Switch Theme:

Peak 40K?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

but the difference is
the game being not fun because of some people you played against
or the game being only good with the right people


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah, I don't think anyone can have a good experience if they are playing with people they don't mesh with.

I feel my negative experience of 5th is influenced by the fact that it was when my then-group moved hard into people who wanted to *win* rather than just play. This was admittedly hardly unheard of before - but they were rarer.

For about a decade most of us had just thrown our utterly unoptimised, quasi-highlander style lists into each other. Because that seemed a logical way to collect and build armies - see for example almost any battle in White Dwarf. But we were starting to get older, some people had disposable income, and if you wanted to go buy 3 of the new hotness, or indeed a whole new army, you just up and did so.

To this day I'd be fine with Space Wolves and Grey Knights being hurled into the sun. Necrons were in a similar boat but I've just about got over it. Maybe. I can't stay mad at Xenos factions.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 kodos wrote:
"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules


It's not a 9th edition thing. IMHO 40k or any other GW games should require a friendly mindset, none of those games regardless of the edition really works for pick up games against strangers. Always been like that. Otherwise the only alternative is to chase the flavour of the month, which isn't something that I would consider the normal (or more common) attitude for the average hobbyst. GW games are not balanced, never have been and never will be, and because of that they can only work is people make them work, by avoiding skew OP lists for example.

I compared 9th edition to previous editions of 40k, not to "games" in general. 40k, or any other GW game, is not just a game: it's part of an hobby that also includes gaming.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/17 09:11:37



 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 kodos wrote:
...the game being only good with the right people

Applies just as much to Dungeons & Dragons 5, or any Pen&Paper game really. A game that imho got a much better quality in (class) balance and rules. That is why I don't see the point against 40k.
Of course it would be better, if you could have fun with 40k regardless of how your opponent's or your group's mindest is, but I don't see that happening for any activity where you have to interact with other people in that way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 09:16:16


Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

the point is that GW games are named as the ones were you don't need a group and you will always find someone to play

 Blackie wrote:

It's not a 9th edition thing. IMHO 40k or any other GW games should require a friendly mindset, none of those games regardless of the edition really works for pick up games against strangers. Always been like that. Otherwise the only alternative is to chase the flavour of the month, which isn't something that I would consider the normal (or more common) attitude for the average hobbyst. GW games are not balanced, never have been and never will be, and because of that they can only work is people make them work, by avoiding skew OP lists for example.


which is odd as it is always said that the main advantage of GW games over any other games out there are the pick up games and there is no need for a fixed group

as soon as you need a group and pick up games don't work well, no need to play a GW game over any other unless you really like the rules

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/17 09:16:03


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Blackie wrote:
If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience. It's all about the players' mindset.
Sorry, but your post comes across as "The game is totally fine as long as you play it in this one specific way!".

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in bh
Longtime Dakkanaut





More like:

"The game works well as long as you don't try to actively break it, and even if you try it breaks much less than previous editions."

A fully optimized list from a competitive faction is still in a very good position against a fluffy list from a non competitive faction. But at the least they now play the same game. In previous editions optimized vs non optimized wasn't even a game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 09:52:40


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Spoletta wrote:
More like:

"The game works well as long as you don't try to actively break it, and even if you try it breaks much less than previous editions."

A fully optimized list from a competitive faction is still in a very good position against a fluffy list from a non competitive faction. But at the least they now play the same game. In previous editions optimized vs non optimized wasn't even a game.


This and also the fact that an optimized all rounded list should be fine for years and multiple editions, if not forever. Only skew lists suddently stop working and become unplayable when rules are updated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:


which is odd as it is always said that the main advantage of GW games over any other games out there are the pick up games and there is no need for a fixed group

as soon as you need a group and pick up games don't work well, no need to play a GW game over any other unless you really like the rules


The main advantage of GW games is they are popular, so finding players is easy. It doesn't mean that is specifically designed for blind pick up games. Gaming groups can definitely be open but everyone should belong to the same "league". Mixing casual players, hobbysts with limited collections, beginners, and cut-throat tournament players all together in pick up games leads to unsatisfactory experiences, for everyone involved. Maybe not everytime, but there are extremely high odds that it does happen.

