 400 pound gorrila, just surrounded by 200 pound chimps"

Actually, I'd say that GW are now a 600 pound gorilla. Tragically, the extra 200 pounds is made of fat and tumours. Also, it appears to be suffering from terminal-flatulence.

All valid points. I concede everything to you?

I didn't realise how bad 40k was as a ruleset until I began to play other games. I often defended 40k, and GW, in threads such as this. Then I tried other games, and realised how objectively outdated, poorly written, and sales driven the 40k ruleset was. I also admitted to myself that I just wasn't having fun playing 40k anymore, despite really wanting to. Now, I am at the point where I can't ever see myself playing 40k ever again, despite being in love with the fluff and the IP for around 30 years. Why do people take the time to post negative comments? Probably because they have invested huge amounts of money and time into a hobby run by a company that has consistently kicked them in the nuts for years and years. Customers in this hobby are incredibly loyal and enthusiastic, but once they'e had enough, that's it. YMMV, frankly I don't care as this game is now a non-entity for me.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I didn't realise how bad 40k was as a ruleset until I began to play other games. I often defended 40k, and GW, in threads such as this. Then I tried other games, and realised how objectively outdated, poorly written, and sales driven the 40k ruleset was. I also admitted to myself that I just wasn't having fun playing 40k anymore, despite really wanting to. Now, I am at the point where I can't ever see myself playing 40k ever again, despite being in love with the fluff and the IP for around 30 years. Why do people take the time to post negative comments? Probably because they have invested huge amounts of money and time into a hobby run by a company that has consistently kicked them in the nuts for years and years. Customers in this hobby are incredibly loyal and enthusiastic, but once they'e had enough, that's it. YMMV, frankly I don't care as this game is now a non-entity for me.

Coming from you tyrannosaurus, that's a big shift in position. Proper 180! I remember you used to be properly zealous in favour of the game, and against those who complained about the game. What changed it all to such an extent that it's now a 'non-entity' for you? Because, damn, but that's a shame after all that time. Iirc you always said you were in a group that pushed a casual 'don't break the game' attitude, and while I think that attitude can make it functional, and can work with the right people/attitude, what stopped it from working for you guys, if you don't mind me asking?

Do you have an example of an "outdated" thing in the ruleset ?
By poorly written, you mean that it is not always crystal clear, or just the randomness ?
The other companies have clear rules ?
Just curious to know.

 godardc wrote:
Do you have an example of an "outdated" thing in the ruleset ?

I suppose this depends on what you mean as "outdated".
Common complains would be;
The AP system
The way cover works
The WS chart
Leadership in general
Lack of to hit modifiers
The system still using a 1-10 system and a d6.

 godardc wrote:

By poorly written, you mean that it is not always crystal clear, or just the randomness ?

Psyker rules are very strange, especially the brotherhood of psykers.
The warlord having random abilities from weak to powerful is also quite strange and immersion breaking.
Just to name a few. Pretty much the whole chaos dex and the mutations table is an example of randomness gone wrong, and the maelstorm missions are a great example of too much randomness.
The rules are often unclear (especially in regards to formations and unit types...see GMCs and the Tau formation) and too random.

 godardc wrote:

The other companies have clear rules ?
Just curious to know.

WMH has very clear rules, there is rarely a debate or problem. If there is, it's answered by the company very quickly.

 godardc wrote:
Do you have an example of an "outdated" thing in the ruleset ?
By poorly written, you mean that it is not always crystal clear, or just the randomness ?
The other companies have clear rules ?
Just curious to know.

I'd call codexes outdated, most other games have free rules online as well as official (or just allowed) army builders.
Roll to hit, to wound, and to save is outdated. It's too many rolls for such a simple mechanic and slows the game down.
Randomness is bad, but there are very few cases of RAI vs RAW in most other games. The RAW simply are the RAI.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
I didn't realise how bad 40k was as a ruleset until I began to play other games. I often defended 40k, and GW, in threads such as this. Then I tried other games, and realised how objectively outdated, poorly written, and sales driven the 40k ruleset was. I also admitted to myself that I just wasn't having fun playing 40k anymore, despite really wanting to. Now, I am at the point where I can't ever see myself playing 40k ever again, despite being in love with the fluff and the IP for around 30 years. Why do people take the time to post negative comments? Probably because they have invested huge amounts of money and time into a hobby run by a company that has consistently kicked them in the nuts for years and years. Customers in this hobby are incredibly loyal and enthusiastic, but once they'e had enough, that's it. YMMV, frankly I don't care as this game is now a non-entity for me.

I'm also very curious as to your reasoning as your conclusions mirror my own. I was once a staunch defending of GW. But once I tried other games it was like going from dial up to high speed.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Do you have an example of an "outdated" thing in the ruleset ?
By poorly written, you mean that it is not always crystal clear, or just the randomness ?
The other companies have clear rules ?
Just curious to know.

I'd call codexes outdated, most other games have free rules online as well as official (or just allowed) army builders.
Roll to hit, to wound, and to save is outdated. It's too many rolls for such a simple mechanic and slows the game down.
Randomness is bad, but there are very few cases of RAI vs RAW in most other games. The RAW simply are the RAI.

Just to continue on with this now that I have a keyboard, I'd say that the To Hit and To Wound charts are both very outdated.
Most other games use a much simplified target number. Warmachine for example just says your to hit number is X, your armour is Y. When trying to hit an opponent you roll your dice and are simply aiming for X. When wounding every point of damage you roll over Y is 1 wound. No charts. They use 2d6+stats though.

