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.

It's garbage just like 6th was garbage, then the unbalanced codexes made it worse.

hobojebus wrote:
It's garbage just like 6th was garbage, then the unbalanced codexes made it worse.

This
You have the top end codex's (Eldar, tau, Marines and Necrons) and then you have the rest. If you take Chaos or Guard then may the dice gods help you because you will suffer.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I don't understand how pulling from the front made the game clunkier. In fact, it makes it faster, as you don't have to figure out which model is more advantageous to take off.

You have clearly never spent several minutes trying to decide who is one millimetre closer, the bod you thought was or the bod your opponent is pointing too. Doubly so if the bod they want dead is a specialist gunner.

Not to mention having to take your time in the movement phase to position your people in the right order.

Figuring out which model to remove was super easy in 5th. First goes anything that doesn't have a special weapon or isn't a squad leader. Then the special weapons and squad leaders. 99% of the time that will be a quicker decision to make than it will be to pick which model is closer.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I don't understand how pulling from the front made the game clunkier. In fact, it makes it faster, as you don't have to figure out which model is more advantageous to take off.

As noted by others...figuring out who's closest isn't always easy. Furthermore, you get this weird gimmickyness about moving special models (e.g. heavy weapons models) within units to keep them from being in front, in a way that's just not appropriate to the scale of the game, especially one built on unit vs unit interaction (as opposed to individual models vs individual models).

The level of imbalance in the game between factions is annoying, and the armies (at the unit level) don't feel like they perform according to the fluff.

Also, the game feels more like Epic than a skirmish, where mobs of infantry are point sinks for the "real" stars of the show - tanks, planes, monstrous creatures, titan/knight-class entities and superhero characters.

If you want a combined arms war-sized game, 40K is leaning towards that now. If you want a game with a handful of figures battling it out with a vehicle or two as support, look elsewhere as 40K had moved Way beyond that. Folks would have to really reign themselves in from current codex options to play that sort of game nowadays.

As noted by others...figuring out who's closest isn't always easy. Furthermore, you get this weird gimmickyness about moving special models (e.g. heavy weapons models) within units to keep them from being in front, in a way that's just not appropriate to the scale of the game, especially one built on unit vs unit interaction (as opposed to individual models vs individual models).

It also feels counter to the "rule of cool" which applies to a lot of 40k armies - it feels like my Ancient Lord Commander Militant of the Holy What-Have-You should be leading from the front, but in practice doing that is an instant death sentence.

locarno24 wrote:

As noted by others...figuring out who's closest isn't always easy. Furthermore, you get this weird gimmickyness about moving special models (e.g. heavy weapons models) within units to keep them from being in front, in a way that's just not appropriate to the scale of the game, especially one built on unit vs unit interaction (as opposed to individual models vs individual models).

It also feels counter to the "rule of cool" which applies to a lot of 40k armies - it feels like my Ancient Lord Commander Militant of the Holy What-Have-You should be leading from the front, but in practice doing that is an instant death sentence.

Aye, you want your heroes leading from the front dammit!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
If you want a combined arms war-sized game, 40K is leaning towards that now.

The problem is that while this is what the game encourages it isn't what the rules are made for, as with the remove from the front issue there are too many model vs model interactions for a mass battle game that should only care about unit vs unit.

I'm in very much the same boat, coming back to the game after leaving right around 6th ed launched. From what I've seen though, a "weak" codex doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to. With the new Detachment and Formation rules, it's very easy to combine armies and do some things even with a single army outside of the traditional FoC. That's both a good and bad thing though, as the older codexes just can't compete by themselves.

It's also disappointing to see that model sales are driving the rules more than fun or competitive play. GW really has nowhere left to go with the arms race now that flyers, fortifications, and superheavies are showing up in "modestly sized" 1200-1500 point games (although I'm sure they'll find a way somehow). The game was too expensive before, and now you're expected to bring ever-more-enormous tank and castle models to squeeze out every possible advantage.

I've always been more of a modeler than a player though, so I'm not too upset if I don't have the meta-perfect netlist army every time.