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 find myself in a similar boat as the OP. I’m not going to debate arbitrary definitions but something that has bugged me a lot about this edition is that whenever I’m spectating a game and I look at the board it just looks like complete nonsense, whereas most other editions of the game have had some semblance of diorama. Tanks were (generally) facing towards enemies and units were spread out across the board, in cover if they could etc.

The spectacle has always been a big part of the allure to me. A table with two painted armies and decent terrain just looked cool. Even if you didn’t play the game you could make some sense of what was happening. At first I thought the removal of templates and facings would make the game look even better on the table. People could line up guardsmen firing in ranks and you could finally make dense swarms of Gaunts etc. but instead all I see are nonsensical Conga lines of infantry “bubble wrapping” parking lots of vehicles facing random directions because that’s what the rules encourage. Outsiders and newcomers can’t possibly understand what is going on because there’s no real-world touchstone for that.

Granted, no one is preventing people from playing the game diroma style, but people are going to naturally gravitate towards what the rules encourage them to do. In some ways I think that also “back in the day” the only way to really see how the game was meant to be played was GW-owned media like white dwarf. So we naturally tended to emulate the WD battle reports, where the diorama/spectacle was a high priority both from a design culture and marketing perspective. I think the (not unrelated) decline of WD and the rise of fan-made video battle reports meant that GW weren’t the ones really setting the norms anymore and the community decided that battles looked like something else entirely.

 Desubot wrote:
but then im a brewer and i enjoy messing with more tuned casual decks than focusing on top level meta decks.

Same here, I dropped actively playing competitive magic years ago.

I firmly believe that WH40k has the potential to allow list building to be as varied on casual levels as it is for MtG, so I hope GW will fix those balancing problems at some point in the near future.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
but then im a brewer and i enjoy messing with more tuned casual decks than focusing on top level meta decks.

Same here, I dropped actively playing competitive magic years ago.

I firmly believe that WH40k has the potential to allow list building to be as varied on casual levels as it is for MtG, so I hope GW will fix those balancing problems at some point in the near future.

The main problem for that becoming a thing is that a casual list costs roughly the same as a more competitive list assuming both are all plastic for 40k. Like, I like the death guard daemon engines and in my last two 1000 point games my opponents haven't killed a single unit and my list is nowhere near optimised. Granted they had very poor target priority and that's on them but it just feels bad for new players to spend as much or maybe even more than their opponent and come out so much worse in the game.

The casual approach is best for people who've already built up their collection over time and don't have to worry about feeling like the money spent on those units was wasted as much. I know when I used to play in 5th I had a pretty casual marine list and it was fun. The people I played with had a similar mindset so we enjoyed our games. Then 6th dropped and made my army completely useless so I stopped playing until recently.

To be fair there isn't really much we can do about this because the prices are basically fixed. Whereas in MTG you can build a fun casual deck for much cheaper than a competitive one. The best we can do is try to help players make as educated a decision as they can when building an army so their list suits their playstyle and level of competition.

 IronBrand wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
but then im a brewer and i enjoy messing with more tuned casual decks than focusing on top level meta decks.

Same here, I dropped actively playing competitive magic years ago.

I firmly believe that WH40k has the potential to allow list building to be as varied on casual levels as it is for MtG, so I hope GW will fix those balancing problems at some point in the near future.

The main problem for that becoming a thing is that a casual list costs roughly the same as a more competitive list assuming both are all plastic for 40k. Like, I like the death guard daemon engines and in my last two 1000 point games my opponents haven't killed a single unit and my list is nowhere near optimised. Granted they had very poor target priority and that's on them but it just feels bad for new players to spend as much or maybe even more than their opponent and come out so much worse in the game.

The casual approach is best for people who've already built up their collection over time and don't have to worry about feeling like the money spent on those units was wasted as much. I know when I used to play in 5th I had a pretty casual marine list and it was fun. The people I played with had a similar mindset so we enjoyed our games. Then 6th dropped and made my army completely useless so I stopped playing until recently.

To be fair there isn't really much we can do about this because the prices are basically fixed. Whereas in MTG you can build a fun casual deck for much cheaper than a competitive one. The best we can do is try to help players make as educated a decision as they can when building an army so their list suits their playstyle and level of competition.

