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.

 sfshilo wrote:
The game is fun at 1500 points or less, anything more I am finding to be way too much work.

AoS and 30k are actually more fun to play in my opinion....40k is just a hassle anymore, the rule creep is an issue just like it was at the end of 5th.

Some pros:
The armies are much more balanced then they ever were in 5th ed. You can pick from 3-4 really good armies, and like 6-7 decent armies and not go wrong. There are still "bad" armies, but that is not different then any other edition really.

To me it's the time/rule creep, when you cannot even finish 3 turns in a 2000 point game, something is very wrong with the game system.

eehhhhhhhh IDK, CSM are pretty crappy right now haha.

AoS and 30k are actually more fun to play in my opinion....40k is just a hassle anymore, the rule creep is an issue just like it was at the end of 5th.

Indeed, we play an AoS league atm. I played two games so for with my Bloodbound vs. Sylvaneths and Sigmarines and was surprised about playability.
30k is much more playable than 40k. Marines vs. Marines is a much smoother game.

As someone who spent the time I wasn't playing 6th or 7th playing WM/H, the idea of a rule set in shambles kinda unsettles me but approaching it as a more casual game would be a nice change. I still see 40k news from time to time, how substantiated were those rumors of 8th edition coming soon?

LordTyphus wrote:
As someone who spent the time I wasn't playing 6th or 7th playing WM/H, the idea of a rule set in shambles kinda unsettles me but approaching it as a more casual game would be a nice change. I still see 40k news from time to time, how substantiated were those rumors of 8th edition coming soon?

8th ed coming soon?
GW released a bunch of supplementary books (each with several formations in it) during the last two years but almost no codices. Seems to be a new business model. Not sure how long this will last.

8th edition will probably be second quarter of 2017. That's almost a year from now. I do believe the game will get better then, maybe even completely overhauled.

Until then, I recommend other games like X-Wing.

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition will probably be second quarter of 2017. That's almost a year from now. I do believe the game will get better then, maybe even completely overhauled.

Until then, I recommend other games like X-Wing.

Another option is WMH since it has a tight and consistent rule set. MK3 has improved the rule set even further.

If I play a casual game, the game is fun and functions pretty well. If I play competitively, the game becomes a bit of a chore with the number of special rules and cases interacting with one another, as players angle bonus on top of bonus. (though, the game has always been a bit of a chore for competitive play)

Core rules work pretty well, IMO. The amount of special rules and un-disciplined codex authoring stacked on top of the core rules drags down what would otherwise be a pretty solid game.

I haven't been able to play for a few months, but I'm looking forward to getting back into it.

If you aren't stuck in 5th Ed it's pretty k. I like formations and think most armies are okay if your meta isn't all wraith knights messing with super friends.

Most people either complain about 1 price which isn't as bad as people make it out to be compared to other hobbies 2 army balence which isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be, and 3 the fact that it's not 5th Ed. Look, formation aren't that bad once everyone gets them and are super heavies and MCs really any better than indestructible leman Russ parking lots?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 axisofentropy wrote:
8th edition will probably be second quarter of 2017. That's almost a year from now. I do believe the game will get better then, maybe even completely overhauled.

Until then, I recommend other games like X-Wing.

Another option is WMH since it has a tight and consistent rule set. MK3 has improved the rule set even further.

I will second WMH 3rd edition. The erratas released so far have been excellent, and the fact they are planning on rolling them out every 6 months or so helps quite a bit. The game is much more balanced across factions than 40k. Interfaction balance for casters needs work, but for troops is solid mostly. Most choices have a home with at least one caster.

Caster balance is faction dependent. Cygnar, for example, has 5 choices you should always make, but their others are good (outside Sturgis). Khador has excellent balance with Irusk 2 leading the pack, but not being mandatory. Circle is the biggest offender, followed quickly by trolls, but both of these and Sloan are likely to get nerfs.

40k is not a good game currently.

 Jaxler wrote:
If you aren't stuck in 5th Ed it's pretty k. I like formations and think most armies are okay if your meta isn't all wraith knights messing with super friends.

Most people either complain about 1 price which isn't as bad as people make it out to be compared to other hobbies 2 army balence which isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be, and 3 the fact that it's not 5th Ed. Look, formation aren't that bad once everyone gets them and are super heavies and MCs really any better than indestructible leman Russ parking lots?

Russ parking lots were never indestructible nor were they what dominated 5E (medium AV spam was what worked great in 5E)

Formations really are that bad, and we have no idea or guarntee that everyone will eventually get them or that theyll be as capable. Less than two years ago it was "dont worry about Tau and Eldar, theyll get toned down like IG and GK's when they get their new books" and then...

