Switch Theme:

40k is at its worse point since 7th edition.  [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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Interesting chat with the local GW manager yesterday. I talked about feeling a bit out of sync with 9th having played a grand total of one game and then only recently and feeling all at sea with all the changes to the relatively new rulebook (indeed almost brand new considering how much I have used it).

He felt he was in the same boat (had only 2 games of 40k in 9th, both disastrous like mine) and lots of customers had said similar things.

Ended talking about whether the new kill team might be bigger than expected with 40k players perhaps drifting over to that if its a nice self contained release.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

That's actually q huge part of why I'm so hyped for Killteam.
I really hope it'll be good enough to play '40k' again.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




This isn't meant to be an attack, but how can you feel "in" sync with a game you've played literally once?

I guess to come across as a 9th edition-liking community strangler - I find it hard to take a lot of the criticisms of 40k expressed on Dakka seriously because it tends to go "9th sucks, it just sucks, obviously though I've not played it, in fact I last gave GW any money some time back in early 7th, 5th or 2nd, but I can 100% confirm it just sucks".
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Tyel wrote:
This isn't meant to be an attack, but how can you feel "in" sync with a game you've played literally once?

I guess to come across as a 9th edition-liking community strangler - I find it hard to take a lot of the criticisms of 40k expressed on Dakka seriously because it tends to go "9th sucks, it just sucks, obviously though I've not played it, in fact I last gave GW any money some time back in early 7th, 5th or 2nd, but I can 100% confirm it just sucks".


So I skipped 3rd through 7th after a couple of games of 3rd. But in 8th I started playing at the start and as each new bit was added I kept abreast of it. The fragmentation of the rules didn't effect me because each bit was added whilst I was paying attention.

9th started with new elements and bits of 8th edition (which bits having now I think changed). There have been a bunch of new rules, FAQs, codex etc that have completely passed me by as I wasn't out regularly playing. Hence coming to it now and trying to get my head around which rules are in and which are out isn't straightforward.

I felt in sync with 8th because it was a complete release at the start that gradually changed. 9th is a bit more of a mess and that is exacerbated by not keeping abreast of what has been going on.

Every time I have had an opportunity to play 40k in the last month now the club has restarted I have ultimately opted to play something else that is easier to get the rules for. I tried once and I suspect the game was as painful for the oppo as me due to the mistakes I had made with list creation and mistakes in game. This didn't happen when getting into 8th which is my reference point.

9th might be great (cover looks a lot better, not sold on the new shorter ranged game though), but its that difficulty of getting back into it in the same way I was for 8th which is making me cool rapidly towards it.
   
Made in gb
Tunneling Trygon






Games like this are heavily reliant on momentum, and it's very easy to lose that when everyone stops being able to play for so long. However the release schedule didn't stop, so often only the Very Online kind of player will have fully kept up.

For the first few weeks after reopening my local club organised 40K & AOS games at low point values, ran by someone who had actively kept up to date on changes. Instead of playing one 2000pt game in an evening like before, we played 2-3 smaller games with rotating opponents. It let people re-learn the old rules as well the new ones, as there were quite a few club members who hadn't played at all for 9-18 months.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

The momentum point is I think the right way of communicating what I was trying to say. The momentum with eighth started all in at launch. 9th was scattered across old 8th edition books and new ones and it has got more complicated since then.

Our Crusade effort might fit that bill, but there is still a fair amount of different stuff to the core game to absorb first and some forces now have their rules scattered in different places.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 14:18:53


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Tyel wrote:
This isn't meant to be an attack, but how can you feel "in" sync with a game you've played literally once?

I guess to come across as a 9th edition-liking community strangler - I find it hard to take a lot of the criticisms of 40k expressed on Dakka seriously because it tends to go "9th sucks, it just sucks, obviously though I've not played it, in fact I last gave GW any money some time back in early 7th, 5th or 2nd, but I can 100% confirm it just sucks".


Oh that is easy. Imagine you want to play an army of magic wielding space knights, who blast their enemies with their guns and powers of their mind, only to find out after 2-3 games, that the lore you like has nothing to do with the table top rules reality. A wake up in 2-3 games, but even after one game you feel kind of a iffy.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Halifax

You know, maybe that was my problem back near the end of 8th, because the stories being told by the games I was playing were bad stories.