Kings of War uses a 1d6 system like 40k, but again much simpler. If your Melee stat is 3, you hit on a 3+, if your Defense is 5, your opponent wounds you on a 5+.

Infinity uses opposed rolls that are much more complex, Xd20 vs 1d20, each player is aiming to get as high as possible, but still under their stat. If I shoot at my opponent with a two shot weapon and roll a 13 and a 16 against a stat of 15 I discard the 16 and compare my roll to my opponents. With his skill of 17 he rolled a 14. My 16 was a miss, but his 14 beats my 13. Instead of shooting him I get shot in the face by an opponent that was waiting for me to come around the corner guns blazing. Sounds a lot more complicated than 40k, but at no point do I ever need to check anything other than my BS skill.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Do you have an example of an "outdated" thing in the ruleset ?
By poorly written, you mean that it is not always crystal clear, or just the randomness ?
The other companies have clear rules ?
Just curious to know.

I'd call codexes outdated, most other games have free rules online as well as official (or just allowed) army builders.
Roll to hit, to wound, and to save is outdated. It's too many rolls for such a simple mechanic and slows the game down.
Randomness is bad, but there are very few cases of RAI vs RAW in most other games. The RAW simply are the RAI.

Just to continue on with this now that I have a keyboard, I'd say that the To Hit and To Wound charts are both very outdated.
Most other games use a much simplified target number. Warmachine for example just says your to hit number is X, your armour is Y. When trying to hit an opponent you roll your dice and are simply aiming for X. When wounding every point of damage you roll over Y is 1 wound. No charts. They use 2d6+stats though.

Kings of War uses a 1d6 system like 40k, but again much simpler. If your Melee stat is 3, you hit on a 3+, if your Defense is 5, your opponent wounds you on a 5+.

Infinity uses opposed rolls that are much more complex, Xd20 vs 1d20, each player is aiming to get as high as possible, but still under their stat. If I shoot at my opponent with a two shot weapon and roll a 13 and a 16 against a stat of 15 I discard the 16 and compare my roll to my opponents. With his skill of 17 he rolled a 14. My 16 was a miss, but his 14 beats my 13. Instead of shooting him I get shot in the face by an opponent that was waiting for me to come around the corner guns blazing. Sounds a lot more complicated than 40k, but at no point do I ever need to check anything than my BS skill.

Actually, Infinity is quite simple if you think of it like blackjack. You want to get as close to the target number as possible without going over.

I'm salty because 6th and 7th killed off any interest in 40k in my area.

*shakes fist at magic the gathering*

I play many different games, and 40K satisfies a certain "itch" for me. 40K wasn't my first table top game, but it's hung around a long time. It has a lot of issues, and I really don't like the direction the game is going. If GW gives it the "Age of Sigmar" treatment, that will be the end of 40K for me.

GW needs to get off this ridiculous "We are a Model company" horse and get back to it's roots: a GAME company. GW had some of the best games on the market- Battlefleet Gothic, Mordheim, Epic, Necromunda, and Blood Bowl just to name a few. What happened? Why did they can the entire Specialist Games range, destroy Fantasy and give us the unholy abomination Age of Sigmar? Why is Fantasy Flight Games producing board games and card games for Games Workshop?

I'll tell you what happened: GW went public, and the focus of the company went to making money and generating profits for the share holders. They have totally isolated themselves from their customers, accepting no feedback and conducting no market research beyond sales figures. They are an Ivory Tower company now, driven by profit and giving their customers what they think they want without listening to what the customer asks for.

I'd be more upset about this if 40K was the only game I played. It's not, and that has given me insulation and distance from the train wreck the company and 40K has become. Every time I see another stupid rule or bad move by GW, I just shrug my shoulders as it's one step closer to the precipice for GW. I hope I'll be able to play a 40K game five years from now, but I have my doubts 40K will exist in a recognizable form that it is now.

My prediction- 40K will become a series of box sets and campaign rules with no codexes and simplified rules. You'll buy the "Battle of Money and Profits" with 30-ish snap together models, all the rules for the models will be included, and it'll be a "streamlined, fast system" just like Age of Sigmar. Additional special models/characters that will cost a premium will be made available for each box set. Additional DLC for money will also be made available for each campaign. I hope I am so wrong because that will kill 40K for me.

 Tamwulf wrote:

I'll tell you what happened: GW went public, and the focus of the company went to making money and generating profits for the share holders. They have totally isolated themselves from their customers, accepting no feedback and conducting no market research beyond sales figures. They are an Ivory Tower company now, driven by profit and giving their customers what they think they want without listening to what the customer asks for.

Which is ironic, given that their revenue has been declining each year.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

I'll tell you what happened: GW went public, and the focus of the company went to making money and generating profits for the share holders. They have totally isolated themselves from their customers, accepting no feedback and conducting no market research beyond sales figures. They are an Ivory Tower company now, driven by profit and giving their customers what they think they want without listening to what the customer asks for.

Which is ironic, given that their revenue has been declining each year.

Revenue that's been declining three years in a row after aggressive price rises and cost cutting.

Re the rules discussion. The base mechanics of 40K that we've had since 2nd/3rd aren't terrible - they seemed to have calmed down on introducing random tables to roll on, which was one of my biggest bugbears.
The main problems are that the rules themselves and poorly written and ambiguous with an erratic approach to balance. After GW has charged the customer for the rules, they then expect the customer to sort these things out via house rules.

Revenue, meaning actual sales, has declined significantly. Profits are up, thanks to a lot of cost-cutting like moving to smaller shops with fewer staff in cheaper locations, and closing all the regional HQs.