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.

Recently, I've been finding myself being less and less interested in Warhammer 40k. As far as I can tell, all of the things I like about the game are just kind of losing their punch, so to speak.

As far as an actual game goes, it's incredibly unbalanced, ESPECIALLY in casual settings. In tournament play, sure, you can generally expect most everyone to have an army with approximately equal power level. (Or, at least, you can expect to see Taudar and White-Scar Bikers and Tyranid Flying Circus...) In a casual setting, though, there's no sense of scale, and victory means pretty much nothing. I can bring a top-tier list, sure, but then I'm only winning because I took stupid things. I can take a weaksauce list, but then my opponent is only winning because I hit my own army with a nerf bat. Tactical skill only matters when lists are of equal skill and not of the Rock-Paper-Scissors variety. So, any enjoyment from victory is out because skill doesn't matter unless you write lists specifically to be an equal but not greater force than your opponent.
It's a bit like power-leveling a character on Skyrim: It's fun, at first, until you realize that everything is pointlessly easy, unrewarding, and the only way to increase the challenge is to add self-imposed restrictions.
In other words, the actual benefits of the game are out, since as a game 40k falls flat.

There's the narrative aspect of the 40k game, but this element alone doesn't exactly compensate for everything else. Stories and cool moments can come out of 40k, but they don't carry the game by themself.

Then, of course, there's the social aspect of the game, but that's something that can be found with pretty much every game, and like the narrative aspect, I don't spend hundreds of dollars to accomplish what I could with a deck of cards.


So, really, my main complaint is that it's not fun to trample the opposition every single time, and it's equally dull to throw yourself to the wolves so that you *don't* trample the opposition every time, and that without competition the game is boring.

It's a bit like power-leveling a character on Skyrim: It's fun, at first, until you realize that everything is pointlessly easy, unrewarding, and the only way to increase the challenge is to add self-imposed restrictions.

Install Requiem and Frostfall. It's now a whole new game.

So, really, my main complaint is that it's not fun to trample the opposition every single time, and it's equally dull to throw yourself to the wolves so that you *don't* trample the opposition every time, and that without competition the game is boring.

Do you play with random PUGs or do you have a regular group? In the latter case, it shouldn't be difficult to get the others into playing smaller-scale games or lists that aren't deathstars or cheese shops.

Waaaghpower wrote:

It's a bit like power-leveling a character on Skyrim: It's fun, at first, until you realize that everything is pointlessly easy, unrewarding, and the only way to increase the challenge is to add self-imposed restrictions.

The answer to both Skyrim and 40k is simple: Roleplay. Skyrim is a roleplaying game and is thus designed to be played like that, while GW seems to intend 40k to be a roleplaying game as well.
Really, especially if you have some good friends and creativity; making up stories, 'forging a narrative' and custom missions and scenarios are a huge amount of fun and make sure the game never gets boring.

Waaaghpower wrote:
There's the narrative aspect of the 40k game, but this element alone doesn't exactly compensate for everything else. Stories and cool moments can come out of 40k, but they don't carry the game by themself.

I heavily disagree with this. Games should come out of stories, not the other way around. The narrative aspect can certainly carry the game by itself and even compensate for the bad rules.
Of course, this also depends on what kind of player you are. If it just doesn't work for you, looking into other games would probably be a good move (I recommend FoW and Dystopian Wars)

Thirdly, you are forgetting the most important aspect of 40k: The hobby itself. Painting and modelling is the most important raison d'être for 40k. It is by far the largest and most time-consuming and rewarding aspect of 40k. 40k is all about the nice miniatures. There are many people who rarely play games at all but just collect the miniatures. You can take a break of gaming if you get tired of it while and just focus on your minis. If you are growing tired of this part as well, I reccomend taking a break from wargaming altogether or looking into a fresh new game with new miniatures (I once again recommend Dystopian Wars or Legions).

