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.

 Talys wrote:
Keep in mind there are 2 different apocalypse games, in reality. One, where people bring every model they own and every turn takes 2 hours. The other is just as many points, but every turn goes quickly, because it's an 8x12 table faith a dozen 500+ point models, and a few small models like a deathstar and some heroes.

The problem with a lot of the gigantic models now, especially with the new rules that came out, is that many of the small models are just a waste of time to field.

I believe that's "a feature not a bug" of GW's strategy for the past couple of years. Shove apoc down everyone's throat with formations that give you free rules (and free models in points) just for buying in bulk with $$$... and then make sure you come out with huge and expensive kits with better rules than the points justify (like the Wraithknight as the extreme example) to make sure that folks who want to exclude them will be encountering folks equally adamant to not do so. In the meantime, gak units like Vespid get nothing ruleswise or pointswise as a unit while shiny newer more expensive kits get buffs or just start out much better in the case of new sculpts.

 Talys wrote:
...

The problem with a lot of the gigantic models now, especially with the new rules that came out, is that many of the small models are just a waste of time to field.

Exactly. Which is fine for everyone if these rules are optional, but they aren't.

 warboss wrote:
...

I believe that's a "feature not a bug" of GW's strategy for the past couple of years. Shove apoc down everyone's throat...

And 40K's decline has been obvious in the past couple of years.

Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 warboss wrote:
...

I believe that's a "feature not a bug" of GW's strategy for the past couple of years. Shove apoc down everyone's throat...

And 40K's decline has been obvious in the past couple of years.

Agreed and I'm a part of that decline. I enjoyed occassionally playing apoc 2-3 times a year during special events at my FLGS and even made special units for it like a Tau warlord titan or my Super Friends Astartes Squad... but I don't enjoy being forced to play it every game potentially by the rules when I show up with my 1000pts of a new army. And before some idiot chimes in with rule #0 bs... the onus on who is the "bad guy" trying to change RAW in his favor switched with 6th then worsened with 7th. If you want to play a "normal" game, you now have to ask your opponent to change the rules as opposed to previously when your opponent fielding some paper thin tacked on "fluff" force of grey knight eldar IG titan combo bs wanted to use his stuff. Unfortunately, AOS doubled down on the stupidity with the lack of any points or balance so I don't have any realistic hope of an incoming return to common sense.

If 40k further devolves into using AOS rules (or lack of), it will be no better than when as a kid I played He Man vs Transformers vs GI Joe vs Barbie (because you couldn't exclude the girl relatives!) under the table with my cousins during holidays. That was fun when I was six years old and spending $50 and 5 minutes on my "army" but I'm looking for more depth and structure as an adult with my thousands of dollars in purchases and hours of hobby effort put into my 20,000pts of painted 40k.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.

How many people play 40K without the melee rules?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
When Apoc was introduced about half the audience went, "feth me, this is BEST THING EVAR!" and the other half went,' feth me, this is LOAD OF gak!"

Then the Apoc rules were jammed into 40K's rear facing.

Over the next couple of years, sales dropped dramatically.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.

John, you and I both know that simply not "playing" knights is only half the battle. If someone truly believes superheavies and gargantuans along with the others trappings from apoc like formations that give free rules don't belong and inherently are unbalanced in "normal" 40k, they also don't want to play AGAINST them as well which means forcing their preferences on other players who may not agree. People generally aren't complaining that they "are" investing that time to play what they dislike but rather that they DID invest hundreds to thousands of dollars/hours and then Gw changed the very nature of the game out of greed afterwards.

There's an issue if you do want to play Knights too.

I'd love to give them a go, I've various chassis hanging around in various states of preparation ready to become a Knight army.

However, I have two options - turn up against an unprepared opponent and likely stomp them or arrange a game against a forewarned opponent and likely face an optimised list, even if the opponent in question can be trusted not to full on tailor.

Neither option is likely to result in a fun or even contest for both players, so for now my Knights languish in pieces, in cabinets or collecting dust on my work desk.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

But 40K already is a "squad level ruleset". If anything, it is Apocalypse that should be a separate ruleset with streamlined rules to speed up play in large games (2000pts+). Aircraft, Superheavies etc should be confined to this Apocalypse ruleset, and the "standard" 40K game should be scaled back down to what it was back in 3rd and 4th Ed, 2000pts or less, with mostly infantry and a handful of tanks.

And then we can use Kill Team for a Necromunda scale skirmish game.

I'm OK with "Apocalypse" being 2,000+ pts. But the streamlining should be across the board, for all rules, not just Apocalypse. Otherwise, Apocalypse becomes the immediately superior game from a gaming perspective.