The big issue for new player is all those "trap" units you can buy into which basically just accelerate you getting tabled. Unlike in MtG where 80%+ of the cards are filler, WH40k has no place for fillers, every single unit must be viable. Not top level tournament material, but it should have a reason to exists (no one needs a unit that is strictly worse than another) and be able to perform its intended role (no one needs a close combat specialist unit that gets beaten up in combat by things that are not close combat specialists).

Something I wish GW would do is create a guide for every army how to build a well-rounded list for a 1500/1750/2000 army and keep those guides up to date. And by that, I mean real guides, not the stuff they have been doing in the past, where they tell players to buy one of everything and then go on about how awesome they look on the battlefield.

For example a Death Guard guide would look like this:


A new player will then end up with a semi-decent army that works on the tabletop, but won't be winning tournaments any time soon.

Repeat for each faction, bonus point for the "start Collection boxes" actually containing things worth fielding.

 Jidmah wrote:
The big issue for new player is all those "trap" units you can buy into which basically just accelerate you getting tabled. Unlike in MtG where 80%+ of the cards are filler, WH40k has no place for fillers, every single unit must be viable. Not top level tournament material, but it should have a reason to exists (no one needs a unit that is strictly worse than another) and be able to perform its intended role (no one needs a close combat specialist unit that gets beaten up in combat by things that are not close combat specialists).

Something I wish GW would do is create a guide for every army how to build a well-rounded list for a 1500/1750/2000 army and keep those guides up to date. And by that, I mean real guides, not the stuff they have been doing in the past, where they tell players to buy one of everything and then go on about how awesome they look on the battlefield.

For example a Death Guard guide would look like this:

Spoiler:

1) Buy two boxes of DI and share them with a friend or "enjoy collection two awesome armies from the Warhammer 40.000 universe" (=give us twice as much money). That way you both have all the rules you need, plus a sizable army to start playing right away.
2) Currently your units of Plague Marines only have one special weapon, so buy the ETB plague marines to have a champion with a plasma gun and another marine with a blight launcher. If you bought two boxes of DI, you can shuffle around the models so you have one unit with three plasma guns!
3) You have probably realized that your Lord of Corruption is quite slow and has trouble catching up with things he wants to smash. It's time for a boon of Nurgle, upgrade him to a Daemon Prince! A daemon prince is faster, stronger, can cast psychic powers, prevents nearby plasma from overheating and flips tanks on their backs.
4) Still having trouble with those tanks? Try some helbrutes, plagueburst crawlers or a blight-hauler - but keep in mind blight haulers only unleash their full potential when there are three of them.

A new player will then end up with a semi-decent army that works on the tabletop, but won't be winning tournaments any time soon.

Repeat for each faction, bonus point for the "start Collection boxes" actually containing things worth fielding.

I don't see them doing a guide like that because it's essentially talking people out of buying other models. I could see them potentially doing articles that are overviews of what a unit actually wants to do in game though. Saying what it ideally wants to target, things to keep in mind while moving, etc. Essentially a more refined family friendly version of the 1d4chan tactica unit analyses. Obviously they'd minimise the negative points but at least then someone isn't buying tactical marines thinking they're a balanced unit of elite soldiers that can take out anything from a grot to a knight.

Ideally they'd have print outs in GW stores to show prospective new players or give them as a little bonus with a start collecting box. Better to give it with the box than to include it in the box so they don't need to update the box itself if the sheet gets updated. Boxes should have something directing them to the warhammer community site though to a digital version of it for people who buy it from third party retailers.

Nah, the guide pretty much stops at 2000 points. You could finish with a list of things they could get next and eventually they will buy more or move to a new army to collect.
At this point, they've also sold 2 DI boxes, a Plague Marine ETB kit, a daemon prince and one vehicle box.

Someone who has decent success with a 2000 point army is much more likely to buy more than someone who is getting his teeth kicked in every game. Most of those people will leave the game and not spend more money to get better at it.

 Jidmah wrote:
Nah, the guide pretty much stops at 2000 points. You could finish with a list of things they could get next and eventually they will buy more or move to a new army to collect.
At this point, they've also sold 2 DI boxes, a Plague Marine ETB kit, a daemon prince and one vehicle box.

