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.

Okay, I used to play 40k, but I found that it seemed like the game wasn't really built to be a competitive game. Its rules are not really well written and I don't think that the writers have any idea of how to balance a game. It would be fine if the community didn't take the game so seriously. However it seems like people who are playing the latest codex think they are accomplishing something when they beat a tau player. 40k isn't a competitive game, but some people treat it like it is (tournaments, the list forum), which makes it worse.

This isn't a complaint about flavor. I don't want 40k to be like warmachine/hordes. I want a clear, simple, fun, balaned 40k. Right now 40k's rules ammount to a "lets see what happens" engine. Dungeons and Dragons is more balanced than 40k and it doesn't even have to be.

now have a bunch of awesome looking dark eldar models in my closet, and I want to paint good models that I can put on a table. Dark Heresy, Space Marine, and Dawn of War II were wonderful games that I play that make me want to play a good 40k table top game. However I can't and that sucks.

So is there any real reason to think that 6th edition will change 40k for the better? Given the fact that changes to the general rule system will only indirectly change individual armies, how can the game actually be balanced? At best we can hope for a rapid update of codexes, which won't happen. Is there any evidence that the new writers have a better grasp on how to write rules? Has GW even recognized publicly that there was a problem in the first place?

If it can be determined that GW will not be fixing 40k with 6th edition, can we all agree not to buy the new rule book, as it will be completely pointless to trade one set of bad rules for another set of bad rules? I mean if you are still buying a game that you know is going to be bad, then isn't it your fault that GW thinks they can get away with this?

Honestly I think it is 40k players who make this game bad, because they won't force the producers to fix the game.

Competitiveness is something that players bring, not a result of the way rules are written.

Changes to the rules in 6th ed won't alter this fact.

If you don't like 40k because you don't like its players, then you don't like 40k because of its players, not because of its rules.

We can only hope 6th edition will improve 40k, but we don't know enough concrete about it to be sure. However, 4th improved on 3rd and 5th improved on 4th - each had their own issues, but by and large each rulebook change improved the game in some way.

I enjoy this game a hell of a lot, and barring something truly heinous in the 6th ed rulebook, I doubt that will change. The problem is there are a ton of posters who are already saying it's going to be the worst thing ever, which is kind of a symptom of Internet forums. The vocal minority screams how random charge lengths will ruin the game when they haven't even seen how they'll work in practice.

I think your suggestion of a boycott is kind of pointless, since we can't know it's a good or bad game unless we play it, and to do that we require the rules.

Feel free to, you know, stop playing.
GW is more popular than all the other tabletop wargames in the world, by a big margin...clearly everyone else thinks it sucks too

Ailaros wrote:Competitiveness is something that players bring, not a result of the way rules are written.

Changes to the rules in 6th ed won't alter this fact.

If you don't like 40k because you don't like its players, then you don't like 40k because of its players, not because of its rules.

So you missed my point about balance and clarity of rules entirely?


@Brother SRM

So basically you are satisified with the product already? Because all I am getting from your post is that you don't think there is a fundemental problem with the game.

@Testifty

I did stop playing, a year ago. I am only making this post because of the upcoming edition.

MediumYellow wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Competitiveness is something that players bring, not a result of the way rules are written.

Changes to the rules in 6th ed won't alter this fact.

If you don't like 40k because you don't like its players, then you don't like 40k because of its players, not because of its rules.

So you missed my point about balance and clarity of rules entirely?

Chess is balanced.
Sex is not.
Which would you prefer?

Testify wrote:

MediumYellow wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Competitiveness is something that players bring, not a result of the way rules are written.

Changes to the rules in 6th ed won't alter this fact.

If you don't like 40k because you don't like its players, then you don't like 40k because of its players, not because of its rules.

So you missed my point about balance and clarity of rules entirely?

Chess is balanced.
Sex is not.
Which would you prefer?

Okay, now that is probably one of the funnier things I've read all day...Mind if I sig it?

MediumYellow wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Competitiveness is something that players bring, not a result of the way rules are written.

Changes to the rules in 6th ed won't alter this fact.

If you don't like 40k because you don't like its players, then you don't like 40k because of its players, not because of its rules.

So you missed my point about balance and clarity of rules entirely?

The rules are fairly well balanced as it is.

They may need a few tweaks, but overall they are a good system.

Plus many people confuse bad dice rolling with an unbalanced system.

Kain wrote:

Testify wrote:

MediumYellow wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Competitiveness is something that players bring, not a result of the way rules are written.

Changes to the rules in 6th ed won't alter this fact.

If you don't like 40k because you don't like its players, then you don't like 40k because of its players, not because of its rules.

So you missed my point about balance and clarity of rules entirely?

Chess is balanced.
Sex is not.
Which would you prefer?

Okay, now that is probably one of the funnier things I've read all day...Mind if I sig it?

It would be an honour.

Testify wrote:

MediumYellow wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Competitiveness is something that players bring, not a result of the way rules are written.

Changes to the rules in 6th ed won't alter this fact.

If you don't like 40k because you don't like its players, then you don't like 40k because of its players, not because of its rules.

So you missed my point about balance and clarity of rules entirely?

Chess is balanced.
Sex is not.
Which would you prefer?

Balance means nothing in the context of sex, it does mean a whole lot in the context of games. Stop trolling.

It does.
Balance is abhorrent to human nature. There will always be some people/groups/genders that are stronger than others. Equality is mechanical and stale.

Testify wrote:It does.
Balance is abhorrent to human nature. There will always be some people/groups/genders that are stronger than others. Equality is mechanical and stale.

So if I made a game where the black team could always beat the white team, that wouldn't be stale?

MediumYellow wrote:

Testify wrote:It does.
Balance is abhorrent to human nature. There will always be some people/groups/genders that are stronger than others. Equality is mechanical and stale.

So if I made a game where the black team could always beat the white team, that wouldn't be stale?

Everything gets stale eventually, people crave change, not imbalance. It's why Tzeentch is so universal.

MediumYellow wrote:So you missed my point about balance and clarity of rules entirely?

No, I was dismissing it, entirely.

A game doesn't need to be balanced in order for people to be competitive playing that game. Certainly rules don't need to be clear for this to happen either. The fact that people are competitive over a game where things are determined by the role of DICE means that they're already being competitive over something that isn't fair and balanced, much less any "imbalances" in the rules, real or fictitious.

Rules of a game do not cause otherwise non-competitive players to be competitive, nor can rules prevent competitive people from using it as an outlet for their competitive drive.

People are competitive, not games. If you don't like competitive people, then you don't like the PEOPLE because they're being competitive. The specifics of the game have little to do with it.

Ailaros wrote:

MediumYellow wrote:So you missed my point about balance and clarity of rules entirely?

No, I was dismissing it, entirely.

A game doesn't need to be balanced in order for people to be competitive playing that game. Certainly rules don't need to be clear for this to happen either. The fact that people are competitive over a game where things are determined by the role of DICE means that they're already being competitive over something that isn't fair and balanced, much less any "imbalances" in the rules, real or fictitious.

Rules of a game do not cause otherwise non-competitive players to be competitive, nor can rules prevent competitive people from using it as an outlet for their competitive drive.

People are competitive, not games. If you don't like competitive people, then you don't like the PEOPLE because they're being competitive. The specifics of the game have little to do with it.

I think you misread my post. I agree with what you said.

I like competitive games. By this I mean that the games allow people to compete on an initially even playing field ( or close as possible). Through randomization and skill, in the end someone wins and someone loses. The fact that everything was failry balanced allows a player to not have excuses for himself if he looses and for a player to feel like the win was meaningful is he won. This leads to improvement and more competition. If a game has poor balance, then an honest person may feel like their win wasn't a real win or that their loss was caused by game faults not their lack of skill I never feel this with warmachine, my losses are my losses, and my wins are my wins.

Seems like you slept through the world-wide community uproar that was 7th edition Daemons of Chaos...

GW DO listen to us when we're actually making some sense.
Absolutely everyone bar WAAC's d-bags complained that that one army broke the game is oh so many terribad ways. Following books ended up compounding the initial problem by being even more unbalanced. The final nail was when the community discovered just how heavily skewed the game was towards minimum-sized elite or heavy cavalry units getting the charge and wiping out the front rank, thus assuring they won combat. (imagine just for a minute, 5 guys on ponies killing 7 grunts and then the remaining 40 guys deciding they're done for and legging it, only to get caught and wiped out... By 5 freaking dudes on horseies!!! )

The community decried how bad Fantasy was getting. They moaned about how the game had devolved into a saturation of one utterly OP army and two to three OTT armies. They whined endlessly about how infantry were a pointless yet 'mandetory tax' to make your army worse! They raged about how magic was insanely skewed towards to caster to the point that you had to include 2-3 scroll caddies just to last a couple turns before getting blown off the table!!!

And gues what? We got 8th edition which tonned down the monstrosity that are Daemons of Chaos. No one is forced to invest 400pts into scroll caddies just to survive one magic phase. Infantry aren't blown apart by 5 scary guys on ponies. A single monster showing up on your doorstep doesn't send half your army running off the board. The game no longer devolves into a case of 'I move faster so you can't ever charge me! ' nonsense!
Is 8th perfect? Nope, it's got new problems for sure. (magic is still wonky, but hey, you can at least stop it now!) But I dare say that overall the game is a vastly superior improvement on the disaster that was 7th and every single army is readily capable of winning the game! (yes, even WE's with the right build are nuts!)


I can only hope that 6th edition does for 40k what it's done for Fantasy!
So please, let's have less of this silly 'the sky is falling!' BS and at least wait for the new rules and give them more than 1 game before we judge them as the worst thing to have ever befallen the game!

Hopefully it will become more clear, not rules nazi build based like warmahordes and not the 'epic-mad-lol-wut-spellz-ROFL I win' that is fantasy.

Phototoxin wrote:Hopefully it will become more clear, not rules nazi build based like warmahordes and not the 'epic-mad-lol-wut-spellz-ROFL I win' that is fantasy.

Fantasy isn't like that at all, unless you built a gigantic deathstar unit for some reason and were sad that spells designed to kill deathstars killed deathstars.

Experiment 626 wrote:Snip of the Truth

By the gods it seems someone who has actually played 7th to death and realized just how horrible balanced it was.

You also forgot to mention the fact that magic was horrible due in part of the 20+ magic dice in one phase as well.

MediumYellow wrote:
@Brother SRM

So basically you are satisified with the product already? Because all I am getting from your post is that you don't think there is a fundemental problem with the game.

I am satisfied with 5th edition; while it isn't perfect, it's good enough that I enjoy it for what I do with it. It has myriad problems, but most of these are from individual codices and not from the rulebook itself. I'm excited at the notion of shaking the game up and improving 5th as much as 5th improved upon 4th. I'm hoping for a better vehicle damage table, more mission variety, and less emphasis on mech while still keeping it viable. I trust GW not to massively screw it up, and while I may be wrong I'm probably pretty safe in my assumption. There are problems in the game, and there always will be. Is the game still enjoyable enough to me though? You bet.

While there are some unbalanced units/armies and some crappy rules, mostly its people that complain so much about balance and rules. If you think the whole game is "bad" then let us see you come up with another set of rules for it. And GW cant be expected to nerf/buff a unit because a few people said so. Even GKs can be beaten if you have the skill to do it.

Brother SRM wrote:

MediumYellow wrote:
@Brother SRM

So basically you are satisified with the product already? Because all I am getting from your post is that you don't think there is a fundemental problem with the game.

I am satisfied with 5th edition; while it isn't perfect, it's good enough that I enjoy it for what I do with it. It has myriad problems, but most of these are from individual codices and not from the rulebook itself. I'm excited at the notion of shaking the game up and improving 5th as much as 5th improved upon 4th. I'm hoping for a better vehicle damage table, more mission variety, and less emphasis on mech while still keeping it viable. I trust GW not to massively screw it up, and while I may be wrong I'm probably pretty safe in my assumption. There are problems in the game, and there always will be. Is the game still enjoyable enough to me though? You bet.

This. I find that it's pretty darn enjoyable and functional as a competitive game, as well, TBH.

MediumYellow wrote:

Testify wrote:

MediumYellow wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Competitiveness is something that players bring, not a result of the way rules are written.

Changes to the rules in 6th ed won't alter this fact.

If you don't like 40k because you don't like its players, then you don't like 40k because of its players, not because of its rules.

So you missed my point about balance and clarity of rules entirely?

Chess is balanced.
Sex is not.
Which would you prefer?

Balance means nothing in the context of sex, it does mean a whole lot in the context of games. Stop trolling.

Sure it does, haven't you ever run a "Wobbly A" on some less than virtuous girl?

Also you're a bit too easily offended, he's not trolling at all.

To be on topic, I really think there is a lot of hope for 6th edition 40k. Sure some stuff might not be that great but it certainly sounds like a lot of the rumors so far are fixing what I believed was weird with 5th.

I for one am excited for 6th, and whatever it may bring. I've always enjoyed playing 40k, and enjoyed each edition from 3rd on a little more each time.
I find balance to be more of a codex issue than a core rulebook issue IMO. Unless they change the rules for something very specific, that few armies use (I can't think of a great example, maybe thunder hammers getting +1 on the vehicle damage table or something) it should effect most armies evenly.
It's just the way the game works that as your codex ages, it's not as powerful as current ones. Not just because every new codex is OTT, but because they are written with the current game system in mind.
I've been playing DA/C:SM since third. My brother has been playing CSM and CD since third (when they split the codices he just made an army for each) and my friend hung in there with necrons since third (and is enjoying his new codex). Sure now we aren't the newest and best (barring the new necron codex, which I don't really find OTT IMHO), but the game system is balanced enough that we still have fun playing each other and other local gamers without much of a "I can't hope to defeat army X with my codex" problem. I played and handily beat a skilled GK player (well at least he does play a lot and wins a fair amount) this saturday with a vanilla marines TAC list. Then 5 hours later stood dumbfounded with the same list after being soundly beaten by a tau player (also skilled). My brother does well with his armies, winning a fair amount, mind you he wont play GK with his demons, lol. And even before the new codex, my friend with necrons did well also.

So once again I rambled on... sorry about that. Point is, the three of us are excited for 6th. Even if it flops, oh well, we'll play it, and just hold out hope for 7th, lol, because we enjoy the game.