Price is bad in that it has increased out of all proportion to inflation, and the number of models needed has grown.

I like the idea of Formations, but there's some definite abuse of the options they give.

Had Formations remained just bonuses to basic stats, or re-rolls, certain things like that are ok because they are easy to remember.

But there's a bunch of stuff that's more obnoxious to keep straight. The rightly disliked Skyhammer Annihilation, Relentless, Assault from DS, Suppression. Or the Stormlance getting out of Rhinos, firing, getting back in thing. Blech. I'd rather Formation bonuses be more straightforward.

 Jaxler wrote:


1 price which isn't as bad as people make it out to be compared to other hobbies

Other hobbies don't matter. What matters is the other products within the hobby. Of course 40k is cheaper than luxury yachting or racing supercars, which doesn't mean GW's products aren't unreasonably priced. When you compare to other products that are actually logical to compare with, namely other wargames and similar games, like RPGs or CCGs, then you get a better idea for how expensive GW's books and models are. Hence the complaints. Quality also plays a part in perceived value, particularly with the rules, which are generally seen as one of the weaker rulesets available while also being the most expensive.

2 army balence which isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be, and

Army balance is as bad as people make it out to be, because its that bad.

3 the fact that it's not 5th Ed. Look, formation aren't that bad once everyone gets them and are super heavies and MCs really any better than indestructible leman Russ parking lots?

Formations are a problem and there is zero guarantee that formations will fix everything when everyone gets them. Case in point, people said that about 6th ed IG, but the Montka/Kauyon books proved that notion to be wrong when the formations were largely laughable.

It's less a 'once everyone gets them' problem for formations and more that some armies get staggeringly powerful ones and other armies get useless ones.

So it's like Codexes, really. Same old thing.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:


1 price which isn't as bad as people make it out to be compared to other hobbies

Other hobbies don't matter. What matters is the other products within the hobby. Of course 40k is cheaper than luxury yachting or racing supercars, which doesn't mean GW's products aren't unreasonably priced. When you compare to other products that are actually logical to compare with, namely other wargames and similar games, like RPGs or CCGs, then you get a better idea for how expensive GW's books and models are. Hence the complaints. Quality also plays a part in perceived value, particularly with the rules, which are generally seen as one of the weaker rulesets available while also being the most expensive.

2 army balence which isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be, and

Army balance is as bad as people make it out to be, because its that bad.

3 the fact that it's not 5th Ed. Look, formation aren't that bad once everyone gets them and are super heavies and MCs really any better than indestructible leman Russ parking lots?

Formations are a problem and there is zero guarantee that formations will fix everything when everyone gets them. Case in point, people said that about 6th ed IG, but the Montka/Kauyon books proved that notion to be wrong when the formations were largely laughable.

Do you've any evidence for the bulk of your claims. Given the price of making plastic molds they're not horribly priced and their formations aren't too bad in the IG if you don't run the blob. Army balence isn't too bad if you ignore outliers like DE and CSM

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's less a 'once everyone gets them' problem for formations and more that some armies get staggeringly powerful ones and other armies get useless ones.

So it's like Codexes, really. Same old thing.

Exactly, which ties back into Jaxler's second point about bad balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jaxler wrote:

Do you've any evidence?

Do you?

But hey, just to entertain you, the first is supported by a simple google search or having played any game that isn't made by GW. The second is supported by anyone with even a smidgen of understanding of game design and balance and by looking at battle reports and the vast gulf between a tournament list and regular club list. The third is supported by some codices getting formations and still being gak.

Pretty straight forward.

Your turn for evidence supporting your claims.

 Blacksails wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's less a 'once everyone gets them' problem for formations and more that some armies get staggeringly powerful ones and other armies get useless ones.

So it's like Codexes, really. Same old thing.

Exactly, which ties back into Jaxler's second point about bad balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jaxler wrote:

Do you've any evidence?

Do you?

I mean you were kinda assaulting my opinion by saying "your wrong." I feel like in that case your father obligated to give some evidence else this devolve into both us yelling your wrong.

 Jaxler wrote:

I mean you were kinda assaulting my opinion by saying "your wrong." I feel like in that case your father obligated to give some evidence else this devolve into both us yelling your wrong.

If you're insulted by someone raising a counter argument or opinion, then there's nothing I can do for you.

You made a claim with no evidence. I refuted it. Simple stuff.

*Edit* I edited my earlier response with evidence.

Your turn.