I know where you're coming from. I used to play 'nids & CSM, and I had one friend who played BA and another Tau. The games were only good when we REALLY tried to make them good, and basically for the past 2 years the BA guy has been absolutely SOL if we try and play an "even" game. We tried doing a PE campaign (the tiles looked totally awesome and it seemed like it would've been a lot of fun), but then the new Tau codex came out and it absolutely ruined everything; Riptides and gun lines just ate us alive; the best me and the BA guy could do was force a draw with Tau and then hope to beat each other. Now, on top of all that, I recently moved to a new city, so the only way I can get a game is to go to the local store and play random people.

The simple fact is, you're completely dependent upon the people you play with to make 40k enjoyable. If those people are interested in role playing/force the narrative, etc., you can still have fun with it. If those people are randoms, or even remotely min/max types, then you simply won't have that much fun playing 40k.

That also appears to be the crux of the complaints all over this board. A lot of people, probably including myself, come on here and complain about the ridiculous unbalance of the game and how that seems to be driven by GW wanting more money and effectively creating a constant cycle of power creep. The other people complain about those of us complaining, and those are the people who have a good gaming group who can reliably put the effort in to make the game fun.

I would love.... LOVE to have a group of friends that I could play 40k with an it would be fun. I love to assemble models. I love to paint. I love the setting. I love getting a calculator and building an unstoppable force, but the simple fact is, it takes SO MUCH WORK at this point, it's just no longer feasible to fit into my life. Hopefully some day, it'll be better and I'll be able to fit it in again, but in the meantime, I'm gonna go play Diablo 3 and finish this bottle of wine....

OP if you're not enjoying the game I would suggest playing something else.

I know where you're coming from, you want to love 40k, and you did for a time, but its flaws are getting harder to ignore.

Look into infinity, its wonderfully balanced and tactically rewarding.
Or dystopian wars, the exploding dice mechanics are hilarious (last game a friend shot a full strength medium flyer squadron and with incredibly lucky rolls killed one, it blew up its friend, and its explosion killed another and crippled the last).
Or Warmachine, there is some great fluff behind that these days.
Or x wing, it's cheap, quick to get into, learn and play.

Find something else you like and focus on it for a while. Then come back and play 40k alongside it.

I found 40k had all the same problems you pointed out and I found the best way to deal with them was to simply play 40k alongside something else rather than as my only game.

Yeah I can never bring my Tournament lists to normal games. I make fun theme lists for reg games. Most people at our store have that same attitude.

A new guy showed and said he had a casual Dark Eldar list. Well he smashed us all to dust. I looked up his list and it was the standard tournament list so the next week I used my tournament list and smashed him to dust. He actually got the message. His lists are casual now.

I think it really does take talking to the people you play with to decide what kind of games you want other wise it can just get silly.

Iron_Captain: I do quite enjoy painting my minis, and if I do quit playing for a while I think I'll take the extra free time to get my army finished, or at least closer to finished.

It is *possible* to play balanced, fluffy, challenging games, it just takes SO MUCH WORK. I don't play games so that I can work.

It doesn't take that much work if you are playing amongst a regular group of friends. By now, you should know each other's armies, and you should know who owns what that is the cheese-stick in their lists.

When you know that, you turn to them and say, "Greg, don't be a cheese-stick. Leave two of those three Riptides in the box."

Greg turns to Jim, "Jim, that Daemon Prince deathstar you have going there is cheese-stick. Don't be a douche."

Jim turns to Kevin, "Really, Kevin? Thirty-five Wave Serpents? I mean... really? Don't be a douche. Sell thirty of them on eBay, keep two for playing, and put one on the display shelf."

 Psienesis wrote:
It doesn't take that much work if you are playing amongst a regular group of friends. By now, you should know each other's armies, and you should know who owns what that is the cheese-stick in their lists.

When you know that, you turn to them and say, "Greg, don't be a cheese-stick. Leave two of those three Riptides in the box."

Greg turns to Jim, "Jim, that Daemon Prince deathstar you have going there is cheese-stick. Don't be a douche."

Jim turns to Kevin, "Really, Kevin? Thirty-five Wave Serpents? I mean... really? Don't be a douche. Sell thirty of them on eBay, keep two for playing, and put one on the display shelf."

Unless you play Daemons
Want to complain about my LoC being a cheese-stick? Don't worry I don't know what the LoC is going to be wielding when he comes to the battlefield! Randomness!