Someone who has decent success with a 2000 point army is much more likely to buy more than someone who is getting his teeth kicked in every game. Most of those people will leave the game and not spend more money to get better at it.

Giving someone a list of things to buy is a pretty terrible idea IMO though. As is telling players they need 2000 points. Show a new player a 2000 point list when they walk in the store with an interest in 40k and saying buy this will make most just turn around and walk out. Especially if that potential player is a kid with their parent/guardian.

A much better approach is to have some guidelines for some 1000pt ish lists. Less money to outlay, less overwelming and it's better to start with smaller games to get the hang of things anyway. Selling an army list also takes away one of the big draws of the game for a lot of people, they're not really your dudes if you just bought a list some guy gave to you without any thought of your own. Whereas if they have a sheet with overviews of units and a couple suggested playstyles for the army you're making choices. That makes it your army. Even if the suggestions are as simple as "consider these units if you want to be stabby" and "consider these units if you want to be shooty".

Straight up giving them a list takes away the agency of the player and a full sized army will overwhelm a new player. Whereas if they choose a list from some guidelines they're more invested in the army. Then if the army doesn't work out the way they want it to after a few games or they feel like something is missing they'll have the unit overviews. They might decide they need more anti-tank or their opponent may suggest they get some more anti-tank. Then they look at or remember the guidelines and choose their next unit.

Just straight up giving someone a list no matter how good is never going to get someone as invested in the game/hobby as them making their own army. Just ask all the people who build an army for their friends only to have them play one game then just walk away forever.

 Enigma of the Absolute wrote:

8th ed was the first genuine attempt to fix all this and it's a mixed bag. It's a much cleaner ruleset but it suffers from even more of the over abstraction that plagued 40k since 3rd ed. This solidifies my view that the problem is incongruence between the physical scale and the rules scale.

Nail meet hammer.
Well said. The entire post.

Scale has definitely been an issue for 40k for years, increasingly exacerbated as time went on. Having to work out challenges in melee combat between individual squad sergeants and worry about what type of blade their powerweapon had, in a tabletop battle between a tank company and infantry battalion, was reaaaaally ridiculous. 8E dropped the worst excesses of the failed 6E/7E paradigm take on the 3E ruleset, but still struggles with those issues.

Of course it is. At least I play it like it is.

I have basic guardsmen as the first wave. My stormtroopers kill high value targets and capture tactical objectives lightning fast. My Custodes and assassins surprise anyone who thought they are only to be slaughtering basic troopers. My Shadowsword and other warmachines bring swift end to all who think they can survive or let alone, win.

I think my tactics are reflective of 40k-lore.

I do think the biggest problem is that GW makes it sound like you want to care about the spectacle: Fully painted armies with a variety of units (not just spamming the same unit over and over), on a table with themed terrain and a narrative story to the game. As far back as I can remember in White Dwarf, that's how they present things. You rarely, if ever, see armies that aren't diverse in their selections.

Yet in the same breath, they make most choices no good to where you only want to take 1 out of maybe 5 weapon options, to say nothing of ignoring half the units, and try to pitch the game as being a competitive game where you can show your tactical acumen.

The fundamental issue is trying to make 40k all things to all people, with a design team that seemingly cannot do what that entails.

I though the whole competitive thing was a very very recent thing...... well iirc they tried in 3rd..4th? edition but went right back to FORGE DA NARRATIVE by 6th.

edit: nevermind

Hardboyz was around in 5th.

auticus wrote:
Complex wargames where battlefield tactics are the core avenue of winning went out of style 15 or more years ago.

Sadly I think this is spot on.

It is something that I have struggled to come to terms with, 40k simply is no longer a game I enjoy, and I am not their target audience. I have outgrown it. The setting is something that was a big escapism during my formative years, so that could be one of the things that keeps me coming back. I think I am going to slowly wean myself off 40k. I really wish that KoW had a following here in rural Ireland. That is a game I could be quite content in playing as my main miniatures game, sadly it seems to be mainly 40k here.

Oh well, might be that the gaming aspect of the hobby is on hold for me for the time being.

There is always konflict 47. bolt action system is a ton of fun, terrain matters, movement matters, every shot matters even if it doesnt do damage, and you cant fully count on going first with random dice pulls which also keeps both players active at all times rather than me getting a 20 minute smoke break while my opponent does his full movement.