*Further edit* And let's drop the hyperbole about assaulting your opinion. Having a discussion and telling you you're wrong isn't an assault. I'm allowed to disagree and have every right to flatly tell you "I think you're wrong, and here's why". It is not assaulting your opinion.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:


1 price which isn't as bad as people make it out to be compared to other hobbies

Other hobbies don't matter. What matters is the other products within the hobby. Of course 40k is cheaper than luxury yachting or racing supercars, which doesn't mean GW's products aren't unreasonably priced. When you compare to other products that are actually logical to compare with, namely other wargames and similar games, like RPGs or CCGs, then you get a better idea for how expensive GW's books and models are. Hence the complaints. Quality also plays a part in perceived value, particularly with the rules, which are generally seen as one of the weaker rulesets available while also being the most expensive.

2 army balence which isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be, and

Army balance is as bad as people make it out to be, because its that bad.

3 the fact that it's not 5th Ed. Look, formation aren't that bad once everyone gets them and are super heavies and MCs really any better than indestructible leman Russ parking lots?

Formations are a problem and there is zero guarantee that formations will fix everythinge when everyone gets them. Case in point, people said that about 6th ed IG, but the Montka/Kauyon books proved that notion to be wrong when the formations were largely laughable.

Do you've any evidence?

Look at the recent ITC touranment results and you'll see the same armies placing in the top 5 consistently. $100 can barely buy you the core 2 troops and an HQ required to play. In other games you can get a full army for as much if not slightly more. This is not factoring in rulebooks and codices.

If you want I could build you a functional 1500 points Space Marine force and compare it to a 1000 point Bolt Action army. Both points costs are considered standard for their respective games.

None of the new formations place regularly in tournaments with IG. So yes, they did not address the faction's shortcomings.

Need more evidence?

 Jaxler wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:


1 price which isn't as bad as people make it out to be compared to other hobbies

Other hobbies don't matter. What matters is the other products within the hobby. Of course 40k is cheaper than luxury yachting or racing supercars, which doesn't mean GW's products aren't unreasonably priced. When you compare to other products that are actually logical to compare with, namely other wargames and similar games, like RPGs or CCGs, then you get a better idea for how expensive GW's books and models are. Hence the complaints. Quality also plays a part in perceived value, particularly with the rules, which are generally seen as one of the weaker rulesets available while also being the most expensive.

2 army balence which isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be, and

Army balance is as bad as people make it out to be, because its that bad.

3 the fact that it's not 5th Ed. Look, formation aren't that bad once everyone gets them and are super heavies and MCs really any better than indestructible leman Russ parking lots?

Formations are a problem and there is zero guarantee that formations will fix everything when everyone gets them. Case in point, people said that about 6th ed IG, but the Montka/Kauyon books proved that notion to be wrong when the formations were largely laughable.

Do you've any evidence for the bulk of your claims. Given the price of making plastic molds they're not horribly priced and their formations aren't too bad in the IG if you don't run the blob. Army balence isn't too bad if you ignore outliers like DE and CSM

How many "outliers" are we talking about here? IG, BA, and several other armies can be considered in roughly the same league as CSM's. IG for example certainly meaningfully arent doing much better against Eldar or Necrons than CSM's.

Yes, Plastic molds are expensive to make. They're also cheap to run for volume. GW are the ones insisting on doing everything in plastic, and many old kits have seen tremendous price increases. Look at the current basic Cadians. 10 dudes for $30. They exact same sprues used to be sold for $35 back in 2009...but were packaged to give you 20 dudes. If the priced was raised along with inflation, this would give use $39.26, not $60 for the same dudes. Likewise, thenold metal Kasrkin were $50 for 10 dudes, the plastic Scions that replaced them are $70 for ten.

nurgle5 wrote:

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
When I want to play a good game of 40K, I play 4th, 5th or 2nd Edition. When I want to play at the local club, I go expecting a hideous annihilation as my poor old armies get slaughtered by ridiculous insanity.

Hey what's wrong with 3rd ed.?! Played a few 3rd ed. games with friends at the local GW on Saturday and some of the staff had never even seen 3rd ed. books.

I just don't have all the 3rd edition books! I have the rules, and a few of the Codexes, but I just ... prefer ... 4th. Mainly because of Guard Doctrines and Marine Traits. I wish they'd done more with those ideas.

As far as cost goes, 10 Cadian Shock troopers for £18.

OR...

38 Afrika Korps infantry for £20 from Warlord Games or Perry Miniatures.

So almost four times more figures, with more options in terms of kit and weapons, for £2 more in cost?

Even if you take into account the much larger overheads of GW compared to Warlord or Perry, I don't think that it would be crippling for them to give us 20 or even 30 figures in a box for £20 or so.

Try some 30k.