   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




I had that feeling in my 2ed game, which was less then 2 days after the official GK codex droping down in 8th. And it only got worse and worse with every game, and other factions getting their own books. Took me like 2 years to realise that GW isn't obliged to produce or fix the rules they make, and that balance is what people want for other armies. Ah and the most important lesson being that coming FAQ/errata X will fix your bad rules is a lie. Thankfully for GW after 2 years of playing I invested too much time and money, to just leave.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





Tyel wrote:
This isn't meant to be an attack, but how can you feel "in" sync with a game you've played literally once?

I guess to come across as a 9th edition-liking community strangler - I find it hard to take a lot of the criticisms of 40k expressed on Dakka seriously because it tends to go "9th sucks, it just sucks, obviously though I've not played it, in fact I last gave GW any money some time back in early 7th, 5th or 2nd, but I can 100% confirm it just sucks".


When did Codex: Strawmen get released? I must have missed it. I've not seen anyone hating on 9th without very valid reasons and the last time I checked 9th Ed didn't invalidate models bought in previous editions. At least not on a large scale (RIP Elysians and R&H).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/30 16:19:18



 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Tyel wrote:
This isn't meant to be an attack, but how can you feel "in" sync with a game you've played literally once?

I guess to come across as a 9th edition-liking community strangler - I find it hard to take a lot of the criticisms of 40k expressed on Dakka seriously because it tends to go "9th sucks, it just sucks, obviously though I've not played it, in fact I last gave GW any money some time back in early 7th, 5th or 2nd, but I can 100% confirm it just sucks".

I have a small example of why I dislike 9th, which, while minor, sorta resonates with me as an example of "wrongness". I've only played a few games mind you, and none so far using Marines.

Smoke Launchers are a Stratagem. . . Like, fething why?!

It may seem like a minor point but there were multiple times in 8th where I employed a Rhino rush up the table for the sake of the mission/initiative, and many Rhinos would pop smoke to help ride out the inevitable counterfire. Something about the removal of the ability to pull a tactic like that and sticking it behind a CP cost (and for one unit only) just really rubs me the wrong way, and seems sort of indicative of larger problems.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 16:42:15


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

AnomanderRake wrote: satisfaction of getting some minute advancement after getting tabled is really undercut by the fact that the people whose models aren't terrible are also getting advancements.

Crusade is not the panacea for 9th "matched play" ills that some people think it is.
The problems are more fundamental when you need to balance the abilities of a unit both with & without powerups. The shift from baked in abilities to a resource managed style has really killed the game without heavy houserules for me. Glad I play in a permissive environment.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/30 17:02:02


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Karol wrote:
Thankfully for GW after 2 years of playing I invested too much time and money, to just leave.
You keep peddling this sunk cost fallacy. You're not trapped, and the constant 'woe is me and the army I picked' is a little rediculous.

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

 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Sim-Life wrote:
Tyel wrote:
This isn't meant to be an attack, but how can you feel "in" sync with a game you've played literally once?

I guess to come across as a 9th edition-liking community strangler - I find it hard to take a lot of the criticisms of 40k expressed on Dakka seriously because it tends to go "9th sucks, it just sucks, obviously though I've not played it, in fact I last gave GW any money some time back in early 7th, 5th or 2nd, but I can 100% confirm it just sucks".


When did Codex: Strawmen get released? I must have missed it. I've not seen anyone hating on 9th without very valid reasons and the last time I checked 9th Ed didn't invalidate models bought in previous editions. At least not on a large scale (RIP Elysians and R&H).


If you had a proper build GK army with all models armed with falchions, bar a few hammers here and there, then your army was very much invalidated by the points costs hike of falchions. You litterally can't field the same army and fit in to 2k pts, and that is ingoring any rules changes to falchions or other weapon efficiency.

If someone played a BA+castellans+IG lists, their list no longer is valid in 9th. Same could be said about GSC as they run a lot of IG and tyranid stuff, for which they are punished harshly in 9th.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Karol wrote:
Thankfully for GW after 2 years of playing I invested too much time and money, to just leave.
You keep peddling this sunk cost fallacy. You're not trapped, and the constant 'woe is me and the army I picked' is a little rediculous.