My "don't work well" means exactly that, if you aim at something to prove your skills against other people outside dedicated events you're looking at the wrong place. And that is true for any GW game and any edition.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/17 10:52:35



 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Spoletta wrote:
More like:

"The game works well as long as you don't try to actively break it, and even if you try it breaks much less than previous editions."

A fully optimized list from a competitive faction is still in a very good position against a fluffy list from a non competitive faction. But at the least they now play the same game. In previous editions optimized vs non optimized wasn't even a game.

For me, this makes most sense. I mean sure, clever people might like to flex exploiting loopholes, and wealthy people who are clever (enough to copy a winning deck… err list) might like to flex exploiting loopholes with lots of commission painted new hotness models with rules written by gw marketing gurus, but there should be a way for a game and community to resist this sort of thing, or discourage it, unless of course this is the point of the exercise.

So, I wonder why not a rules compendium that offers layers of plug and play rules that gw already owns? Don’t like initiative? Don’t use it, but it is there on the unit profile If you do. Don’t like physical blast templates, preferring rando dice rolls for mortars instead? Don’t use templates, use dice, but the rules are there for you to choose. Don’t like tlos? Vehicle facings? Turn templates? Don’t use them but the rules are there for people who do. Does this mean a two hundred page bible for 40k? Maybe, but you buy one. The codices describe units in detail, with all the info necessary to fit to all of the possible rules permutations. Want a simpler game experience? Use fewer rules, e.g. shuriken weapons are eldar bolt guns, or bolt guns that ignore armor on hits of six or higher, or… more.

In d and d, we can track encumbrance, or not. We can track it intuitively e.g. even a dwarf with a seventeen strength will have a difficult time carrying three battles axes and a crowsbow with a loaded pack in plate armor up a ladder. Roll to see if a rung snaps. Or we can track by the gold piece weight equivalent … the rules are there, to be ignored if this is the experience that we are after.

For me, this seems the best way forward. TOs can agree on which sets of rules to use, as can clubs and even pick up gamers… newbs start off easy and progress as they wish. Small games afford finer grained interactions. Large games use simpler rules unless we want the table to stay that way for a couple of weeks…like minded people agree to use rules that suit like minds.

Is this a possibility? Asking for a friend…

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 21:05:41


   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules


It's not a 9th edition thing. IMHO 40k or any other GW games should require a friendly mindset, none of those games regardless of the edition really works for pick up games against strangers. Always been like that. Otherwise the only alternative is to chase the flavour of the month, which isn't something that I would consider the normal (or more common) attitude for the average hobbyst. GW games are not balanced, never have been and never will be, and because of that they can only work is people make them work, by avoiding skew OP lists for example.

I compared 9th edition to previous editions of 40k, not to "games" in general. 40k, or any other GW game, is not just a game: it's part of an hobby that also includes gaming.


This. And it's always been that way with every wargame I know.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kodos wrote:
but the difference is
the game being not fun because of some people you played against
or the game being only good with the right people



True in general. Any game sucks with antisocial people.
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules


It's not a 9th edition thing. IMHO 40k or any other GW games should require a friendly mindset, none of those games regardless of the edition really works for pick up games against strangers. Always been like that. Otherwise the only alternative is to chase the flavour of the month, which isn't something that I would consider the normal (or more common) attitude for the average hobbyst. GW games are not balanced, never have been and never will be, and because of that they can only work is people make them work, by avoiding skew OP lists for example.

I compared 9th edition to previous editions of 40k, not to "games" in general. 40k, or any other GW game, is not just a game: it's part of an hobby that also includes gaming.


This. And it's always been that way with every wargame I know.