The "standard 40k" game should be scaled back to 40k 3E size: 1,500 pts. I dispute that it needs to be predominantly infantry. Just cap the points.

Necromunda is supposedly the first next-gen Specialist Games product coming out. I look forward to seeing what happens there.

Well I disagree that it doesn't need to be predominantly infantry. At the very least, Aircraft and Superheavies (Titans, Baneblades etc) should be confined to apocalypse. And I say that as someone who owns a Storm Talon and whose army is 3000pts at best, not quite apocalypse scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.

How many people play 40K without the melee rules?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
When Apoc was introduced about half the audience went, "feth me, this is BEST THING EVAR!" and the other half went,' feth me, this is LOAD OF gak!"

Then the Apoc rules were jammed into 40K's rear facing.

Over the next couple of years, sales dropped dramatically.

When Apocalypse is done right, it IS amazing.

I always loved the massive battle reports in White Dwarf with massive diverse armies on each side, with hordes of infantry, dozens of tanks and transports, a couple of aircraft and a handful of superheavies. But a game where everybody just brings their biggest most expensive toys? 3 Riptides? A handful of Knights? 10 Land Raiders? Nope.

My ideal Apocalypse army would be...

Captain/Chapter Master + vanguard Squad.
2 Squads of Assault Marines.
2 Squads of Devastators + rhinos.
4 squads of scouts.
2 squads of Tactical marines + drop pods.
1 Sternguard squad + razorback.
A Stormtalon.
And some allied units (a few squads of Skitarii and the Ad Mech heavy walkers).
I've also got some classic Gaunts Ghost miniatures who might make nice Imperial Guard veterans.

But I would never take something like 3 Titans. That'd be boring for me.

I can say that in my local area, it was not just the sales of GW that dropped with the most recent two editions - folks have sold off their collections, and gotten out of the game.

I sold off my Dark Angels - I hadn't played a game in years, and felt no urge to do so.

Away went the models on eBay - and in came another army for Kings of War.

The Auld Grump

I think that the big models are actually pretty good 'value' in terms of this $100-$150 does that. I don't think a 2000 pt army with mini titans is any more expensive than most MSU and mech type armies.

But money aside, KK and Az definitely have a point. On one hand, it can force people to play a game they don't want to, especially in the pickup realm. On the other, you can end up with very lopsided, pointless games if your opponent is woefully unequipped to fight titans, or if they're optimized to win against titans, you can't kill enough them before the game is over and you're facing a mathematically impossible game to win (based on how many squads you can kill in 6 turns.

Neither is a problem in private games, of course, and I'm not a fan of the pickup scene (any more), and this is probably a reason why I've said the game works for me. It would be a better game if it worked better n the pickup scene, obviously.

The question in terms of profitability is: by making the large models a part of the core game, did they do the right thing? It's impossible to answer this. It's entirely possible that if 40k didn't change paradigms to include bigger models as a part of the core game, total sales would be even lower and some people would have transitioned to another game (becoming bored with old 40k). I'm of the mind that the game needs to reinvent itself every 5-7 years to keep peoples' interest, but sure, not everyone agrees with this. However, let's be honest - if 40k and WHFB stayed in one of the previous iterations that were very popular with only incremental tweaks, eventually, there would be fatigue and most people would stop buying more models of their favorite faction. Sure, some would end up buying into another faction, but others would just go play another game.

GW has made the calculation that they want as high a percentage of sales to the biggest spenders who have the potential to be 'lifetime customers' as humanly possible, and engineered everything around that.

 Talys wrote:
I think that the big models are actually pretty good 'value' in terms of this $100-$150 does that. I don't think a 2000 pt army with mini titans is any more expensive than most MSU and mech type armies.

But money aside, KK and Az definitely have a point. On one hand, it can force people to play a game they don't want to, especially in the pickup realm. On the other, you can end up with very lopsided, pointless games if your opponent is woefully unequipped to fight titans, or if they're optimized to win against titans, you can't kill enough them before the game is over and you're facing a mathematically impossible game to win (based on how many squads you can kill in 6 turns.

Neither is a problem in private games, of course, and I'm not a fan of the pickup scene (any more), and this is probably a reason why I've said the game works for me. It would be a better game if it worked better n the pickup scene, obviously.