Two years isn't even that long... I know people who have quit gacha games that they played longer than that. Probably spent more than Karol did on 40k, too.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





I just think 9th would have been really close to ideal if they didn't decide to up the power and deadliness of codexes and and complexity of army rules. The base game rules are excellent, but too many things within army books are obnoxious and I don't think they have ever been more needlessly complicated
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Cynista wrote:
I just think 9th would have been really close to ideal if they didn't decide to up the power and deadliness of codexes and and complexity of army rules. The base game rules are excellent, but too many things within army books are obnoxious and I don't think they have ever been more needlessly complicated


You've just described the entire history of GW. "This game would have been fantastic if they had the discipline to not go mad with all the army rules!" describes every edition of 40k, every edition of WHFB, every edition of LotR, every specialist game...

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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yep. GW's basic rulesets vary from mediocre to really good, when they fall apart, which they usually do, it's almost always down to bad army rules.

Well, except for 8th edition WHFB. That was a dumpster fire of a ruleset.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 01:15:54


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 AnomanderRake wrote:
Cynista wrote:
I just think 9th would have been really close to ideal if they didn't decide to up the power and deadliness of codexes and and complexity of army rules. The base game rules are excellent, but too many things within army books are obnoxious and I don't think they have ever been more needlessly complicated


You've just described the entire history of GW. "This game would have been fantastic if they had the discipline to not go mad with all the army rules!" describes every edition of 40k, every edition of WHFB, every edition of LotR, every specialist game...


Maybe GW should have not started with armies like orks, sob or DE etc who were already mid tier, but redo the really bad ones first like tau, knights, gsc etc

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Cynista wrote:
I just think 9th would have been really close to ideal if they didn't decide to up the power and deadliness of codexes and and complexity of army rules. The base game rules are excellent, but too many things within army books are obnoxious and I don't think they have ever been more needlessly complicated


You've just described the entire history of GW. "This game would have been fantastic if they had the discipline to not go mad with all the army rules!" describes every edition of 40k, every edition of WHFB, every edition of LotR, every specialist game...


Maybe GW should have not started with armies like orks, sob or DE etc who were already mid tier, but redo the really bad ones first like tau, knights, gsc etc
But those armies were not bad in 8th and GW certainly does not playtest correctly to identify those armies would be become bad in 9th because of the changes to the mission structure. Nor would redoing these armies even necessarily help, they all suffer from the fundamental problem that their army philosophy does not match favourably with having to spend a turn standing in the open on an objective in the midfield.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




GW has their rules read months in advance. If someone decides to write a rules for a faction that will not work in the new setting, like terrain interactions for imperial knights or gsc, then it would be odd to assume that the faction will somehow just deal with it. If you write a codex that only works as a soup, and then remove the option to efficiently soup in the next edition. Then it is natural to assume that the army will not work within the new rule set.

If knights can't score and take objectives like other armies, then , and I am saying this as a non game designer, maybe knights should also have an different way to score and take objectives? And this doesn't even require a codex, it could be done on a one page PDF, just to let armies hold on till they get a new codex.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Models dictate Codex releases not rules. A holdover PDF doesn't get people buying a new army while they wait. A holdover PDF also doesn't make money and corporate clearly thinks it's done enough "good" over the last year.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 09:45:47


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




If an army is bad, then at best what GW can get is people that get trapped in to the army, with a transition pdf the army should be enticing enough , if the pdf is writen well enough, for people to still buy the army.


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Karol wrote:
If an army is bad, then at best what GW can get is people that get trapped in to the army, with a transition pdf the army should be enticing enough , if the pdf is writen well enough, for people to still buy the army.

Thats not necessarily true. I've played Orks, Necrons, Space Marines, Deathwatch, CSM, Daemonkin, Daemons, Astra Militarum and Drukhari in 40k, not in that order. I only really start an army because I'm bored playing the one I have and want to try new rules/models/paintstyles and while I still play both Guard and CSM, they are not the same armies I had back in 5th and 6th respectively. I've found that 40k hobbyists don't tend to stick with one army, even if they stop playing 40k they usually move to AoS, LotR or sometimes a specialist game like Necromunda. GW doesn't need to care about significant rules balance IMO because of the appeal the models/settings have and the broad range of products means that usually there is something for everyone. Don't like the amount of rules you have to buy to play 40k? OK here's one book for LotR with literally everything and campaigns are optional. Don't like collecting a huge army? How about Necromunda or Warcry where one box sorts you out.
Obviously this isn't the case for all people everywhere but GW isn't going to operate based on the 40k scene in rural Alabama.
Back to my point about rules. IMO GW doesn't care if you don't like your rules because either:
A - You will start a new army/system and likely spend more money on their product.
B - Give up, at which point they don't care because 12 new people bought starter sets in the time it took for you to decide to quit the hobby.

