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 it depends a lot on what army you play. An eldar player will say that w40k was the most fantastic game in the last 30 years, a DA player will say it got a lot more fun and better in 7th and a IG player will say it sucks.

I'd probably dive right back into 40k and love it again if it could pick a god damned scale and stick to it.

At the moment it feels like a skirmish game trying to play with enough models to be a mass battle, or possibly a mass battle that is just bogged down with skirmish rules.
Pick one, or hell, even have two different game modes but as it is now I find it horribly bloated and counter intuitive.



Skirmish 40k:
Make the average point size something like a battleforce. Larger than kill team, more like a captain, a tac squad, a five man assault/dev/scout unit and a dreadnaught.
Everyone moves and attacks individually with no unit cohesion rules like kill team.
Remove fliers and larger vehicles like land raiders, say a single leman russ would be the heaviest vehicle in the game.
The idea is to play it on a 4x4 board in an hour.

Mass combat 40k:
Drop the remove casualties from the front rule and measure everything from the squad leader. He dies last, otherwise you pick which model you take off the board. If the sgt has LoS everyone does, if he is in cover everyone is. Essentially the rest of the unit is there as wound counters for him and are a true 'unit' rather than tethering 10 'units' together on the board.
Replace the 'I go you go' system with something more like 'I move,shoot,assault 1 unit, you do 1 unit'.
Go nuts here with things like tank squadrons, fliers, artillery, etc, but understand that means a 6x4 or even 8x4 and an entier evening. Almost like apoc lite (which is what 40k seems to be trying to be these days anyway).

Feel you OP.

I'll reserve judgement on whether it's a balanced game when every Codex gets 'Decurion'ized.

But for the most part I've been assembling and painting my Orks and Blood Angels. Quite like being the underdog. Dark Eldar have taken a back burner as everyone in my meta spams Ignore Cover/Divination stuff and my Tyranids haven't seen a tabletop ever since five Flyrants became the norm (have a very competitive meta, one where my friend always wants me to run cut-throat lists against the guy who bought 18 Necron Wraiths and a Legion because he got beaten by them in a tournament). My meta also wants to expand into 30k and have at least 3000 points per battle. I just don't have the time or money for those sorts of things. Truth be told I don't want to. None of those things interest me. The only reason I started Blood Angels was because they function similar to Orks on the tabletop and because, underdogs. I've always been interested in the Xenos races but never wanted to play anything that was overpowered. Hence why I bought £100 of Necrons from GW, proxied it against my friend and then returned it when I saw it's power.

I stopped playing to win ever since I started Orks. I don't want to be in a tournament 24/7. I think the worst of my woes was when someone asked me for a game, asked me what I was playing and then brought Crimson Fists with Pedro Kantor (PE: Orks was not fun that day).

I'm actually sort of looking forward to heading back to uni soon. Different meta, more casual meta. Helps that the boss has assembled 40k points of Orks to help me plan my armies, hehehehe

Warhammer 40,000, as a game, is terrible.

The universe has tons of great backgorund and cool stuff, tons of the model kits are super cool, but the game itself is awful.

We have multiple issues.

First and foremost, the game simply does not know what it wants to be. This has been true since really 5th edition, but has become a dramatically larger and more obvious problem over the last couple of years. The game is simply trying to be too many things, and abstracts in the wrong direction. The unit types and model sizes that GW is attempting to hamfist into literally any size game just is not working particularly well. The game tries to make it so that each individual humble basic guardsmen and his weeny Lasgun have just as much stats and rolling to do as a gigantic titan, and is, if anything, even more detailed. The abstraction happens at the highest levels, with big units ignoring charts and effects and having less detail while smaller units are more detailed and granular, which is rather bass-ackwards. The model count, unit scale, and special rule count is simply out of control, particularly when GW is writing their ruleset to allow everything in any sized game. 40k is trying to be both Epic and Kill Team and everything in between, and failing miserably.

Second, GW's rules design has two major problems. First, they seem to change design paradigm every year or so. The 2012/early 2013 stuff was much less powerful than the rest of the 2013 stuff, while the 2014 books were significantly toned down relative to the 2013 armies, and the 2015 books have ramped up the power level beyond anything 40k has ever seen before, along with aggravating the scale issues mentioned above.

Add to it that GW simply does not do rules errata nor address FAQ issues, we get a game where power levels are all over the place resulting in absurdly stilted games, scale has gone out the window, and rules issues simply go unaddressed.

As a game, 40k is pretty bad. It's never been a great game, but I don't recall it ever being in this bad a state. It's totally unsuitable for pickup or even pretending to be suitable for any sort of competitive play anymore, and that makes getting games that are worth playing rather difficult. Pre-determined outcomes and one-sided games are much more common now these days.

For my own anecdotal experiences, particularly over the course of the last 6 months or so, fewer people are showing up for games and events.

Hi all.
Lots of people seem to be confusing the parts that are good with the part that are positively dreadful.

The art of 40k , the sculpts pictures and background are 10 out of 10.(Or may be 11 or 12!!)

The 40k rule set is completely awful when compared objectively with other rule sets, on the functional aspects.

Clarity , brevity and elegance , are no where on 40k rules developers radar!

40k players have fun DESPITE the rules GW plc sell. NOT because of them.

I gave it a 5/10 mostly for nostalgia. When i started, it was easily a 9/10 game. Nowadays, I'm so torn on the game that I seriously considered a 1.

Being a CSM player that started with a small group of friends during the end of 5th edition, I can completely understand your frustration with the game. Back then, sure the game was imbalanced, but my meta was pretty casual so it wasn't that obvious to me then.

That being said, i don't think i've played a game in 6 months now. Just none of my friends play anymore. Either they were burned out with the game or just frustrated with the power imbalance. Now its just me with my CSM, slowly painting my army when i have time. At least there's no rush to get them table ready.

The game is bad when compared to other games in the market. It needs a total rewrite to get rid of much of the bloat. Mass battle game with skirmish rules does not work very well. The balance of the game gets worse and worse with each codex release.
4 out of 10 is what I rate it just to many other games out there that do it much better. If GW did faq and errata I would have rated it maybe a 5 out of 10. But with such balance issues and bloat I don't see how people can score it higher then a 5.

Salous wrote:
I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.

40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.

You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game

I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against

My gaming group is AMAZING.
we have no powergamers and everyone just brings the things the like. we also vote on bringing in homebrew unit modifications to make some things Good/playable and some OP thing more fair.

3, but mainly because I have been playing it for so long. 6th got a 3 too. 5th got a 6.5 to 7.

40K is a classic game but the recent turn around in 6th was a mistake. The game has gone downhill since.

I gave it a 3. The game is mostly unplayable out of the box as it were. You have to houserule so much right off the bat so that it can be played smoothly that I have no idea how brand new players can even get started.

if i sit down with my 2 friends and give them both a starter army for whatever faction they play they will be able to play and have fun the game isnt that bad until people start powergaming

GAdvance wrote:

Salous wrote:
I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.

40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.

You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game

I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against

How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...

Salous wrote:

GAdvance wrote:

Salous wrote:
I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.

40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.

You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game

I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against

How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...

Because in a balanced game, a new player would be getting destroyed for a while since the other players have a leg up by virtue of experience. In most table top games....actually in most video games too....this is how it works. I lost a lot of games in WMH when I started, and I started with cryx, the strongest faction arguably. I played against one of the weaker factions, didn't matter. In 40k if I was elder and he was say....chaos, I'd roll him, maybe with a few losses here and there due to dice.

Fighting games, strategy games, table top games, even dnd all work off of this premise. 40k does not, despite being on the more complex side. Codex and list is most of the strategy involved in this game, and trumps nearly everything else.

While it is bad that imbalance trumps skill in some cases, new players having a chance and not getting crushed is NOT a bad thing in and of itself.

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

GAdvance wrote:

Salous wrote:
I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.

40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.

You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game

I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against

How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...

Because in a balanced game, a new player would be getting destroyed for a while since the other players have a leg up by virtue of experience. In most table top games....actually in most video games too....this is how it works. I lost a lot of games in WMH when I started, and I started with cryx, the strongest faction arguably. I played against one of the weaker factions, didn't matter. In 40k if I was elder and he was say....chaos, I'd roll him, maybe with a few losses here and there due to dice.

Fighting games, strategy games, table top games, even dnd all work off of this premise. 40k does not, despite being on the more complex side. Codex and list is most of the strategy involved in this game, and trumps nearly everything else.

I agree that list building can mess up the balance in the game. Thats why I always speak with the people im playing against before hand. We tell each other our lists, and make changes to try and create a balanced game. No one spams units that the other can't kill. No one sneaks in flyers that the other can't counter, so on so forth. If more people do this and stop trying to sneak in lists then I believe people will stop complaining about unbalanced games.

I play against guard, marines, Chaos, orks, and admech mainly. I have beaten them all, I have lost to them all. 90% of the games come down to the final round to see who wins. The only game I played where one side was tabled or unable to win was where no one knew the other's list before the battle started.

If the game is played as written by GW then its horribly imbalanced and incredibly vulnerable to cheese. It would be incredibly frustrating to just play 100% blind matchups with random people.

-Imagine a scenario where you took 100 40K players of all factions, competiveness, fluffiness, experience, etc and put their names in a hat. Every game is determined by random name draw and used the 40K rules as written with no modifications. Now imagine how any fun games would be had when you have little timmy who got dark vengeance for xmas and billy who is spamming unbound scatter bikes + wraithknights are in the same player pool.

Add in the social contracts, house rules, etc to the mix and the game becomes a lot more enjoyable as you can set things to some sort of roughly agreed upon level of play. Unfortunately it takes work, social skill, player knowledge, and a degree of trust to make this work. Sadly some players lack some of these elements which makes it difficult to find good games and even then bad luck (on either side) can sour a game just as quickly as a mismatched pairing. When things go right then it is an incredibly fun game. GW unfortunately is like a half blind and fully drunk captain that thinks that removing the rudder and cutting holes in the sails to make even more sails will make the ship sail better. A lot of the time it feels like fun is being had despite GW's best efforts to hit every rock, storm, and narwhal it comes across all the while telling you to forge the sea shanty of a glorious voyage.

I gave it a 4. The game itself, with the core rules and phases is relatively simple and straightforward. When you add special rules, special-er rules and exceptions to the special rules, the game becomes messy and complicated. There is a lot to memorize and it takes a lot of experience from both players to play a game smoothly. The fluff is awesome, there's good variety, and it has great potential; but the game itself is crippled by a lack of intent to make it a game worth playing. Army imbalance is just the tip of the iceberg.

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

GAdvance wrote:

Salous wrote:
I'm a new player to 40k, been playing for a good 6 months now. I have yet to run into all these problems you're talking about. I play necrons, and I find that they match up against all the other armies well. I have played against just about every army other than Dark Eldar, and my Necrons do fine. I have about a 50-65% win rate. The key I find to playing 40k is to actually talk/communicate with your opponent. Before I play a game at my local game store I speak with the other guy, show him my list, and ask what changes he would like me to make to create a fun, balanced game.

40k is not balanced, its not a competitive game. I feel sorry for people who try to make it competitive, but its not. Its paper,rock,scissors. Play the game for what it is and you will be fine. Speak to your opponents. Create lists that will fight well against one another and have a fun, balanced game. At that point, player skill, and a bit of luck will win, not list building.

You are a new player with a 50-65% winrate, this isn't meant to sound mean but that is genuinely a problem with the balance of the game

I completely agree with the competitive thing, but honestly some of the ridiculous stuff that's been written into more recent codex's just makes no sense and makes some units unuseable and others simply unfun to play against

How is that a problem? The game is not hard to understand. The rules are not difficult. All it takes is a little reading, research, batreps, and a few games to learn how to play well...

Because in a balanced game, a new player would be getting destroyed for a while since the other players have a leg up by virtue of experience. In most table top games....actually in most video games too....this is how it works. I lost a lot of games in WMH when I started, and I started with cryx, the strongest faction arguably. I played against one of the weaker factions, didn't matter. In 40k if I was elder and he was say....chaos, I'd roll him, maybe with a few losses here and there due to dice.

Fighting games, strategy games, table top games, even dnd all work off of this premise. 40k does not, despite being on the more complex side. Codex and list is most of the strategy involved in this game, and trumps nearly everything else.

I agree that list building can mess up the balance in the game. Thats why I always speak with the people im playing against before hand. We tell each other our lists, and make changes to try and create a balanced game. No one spams units that the other can't kill. No one sneaks in flyers that the other can't counter, so on so forth. If more people do this and stop trying to sneak in lists then I believe people will stop complaining about unbalanced games.

I play against guard, marines, Chaos, orks, and admech mainly. I have beaten them all, I have lost to them all. 90% of the games come down to the final round to see who wins. The only game I played where one side was tabled or unable to win was where no one knew the other's list before the battle started.

It's most likely because I've been playing so long, and most of my meta started in 2nd-4th edition, but what you are describing is called list tailoring, or net decking. Such a term usually carries a very negative connotation in nearly every other game out there.
40k is the only game I've ever played that requires me to sit down for about 30-45 minutes and build a list and a series of house rules with my opponent with every game. I can play a game of warmachine in that time.

This is also assuming that you and your opponent agree on how strong every unit is. Tau, Eldar, and Necron seem to have issues with identifying what units are strong. Grey knights occasionally suffer from this problem as well. If my opponent doesn't think scat bikes are too bad, but wraithguard are broken, and I'm playing Chaos Marines, what do we do? What if he didn't bring the only units I can really handle with my list?

New players in ANY game should get stomped by more experienced gamers. Try playing Street fighter, Smash, Starcraft, or MvC3 against someone who has been playing seriously for a while. These games are balanced, and you will get rolled. The same is true in simpler games like chess as well. Only in 40k, where list selection and faction trump every other decision you may make, does this not occur. A new player who downloads a net list involving eldar will probably crush any force that isn't necron, eldar, admech, or formation space marines. It makes for a very weird play experience.

Same with other games that put profit over customer satisfication. I used to play YGO but stopped that after general power creep meant you had to buy the latest packs to stay competitive. Only play it online now.

I agree that new players should be beaten by experienced players because there is an element of skill. When you can take something off the internet and win consistently, there is a problem. I understand that yes, the community can rate stuff such as the Canoptek Harvest, Gladius, etc as super good and other stuff, such as Flayed Ones (previous Codex example), Dreadnoughts and co as rubbish. That shouldn't be the case, everything should be balanced against other things in the Codexes and against everything else.

I realised I never gave it a score in my post. I think I gave it a 3. The fluff is fun, but the rules are full of pitholes that require house-ruling. I'm only keeping a small portion of my 40k stuff, selling most of it to start playing Infinity (and rent and food and stuff). Reason why I'm keeping a small portion (probably Orks and BA, I'm fed up of Tyranids mono-build and will sell them if the new Codex is the same and DE is impossible in my Ignore Cover heavy meta) is that I have a friend who still enjoys the game so I'm a whipping boy/test for the lists he comes up with.

Partly as what's contributed to my score were the players behind it. From my experience, I've never seen a more toxic community than 40ks.
1) I've had people pick up armies because they wanted to win all the time and spam something to death to ensure they win. If you followed my posts, you'll know that I know someone that picked up Necrons after getting tabled by them.
2) I've seen people convince others of something (case in point, this older Tau player convinced little timmy that his Necrons couldn't take RP against his basic weapons and it was up to me and another guy to point out he could).
3) I've seen people list tailor to win (happened against me when someone asked what I played and then specifically built the list, making sure he had PE against my whole army).
4) I've seen people complain (myself included) that some armies get favoured while other armies are neglected or seen as a 'trial run' for the main Codex (example might be BA and SM). I've seen the BA players in my meta comment on the changes and the SM players tell them 'they should shut up, stop whining and play vanilla marines if they feel that bad about it'. Not everyone wants to play vanilla.
5) I've seen people splash money at the problems in their army to make it better, which creates a pay to play problem all by itself. I know one person who started to collect SW to deal with another persons Necrons.

I could list more, but I don't want to rant. I'm just going to cut my losses and invest in a balanced and affordable system. Which sucks really, because 40k could have been something. Instead, I find it to be overpriced and badly thought out.

 Frozocrone wrote:
Same with other games that put profit over customer satisfication. I used to play YGO but stopped that after general power creep meant you had to buy the latest packs to stay competitive. Only play it online now.

I agree that new players should be beaten by experienced players because there is an element of skill. When you can take something off the internet and win consistently, there is a problem. I understand that yes, the community can rate stuff such as the Canoptek Harvest, Gladius, etc as super good and other stuff, such as Flayed Ones (previous Codex example), Dreadnoughts and co as rubbish. That shouldn't be the case, everything should be balanced against other things in the Codexes and against everything else.

I realised I never gave it a score in my post. I think I gave it a 3. The fluff is fun, but the rules are full of pitholes that require house-ruling. I'm only keeping a small portion of my 40k stuff, selling most of it to start playing Infinity (and rent and food and stuff). Reason why I'm keeping a small portion (probably Orks and BA, I'm fed up of Tyranids mono-build and will sell them if the new Codex is the same and DE is impossible in my Ignore Cover heavy meta) is that I have a friend who still enjoys the game so I'm a whipping boy/test for the lists he comes up with.

Partly as what's contributed to my score were the players behind it. From my experience, I've never seen a more toxic community than 40ks.
1) I've had people pick up armies because they wanted to win all the time and spam something to death to ensure they win. If you followed my posts, you'll know that I know someone that picked up Necrons after getting tabled by them.
2) I've seen people convince others of something (case in point, this older Tau player convinced little timmy that his Necrons couldn't take RP against his basic weapons and it was up to me and another guy to point out he could).
3) I've seen people list tailor to win (happened against me when someone asked what I played and then specifically built the list, making sure he had PE against my whole army).
4) I've seen people complain (myself included) that some armies get favoured while other armies are neglected or seen as a 'trial run' for the main Codex (example might be BA and SM). I've seen the BA players in my meta comment on the changes and the SM players tell them 'they should shut up, stop whining and play vanilla marines if they feel that bad about it'. Not everyone wants to play vanilla.
5) I've seen people splash money at the problems in their army to make it better, which creates a pay to play problem all by itself. I know one person who started to collect SW to deal with another persons Necrons.

I could list more, but I don't want to rant. I'm just going to cut my losses and invest in a balanced and affordable system. Which sucks really, because 40k could have been something. Instead, I find it to be overpriced and badly thought out.

I actually agree a lot with you. The community of 40k really does suck. Now granted, I play with some close friends up at a local store once a week (or did), so I didn't have to worry too much. But the tournament scene is terrible, and even the local League scene is god awful.

I just finished playing in my second x-wing tournament, and let me tell you, the people there are actually nice. There were even a few kids there having a great time. Ironically enough, one of the jerks that plays 40k was in that x-wing tournament, but wasn't being a jerk in this game. It's like he switched it off. So it may just have to deal with 40k in general. Maybe it, in itself, makes the community toxic.

I will be straight - I strongly believe that 40K is utter rubbish. It still has its (mostly) fantastic models and ,despite GW's efforts, it is quite thematic. But is it enough? For me it wasn't - the 7th edition destroyed 40K for me and since then I have tried Malifaux, both Hordes and Warmachine, Infinity and Dropzone Commander. It was quite eye opening experience. It is just that I didn't have to face the problems I experienced while playing 40K in every one of those games- Finally I could play the factions (I played the 6th editions Dark Angels and Tyranids) I liked the most, had the stability that the game won't change before I painted my army and I could trust the designers to do their job.

Some people said that you should try different 40K formats, but I personally don't believe in that. It feels awfully like deluding yourself. If I wanted to play a skirmish, why not play an actual skirmish game? If the thirst for 40K starts to feel unbearable ,FFG have few quite good RPGs in the setting.

If you feel discontent with 40K, try different games, just like you did with X-Wing. The chances are quite good that you will find something that you are happy with.

 TychoTerziev wrote:

If you feel discontent with 40K, try different games, just like you did with X-Wing. The chances are quite good that you will find something that you are happy with.

Couldn't agree more. However, as I mentioned in the OP, I absolutely love my Necrons and the collection I've accumulated. Sadly, Necrons only exist within a GW game, and nowhere else....

I thought of trying Warmachine, but I just don't really like the models, or the factions. Plus, the game doesn't look very fun, from what I've seen. I think X-wing is going to be my next crutch, as there are very few games out there that really catch my attention.

Warmahordes is an odd beast. I wouldn't call it "fun" and I find it to be quite dry. I play it because I like the mental challenge it provides and the infinitesimal room for error, which can be fun in it's own way. It's models are not very good from a technical standpoint, but they are veeeery slowly working on that. Frankly, I wouldn't recommend it to everyone.

As for the Necrons, I feel you. I loved my dark Angels....they had to go. I loved my Tyranids....they had to go. I wanted to start Daemons ....then the Eldar codex arrived. Then Age of Sigmar appears....which I feel is a harbinger of doom for my desire to have a good and playable 40K That's why my hate for GW is still present after more than a year. They lured me with a very compelling product, I god hooked up on their universe . I spent tons of money and in the end the said product turned out to be rotten. One of my friends got hit harder than me- he LOVES his CSM. But even he resigned to the idea that GW isn't capable of making a good game. At least now he plays factions that have an actual chance of winning in both Malifaux and WMH.

 TychoTerziev wrote:
Warmahordes is an odd beast. I wouldn't call it "fun" and I find it to be quite dry. I play it because I like the mental challenge it provides and the infinitesimal room for error, which can be fun in it's own way. It's models are not very good from a technical standpoint, but they are veeeery slowly working on that. Frankly, I wouldn't recommend it to everyone.

As for the Necrons, I feel you. I loved my dark Angels....they had to go. I loved my Tyranids....they had to go. I wanted to start Daemons ....then the Eldar codex arrived. Then Age of Sigmar appears....which I feel is a harbinger of doom for my desire to have a good and playable 40K That's why my hate for GW is still present after more than a year. They lured me with a very compelling product, I god hooked up on their universe . I spent tons of money and in the end the said product turned out to be rotten. One of my friends got hit harder than me- he LOVES his CSM. But he resigned to the idea that GW isn't capable of making a good game. At least now he plays faction that have an actual chance of winning in both Malifaux and WMH.

Yeah. The sad thing is, Necrons are widely considered to be part of the Unholy Trinity, one of the OP armies. But even then, the game isn't fun. But yeah, I can understand where you're coming from. I also play Nids, and have shelved them until further notice. If that was the only army I played? Pssshh, I'd be sure to quit the game entirely.

Warmachine is certainly not for everyone. You see it thrown out there quite a bit because it is similar to 40k, especially older editions, in many ways, but it is a more balanced, nuanced game. Movement and order of activation is incredibly important in that game, while in 40k this usually isn't a big deal, or is incredibly simplistic.
All of the pieces can do a large variety of actions, with infantry having the least amount and jacks/beasts being able to do an ungodly amount of things. The game is about creating combos with special rules/abilities to achieve a game plan. It's not a "beer and pretzels" game. I find that, in general, people who are upset that 40k can't be played competitively but DON'T play one of the consistently OP factions tend to enjoy WMH.
But you can create lists that you never could in 40k and see them work. Denny's pirate boat, Sorcha's 18, Menoth Synergy Robot Spam, All Gryffon army, Legion spawning vessel, Meat Mountain, MOAR BANEZ, and many more. The list variety is what really drew me into the game.
Personally I like the setting more than warhammer fantasy but not as much as 40k, which is still my favorite setting ever created.

Playstyle and faction selection is a big problem in that game. While most factions can do a large range of playstyles depending on the caster chosen, certain factions lend themselves to certain play styles more. Sometimes this is falsely advertised by PP, or just horrendously out of date (Khador being the armor faction, Stormwall changing how Cygnar plays, the new bugs making skorne a mixed arms faction, etc etc). The learning curve, coming from 40k, can be harsh for new players. 40k teaches you a lot of bad habits that are hard to get over at times. I have a similar problem playing other fighting games after taking Smash so seriously, since smash is a more casual game in many ways. Its a similar experience, IMO.

X-wing and infinity are easier to learn. Infinity is a little more hero hammery though.

Why is it that competitive play always comes up? The game is not a competitive game, and unless tournaments change the list building rules, it never will be. It's a game that SHOULD be played with some buddies, or a few local guys at a flgs. when you play competitive, you abuse the best things in your army, and typically, that leads to whining about the best things in other armies. When you stop paying to go play against scatbike spam with your skyhammer + gladius, while the decurion player fights DE + Eldar Wraithknight army, the game gets leagues better. Secondly, take of the nostalgia goggles, 5th had just as many flaws as 6th and 7th. I'm not saying 7th is flawless, but it's not half as broken as the "doom and gloomers" make it out to be.

Ready for the rage at saying it isn't competitive and that "whining about the whiners is not okay"

There was nothing in 5th as stupid as the Eldar WK.

So far all I see is complaints about community instead of genuine complaints about the game (which is not balanced).

If you are forced to bring your OP Crons to deal with OP Eldar, and its not tournament play... maybe its the culture of your weekly games that needs to shift to a narrative style or add some ground rules (2 flyer max, 1 wraithknight, etc... whatever is getting crazy)... most likely if youre frustrated so are other members of your group... so put on the big boy pants and make changes.

 Lobukia wrote:
So far all I see is complaints about community instead of genuine complaints about the game (which is not balanced).

If you are forced to bring your OP Crons to deal with OP Eldar, and its not tournament play... maybe its the culture of your weekly games that needs to shift to a narrative style or add some ground rules (2 flyer max, 1 wraithknight, etc... whatever is getting crazy)... most likely if youre frustrated so are other members of your group... so put on the big boy pants and make changes.

I thought I stated balance issues?

I could play as casual a list as possible with my Necrons, and my Girlfriend gets stomped when she plays me, as CSM are that bad. I could also play as casual as possible against as casual as possible an Eldar list, and get stomped. But if I bring any of the fun toys (Wraiths, Destroyers, which I love, btw) then you, in reverse, stomp who oppose you. The balance issues are still glaring even in casual games.

But if you want more game specific complaints, I'll address my feelings here.

1. Vehicles vs. MCs. This is a hot dabate, and we all know vehicles suck. Why? Because reasons.
2. Grav is slowed.
3. Super Heavies and Gargantuans in regular games was going to far, especially when they're an auto-include for their points cost.
4. Stomps and Strength D in regular games is uncalled for.
5. Some armies can't effectively deal with other armies. This game is rock/paper/scissors, but some armies are all paper with no scissors or rocks to deal with other things, and some armies are immune to everything but rock, which only a handful of armies have, while at the same time possessing the rock/paper/scissors to all other armies.
6. Some codexes were obviously negelected. (Orks, Dark Eldar, ext)
7. The game is bloated. Codexes, mini-codexes, micro-codexes, dataslates, supplements, allies, ext.
8. Do I need to mention ally abuse?
9. A dice based game where some times dice don't even need to be rolled (ala BS5 rerollable, 2++ rerollable, Grav with rerolls)
10. This is a turn based game where someone could effective give you no first turn (Null deployment alpha strike)
11. This game is based off of what models need to sell, so that's what models are made good. That is a poor business decision on GW's part.
12. The larger the game, the more imbalanced it becomes. Most games have an activation phase for a reason. In 40k, you could lose half your army by going second, all because of a roll off.

Need I say more?