That is only true if you make a complete yes/no interpretation of the issue... The nuance or shades of grey are what matter here, and in that regards current 40K compares very poorly to most other currently available wargames.
   
Made in gb
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






For me? And honestly speaking?

2nd Ed. It’s what I cut my teeth on, and it’s the most fun I’ve ever had with miniatures.

A good chunk of that was the time it occurred in my life. Still a kid, no need to worry about bills or other responsibilities. I had a gaming table in the garage, and would host games against my friends.

The game was also so much fun! Is it necessarily a good wargame? I mean, possibly not? But is is, and always will be, tonnes of fun.

Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?

Pfizer vaccine administered 13:40pm 18 Feb 21. Still no second head. Second jab 13:35pm 6 May 2021. At the Masonic Hall. 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





Vatsetis wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules


It's not a 9th edition thing. IMHO 40k or any other GW games should require a friendly mindset, none of those games regardless of the edition really works for pick up games against strangers. Always been like that. Otherwise the only alternative is to chase the flavour of the month, which isn't something that I would consider the normal (or more common) attitude for the average hobbyst. GW games are not balanced, never have been and never will be, and because of that they can only work is people make them work, by avoiding skew OP lists for example.

I compared 9th edition to previous editions of 40k, not to "games" in general. 40k, or any other GW game, is not just a game: it's part of an hobby that also includes gaming.


This. And it's always been that way with every wargame I know.


That is only true if you make a complete yes/no interpretation of the issue... The nuance or shades of grey are what matter here, and in that regards current 40K compares very poorly to most other currently available wargames.


Yeah. Even when you play against the most arsey guy on the planet a well designed game will still make you come away with a feeling of "the guy was a knob but it was a good game at least". 40k doesn't do this because it enables the knob to play knobily. Unless he tries REALLY hard to specifically ruin the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/18 16:57:13



 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules


It's not a 9th edition thing. IMHO 40k or any other GW games should require a friendly mindset, none of those games regardless of the edition really works for pick up games against strangers. Always been like that. Otherwise the only alternative is to chase the flavour of the month, which isn't something that I would consider the normal (or more common) attitude for the average hobbyst. GW games are not balanced, never have been and never will be, and because of that they can only work is people make them work, by avoiding skew OP lists for example.

I compared 9th edition to previous editions of 40k, not to "games" in general. 40k, or any other GW game, is not just a game: it's part of an hobby that also includes gaming.


This. And it's always been that way with every wargame I know.


That hasn't been the case for me; some games put more of an effort into smoothing over the differences between different sorts of people. Back pre-8th when all the competitive people had dropped 40k to go play Warmachine I had a lot more fun playing Warmachine with them than I ever did playing 40k with them, because Warmachine put a lot more effort into making sure everything was usable so I could use models I liked and not just get steamrolled (ha). We also had (perhaps ironically) a smoother time with new players playing against experienced players, because when the experienced players are trying to be helpful and suggest things to do they could suggest gameplay decision-making changes, which often go over better than "buy new models." "Buy the good models and ignore the bad models" has always been a thing I've seen among 40k players more than players of other games, and that's also a huge source of friction among the exact same people who could play a different game together quite happily.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






I've played a fair few game systems that weren't 40k although many were GW.
Every single one has the exact same problem, if you aren't playing with people who are like-minded then you will have a bad time.
Necromunda (the new one) - A very narrative-driven game. 2 of our players instead found the gamiest and cheesiest ways to run their gangs and ruined it for everyone else.
MESBG - Same again, despite some players wanting to take lists that were in line with what we see in the films, others didn't care and found broken lists.
Battlefleet Heresy (BFG adapted ruleset) - Cheese lists again. Doesn't matter if you're running an accurate fleet with good ratios of Capitals and Escorts, the 50 Destroyer spam list wins every time.
Bolt Action - Historical accuracy? Thrown out the window in favour of cheese lists.
It doesn't matter what system you're playing, there will always be cheese or broken lists and there will always be people to find and play them.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

a_typical_hero wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Which is largely my problem with current 40k. The people who are having fun with it because they happen to hang with communities of people who all agree with them on exactly what's "the right mindset" then spend a lot of time telling me the game is objectively superior and the fact that I don't happen to have their magical idyllic communities where everyone agrees with each other means they get to point and sneer at how wrong my mindset is.
Yeah, the playing group is the major factor for a game's success.