About the only reason I stick around in 40k is the background and the models.

The new IG codex got me excited for a bit, until I realized that no matter what it added, it wouldn't fix the main issues I have with the game (and sadly 7th isn't looking better) I love being a "narrative" player and all, but if the rules are terrible, you can only focus on the narrative so much. Everytime I'd start to get excited in a game, a muddy rule would pop up, or you'd have to check an entry, or you would realize that that cool unit you finally painted is completely useless thanks to the rules.

Now I just paint stuff and hope a better rule set gets made. Not much else I can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
It doesn't take that much work if you are playing amongst a regular group of friends. By now, you should know each other's armies, and you should know who owns what that is the cheese-stick in their lists.

When you know that, you turn to them and say, "Greg, don't be a cheese-stick. Leave two of those three Riptides in the box."

Greg turns to Jim, "Jim, that Daemon Prince deathstar you have going there is cheese-stick. Don't be a douche."

Jim turns to Kevin, "Really, Kevin? Thirty-five Wave Serpents? I mean... really? Don't be a douche. Sell thirty of them on eBay, keep two for playing, and put one on the display shelf."

The mere fact that people have to do this to enjoy the game is a pretty clear sign of how screwed up the game is.

Obviously you can never make every unit and every combo a 100% balanced, but when players have to radically limit certain codexes or units, something is wrong.

Reread what you posted. Now, if you were a new person on the board and you read that statement, would you want to start 40k? A game that is apparently so broken players have to essentially help each other write their army lists if they want a fair game? A game where playing against randoms is actively discouraged because the power levels vary so wildly?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to point out how crazy that sounds.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
About the only reason I stick around in 40k is the background and the models.

The new IG codex got me excited for a bit, until I realized that no matter what it added, it wouldn't fix the main issues I have with the game (and sadly 7th isn't looking better) I love being a "narrative" player and all, but if the rules are terrible, you can only focus on the narrative so much. Everytime I'd start to get excited in a game, a muddy rule would pop up, or you'd have to check an entry, or you would realize that that cool unit you finally painted is completely useless thanks to the rules.

Now I just paint stuff and hope a better rule set gets made. Not much else I can do.

Pretty much spot on for me too. By itself, the new IG dex is actually pretty damn good I think. Not perfect by any means, still some lackluster internal balancing but definitely much better and imo, some improved flavour. Can even get more "fluffy" regiments thanks to the now usable vet doctrines, despite not having an overall "chapter tactics" style system which I really wanted. "Astra Militarum", "Scions", "Taurox" can all go to buggery though ; p

The basic rules... too cumbersome and in many areas poorly thought out. I'd blow a lot more money on 40k if the rules system was top notch, as is I largely just buy stuff (third party where possible) to assemble armies I like fluff wise. I'll still build lists for them since I enjoy that sort of thing, but play ... not so much. Give me Dreadball anyday, and Deadzone as soon as I get my act together. Deadzone 40K as soon as my chronic pain and the painkillers for it let me start developing it again too ; /

Is it the same list or same couple of lists that are winning tournaments? overall? I guess i dont feel this way at all

 Tenzilla wrote:
Is it the same list or same couple of lists that are winning tournaments? overall? I guess i dont feel this way at all

Not sure.

Ultimately its not so much that net lists are the ones winning the major (if anything they seem to do pretty badly from what little I've heard)

the problem is that the net lists destroy "regular" lists. Aka unless you brought a net list or are one of the extremely clever players who routinely places in stuff like NOVA and the like, you are facing long odds to beat a net list army. It is less about player skill at that point, and more about who brought the shiniest toys. Netlists also get boring after you see them multiple times.

And even then, I don't have a problem with the idea of competitive lists. In a more balanced game like Flames of War for example, I can bring a list that I like, and as long as I brought good support I still have a decent shot of winning. Do I have as good an odds as a guy who picked his list purely based on power? No. But if we're equal skill, the odds are only 35/65 or something, whereas 40k its more like 10/90 chance of me winning if I'm lucky. In short, I feel that even if my list isn't super optimized, I still feel like I have a chance. In 40k, I can often tell who is about to win just by reading the lists.

That, ultimately, is the kind of thing that has the best chance of killing 40k. I love the background, I like the models, I can stomach the price for good models, I can even ignore GW's money grubbing. But if the game itself is garbage, what incentive do I have to put up with any of that?

MrMoustaffa, I mostly agree except for one thing: A powerful list against a normal list with equal skill is about 99/100. I have been using a decent TAC list for a while now, definitely not weak, but not TauDar power either. (It's a psuedo-castle of heavy weapons with Psychic Support and a roving bunker-buster of either Grav-Centurions or TWC with a Chapter Master, some scouts, and some drop pods for backfield nuisance.)
I have only lost one game in the past year, and that was after some intense rules-lawyering and some incredibly bad dice on the last turn. (Apparently after you roll to wound with one type of weapon, you can no longer shoot with other weapons that haven't rolled to hit yet. This screwed me over big time. Then, on the last turn, I failed 7 3+ saves in a row, and I only needed to pass 1 to win. Or, if the game had been a turn longer I would have one. Or if it had been a turn shorter. His list was pretty powerful too, 4 Wave Serpents, 2 Wraithknights, 7 Wraithguard, and 2 Farseers.)

Either I'm far better at tactics than I think I am, or else a moderately powerful list is a big enough advantage over a mediocre list that there's not much of a chance for the weaker player to make it.

Personally, I think the game is pretty reasonable.

Some armies are easier to learn how to play than others, however, which leads to faster mastery over the most effective play styles for that codex, and is partially responsible for the misconception that some armies are more powerful. In addition, as a game which constantly grows and changes, 40k frequently sees alterations to an army's play style or to the rules in general, which require adaptation to successfully integrate or combat (as the case may be.) Players who are unable to find the new strategies that they need to use, or unwilling to change their tactics at all, can sometimes come to the erroneous conclusion that their codex is 'underpowered' because it is 'outdated.'

Maybe every netlist player I run up against is terrible. Or maybe I'm just super-duper competent. But I do just fine against power combos with 'weaker' armies or builds. Somehow, I doubt that my opponents are just that bad, and I also doubt that I'm just that good.

I've certainly noticed a lack of a desire to innovate, however. It seems like no one wants to try and discover the next new thing, to make their own combos and strategies. Seems like everyone just wants to recycle what they've already seen done, or what they KNOW is effective. And if THAT makes someone weary of the game, I can certainly empathize.

Waaaghpower, you come on down to Carbondale and we'll happily give you some fun and interesting games!

Apparently after you roll to wound with one type of weapon, you can no longer shoot with other weapons that haven't rolled to hit yet

So the person said "ha you rolled to wound that means all your other guns can't do gak now I win"?

That guy sounds like a swell opponent

 Dakkamite wrote:

Apparently after you roll to wound with one type of weapon, you can no longer shoot with other weapons that haven't rolled to hit yet

So the person said "ha you rolled to wound that means all your other guns can't do gak now I win"?

That guy sounds like a swell opponent

That's when you slip and fall on some of his models.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Personally, I think the game is pretty reasonable.

Some armies are easier to learn how to play than others, however, which leads to faster mastery over the most effective play styles for that codex, and is partially responsible for the misconception that some armies are more powerful. In addition, as a game which constantly grows and changes, 40k frequently sees alterations to an army's play style or to the rules in general, which require adaptation to successfully integrate or combat (as the case may be.) Players who are unable to find the new strategies that they need to use, or unwilling to change their tactics at all, can sometimes come to the erroneous conclusion that their codex is 'underpowered' because it is 'outdated'.

This really isn't sufficient enough to hand-wave all issues of balance. I run into this in every single wargame I play, and after gaming for quite a while, it is incredibly evident that systems that are well written and balanced facilitate overcoming this issue (and others) much more effectively. Had I the choice, I wouldn't play any of GW's games. None of them are remotely balanced, aside of in ways that no ruleset can escape being. Having these, does not excuse 40k from being a pretty awful game. Barely qualifies for a wargame, really. But yes, competent players, with underpowered lists can beat overpowered lists, but that has barely anything to do with 40k being a reasonable game.