The question in terms of profitability is: by making the large models a part of the core game, did they do the right thing? It's impossible to answer this. It's entirely possible that if 40k didn't change paradigms to include bigger models as a part of the core game, total sales would be even lower and some people would have transitioned to another game (becoming bored with old 40k). I'm of the mind that the game needs to reinvent itself every 5-7 years to keep peoples' interest, but sure, not everyone agrees with this. However, let's be honest - if 40k and WHFB stayed in one of the previous iterations that were very popular with only incremental tweaks, eventually, there would be fatigue and most people would stop buying more models of their favorite faction. Sure, some would end up buying into another faction, but others would just go play another game.

GW has made the calculation that they want as high a percentage of sales to the biggest spenders who have the potential to be 'lifetime customers' as humanly possible, and engineered everything around that.

I think Talys has a good point. GW keeps making large models because they're more profitable. People bought a LOT of titans. So, GW will keep making them. It helps their short term profits.
The problem is, I think it hurts the community and thus their long term profits. A game survives on the community. For example, 40k is still very popular because it's easy to find a game with it. Because its easy to find a game, more people will buy into it. But...GW is splitting the community and killing the game, so less people are starting it and more people are starting the other games instead. Which leads to less sales and less revenue. It's a downward spiral that unless its stopped, will lead to bad times for GW.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, they are optional. As the rules specifically say, you can organize your games however you choose. Nobody forces you to play Knights over Guardsmen. If you don't want to play Knights, don't. It's not that hard. Why people are investing hours upon hours of their time and effort to play a game they don't enjoy is completely beyond me, when it takes zero additional effort to play a game that they do enjoy. Really, there should be a LOT more "victim" blaming here.

How many people play 40K without the melee rules?

When Apoc was introduced about half the audience went, "feth me, this is BEST THING EVAR!" and the other half went,' feth me, this is LOAD OF gak!"

I dunno - how many ex-IG / new Tau players are there? But that's pretty a disingenuous apples-to-oranges statement, because we ALL know that it's perfectly possible to play without Superheavies or Flyers or Formations, just as we all know it's perfectly OK to play without Special Characters or Forgeworld.

I think you have a very poor idea about what constitutes "half", because Apoc was well-received. That's why GW makes so much Apoc-ready stuff now. Maybe 10% didn't like Apoc. And most of that would have been due to how overcosted the early Apoc units were compared to modern Superheavies.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I dunno - how many ex-IG / new Tau players are there? But that's pretty a disingenuous apples-to-oranges statement, because we ALL know that it's perfectly possible to play without Superheavies or Flyers or Formations, just as we all know it's perfectly OK to play without Special Characters or Forgeworld.

But it's really not. They're a part of the core rules.

Someone comes in with an army that only really functions because of superheavies or flyers or formations. Do you have any right to tell them to get fethed? They're playing as accorded to the rules, you'd be the one doing the homebrew rules.

It would be exactly like saying, "Okay, we can play, but only if you don't use ranged weapons." Imagine saying that to a Tau player.

P.S. Forgeworld is a different matter, don't try to equate that to what I'm saying.

But it really is, because we used to play that way, and players can agree on what sort of game they choose to play. If players can choose not to play with Special Characters or Forgeworld, they can choose not to play with Superheavies and/or Flyers.

If we agree to play a game without any of that fancy stuff, and someone reneges on that agreement, then yeah, I'm probably going to tell them not to waste my time.

Homebrew is part of the core rules, too...

And no, FW is not different. It's part of the regular game now. Don't say otherwise.

The fact of the matter is, players need to decide what they want to play, and reach agreement. Simple as that.

And if your argument requires conflating Special Characters and/or Forgeworld with assault and/or shooting, then I think it's pretty clear just how ridiculously weak your argument is.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
But it really is, because we used to play that way, and players can agree on what sort of game they choose to play. If players can choose not to play with Special Characters or Forgeworld, they can choose not to play with Superheavies and/or Flyers.

Who's "we"?

Special characters were always a thing when I joined the hobby, not a mention of 'with players permission' or any of that. If someone tried to tell me they didn't want special characters in a game I'd look at them like they were speaking Latin. It's simply always been a part of the game so far as I know and hell yes I'd be annoyed if I showed up with a list built around a character I liked and my opponent asked me not to use him.

And I don't see how that is any different from someone who joined in 7th, where superheavies were always a thing.

Rules exist for a reason, that reason being to provide the structure to play. You and at least a few people in the GW desing studio seem to disagree with that, and I'd say that's exactly the attitudes that have led us to this cliff GW is perched a top.

Go re-read your rulebook. The rules specifically say players can adjust or modify them as they see fit.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Homebrew is part of the core rules, too...

Wait, whut?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
But it really is, because we used to play that way, and players can agree on what sort of game they choose to play. If players can choose not to play with Special Characters or Forgeworld, they can choose not to play with Superheavies and/or Flyers.

Except that's not true at all. A good deal of factions literally cannot function in any meaningful way without superheavies or fliers. As an example, CSM can't do ANYTHING without having a good number of fliers. You might as well say to a CSM player, "Nah, let's just count this as my win." instead of bothering to neuter them to that point.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Homebrew is part of the core rules, too...

By definition, it is not.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And no, FW is not different. It's part of the regular game now. Don't say otherwise.

Yeah, but it is different. It's fundamentally different. They're an entirely different set of books that someone would have to buy to understand. Most tournaments ban the vast majority of FW's stuff because of how overpowered it is.

It's not inherently part of the core rules (unlike everything else we are discussing) so stop trying to involve Forgeworld in this.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The fact of the matter is, players need to decide what they want to play, and reach agreement. Simple as that.

That's great, man. If that's how you want to play, more power to you. When no one wants to play because you don't want to play with core rules features (superheavies etc), then don't come crying here.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And if your argument requires conflating Special Characters and/or Forgeworld with assault and/or shooting, then I think it's pretty clear just how ridiculously weak your argument is.

Your argument is the one conflating SC and FW with assault and shooting. I'm comparing it to fliers which are necessary for some factions to even function.

Again, the introduction of fliers and superheavies is an introduction to the core rules. It's not an optional supplement like Apocalypse is.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Go re-read your rulebook. The rules specifically say players can adjust or modify them as they see fit.

Jesus. That doesn't mean homebrew is part of the core rules.

There really is no point talking about homebrew if you're discussing the quality of GWs rules as they are, by definition, not GWs rules at all.

You can homebrew anything you want from any system, but it has no bearing on the quality of the rules, which are again by definition, the ones in the rulebooks, not your own personal variation.

 nullBolt wrote:
Yeah, but it is different. It's fundamentally different. They're an entirely different set of books that someone would have to buy to understand. Most tournaments ban the vast majority of FW's stuff because of how overpowered it is.

It's not inherently part of the core rules (unlike everything else we are discussing) so stop trying to involve Forgeworld in this.

A this point, there is no such a thing as "core rules" anymore, as virtually everything has been shoehorned into the Core Rules. You can't even claim that Core Rules = rulebook + codices, because dataslates and campaign books are also a thing.

Also, in these days of Wraithknights, Scatterbikes, Decurion, Gladius and Riptides you can't claim Forgeworld stuff is "overpowered" and expect to be taken seriously. The "new wave" 7th edition codices, from Necrons onwards, has reignited the arms race to such degree that even the nastiest Forgeworld rules look pretty tame in comparison.

 Korinov wrote:

 nullBolt wrote:
Yeah, but it is different. It's fundamentally different. They're an entirely different set of books that someone would have to buy to understand. Most tournaments ban the vast majority of FW's stuff because of how overpowered it is.

It's not inherently part of the core rules (unlike everything else we are discussing) so stop trying to involve Forgeworld in this.

A this point, there is no such a thing as "core rules" anymore, as virtually everything has been shoehorned into the Core Rules. You can't even claim that Core Rules = rulebook + codices, because dataslates and campaign books are also a thing.

Also, in these days of Wraithknights, Scatterbikes, Decurion, Gladius and Riptides you can't claim Forgeworld stuff is "overpowered" and expect to be taken seriously. The "new wave" 7th edition codices, from Necrons onwards, has reignited the arms race to such degree that even the nastiest Forgeworld rules look pretty tame in comparison.

I think a few things are still considered expansion, or non-core rules. Like you mentioned, Forgeworld isn't considered core by everyone, but there's also GW stuff like Stronghold Assault, and Kill Team. If you come to a pickup game with a fortification network and say, "Let's go!" someone may look at you funny Or not even know what you're talking about, LOL.

Dude, we played games without any of that stuff so it's a fact that SCs, Formations, etc. aren't integral to the game. :eyeroll:

Nothing is integral to the game, everything can be changed. I've played games where we didn't use the built in to hit and to wound systems.

That said, I'd still call them core rules, the same way I'd call Superheavies and Flyers core rules now that they're written in to the main rulebook and codices.

Well of course, everyone can make the game their own. I'm just saying that what you typically may expect if you're going to a pickup or tournament or a game with a relative stranger.

Showing up with reavers or a warlord or a whole wall of martyrs setup is not the norm, and a successful game probably won't happen. But show up with a couple of wraithknights or IKs or a formation out of a campaign book and nobody is going to get excited anymore, one way or the other. If someone's army has no way of killing an IK, that's a deficiency in their army, rather than the norm.

Whatever JohnHwangDD says about Apocalyse being very popular and the core rules optional, I am not the only person on Earth who disliked Apoc and was put off 40K by the rules being spooged into the core book.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, we played games without any of that stuff so it's a fact that SCs, Formations, etc. aren't integral to the game. :eyeroll:

Dude, Tau vs Tau never uses assault rules so it's a fact that assaults aren't integral to the game, duh.

Hi folks.
I think the last few posts have highlighted the issue GW corporate management have developed over the years.

Instead of having clearly defined game play for several sized games in the same setting.

RPG skirmish, large skirmish small battle and large battle games, space ship games..

They just crammed everything into one book with no clear definition of the different types of game play they included.

When GW had multiple games in the 40K setting , players liking the same style of game play simply played the game closest to what they wanted.

Getting rid of all the definition just left the customers without any clear focal points to gather around.

So my ideas of what a game of 40k is is completely different to what other people are.And while we argue over who is right, we dont play , and associate the negative response to our opinions, with the GW 40k rules.

YMMV

Hm that is an interesting take on why the rules system is such a mess, beyond the lack of playtesting all named designers have said does not happen anymore.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi folks.
I think the last few posts have highlighted the issue GW corporate management have developed over the years.

Instead of having clearly defined game play for several sized games in the same setting.

RPG skirmish, large skirmish small battle and large battle games, space ship games..

They just crammed everything into one book with no clear definition of the different types of game play they included.

When GW had multiple games in the 40K setting , players liking the same style of game play simply played the game closest to what they wanted.

Getting rid of all the definition just left the customers without any clear focal points to gather around.

So my ideas of what a game of 40k is is completely different to what other people are.And while we argue over who is right, we dont play , and associate the negative response to our opinions, with the GW 40k rules.

YMMV

I always found it extremely funny that for all the pushing of "the narrative" they offer nothing to actually do it. The dream of yore was that you had 40k at different scales and types, so you could actually fight an entire planetary campaign at all the different sizes; I vaguely recall a White Dwarf that talked about stringing together BFG and either Epic and/or 40k, I can't 100% remember, but it was that you did a BFG game and it affected the next battle, same with Epic and 40k. You could have even brought in Necromunda so you had space battles, large scale battles, platoon-level battles and skirmish battles to focus in on key points of an entire offensive. That's a narrative. Stuffing everything into one book and saying "Here, have a go" is doing nothing for anybody.

Overall I think that's my biggest problem with 40k: The rules appeal to nobody. They aren't balanced enough for competitive play, and the imbalance hurts casual play more (one person's fluffy army can be worlds better than someone else's, just because), but they offer no support or direction for narrative gaming for the casual players that they claim are their focus.

@Wayne - I may sound like a broken record, but to say the rules appeal to nobody just isn't accurate, as I'm sure there are other people like me who would label 7e + as their favorite version of the game (I mean, 7th post Decurion).

First, it's a great game and rules balance matters not at all, dare I say, if you set it up a little bit like Age of Sigmar: the two sides collaborate on setting up the scenario and acknowledge and allow for lopsided matchups and weak units. You want to play with 50 terminators with storm bolters? Well, okay, we can make that work. All of the shortcomings of 40k's rules (which I happily acknowledge), are highly mitigated when playing amongst friends and regulars who are like-minded, rather than pickup groups and competitive play. If you have the attitude that a game with as many units that are as varied as 40k won't ever be balanced in terms of x points are always equal, the game is a lot more fun. If that's what you want, I don't think 40k will ever work, in the context of today's models (without excluding many of them, like in kill team).

Second, 40k can be a visually spectacular game if you choose for it to be, in a way that no other tabletop wargame can, especially if scifi is your thing. The players and spectators can marvel at the game table as they move around their thousands of hours of modelling efforts, and for those whose interest is in this, none of the rules really matter anyways.

Third, for people who like or are invested in the fluff, 40k provides a fantastic setting to play out these battles.

I would disagree that there's no support for narrative gaming. I mean, what would you call books like Mont'ka and Kauyon? In the last 2 years, Orks, Space Wolves, Blood Angels, Tyranids, White Scars, Ravenguard, Tau have all had significant storyline campaigns, and some great models made for those.

Part of it is that players don't just divide into Competitive vs Casual. There are so many other factors, like people who play in regular groups versus pickups, players who weigh spectacle or strategy more highly, gamers who like small collections or large, hobbyists whose priorities lie in modelling or not, people who like to play on small tables versus people who like to play on much larger tables, the length of game people enjoy, and so on and so forth.

40k scratches a very particular itch, but I think it's a pretty big (and obviously profitable) niche.