Having a group with a similar mindset is not a thing that is mandatory to have fun just for current 40k. Former editions getting less or no "balance patches" at all and having a wider gap between playable and trash units made it even more important.

We are still not there were you can take an all Scouts meme list and can expect to reasonable compare against a Dhrukari tournament list. I don't think the game will ever be like that, to be honest. I do think you have better chances now, though, than let's say in 4th edition against an Eldar tourny list with your 10th company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules

Disagree. The perfect game with the wrong group still sucks donkey. And until we have the perfect game, you will always find something to improve for the next iteration.


Agree. The wrong group can ruin even Chess & Go.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For me? And honestly speaking?

2nd Ed. It’s what I cut my teeth on, and it’s the most fun I’ve ever had with miniatures.

A good chunk of that was the time it occurred in my life. Still a kid, no need to worry about bills or other responsibilities. I had a gaming table in the garage, and would host games against my friends.

The game was also so much fun! Is it necessarily a good wargame? I mean, possibly not? But is is, and always will be, tonnes of fun.


And that edition was bonkers for rules.

If kids can compartmentalize 2nd then adults can handle 9th.

   
Made in bh
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 kodos wrote:
"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules


It's not a 9th edition thing. IMHO 40k or any other GW games should require a friendly mindset, none of those games regardless of the edition really works for pick up games against strangers. Always been like that. Otherwise the only alternative is to chase the flavour of the month, which isn't something that I would consider the normal (or more common) attitude for the average hobbyst. GW games are not balanced, never have been and never will be, and because of that they can only work is people make them work, by avoiding skew OP lists for example.

I compared 9th edition to previous editions of 40k, not to "games" in general. 40k, or any other GW game, is not just a game: it's part of an hobby that also includes gaming.


This. And it's always been that way with every wargame I know.


That hasn't been the case for me; some games put more of an effort into smoothing over the differences between different sorts of people. Back pre-8th when all the competitive people had dropped 40k to go play Warmachine I had a lot more fun playing Warmachine with them than I ever did playing 40k with them, because Warmachine put a lot more effort into making sure everything was usable so I could use models I liked and not just get steamrolled (ha). We also had (perhaps ironically) a smoother time with new players playing against experienced players, because when the experienced players are trying to be helpful and suggest things to do they could suggest gameplay decision-making changes, which often go over better than "buy new models." "Buy the good models and ignore the bad models" has always been a thing I've seen among 40k players more than players of other games, and that's also a huge source of friction among the exact same people who could play a different game together quite happily.


It seems that your experience with warmachine has been VERY different that mine. I left that game when I got tired of wanting to play X warlock and getting told "LOL no, you have 2 warlocks that are competitive, don't bother trying to use the other ones." or wanting to use certain units and discovering that after you select your warlock, then 80% of your points are spent in auto include models.

Warmachine had a good external balance, since each faction had at least 2 broken builds, but the internal balance was a couple of order of magnitude worse than what we have now.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Gert wrote:
I've played a fair few game systems that weren't 40k although many were GW.
Every single one has the exact same problem, if you aren't playing with people who are like-minded then you will have a bad time.
Necromunda (the new one) - A very narrative-driven game. 2 of our players instead found the gamiest and cheesiest ways to run their gangs and ruined it for everyone else.
MESBG - Same again, despite some players wanting to take lists that were in line with what we see in the films, others didn't care and found broken lists.
Battlefleet Heresy (BFG adapted ruleset) - Cheese lists again. Doesn't matter if you're running an accurate fleet with good ratios of Capitals and Escorts, the 50 Destroyer spam list wins every time.
Bolt Action - Historical accuracy? Thrown out the window in favour of cheese lists.
It doesn't matter what system you're playing, there will always be cheese or broken lists and there will always be people to find and play them.


Yeah. The difference between GW games and non-GW games is that in a GW game if you're playing against the cheese list with a non-cheese list you lose. If you're playing a non-GW game and someone has "the cheese list" and you have a list chosen entirely at random you can still play; you may not win every game, or even win 50% of the time, but you won't lose 100% of the time the way you would if you were trying to do that in a GW game.

(As to Bolt Action it's a) a historical wargame, which makes it more breakable than non-historical wargames, and b) written by ex-GW people, who tend to get tunnel vision on assuming everyone plays like them.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
...It seems that your experience with warmachine has been VERY different that mine. I left that game when I got tired of wanting to play X warlock and getting told "LOL no, you have 2 warlocks that are competitive, don't bother trying to use the other ones." or wanting to use certain units and discovering that after you select your warlock, then 80% of your points are spent in auto include models.

Warmachine had a good external balance, since each faction had at least 2 broken builds, but the internal balance was a couple of order of magnitude worse than what we have now.


Oh, definitely, the "play only the best things" attitude exists in every competitive community, but I've found in non-GW games you can ignore them and still do things. I used to play "bad" things all the time in Warmachine and could still win games, rather than my 40k experience of getting 2-3 turn tabled if I try to play bad things.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/18 19:57:33


Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

my basic experience with WM was also that the WAAC player gave me times on how to play better and how I need to use the units I have (2nd Edition)

while the 40k tournament (not even a WAAC guy) player just said that I have the wrong faction and if I want to win I need to play a different one and if I don't want to buy into a different army, I should just not complain about losing (7th Edition)

and this is a very different experience when you play the "wrong" people

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Gert wrote:
I've played a fair few game systems that weren't 40k although many were GW.
Every single one has the exact same problem, if you aren't playing with people who are like-minded then you will have a bad time.
Necromunda (the new one) - A very narrative-driven game. 2 of our players instead found the gamiest and cheesiest ways to run their gangs and ruined it for everyone else.
MESBG - Same again, despite some players wanting to take lists that were in line with what we see in the films, others didn't care and found broken lists.
Battlefleet Heresy (BFG adapted ruleset) - Cheese lists again. Doesn't matter if you're running an accurate fleet with good ratios of Capitals and Escorts, the 50 Destroyer spam list wins every time.
Bolt Action - Historical accuracy? Thrown out the window in favour of cheese lists.
It doesn't matter what system you're playing, there will always be cheese or broken lists and there will always be people to find and play them.


Have to point out that the only non-GW game you listed there was written by a former GW writer.

Compare Bolt Action to Chain of Command, for example, and the opportunity for 'cheese lists' is vastly different.

In any case, I find what matters is the power disparity between a competitively-optimized list and a fluffy or 'casual' one. Infinity I would hold up as a good example of a game where bad lists can perform well, on account of so much more being based on player decisions than unit stats/capabilities.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/18 20:19:55


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Chain of Command is infinity percent better at forcing historical accuracy and realism than Bolt Action. There is no real such thing as a "cheese list" due to the way army lists work (though certain ones play different scenarios better or worse. A 1943 Soviet Cavalry list has different strengths and weaknesses compared to a 1945 Motorized Rifle Platoon or 1941 Rifle Platoon).
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For me? And honestly speaking?

2nd Ed. It’s what I cut my teeth on, and it’s the most fun I’ve ever had with miniatures.

A good chunk of that was the time it occurred in my life. Still a kid, no need to worry about bills or other responsibilities. I had a gaming table in the garage, and would host games against my friends.

The game was also so much fun! Is it necessarily a good wargame? I mean, possibly not? But is is, and always will be, tonnes of fun.


And that edition was bonkers for rules.

If kids can compartmentalize 2nd then adults can handle 9th.

Ummm. No. It wasn’t. I mean, snipers couldn’t shoot around corners, vehicles had sides, grenades exploded… yeah people could break it. One guy had like 30 dark reapers for some reason… just why tho? How is gaming a system “winning” when the idea was to have fun? There was Jones, but the virus card was easily removed along with anything else one didn’t like to use. Houses had rules… I am with Doc here.

Why do I want to “handle” 9th? Doesn’t sound fun at all.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/18 21:46:26


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 jeff white wrote:

Why do I want to “handle” 9th? Doesn’t sound fun at all.


Because it is fun. As Tzeentch might say - change is good. I don't think I've had such close games in any edition.

I recently bought Adeptus Titanicus ( which is back in stock for those concerned ).

That ruleset is very similar to 4th/5th and even it suggests starting with just the initial rules to start and adding in advanced rules later. There are strats and Psi-Titan, because in reality people like to customize their armies beyond just weapons. You buy stratagems, but there's lots of layers to explore in that game as well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 03:28:17


   
Made in bh
Longtime Dakkanaut





 kodos wrote:
my basic experience with WM was also that the WAAC player gave me times on how to play better and how I need to use the units I have (2nd Edition)

while the 40k tournament (not even a WAAC guy) player just said that I have the wrong faction and if I want to win I need to play a different one and if I don't want to buy into a different army, I should just not complain about losing (7th Edition)

and this is a very different experience when you play the "wrong" people


Again, guess that we just had different experiences.
In 40K 9th you can play whatever you want and still get a chance in my opinion. Even when you lose, you can usually point it to one mistake that you made during the game. The actual quality of the list only matters when 2 expert players play each other, which if I understand what we are talking about, it isn't the case.

In Warmachine you could get caster killed turn 1 if you didn't know each and every gotcha moments of the enemy list. Some comboes of that game were just ruthless. I still remember the "Oh, you didn't run all your units forward turn 1? Sorry, I activate my caster feat, pass and win. Another game?"
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Titanicus is their best game & the only one where I actually like the game play rules.
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





Spoletta wrote:
 kodos wrote:
my basic experience with WM was also that the WAAC player gave me times on how to play better and how I need to use the units I have (2nd Edition)

while the 40k tournament (not even a WAAC guy) player just said that I have the wrong faction and if I want to win I need to play a different one and if I don't want to buy into a different army, I should just not complain about losing (7th Edition)

and this is a very different experience when you play the "wrong" people


In Warmachine you could get caster killed turn 1 if you didn't know each and every gotcha moments of the enemy list. Some comboes of that game were just ruthless. I still remember the "Oh, you didn't run all your units forward turn 1? Sorry, I activate my caster feat, pass and win. Another game?"


You're exaggerating. Very few casters can pull off a turn 1 assassination without a lot of lucky dice and opponent ineptitude and even then you should know to hide your caster after your first game.

I can only think of one caster who can pull it off and thats the Coven with Cryx in Mk2. Cast Infernal Machine on a bonejack, run it 18" and arc Stygian Abyss through it and fish for crits to get Blind and hope the opponent isn't camping focus and your rolls are lucky.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/19 07:12:19



 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

I managed to kill a Caster turn 1, once in all games
and this only because my opponent went first, tried to pull off a caster kill but could not get LOS to do the damage and I used his exposed position to finish it off

But this was not because of any units in the list but he making a mistake and I managed to benefit from it and we both had still fun and played another game right after that

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in bh
Longtime Dakkanaut





There are a lot of ways to caster kill turn 1. Sure, most of them won't work twice on the same person, but since the topic was "new players", then I can't even count the amount of turn 1 caster kills you can pull off.
Not to mention the 2 "I win by points on turn 1, let's shake hands" feats.

Warmachine had a lot of impossibly broken builds. It all worked just because all factions had access to some and because I've never met someone who actually cared enough for WM lore to influence his list building.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: