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.

Saw this interesting blog post about making the break from 6th edition 40k.
http://waraltar.blogspot.ie/2014/04/what-happened-gw.html

so... another GW whine troll?

 viewfinder wrote:
so... another GW whine troll?

Nope.

Try reading it before you copy/paste the same reply.

I think he makes some valid points.

However it works under the assumption that you actually have a problem with 6th edition.

Personally I think it has been the most fun edition for me so far. Finally I can play the exact combinations of things I want to play.

I can make a deathwatch force lead by an inquisitor. I can make a themed Vehicle list, I can bring in storm troopers with my inquisitor and ally them in to make a nice themed deathwatch force. I can pick and choose elements from the different books to make the exact force I envision on the table for whatever mission it might be and for the most part it will be functional.

However this versatility is the core of 6th editions problem. When you increase the complexity and potential combinations there is just going to be issues. Since things buff on a per unit basis by definition stronger units will gain more.

So for the competitive scene current 40k is a problem. However I find that outside of that 6th edition 40k is fantastic. Even at tournaments I can still play my fluffy lists and make a potent combination that can hold its own, and for me that is more fun than anything else.

 Leth wrote:
I think he makes some valid points.

However it works under the assumption that you actually have a problem with 6th edition.

Personally I think it has been the most fun edition for me so far. Finally I can play the exact combinations of things I want to play.

6th editions problem is that when you increase the complexity and potential combinations there is just going to be issues. Also since things buff on a per unit basis by definition stronger units will gain more.

So for the competative scene current 40k is a problem. However I find that outside of that 6th edition 40k is fantastic for versatility that you can see on the table. and for me that is more fun than anything else.

exactly. I enjoy playing. tournaments, not so much.

 Leth wrote:
I think he makes some valid points.

However it works under the assumption that you actually have a problem with 6th edition.

Personally I think it has been the most fun edition for me so far. Finally I can play the exact combinations of things I want to play.

I can make a deathwatch force lead by an inquisitor. I can make a themed Vehicle list, I can bring in storm troopers with my inquisitor and ally them in to make a nice themed deathwatch force. I can pick and choose elements from the different books to make the exact force I envision on the table for whatever mission it might be and for the most part it will be functional.

However this versatility is the core of 6th editions problem. When you increase the complexity and potential combinations there is just going to be issues. Since things buff on a per unit basis by definition stronger units will gain more.

So for the competitive scene current 40k is a problem. However I find that outside of that 6th edition 40k is fantastic. Even at tournaments I can still play my fluffy lists and make a potent combination that can hold its own, and for me that is more fun than anything else.

Wait, what?

You couldn't do all of those things before?

 azreal13 wrote:


Wait, what?

You couldn't do all of those things before?

Apparently not.

Must've been making illegal armies in previous editions then...

I ditched 6th edition and started playing 2nd edition instead. I also cut down my budget for 40k, from buying stuff directly from GW to buying 2nd hand stuff every now and then. This left me with the money to invest in both Dust Tactics and Infinity.

The only point I really take issue with is about wargamers fleeing 6th edition, leaving only 40k players. I'm a wargamer, and while I've been driven off buying new models due to prices recently, I still enjoy a game of 40k with friends. I also, however, enjoy a heavily tactical game of Infinity.

I don't mind when someone makes a post criticising GW - they deserve the criticism these days. But get off your elitist pedestal. We're all wargamers, we just have different opinions.

Playing what's in your area is probably #1, I imagine.

But other games exist with fancy settings, cool rules, and amazing models. Through two lucky lots, I amassed a 700 pt Infinity Army.

Keep in mind, 300 pts is the "1850pt" tournament bog-standard level you see in 40k. I paid about $300 out of pocket.

In that lot I get Parachuting Werewolves with Chain Rifles that make flamers look like warm hugs (hand heldpoint and shoot claymore mines but bigger), a mech, entrenched heavy gunners, riflemen that use biological ammunition that kills you with some engineered plague of face melting, and more. And that's the boring "low tech" guys.

Truth be told I'm expecting for Infinity to evolve beyond the skirmish and the "expansion book with 100+ new special rules that invalidate 100+ old rules" phases at some point.

I play 40k because a) I like the fluff b) I like the miniatures c) I'm not too fond of skirmish and historical games. Point me to a 28mm sci-fi non-skirmish wargame and I'll consider it.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Truth be told I'm expecting for Infinity to evolve beyond the skirmish and the "expansion book with 100+ new special rules that invalidate 100+ old rules" phases at some point.

I play 40k because a) I like the fluff b) I like the miniatures c) I'm not too fond of skirmish and historical games. Point me to a 28mm sci-fi non-skirmish wargame and I'll consider it.

That is an interesting point.

Even Mantic has virtually abandoned their non skirmish game, Warpath.
Dust Warfare does not sound like it is faring well either.

I cannot think of any others -.-

 Leth wrote:

However this versatility is the core of 6th editions problem. When you increase the complexity and potential combinations there is just going to be issues. Since things buff on a per unit basis by definition stronger units will gain more.

Versatility isn t the (only/main) reason in my opinion. Its just a multiplier for poor written rules. There are several spam-lists dominating the meta and spam is the opposite of versatility.

Assuming every Codex is in Balance with itself and with the other ones, versatility wont make a differnce in most cases. Sure there may be broken Combos, you havnt thought of, but they can be fixed. But first of all we need internal and global balance... but that wont sell as many models, cause people would buy only the models they like...

 -Loki- wrote:
But get off your elitist pedestal. We're all wargamers, we just have different opinions.

Hmmm, yeah. I don't like this mindset of "it's not okay to like 40K" that sometimes comes up. This article even says that the only reason anyone would play 6th is "raw fanboyism". It's a very one-sided view, to say the least.

 DerT84 wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Truth be told I'm expecting for Infinity to evolve beyond the skirmish and the "expansion book with 100+ new special rules that invalidate 100+ old rules" phases at some point.

I play 40k because a) I like the fluff b) I like the miniatures c) I'm not too fond of skirmish and historical games. Point me to a 28mm sci-fi non-skirmish wargame and I'll consider it.

That is an interesting point.

Even Mantic has virtually abandoned their non skirmish game, Warpath.
Dust Warfare does not sound like it is faring well either.

I cannot think of any others -.-

Warmachine? My experience with it is rather limited (a pressganger ran a couple demo games at my FLGS, then PP decided it would be neat to pull a Games Workshop on spanish independent stores and -unsurprisingly- everyone lost interest), but it seems another local store has their minis and books back in stock and is trying to build up a scene. I'm tempted to give it a try (Cygnar trenchers look sweet) but I feel it's only one step short of a boardgame: You could play it on a flat cardboard grid and it wouldn't make much of a difference.

 Leth wrote:
However this versatility is the core of 6th editions problem. When you increase the complexity and potential combinations there is just going to be issues. Since things buff on a per unit basis by definition stronger units will gain more.

It doesn't just hurt balance, it also hurts diversity. Sure, you have lots of options, but the concept of factions with their own unique identity is gone. In 5th your codex was your army, and even things like the FW variant lists were still pretty well described by "X but with these minor changes". If you played Tau you played Tau, if you played IG you played IG, and all of those armies were clearly different. Now 6th removes that diversity by letting everyone take the best units without any concern for the FOC or codex limits. For example, instead of the inquisition being a rare army with its own special units you have inquisitors added to every army as little more than divination slaves to make IG tanks more accurate. And I think that's incredibly boring.

I was almost immediately disengaged by the article by the reference to tournaments I was never a part of, would have never been a part of, and will never be a part of. I play 40k with my friends. It's a fun game for rolling buckets of dice and KABOOM. We all are having great fun with 6th edition.

I also play Hail Caesar with my friends, for realistic non-mojo games.

We also play D&D, and D&D Battle System, and LoTR, and Necromunda,

All these games are fun, different, and fun because they are different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. The article has a prominent picture of a high priced box set from Warlord Games, which is not 40k. The Imperial Knight behind it is also high priced, and is 40k...I don't know what the intended message is?

Quoting: "Are there any other reasons why someone would choose to suffer under the yoke that is 6th edition 40k? Other than raw fanboism, no."

Yeah, right, next one please and this time add a little bit of intellect.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Truth be told I'm expecting for Infinity to evolve beyond the skirmish and the "expansion book with 100+ new special rules that invalidate 100+ old rules" phases at some point.

I play 40k because a) I like the fluff b) I like the miniatures c) I'm not too fond of skirmish and historical games. Point me to a 28mm sci-fi non-skirmish wargame and I'll consider it.

Care to point out some rules that have been invalidated by later releases?

Because if Corvus Belli are good at one thing, it's keeping nearly every unit relevant. And by nearly I mean one or two models per faction are a bit situational at worst.

I think ultimatly it's a fundemantal differance between the fun "cinametic narrative style" GW has in mind and the competitive WAAC mind set of the tourny crowd.

GW has the ally rules mostly to allow for cases of "well yeah, me and my buddy wanna play a game where the Tyranids are invading this planet, and the local defence forces have to fight them off, but luckly the Imperial guard is being supported by the space wolves, OHH and an ordos xenos inqusitor is here too. etc

it's problematic from a competitive stand point, but I can certinly see why they're doing it.

I'm still clinging to 4th edition!

I figure that the only people I know of in my area who are willing to play are my buddy and my wife, why not still use the edition I have an absolute ton of material for? I have almost everything in print, with anything else being super cheap to get online.

Still working on getting everything together to play 2nd edition games.

I was confused about that blog post when he refers to the good old days 40k and then for some inexplicable reason starts talking about 5th edition. For me the good old days were the days of Chapter Approved, when there were lots of little variant lists and rules.

Honestly, I love 6th edition. I like fortifications, I like fliers, I like allies, I like superheavies, I like all of it. Sure 6th could use a few tweaks but honestly in 6th I've had more fun with 40k than I have in years.

Ah, the"good old days" where you had a Space Wolf 13th company, with metal Wolfen. Or even farther back, if you played Necromunda.

BrianDavion wrote:
I think ultimatly it's a fundemantal differance between the fun "cinametic narrative style" GW has in mind and the competitive WAAC mind set of the tourny crowd.

GW has the ally rules mostly to allow for cases of "well yeah, me and my buddy wanna play a game where the Tyranids are invading this planet, and the local defence forces have to fight them off, but luckly the Imperial guard is being supported by the space wolves, OHH and an ordos xenos inqusitor is here too. etc

it's problematic from a competitive stand point, but I can certinly see why they're doing it.

The thing is, not having a rule to allow the "buddy wanna play" type of game does not stop you and your buddy making up a game that you want to play involving "blah blah blah".

It does allow gross abuse of fluff for tournament purposes. In other words, the "narrative forging"aspect is of no help in forging a narrative, but it spoils normal competitive games.