Heard good things about Konflict '47, doubt anyone in these parts would be interested sadly. Is there a mod to use 40k factions? If so that might help convert people over.

 stonehorse wrote:
Heard good things about Konflict '47, doubt anyone in these parts would be interested sadly. Is there a mod to use 40k factions? If so that might help convert people over.

I believe i saw something about konflict 40k somewhere so i know some one is doing it but then you could always do chaos vs imperium, running guards vs cultists in most things and add in space marines for the heavy infantry running around.

Star Breach (find it by adds here on dakka) is free and really well done, has like 20factions, and is designed to be model agnosticism, so you can use 40k, Star Wars, etc any 25-28mm scale SciFi models.

The scale is part of the problem, and removing all super heavies, gargantuans and perhaps fliers would help make infantry matter more.

However, there is still the main problem: the core of the game is not deep/complex/well-built enough to allow for anything past move, cast powers, shoot, and stab. Until they add more to do past those few actions, the game will continue to be one-dimensional.

Things like suppression, AA, more actions a unit can declare when they activate than move or attack, impactful terrain, maneuver actually mattering past getting guns in range, giving everything facings etc. There simply isn't much to think about or consider in a game of 40k. Less vertical design, more horizontal. It doesn't even need to be complex/complicated either. Offering a bit more variety and thinking in gameplay (while balanced) would do it.

Blastaar wrote:
However, there is still the main problem: the core of the game is not deep/complex/well-built enough to allow for anything past move, cast powers, shoot, and stab. Until they add more to do past those few actions, the game will continue to be one-dimensional.

Things like suppression, AA, more actions a unit can declare when they activate than move or attack, impactful terrain, maneuver actually mattering past getting guns in range, giving everything facings etc. There simply isn't much to think about or consider in a game of 40k. Less vertical design, more horizontal. It doesn't even need to be complex/complicated either. Offering a bit more variety and thinking in gameplay (while balanced) would do it.

This is a good point. I think that since 5th edition there has been too much focus on shooting and not enough focus on assault. The problem with a focus on shooting is that it tips the game towards list building as players will focus on fitting in as much firepower as possible. A better way of putting it might be that the game doesn't encourage or demand that players develop a range of tactical approaches. Whether you choose to focus on shooting or assault is largely a question of preference/flavour rather than being different tactical techniques required to master the game.

Shooting should massacre units in the open but be largely ineffective at killing units that are dug in. A decent suppression mechanic would prevent this from turning into a dull stalemate as the early game turns would become a focus on gaining a tactical advantage whereby you can execute assault manoeuvres to destroy the dug in enemy units in the latter turns.

I would also like to see a deeper combat system. 2nd ed's combat system was too time consuming for large games but I really like the fact that every unit is useful in combat, especially when used in conjunction with combat specialists. For example, in 2nd ed using Storm Guardians in conjunction with Banshees or Scorpions was a highly effective tactic due to the rule that for each additional combatant you have in B2B with an enemy model you receive +1 to your combat score. This alone made fairly modest units far more useful and tactically flexible than they are now. From 3rd onwards there is no such synergy.

 stonehorse wrote:
Heard good things about Konflict '47, doubt anyone in these parts would be interested sadly. Is there a mod to use 40k factions? If so that might help convert people over.

Have you considered Killteam or Apocalypse? I have about 8K of fully painted Ultramarines languishing away and almost as many older tyrannids. For me 40k died quite a while back, and then GW killed fantasy. I missed a lot of the drama due to work and life changes, but I swear some things don't ever change with GW. So it goes.

I really like Warlords of Erehwon and the Bolt Action mechanics, so I skipped right over BA and bought up a bunch of Russians for Konflict '47. You can get a K47 starter army for about a hundred dollars and go from there. Honestly, I started with GW, and I still am thinking about Killteam and Apocalypse, but my FLGS is over an hour away, they play Warlord games and 40K is just not for me anymore. Too old to care about tournamnets, but fun is good. If you can't get around how expensive Warlord models can be when you compare those models to GW's quality and style, you can always use your marines, eldar etc. with OnePageRules. No fluff or storyline but a lot more balance. So far I am glad to be back to the hobby if for no other reason than building and painting models is relaxing and the grandsons love it. Saga and SPQR look interesting, and I am definitely thinking on Hail Caesar if I can find the time and some historical players...

So I'm in it for Warlords of Erehwon and Konflict '47. I hope they can persist like 40K without wrecking the rules, producing ridiculously large, expensive models that you can see from space, or producing models that look like drag queens...

I think a lot of people (myself included) are always keeping an eye out for alternate rules to use their 40K minis with. There are even some aftermarket rules aimed suspiciously at the game (I have a PDF of a generic sci-fi game aimed at the models used in 40K but I can't recall the name at the moment).

The issue obviously becomes opponents. You really only need one like-minded friend who's in it with ya. My 40K playing dropped off quickly recently when I played five or six games in a row and simply didn't enjoy myself. Then I played some Old West and some dungeon crawls and found myself thoroughly enjoying them...so it's probably time for a break.

I am, however, considering a 2nd edition/8th edition + alternate activations mega-bash at some point. Again, just need to find some opponents. I've always preferred rules written by companies which were not attached to miniatures sales. Basically independent game studios, or authors published by Osprey, etc. The reason is simple: they're selling rules, not models. GW is selling models, not rules. By definition you'll get a better product from someone who is selling their rules based solely on their merit, rather than a miniatures delivery device. There are some stonkingly good historical wargames which make GW titles look like a joke. They can do this because they're not selling minis, they're selling a game - and you, as the consumer, figure out the models you want to buy and from who.

I will admit it's tough though. The more non-GW games I play (and I took a good 10 year hiatus from GW), the more difficult it is to go back and play GW games. I'll be holding onto my armies but I no longer rush to put them on the table.

Your right and thank God you are....games that focus on emulating real-life are frequently mechanically terrible. I'll take my abstraction any day

6th of August will see the release of Planetfall. I will enjoy mechanics like Overwatch, Stagger (Suppression), flanks, firing arcs, etc.
It's a foolish notion to think such features will ever be present again in 40K.

I don't think anyone expects those things to return to a game like 40K, but some people have jimmies rustled when it's pointed out that 40K is barely much of a wargame anymore. That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable or people can't have fun with it, but it's just stretching the definition. It's more of an action-combo game...if that's a thing.

I don't hate 8th edition but yea at this point 40k is essentially a trading card game with plastic/metal/resin models. Most of 8th revolves around reroll auras and farming CP to pull of some special snowflake strat combo. LOS, positioning (outside of auras and screening to stop deep striking), facing and cover have never mattered less.

one of the big issues is 40k wants to be everything, Its gritty sci fi, Fantasy with the want for lots of close combat. Giant anime mechs with heavy and less graceful mechs.
Heros and super heroes all mixed in without care from the people running the IP.

When flyers come out, it was very much a good idea put together by a group of people with no idea how to implement it. Super heavys much the same, things that had a place in the game. But pushed out without any real good thought into the plans for the game as a whole. 8th was rather lacking to start, But at a 8th edition they should probably at least have a good base by now.
And they still do not, Even space marines tend to just Derp into battle since movment and tactics worst enemy is bad rules.
Its just a little disappointing, Considering how many good rulesets would work fantastically well for 40k. If GW was willing to come to terms with there own setting.

nomadimp wrote:
I find myself in a similar boat as the OP. I’m not going to debate arbitrary definitions but something that has bugged me a lot about this edition is that whenever I’m spectating a game and I look at the board it just looks like complete nonsense, whereas most other editions of the game have had some semblance of diorama. Tanks were (generally) facing towards enemies and units were spread out across the board, in cover if they could etc.

The spectacle has always been a big part of the allure to me. A table with two painted armies and decent terrain just looked cool. Even if you didn’t play the game you could make some sense of what was happening. At first I thought the removal of templates and facings would make the game look even better on the table. People could line up guardsmen firing in ranks and you could finally make dense swarms of Gaunts etc. but instead all I see are nonsensical Conga lines of infantry “bubble wrapping” parking lots of vehicles facing random directions because that’s what the rules encourage. Outsiders and newcomers can’t possibly understand what is going on because there’s no real-world touchstone for that.

Granted, no one is preventing people from playing the game diroma style, but people are going to naturally gravitate towards what the rules encourage them to do. In some ways I think that also “back in the day” the only way to really see how the game was meant to be played was GW-owned media like white dwarf. So we naturally tended to emulate the WD battle reports, where the diorama/spectacle was a high priority both from a design culture and marketing perspective. I think the (not unrelated) decline of WD and the rise of fan-made video battle reports meant that GW weren’t the ones really setting the norms anymore and the community decided that battles looked like something else entirely.

This lack of realism breaks my brain.

To try to sort this out
(and a bit inspired by the "off the rails" thread under tournament discussions here on Dakka)
I watched some live streaming "competitive" games the other day
and noted the way that terrain is built,
to serve as paintball barricades..

Given the 40k began as a snarky stab at the rotted side of empire,
with orks and marines only differing in the shape of the boot that crushes you,
(both systems work from blind faith)
with a twist of 'yeah its all fake news but we live here so make the best of it'
the fake scenery and fake vehicle facings and fake tactics that make up the contemporary 40K table
shows how completely lost from home the game is right now.

It might be that the original state of mind
is simply not accessible to anyone inured from the decay that supports their active corruption
of what was a wargame, and is now 40K the Gathering.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:
6th of August will see the release of Planetfall. I will enjoy mechanics like Overwatch, Stagger (Suppression), flanks, firing arcs, etc.
It's a foolish notion to think such features will ever be present again in 40K.

Planetfall, huh...
searching...
searching...
Ah.
Video game.

Yeah, funny how video games get more realistic,
and tabletop wargames using real models painted to look as realistic as possible are becoming stripped down card games.

Almost as if people aren't able to invent their own worlds anymore,
and can only live within structures of another's creation.

Maybe this is related to so many lately living with their parents forever.
So, the mind reaches equilibrium by learning to stay so embedded,
thereby forcing the limited engagement with 40K 'reality' as well.

Blastaar wrote:
The scale is part of the problem, and removing all super heavies, gargantuans and perhaps fliers would help make infantry matter more.

However, there is still the main problem: the core of the game is not deep/complex/well-built enough to allow for anything past move, cast powers, shoot, and stab. Until they add more to do past those few actions, the game will continue to be one-dimensional.

Things like suppression, AA, more actions a unit can declare when they activate than move or attack, impactful terrain, maneuver actually mattering past getting guns in range, giving everything facings etc. There simply isn't much to think about or consider in a game of 40k. Less vertical design, more horizontal. It doesn't even need to be complex/complicated either. Offering a bit more variety and thinking in gameplay (while balanced) would do it.

And yet, the VAST majority of players (most especially the ones who make posts like this one) are completely incapable of using the tactics that ARE in the game.

I cannot tell you the number of games I've won entirely because my opponent had no fething idea what to do in the charge phase.

You can add all of that stuff back in if you want, but I guarantee that 90% of the people who b***h moan about 'muh complexity' aren't good enough to do anything with it anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I don't think anyone expects those things to return to a game like 40K, but some people have jimmies rustled when it's pointed out that 40K is barely much of a wargame anymore. That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable or people can't have fun with it, but it's just stretching the definition. It's more of an action-combo game...if that's a thing.

Like I've said before, the biggest problem with people thinkong the game is entirely about 'tcg style combos' with little to no actual tactics, are simply people who aren't good enough at the game to understand the tactics that are there.

Are there big TCG style combos? Yes. Is there an emphasis on screening and maintaining auras? Yes. But even ignoring those things, the movement phase is still the most important phase of the game AND is a phase a shockingly small percentage of the player base can do well. The charge and combat phases no one has any gorram idea about until top 75 or so ITC.

Could they add more complexity to the game? Sure, and it would probably be great for those who can handle it, but considering most people, especially on dakka, suck at the game as it is, it would be pointless. Ya'll are dual core Pentiums trying to pair up with a RTX 2080ti.

How about you get good enough to handle intel integrated graphics first?

 Elbows wrote:
I don't think anyone expects those things to return to a game like 40K, but some people have jimmies rustled when it's pointed out that 40K is barely much of a wargame anymore. That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable or people can't have fun with it, but it's just stretching the definition. It's more of an action-combo game...if that's a thing.

Without these mechanics 40K is one thing only:

A colossal waste of time. After I have played Planetfall, I will add a few things from this video game to my custom rule set of 40K.