It sucks but there comes a point where it comes down to you and your community to make your own happiness.

As a side anecdote, I've not played loads of 9th yet, a lot of 8th but not 9th. I have played only Deathwatch against T'au and one game against Necrons and have lost every game. I play with themed lists as much as possible (i.e. Firstborn only Deathwatch, Kabal only Drukhari) and with the limits on my collection this doesn't translate to effective lists. I've been playing since 5th and I'm so bad at the game and have such apathy towards meta gaming or spending hours making lists that my joy comes from converting, making up stories and to a degree painting.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Okey, so first difference I noticed. There are very few new people that start the game with doing 6 armies in the first 2-3 months of playing. I am sure that there are places in the world where this is possible. But I can assure you that for most people under 20 years, it is not.
And yeah you are right, with the way how armies stop being fun to play it does seem to be true, that in order to play w40k you should not play one army, but like 3 or 4 , maybe even go in to other games. Which again creates a huge problem for all the people that can afford one. And those people very much do get trapped. Because even if they have money to buy models every month, getting a new 2000pts army will take months, if not years. And face with such a prospect a lot of people just quit. w40k has a horrible player retention, most people that are starting don't even make it to the end of an edition, not to mention play more then one.

It would be nice, if at least on the forums you were told that when you are starting. And not given the fairy tale of play what you want and if paint long enough you will learn to like it. Followed by the good old, all armies get to shine at some point. Of course no mentions that some armies were good and fun to play 20 years ago.

I mean if someone had cousin that wanted to play w40k, and I stress it, wanted to play, and his army of choice was something like tau or csm. Would you tell them to go for it? I maybe if you really didn't like them. But if someone came up to me mid 8th and asked if playing GK is a good idea, I would tell them that it is not and that it is in fact a very bad idea.

Over all good rules for armies, or at least workable rule sets make model lines generate sells all the time. You don't end up with just marines being sellable all edition through, and other factions sell well for 3-4 months after the codex drops.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:
Okey, so first difference I noticed. There are very few new people that start the game with doing 6 armies in the first 2-3 months of playing. I am sure that there are places in the world where this is possible. But I can assure you that for most people under 20 years, it is not.


Once upon a time, this was absolutely true; I even think it's still mostly true, because established players are slow to change the way they think about the game. For some people, 40k is always going to be the 2k matched play game, no matter how much more than that GW actually puts in the book.

But honestly? In the new system it's WAY smarter (IMHO) to buy 3 different Combat Patrol boxes for $170 each than it is to buy a $510 army from a single faction. Especially if two of the factions you buy can ally- that way you can play an Incursion game if someone wants. This is why I don't have to worry about "finding a game" - you probably have friends that would play if you supplied the models. Then you don't have to worry about metachasing or toxic environments. You'll also have more tools at your disposal to build narrative campaigns, which is my personal favourite part of the hobby.

But again, unless you can break the 2k matched pattern in your head, you might never get to see this side of the game.

   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Karol wrote:
Okey, so first difference I noticed. There are very few new people that start the game with doing 6 armies in the first 2-3 months of playing. I am sure that there are places in the world where this is possible. But I can assure you that for most people under 20 years, it is not.

Karol, I started playing 40k a decade ago, I'm not expecting people to be buying 4 armies within 6 months.

And yeah you are right, with the way how armies stop being fun to play it does seem to be true, that in order to play w40k you should not play one army, but like 3 or 4 , maybe even go in to other games. Which again creates a huge problem for all the people that can afford one. And those people very much do get trapped. Because even if they have money to buy models every month, getting a new 2000pts army will take months, if not years. And face with such a prospect a lot of people just quit. w40k has a horrible player retention, most people that are starting don't even make it to the end of an edition, not to mention play more then one.

Your problem seems to lie in an inability to play anything less than 2k Points, which to me is just weird. That's a community issue and GW has no control over your community.
40k has bad player retention due to numerous reasons. It's sold to parents for their kids and when the kids grow up they lose interest because it's nerdy and not cool, although hopefully, this attitude is changing. Warhammer requires a location and player base to be played which is not possible at all times. For example, when I moved away from home for a year of study, none of my friends were there and the local GW wasn't great. When I came back home for visits I'd go to my local GW for LotR club on Friday and Warlords on Saturday, sometimes I'd even go to a friend's on Sunday before heading back to college. Most importantly, life comes at you fast and you never know if you'll be working 50 hours a week with all your free time taken up by sleep or overtime. Rules being bad is close to the bottom of the list for poor player retention.