40k has points limits, a crude but serviceable control over unit types when making lists, and a demographic of gamers with varying degrees of competency. All wargames have at least the latter and usually the former two, so there is no point giving 40k or any other wargame appreciation for having them. It would be a bit like praising Ryan Air for successfully flying you to your destination. Surely that would go without saying? Next time you might even realise that getting there with a better company might be a considerable improvement.

In a sense, you're largely right, in so much that the horrendous balance issues aren't in most cases a deal-breaker. I run a surprisingly successful Gretchin Horde, for instance, that has scalped Draigo Wings, and held its own against armies that frankly I expected to lose against. However, there have been games, regardless of what army I have used where I have had essentially no chance from the offset, aside of getting my opponent to ritually slaughter the first-born of the dice gods. I've never had that problem, in, say, Warmachine. 9/10 reasons why I have lost in Warmachine fell down either to an error on my judgement, or a fantastic tactical action from my opponent. Whereas in most games of 40k, where I have lost, it's been something I expected since deployment. Don't get me started on WHFB either.

I've gotten to the point where I take underpowered armies, that largely lose, simply so that when I win, I take the credit, rather than the army list. Even then, the credit could go to the dice gods.

Do I enjoy 40k? I do, but I don't have much choice. Until very, very recently, the local GW has been my only outlet for gaming, so GW's Cores are essentially what I have had to choose from for about 5+ years. Occasionally I get to play a wargame for a change, but it's seldom. I do like the setting (for now), I like the models, and for now, I'm willing to pay the price (I play Sisters. No s***.). I even enjoy the game, in the right company, but that's hardly glowing praise for 40k. In University, I was part of a Bad Films society. We watched awful films, got drunk, ate pizza, and took the piss out of them. We had a lot of fun. We enjoyed watching Contact. Yeah. The Bad Korean Martial Arts Film Redubbing Challenge cannot be recommended enough. But those films are still bad, and better films could be made, and watched.

Playing it with the right people, deluding yourself into to following this "forging the narrative" cop-out, making use of all the accidental balancing effects around the game and the genuine fun and entertainment that goes along with any hobby does not mean that games like this shouldn't be improved, or that people who are disappointed with the game shouldn't desire something better (and sadly for GW's competitors, there are, and many gamers can't even be bothered to find out). I must admit it boils my piss when I find out about gaming clubs that try to endlessly promote playing GW. I'd understand if your local gaming club is a GW store, and there's no realistic way to play somewhere where you don't have to choose from one of GW's 3 cores. But if you're in the position to choose any wargame, why on earth would you ever give GW games any time at all?

That's a logical question, expecting a logical answer though. Some people, myself included, are too wound up in the GW bubble to ever want to pop it. For myself, I adore Orks, and no other setting has anything close to it (well, until the update ruins them); 40k is one of the few wargames that indulges converting in any reasonable way; and then there's nostalgia. I started making a Genestealer Cult force not too long ago. Haven't had one since 2nd Ed. I also run Sisters. Walking nostalgia. And no sodding resin. Besides, by some miracle, my local GW isn't bad. The manager is surprisingly good, has even come up with a spending reward scheme that allows me the chance to occasionally play SGs in store. At the moment, I'm kind of enjoying the hobby again, but I don't expect it to last. My local manager is what staffers should be. However, as I'm acting genuinely surprised to be so happy about my local gaming club, it's evident he's a rare breed.

My personal advice to the OP is to dip your toe into other games, and see if there's anything else that grabs you. You don't even have to fully leave GW. Get online, download some Specialist Games rules. They're all there, if you know where to look. Necromunda would be my recommendation. Maybe you need to find a new gaming group, or a new wargame. There are some great ones out there. It might be worth waiting for the update to see if it changes anything, but I can't see the possibility of much improvement, but you never know. Occasionally GW surprises me. If I can just get to the point where I can't count them on two hands, I'll be a happier gamer.

Still, whilst losing a lot can be a bummer, I do recommend giving up on the gaming rat-race, and playing something deliberately underpowered. Make an Ork army, for instance, or some other army that is fun. Playing with fun armies makes you a better opponent, meaning you are more likely to get other opponents to be at least a bit better when playing you. A while ago, I stopped caring about the balance issues, and devoted myself to finding ways of making my own entertainment that revolved somewhat around messing with my opponent's mind. It's the Skaven player in me. Sadly with GW it is about finding ways to make it bearable. I fear if you do stay, we can only really help you find your own way. I doubt my way works with everyone.

Good luck.

(Edit: removed a bit that slowed down a point I wanted to reach and removed a bit of repetition)

Double post. Such a forum noob.

 Idolator wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:

Apparently after you roll to wound with one type of weapon, you can no longer shoot with other weapons that haven't rolled to hit yet

So the person said "ha you rolled to wound that means all your other guns can't do gak now I win"?

That guy sounds like a swell opponent

That's when you slip and fall on some of his models.

He was made at me because last time we played, I didn't let him roll psychic powers after he had moved most of his troops... Which I normally allow, but he had brought a Screamerstar in a casual league and I was mad at him because there was literally nothing in my army (My semi-comp TAC fluff list) that could come close to dealing with that. Which is part of my problem with 40k: There are lists which literally nothing can be done about, unless you have certain other lists.
His rules lawyering was made more annoying by the fact that he got a lot of rules wrong, too. (It was hilarious next turn, though, when the unit I should have killed rolled to hit with one weapon, rolled to wound, and then he started to roll to hit with another weapon. I called him out on that one, obviously...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dimreapa: I have a sizeable Orks army, which I do well with when I bring it out, I've just been running Power Armor for a while because I got bored with them.

Waaaghpower wrote:

His rules lawyering was made more annoying by the fact that he got a lot of rules wrong, too. (It was hilarious next turn, though, when the unit I should have killed rolled to hit with one weapon, rolled to wound, and then he started to roll to hit with another weapon. I called him out on that one, obviously...)

Well there you go. If he's not going to be consistent with it, he's evidently a poor sport. I'd have called him on more than just the interpretation, and particularly his attitude. Still, it's a completely stupid interpretation anyway. What if you have a special weapon in the squad and only one set of monocolour dice. How are you expected to distinquish between them? Exactly. You roll for it separately.

This is why you get metal Ork dreadnaughts, put them in a sock, and use them as a club.

Waaaghpower wrote:

Dimreapa: I have a sizeable Orks army, which I do well with when I bring it out, I've just been running Power Armor for a while because I got bored with them.

Yeah, I somehow totally missed the "waaagh" bit in your name. I'm going senile! I too needed a change from greenskins, but I avoid marines. They tend to depress me at how easy they are. As you're a fellow long suffering Ork player, perhaps what you need is a challenging synergy army. Hell, give Warmachine a go. It's non-stop synergy.

Given that GW seems to write it's new books by having their writers slap their buttcheeks on a keyboard repeatedly I'm not surprised the game is a totally imbalanced mess regardless of what the White Knight brigade foolishly believes.

When 6th ed landed most local players I know stopped playing the game. It all seemed to be getting to be too much effort and expense. Trouble is, we all have a large investment in 40k. About a year ago we started playing 2nd ed again. None of us has spent more than £5 on a codex, couple of pounds for a rule book. So far we have 6 2nd ed players, and everyone's having a blast with it.

I have made IG lists packed with ratlings, and rough riders. Not knowing what i was facing and won.

BALANCED!

The mere fact that people have to do this to enjoy the game is a pretty clear sign of how screwed up the game is.

Obviously you can never make every unit and every combo a 100% balanced, but when players have to radically limit certain codexes or units, something is wrong.

Reread what you posted. Now, if you were a new person on the board and you read that statement, would you want to start 40k? A game that is apparently so broken players have to essentially help each other write their army lists if they want a fair game? A game where playing against randoms is actively discouraged because the power levels vary so wildly?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to point out how crazy that sounds.

Yeah, no gak the game is horridly written, poorly balanced and abysmally play-tested. It pretty much always has been, and any argument to the contrary has to be leavened with the knowledge that previous editions are always viewed through the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia. Any new person coming into 40K *should* be told that the game is not exceptionally well-designed, not particularly well-written, and extremely poorly-play tested. New players should not have the wool pulled over their eyes.

This, of course, is not to excuse 6th Ed, but simply to point out that every edition has had its problems, the only thing that ever seems to really change is what the problems are in each edition. All of this is squarely, and solely, the fault of the design studio.

However, unless the OP and his group are going to rewrite the rules to suit their tastes, then there's really not a lot of options. They're going to have to apply self-imposed limits on their lists, or they're going to end up losing one (or more) of their players, which basically means that Kevin blew a whole lotta money on Wave Serpents he's not going to get to play anymore.

I'm giving 40k a break except for casual games with close friends. I hate going for a pickup game and having the game decided by whoever brought what list. "Oh, Cron air? Well, my SOB army can't really counter that. Awesome."
It's become such a hindrance to having fun that I'm jumping ship to Warmachine. I love the fluff, the models and it actually feels like a strategy game where player skill and intelligence actually matter.
So many people seem excited by "Unbound" that I think that this isn't the game for me anymore. I like strategy. I like close games. I like interesting army lists. (Not just ___ spam.)
If 40k changes, maybe I'll come back. I'll keep checking in and see what's going on.
Also, another thing that's pushing me away is that my primary army is always ignored. I've played SOB since they first came out. It's been over a decade since a new model came out. They haven't even bothered to give their new codex a print version, new units or new models. It was the minimal effort they could put into it.
1. Make good rules
or
2. Update SOB.

Since I don't think either is happening, I probably won't be playing outside of my small group and won't be buying anything else.

Waaaghpower wrote:Stories and cool moments can come out of 40k, but they don't carry the game by themself.

For you, at least.

Anyways, you've finally arrived at the point where every serious 40k player does sooner or later. You understand that because of the core mechanics of the game, that you simply can not take 40k seriously as a strategy game. It's craps or blackjack with miniatures, not chess. If you want to see the essay that started to come about when I hit the point you're at now, clickhere.

In the end, it's going to be useless trying to change 40k into something that it isn't, nor that it even really pretends to be. Either you're going to leave 40k, or you're going to learn to love 40k as it is. I mean, you can always do both, getting involved in a local chess club, and then still playing 40k, but the point is that you're not going to be able to continue on as you have from where you are right now.

There is a lot that 40k has to offer, and if you branch out it won't be too hard to find, but keeping to your current narrow focus just isn't going to work.

 MWHistorian wrote:

So many people seem excited by "Unbound" that I think that this isn't the game for me anymore. I like strategy. I like close games. I like interesting army lists. (Not just ___ spam.)

awesome I'd play you a game anytime I think close games make the best games..... when someone asks who's winning? and both players say umm not sure could go either way...what turn you on? 5 or 6 not sure!

Sums up the best games I have ever had

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm giving 40k a break except for casual games with close friends. I hate going for a pickup game and having the game decided by whoever brought what list. "Oh, Cron air? Well, my SOB army can't really counter that. Awesome."
It's become such a hindrance to having fun that I'm jumping ship to Warmachine. I love the fluff, the models and it actually feels like a strategy game where player skill and intelligence actually matter.
So many people seem excited by "Unbound" that I think that this isn't the game for me anymore. I like strategy. I like close games. I like interesting army lists. (Not just ___ spam.)
If 40k changes, maybe I'll come back. I'll keep checking in and see what's going on.
Also, another thing that's pushing me away is that my primary army is always ignored. I've played SOB since they first came out. It's been over a decade since a new model came out. They haven't even bothered to give their new codex a print version, new units or new models. It was the minimal effort they could put into it.
1. Make good rules
or
2. Update SOB.

Since I don't think either is happening, I probably won't be playing outside of my small group and won't be buying anything else.

The only good I see from Unbound armies is that you can field fluffy armies now. For example, I could make a proper Night Lords Warband with numerous Raptors and Warp Talons, or make a full Emperor's Children Warband with most troops being Noise Marines.

That good doesn't offset the bad though.