 Blacksails wrote:

Other hobbies don't matter. What matters is the other products within the hobby. Of course 40k is cheaper than luxury yachting or racing supercars, which doesn't mean GW's products aren't unreasonably priced. When you compare to other products that are actually logical to compare with, namely other wargames and similar games, like RPGs or CCGs, then you get a better idea for how expensive GW's books and models are. Hence the complaints. Quality also plays a part in perceived value, particularly with the rules, which are generally seen as one of the weaker rulesets available while also being the most expensive.

How are we having to explain this again?!

I think it's time to have this post on a notepad on the desktop to be cut and pasted every time someone tries to make the same wobbly logic argument.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I like the idea of Formations, but there's some definite abuse of the options they give.

Had Formations remained just bonuses to basic stats, or re-rolls, certain things like that are ok because they are easy to remember.

But there's a bunch of stuff that's more obnoxious to keep straight. The rightly disliked Skyhammer Annihilation, Relentless, Assault from DS, Suppression. Or the Stormlance getting out of Rhinos, firing, getting back in thing. Blech. I'd rather Formation bonuses be more straightforward.

Indeed, formations are all over the place and some are very strong like Decurion and what not. If formations gave some bonuses, this would be fine. But it isnt.
Formations have become a money-making factor selling them in supplementary books. I guess this raises more money than the release of some new codices.

 Selym wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
fine as long as you're not trying to play it with someone who's a total melt.

Sadly, 40k seems to just attract (or possibly make) asshats. Personally, I have seen rather few players who weren't on the side of waac. And even fewer players who didn't just use marines all the time.

Me too. People stopped giving a feth about fun games and just bring 2 Riptides, 3 Knights and a bunch of OP formations, every time it's possible. The game stopped being fun long time ago.

Our local club has 4 marine players (1 moved from orks), 2.5 csm (one has only played a handful of times, also >50% of their lists are daemons now...), eldar, harlequin/eldar, ig, admech (moved from ig), 1.5 tau (one new and hasn't completely decided if he wants to be tau or not), and an ork. People try to be relatively competitive but don't seem to abuse top stuff too much. Games are pretty good so far. Haven't been to local tourneys in a while though. Will try to attend this weekend. So, i'll probably see some abominable ravenwing superfriends and so on. Will try to endure them with my orkses.

They need to fix the whole mess, including the crappy codices(We all know, wich ones...).
Rewrite the books by someone, who cares about them, not "the Cruddacce".
To tone down the Apocalypse-madness.
Stopping to just glue more stupid rules on this mess(containers, campaign-books, Dataslates,...).
And for the Omnissias sake, rewrite that crazy Eldar- and Tau-book. They are not fun, they are crazy on a level like the Joker in The dark Knight.

They just could use the stuff from previous editions that actually worked.

 Jaxler wrote:

Do you've any evidence for the bulk of your claims. Given the price of making plastic molds they're not horribly priced and their formations aren't too bad in the IG if you don't run the blob. Army balence isn't too bad if you ignore outliers like DE and CSM

Funny how other companies can make plastic models for cheaper despite selling less. Ie THEY should be the ones costing more. Not GW. The more you sell the cheaper you can sell them. GW would be in prime position to really outprice mantic etc. Want high quality models for cheap? We sell them! That's what GW could do. Instead they leave that for competitors and add in GW tax for their models.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

Do you've any evidence for the bulk of your claims. Given the price of making plastic molds they're not horribly priced and their formations aren't too bad in the IG if you don't run the blob. Army balence isn't too bad if you ignore outliers like DE and CSM

Funny how other companies can make plastic models for cheaper despite selling less. Ie THEY should be the ones costing more. Not GW. The more you sell the cheaper you can sell them. GW would be in prime position to really outprice mantic etc. Want high quality models for cheap? We sell them! That's what GW could do. Instead they leave that for competitors and add in GW tax for their models.

Mantic et al don't have a massive massive retail chain to subsidise.

Also re: formation and special rules. Despite the umpteen different variations and endless combos you can do they all boil down to the same handful of tried and (not) tested GW tricks. Re-roll ones, re-roll misses, add 1 to your reserves, blah blah blah.

In fact, when it comes down to it 40k doesn't really offer you any real option as a player. "Who do I shoot at/charge next?" is the only decision you have to make.

In short OP (if you're still reading), give the game a skip. It's a time and money sink whose charm wears thin very quickly.

I only really skimmed the thread.

Did anyone point out that the 7e core rules are over 150 pages long?

I'm currently editing down the rules. I can't remember what the original number of involved words are, but I was able to delete 6,000 words from just the psychic phase. It's horrendous.