I mean if someone had cousin that wanted to play w40k, and I stress it, wanted to play, and his army of choice was something like tau or csm. Would you tell them to go for it? I maybe if you really didn't like them. But if someone came up to me mid 8th and asked if playing GK is a good idea, I would tell them that it is not and that it is in fact a very bad idea.

I would tell someone they should go for what they think looks cool and then I would adapt myself to suit them as a beginner. Again, it's not GW's fault if your community is hostile to new starts.

Over all good rules for armies, or at least workable rule sets make model lines generate sells all the time. You don't end up with just marines being sellable all edition through, and other factions sell well for 3-4 months after the codex drops.

For veteran players who know the game? Sure, rules matter to some of these people. For new starts with no idea? Nah chief, they just want cool models.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







PenitentJake wrote:
Karol wrote:
Okey, so first difference I noticed. There are very few new people that start the game with doing 6 armies in the first 2-3 months of playing. I am sure that there are places in the world where this is possible. But I can assure you that for most people under 20 years, it is not.


Once upon a time, this was absolutely true; I even think it's still mostly true, because established players are slow to change the way they think about the game. For some people, 40k is always going to be the 2k matched play game, no matter how much more than that GW actually puts in the book.

But honestly? In the new system it's WAY smarter (IMHO) to buy 3 different Combat Patrol boxes for $170 each than it is to buy a $510 army from a single faction. Especially if two of the factions you buy can ally- that way you can play an Incursion game if someone wants. This is why I don't have to worry about "finding a game" - you probably have friends that would play if you supplied the models. Then you don't have to worry about metachasing or toxic environments. You'll also have more tools at your disposal to build narrative campaigns, which is my personal favourite part of the hobby.

But again, unless you can break the 2k matched pattern in your head, you might never get to see this side of the game.



Or...for $510 you could have two factions each at the full tournament-standard game size for two or three different skirmish games. Or a starter box for every single faction in something like Warmachine or Infinity. Breaking the 2k matched pattern in your head doesn't make 40k anything less than stupidly expensive to have multiple armies for, by industry standards.

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 ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






I remember 5th too well. It's balance was even worse than it's now if you compare codex and pre-codex armies. It had awful random missions that screwed a lot of army archetypes from the get go, codex releases were rare and there were no erratas and very few rule faqs, and there were lots of rule issues that just had to be rolled-off during the game. There was horrible inside-codex balance, just remember what possessed and vespids looked like. It had horrible multi-wound system (go on, try to kill those 10 paladins with 4+++ and all the different gear. You could shoot at them half game and still have a top-performing squad with a bunch of wounded models. Parking lots were extremely boring and yet extremely common. Grey knights made daemons auto-loose because they couldn't deploy their armies, blood angels were vanilla Marines +1 with no downsides. Space wolves were vanilla Marines +2 with no downsides... I can go on.
And people who played earlier say even worse things of 4th.
Yet it was new to most players. And thus really fun. But than 6th came and it was indeed the worst. So, 5th looked amazing in comparison. 7th started good but quickly power-creeped to the bottom right above 6th. 8th and 9th are just so much better than anything before, at least since 5th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/31 16:59:15


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:


Or...for $510 you could have two factions each at the full tournament-standard game size for two or three different skirmish games. Or a starter box for every single faction in something like Warmachine or Infinity. Breaking the 2k matched pattern in your head doesn't make 40k anything less than stupidly expensive to have multiple armies for, by industry standards.


Certainly true, and if people have more fun playing Infinity or Warmachine, all the power to them; I'm certainly not going to try and twist their arm to stick with 40k. I would also hope they could find Infinity forums and Warmachine forums where they could write happy posts instead of continue visiting 40k forums to write unhappy posts. I'm not sure why more of that doesn't happen.

I've played a few other miniature games over the years- some that I liked. But most of them just aren't big enough for me- they're restricted to a handful of factions, or there aren't as many options within each faction. Or they're too infantry skewed, or too vehicle skewed. Or the background isn't imaginative or expansive. Some games do one element of what I like about 40k better than 40k does, but when that is the case, it's always at the expense of one of the other things I like about 40k. Based on what I am looking for, no other game does as much as 40k does as well as 40k does it.

Your experience will not be the same as mine, because you're clearly looking for different things in game system than I am.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: