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.

Ledabot wrote:I came to this thread purely wondering what you felt was wrong with the rule set. YES! Flyers are great, but that's not a problem with the rules for flyers. The problem is, IMO, that are under-priced. Scale? Whats wrong with the current one? los is only a problem if you want it to be. Go make some hills outa foam or plaster. Worked for me. Allies are a great thing for 40k too. While they do
open up the cheese, they allow many to make the army they want. In 5th, you would see the same kind of thing every time you went out. Now, I play a different list and different combos every week. Don't tell me everyone plays guard and Grey knights. Tomorrow we have a tournament that people form half the country are coming too. The most represented army is eldar, 9 people have them!. Grey knights only show up 4 times (2 as main, 2 as allies) and guard only 4 times too (all main) out of the 38 players.

A)Welcome to the thread. We will probably have opposing points of view, which seems to be the norm for us, and thats ok. I just hope you bring the thought provoking arguments that I know you are capable of rather than the off the cuff reply above.


B)You say,"YES! Flyers are great", which seems to imply that my main problem with them is that they are "too" good. This is not the primary cause for my dislike of the fliers. Yes they are powerful and due to how GW buggers things up with its release system there is definitely a power imbalance that is an obvious ploy to get the community to "buy moar stuff". This is not what kills it for me.

As I've already stated earlier in this thread, the fliers create a logic break that I just can't ignore. It breaks the suspension of disbelief and for a game that is billed as cinematic this is the ultimate sin. In cinema you don't ever want to do something that makes the watcher acutely aware that they are watching a movie. The only exception to this is for comedic purposes. Now different people have different thresholds for what will break suspension of disbelief and my limits were already stretched pretty far by the scale issues in the game. An aircraft circling an area smaller than a football field at supersonic speeds doesn't just break the threshold, it shatters it.
Yes, the game is set way in the future but there is just to much conflict with the gothic dark age of technology abilities of the ground units.


C)The problem with the scale is that GW has increased the average army size and on table speed to the point that it has slowed the level of gameplay. What I am getting at is that the game was originally designed to be played at the rogue trader 500 to 1,250 point level. Thing is that a rogue trader 1,250 point army is would be about a 900 point 5th/6th ed army. Used to be, only the Eldar/DE factions had enough speed to cross the majority of the board in a single turn, that was no longer true after the 5th ed codices started to arrive.

The combination of Cheaper units, avg game size increasing and the majority of the IoM getting Eldar speed. has effectively shrunk the table to the point that the game now has one primary tactic. The tactic of choosing which of the newest codices to use. Hence my comment about retarding the level of game play. In 3rd and 4th ed a canny tactician could, to some extent, make up for having an outmatched force.

To describe the differences between the 3rd-4th ed and 5th-6th ed gameplay I'll use a playground analogy;
3rd-4th ed were like two kids playing tag, hide & seek and war all in one.
5th-6th ed is like 2 kids sitting in a sand box slamming their Tonka trucks into one another head on.


D)We will just have to disagree about the los blocking terrain. If you cannot admit that 40k is being played on a larger scale than originally designed or intended, then discussion about how the table crowding and scale issues make for problems with los blocking terrain will be pointless.


E)Never tried to tell you that everyone plays IG and Grey Knights. And yes, 6th ed has reduced the eldar to being the ally of choice so the number signed up for the tourney is no surprise. What is odd is that 3 armies make up 15-17 out of 38 armies in the tourney you mentioned. Be interesting to find out how many 'Crons are in that list. Would also be interesting to see which armies are not being represented.

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

I ask you to do this because while you claim an attempt to not be insulting, this last reply borders on such and also comes across as being intentionally obtuse. I will try to explain with more clarity:

People often have differing views based upon there individual perceptions and understandings. If you note, I said that los blocking terrain is a problem. You think otherwise and then accuse me and my fellow gamers of being lazy.

I then explain that we have loads of terrain but little of it is true los blockers. Also, that what los blockers we have just aggravate the table crowding issue inherent to a 28mm game being played on a larger scale than it was designed for. Again, you say that it is a player choice issue implying that we are somehow doing something wrong.

Note, you have terrain that is fine for you. If I went to where you played I would, quite likely, find your terrain sub-standard and either not really block los or to be so large that it dominates the table. It depends upon perspective. I understand that you feel the terrain is fine and do not insult you for feeling/thinking that. Why can you not extend the same courtesy to those of us who think/feel differently?

I could continue until blue in the face but, you have made your mind set that 40k is pretty much perfect. As such, you will never be able to try a different scale with an open mind nor will you be able to see why others have a problem with the terrain. You will most likely write off the people who disagree as power gamers or haters. So, at this point, I propose that we will have to agree to disagree(a common outcome when dealing with 40k rules ).

Perhaps you would not like the terrain I typically play with. This begs the question how is this a 6th ed problem? Wasn't scale the same in 5th? Why was this not an issue then? Furthermore I hardly think 40k is perfect, no game is nor will it ever be. There are plenty of problems, I just happen not to agree with most of yours as being problems with the game system. My issues with 40k 6th ed: Double force org is heavy handed and could have been handled better to allow for better expansion as points increase (try adding one slot at a time not another army.), Allies matrix could have been more balanced, it fits fluff(somewhat) but as such heavily favors imperial armies(forces of Order, Neurtality, and Disorder, would have been more balanced depending on how you break it up.), ATSKNF confering to any squad, True line of sight is now and has always been a poor gameplay mechanic(abstract terrain makes for a better game), I also have small issues with the WS chart (high WS is relatively meaningless after a point), the cover save mechanic, (cover should go back to being a modifier not a save, less saves = shorter games). There are more, none of them however have me wanting to quit the game (elsewise I would have done so long ago, and not felt the need to vent about it on the internet trying to convince others how bad the game is.

1)Yes, for me, the scale was a problem in 5th ed. I laboured through 5th ed with my Tau and Eldar patiently awaiting for the GW pendulum to swing back the other way. I had a lot of hope for 6th ed. My Tau were getting new life and at first glance it looked like tatical game play was returning. Then I played some games...and something just wasn't sitting right. The more I played the more I disliked the new system.

The list of things that I disliked grew to include:
The little kids slamming toy trucks together level of tactics/gameplay(Scale).
KP's still being around.
The rediculousness of a fighter aircraft performing low altitude strikes while the units are in close proximity.
Same aircraft circling a 72 yd by 48 yd space at supersonic speeds.
Inability to put appropriat amounts of terrain on board without choking off movement due to model interference with terrain pieces.
Faction imbalance being intentionally the worst in the history of the game inan effort to force "allies" sales.
The decline in both player base and game quality around the whole country
And finally, Notepad/markerhammer- too many new things requiring markers or notes to keep track of.(Game long effects, Hull points just to name a couple). The extra markers are crowding the table even more. Just the shear number of minor things that constantly interupt and prevent the game from being immersive. Between the book keeping and the interuptions the game is becoming like the job that I am trying to get away from by playing the game.

2)Thank you for finally contributing to the discussion. While I disagree with your view on true los I agree with most of the other issues you posted. ATSKNF, Double FOC, Allies matrix I absolutely agree need work.

3)See point number 2? That is discussing. If we could bring back this lost art then the player base might be able to come to a consensus and then use another lost art (snail mail complaint letters) to encourage a positive change in game and the company. The internet is a wonderful tool for discussing things but for some reason companies don't take email comlaints nearly as seriously as the written/typed letter sent through the mail.

You see, I don't hate GW or the game, just don't like this edition.

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
A) The most fundamental concept of a forum is a place where ideas and issues are discussed freely. What you see as people deriding the game, is to the rest of us, a discussion about its flaws. The fact that you feel the need to be protective of a game of toy soldiers leads to the next points.

B) You made the choice to come into a thread that clearly stated in the opening post that this was to be a dicussion about what parts of 6th ed are ruining the game for many of us. Basically what does the community feel are the fatal flaws of this edition. Note, the subject was not a call for people to come in and argue that the game is fine. If that is how you feel then a one line post would be all you need to post.

C) Your choice to participate in this (or any thread) is questionable, when you consider that the subject is about flaws of the game, when by your own words are, " I am liking 40k " and "I love 6th". If you love the game, "Then why are you participating in a discussion that the very subject of which you disagree?".
I could understand if GW was paying you to white knight for them(wouldn't agree with such but could at least understand the motivation) but any way one looks at it, you are deliberately putting yourself into situations to argue rather than discuss.


This said, I wish you well and much gaming enjoyment.

A.) A discusson that begins talking about at "fatal" flaw indicates that the flaw is something that is true for every one and that the game is inherently bad because of it. Maybe had you phrased it as, I felt like something felt wrong about the game to me....and figured out what was bothering me.... Instead you make wholesale statements about that the scale makes for non-tactical play (I disagree), and state that LOS blocking terrain is an issue (your opinion.). Which you do caption prior to stating them.

B.) So you are allowed to express your opinions and if I disagree, then I should not say a word..ok got it.

c.)Perhaps you are right, then again this is about the 10th such thread I have seen, and it gets tiresome to have people constantly bitch about things, it is bad for the community at large. What it comes down to is that is sounds like you wanted a thread...just listing negative things about the game (something I consider bad for the community.), having not disagreement with your opinions, and just having people agree. But maybe I'm way off.

I think instead of framing this discussion as an "I'm quitting 40k because of 6th ed discussion, and I feel the need to share why" You would, assuming you are enjoying 15mm 40k. Have been better framing it as a 15mm 40k discussion. How it works, why you think it is better than the normal game, and other rules tweaks you are making to the system that you feel improve the feel of the game.

Not everyone needs to enjoy the same things, I would just rather see the changes framed in a postive constructive manner (hey, I am creating my own 40k spin off of sorts, and really enjoying it), than a negative one (40k sucks, its no fun, and here is why.)

A)Actually the discussion opened with a call for an open discussion about the issues/flaws (not fatal flaws)that players are having. The fatal flaws line came later in the post and was properly prefaced with "IMO" or some other qualifier expressing that this was a personal issue that I had with the system. Go back and re-read the op again. It seems that you are so busy being protective of the game that you are seeing what is not there. If you are getting that my opening post was a dictation of what others should belive then the problem lies with what you are inferring, not what was written.

B)A swing and a miss. The point was that in a discussion about various issues players might be having you either contribute with an issue yourself and participate in the discussion or you post once saying that you are fine with the game and leave off. To constantly post saying that the topic is wrong and that posters are wrong and whining is to make yourself appear trollish. This is because you are not on-topic nor are you contributing to the discussion.
If you don't like the discussion....then you always have the freedom to not perticipate in or read the thread.

C)Again, if you don't like theads like this then why are you getting involved with them. Is it because you believe that if you don't agree then those who do are wrong and need to be quieted/corrected?

*Your sweeping statement that such threads are, "bad for the community at large' is amusingly ironic. You wrongfully accuse me of making such statement then turn around and actually make one yourself.

**I disagree that players discussing their greivances with the edition is bad. As I stated in point #3 up above, such discussions can be very helpful if people actually discuss and then act when a concensus is reached.

D)I agree that not everyone needs to enjoy the same things. My question is, "If you really feel that way then why are you trying so hard to convince me that I am wrong for my reason in moving to something different? Why are you trying so hard to say that I am discussing wrong?".


Note- I played my Tau all through 5th and now, right on the eve of getting a new codex, I'm quitting the edition that is suppossed to be favorable for them. I have 12000+ points in Tau alone, more in Eldar and feel that I have a right to discuss with the community at large why I am dropping this edition at this time. Also, I have been on this forum long enough to know that, as long as it is not in violation of Dakka Dakka's rules, I have the right to start and frame my threads in any manner I damn well please.

Thanks for finally contributing with some of the issues that you have with 6th ed.

May the dice gods be fair to you,
ff

Hi focusedfire.
Just read you post and realised I felt exactly the same as you , but 2 editions before!

Rt and 2nd ed were originaly a RPG/ skirmish game hybrid , which got streamlined a bit ,(still over complicated and fussy , but characterful,) into a larger Skirmish game.

And the characterful fun , sort of made up for the over complication... (ref books Ere We Go and Waaagh The orks!)

3rd ed and 4th ed seemed to just cram more models on the table and reduce the character of the game, to a 'bland battle game'.

5th and 6th edition carried on increasing the model count until' the bland battle game' turned into a 'diffuse dice rollathon.'

To use your analogy..

To describe the differences between the Rt-2nd ed and 5th-6th ed gameplay I'll use a playground analogy;

Rt and 2nd ed were like two kids playing tag, hide & seek and war all in one.

3rd-4th ed is like 2 kids sitting in a sand box slamming their Tonka trucks into one another head on.

5th -6th is like 2 kids showing each other more and more 'shiney new toys' until one runs out.(A game of top trumps with minis.)

40k needs a rule set written specificaly for it IMO.
(We are trying to do this in the 40k in 40 pages thread.)

 focusedfire wrote:

Ledabot wrote:I came to this thread purely wondering what you felt was wrong with the rule set. YES! Flyers are great, but that's not a problem with the rules for flyers. The problem is, IMO, that are under-priced. Scale? Whats wrong with the current one? los is only a problem if you want it to be. Go make some hills outa foam or plaster. Worked for me. Allies are a great thing for 40k too. While they do
open up the cheese, they allow many to make the army they want. In 5th, you would see the same kind of thing every time you went out. Now, I play a different list and different combos every week. Don't tell me everyone plays guard and Grey knights. Tomorrow we have a tournament that people form half the country are coming too. The most represented army is eldar, 9 people have them!. Grey knights only show up 4 times (2 as main, 2 as allies) and guard only 4 times too (all main) out of the 38 players.

A)Welcome to the thread. We will probably have opposing points of view, which seems to be the norm for us, and thats ok. I just hope you bring the thought provoking arguments that I know you are capable of rather than the off the cuff reply above.


B)You say,"YES! Flyers are great", which seems to imply that my main problem with them is that they are "too" good. This is not the primary cause for my dislike of the fliers. Yes they are powerful and due to how GW buggers things up with its release system there is definitely a power imbalance that is an obvious ploy to get the community to "buy moar stuff". This is not what kills it for me.

As I've already stated earlier in this thread, the fliers create a logic break that I just can't ignore. It breaks the suspension of disbelief and for a game that is billed as cinematic this is the ultimate sin. In cinema you don't ever want to do something that makes the watcher acutely aware that they are watching a movie. The only exception to this is for comedic purposes. Now different people have different thresholds for what will break suspension of disbelief and my limits were already stretched pretty far by the scale issues in the game. An aircraft circling an area smaller than a football field at supersonic speeds doesn't just break the threshold, it shatters it.
Yes, the game is set way in the future but there is just to much conflict with the gothic dark age of technology abilities of the ground units.


C)The problem with the scale is that GW has increased the average army size and on table speed to the point that it has slowed the level of gameplay. What I am getting at is that the game was originally designed to be played at the rogue trader 500 to 1,250 point level. Thing is that a rogue trader 1,250 point army is would be about a 900 point 5th/6th ed army. Used to be, only the Eldar/DE factions had enough speed to cross the majority of the board in a single turn, that was no longer true after the 5th ed codices started to arrive.

The combination of Cheaper units, avg game size increasing and the majority of the IoM getting Eldar speed. has effectively shrunk the table to the point that the game now has one primary tactic. The tactic of choosing which of the newest codices to use. Hence my comment about retarding the level of game play. In 3rd and 4th ed a canny tactician could, to some extent, make up for having an outmatched force.

To describe the differences between the 3rd-4th ed and 5th-6th ed gameplay I'll use a playground analogy;
3rd-4th ed were like two kids playing tag, hide & seek and war all in one.
5th-6th ed is like 2 kids sitting in a sand box slamming their Tonka trucks into one another head on.


D)We will just have to disagree about the los blocking terrain. If you cannot admit that 40k is being played on a larger scale than originally designed or intended, then discussion about how the table crowding and scale issues make for problems with los blocking terrain will be pointless.


E)Never tried to tell you that everyone plays IG and Grey Knights. And yes, 6th ed has reduced the eldar to being the ally of choice so the number signed up for the tourney is no surprise. What is odd is that 3 armies make up 15-17 out of 38 armies in the tourney you mentioned. Be interesting to find out how many 'Crons are in that list. Would also be interesting to see which armies are not being represented.

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:

I ask you to do this because while you claim an attempt to not be insulting, this last reply borders on such and also comes across as being intentionally obtuse. I will try to explain with more clarity:

People often have differing views based upon there individual perceptions and understandings. If you note, I said that los blocking terrain is a problem. You think otherwise and then accuse me and my fellow gamers of being lazy.

I then explain that we have loads of terrain but little of it is true los blockers. Also, that what los blockers we have just aggravate the table crowding issue inherent to a 28mm game being played on a larger scale than it was designed for. Again, you say that it is a player choice issue implying that we are somehow doing something wrong.

Note, you have terrain that is fine for you. If I went to where you played I would, quite likely, find your terrain sub-standard and either not really block los or to be so large that it dominates the table. It depends upon perspective. I understand that you feel the terrain is fine and do not insult you for feeling/thinking that. Why can you not extend the same courtesy to those of us who think/feel differently?

I could continue until blue in the face but, you have made your mind set that 40k is pretty much perfect. As such, you will never be able to try a different scale with an open mind nor will you be able to see why others have a problem with the terrain. You will most likely write off the people who disagree as power gamers or haters. So, at this point, I propose that we will have to agree to disagree(a common outcome when dealing with 40k rules ).

Perhaps you would not like the terrain I typically play with. This begs the question how is this a 6th ed problem? Wasn't scale the same in 5th? Why was this not an issue then? Furthermore I hardly think 40k is perfect, no game is nor will it ever be. There are plenty of problems, I just happen not to agree with most of yours as being problems with the game system. My issues with 40k 6th ed: Double force org is heavy handed and could have been handled better to allow for better expansion as points increase (try adding one slot at a time not another army.), Allies matrix could have been more balanced, it fits fluff(somewhat) but as such heavily favors imperial armies(forces of Order, Neurtality, and Disorder, would have been more balanced depending on how you break it up.), ATSKNF confering to any squad, True line of sight is now and has always been a poor gameplay mechanic(abstract terrain makes for a better game), I also have small issues with the WS chart (high WS is relatively meaningless after a point), the cover save mechanic, (cover should go back to being a modifier not a save, less saves = shorter games). There are more, none of them however have me wanting to quit the game (elsewise I would have done so long ago, and not felt the need to vent about it on the internet trying to convince others how bad the game is.

1)Yes, for me, the scale was a problem in 5th ed. I laboured through 5th ed with my Tau and Eldar patiently awaiting for the GW pendulum to swing back the other way. I had a lot of hope for 6th ed. My Tau were getting new life and at first glance it looked like tatical game play was returning. Then I played some games...and something just wasn't sitting right. The more I played the more I disliked the new system.

The list of things that I disliked grew to include:
The little kids slamming toy trucks together level of tactics/gameplay(Scale).
KP's still being around.
The rediculousness of a fighter aircraft performing low altitude strikes while the units are in close proximity.
Same aircraft circling a 72 yd by 48 yd space at supersonic speeds.
Inability to put appropriat amounts of terrain on board without choking off movement due to model interference with terrain pieces.
Faction imbalance being intentionally the worst in the history of the game inan effort to force "allies" sales.
The decline in both player base and game quality around the whole country
And finally, Notepad/markerhammer- too many new things requiring markers or notes to keep track of.(Game long effects, Hull points just to name a couple). The extra markers are crowding the table even more. Just the shear number of minor things that constantly interupt and prevent the game from being immersive. Between the book keeping and the interuptions the game is becoming like the job that I am trying to get away from by playing the game.

2)Thank you for finally contributing to the discussion. While I disagree with your view on true los I agree with most of the other issues you posted. ATSKNF, Double FOC, Allies matrix I absolutely agree need work.

3)See point number 2? That is discussing. If we could bring back this lost art then the player base might be able to come to a consensus and then use another lost art (snail mail complaint letters) to encourage a positive change in game and the company. The internet is a wonderful tool for discussing things but for some reason companies don't take email comlaints nearly as seriously as the written/typed letter sent through the mail.

You see, I don't hate GW or the game, just don't like this edition.

Breng77 wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
A) The most fundamental concept of a forum is a place where ideas and issues are discussed freely. What you see as people deriding the game, is to the rest of us, a discussion about its flaws. The fact that you feel the need to be protective of a game of toy soldiers leads to the next points.

B) You made the choice to come into a thread that clearly stated in the opening post that this was to be a dicussion about what parts of 6th ed are ruining the game for many of us. Basically what does the community feel are the fatal flaws of this edition. Note, the subject was not a call for people to come in and argue that the game is fine. If that is how you feel then a one line post would be all you need to post.

C) Your choice to participate in this (or any thread) is questionable, when you consider that the subject is about flaws of the game, when by your own words are, " I am liking 40k " and "I love 6th". If you love the game, "Then why are you participating in a discussion that the very subject of which you disagree?".
I could understand if GW was paying you to white knight for them(wouldn't agree with such but could at least understand the motivation) but any way one looks at it, you are deliberately putting yourself into situations to argue rather than discuss.


This said, I wish you well and much gaming enjoyment.

A.) A discusson that begins talking about at "fatal" flaw indicates that the flaw is something that is true for every one and that the game is inherently bad because of it. Maybe had you phrased it as, I felt like something felt wrong about the game to me....and figured out what was bothering me.... Instead you make wholesale statements about that the scale makes for non-tactical play (I disagree), and state that LOS blocking terrain is an issue (your opinion.). Which you do caption prior to stating them.

B.) So you are allowed to express your opinions and if I disagree, then I should not say a word..ok got it.

c.)Perhaps you are right, then again this is about the 10th such thread I have seen, and it gets tiresome to have people constantly bitch about things, it is bad for the community at large. What it comes down to is that is sounds like you wanted a thread...just listing negative things about the game (something I consider bad for the community.), having not disagreement with your opinions, and just having people agree. But maybe I'm way off.

I think instead of framing this discussion as an "I'm quitting 40k because of 6th ed discussion, and I feel the need to share why" You would, assuming you are enjoying 15mm 40k. Have been better framing it as a 15mm 40k discussion. How it works, why you think it is better than the normal game, and other rules tweaks you are making to the system that you feel improve the feel of the game.

Not everyone needs to enjoy the same things, I would just rather see the changes framed in a postive constructive manner (hey, I am creating my own 40k spin off of sorts, and really enjoying it), than a negative one (40k sucks, its no fun, and here is why.)

A)Actually the discussion opened with a call for an open discussion about the issues/flaws (not fatal flaws)that players are having. The fatal flaws line came later in the post and was properly prefaced with "IMO" or some other qualifier expressing that this was a personal issue that I had with the system. Go back and re-read the op again. It seems that you are so busy being protective of the game that you are seeing what is not there. If you are getting that my opening post was a dictation of what others should belive then the problem lies with what you are inferring, not what was written.

B)A swing and a miss. The point was that in a discussion about various issues players might be having you either contribute with an issue yourself and participate in the discussion or you post once saying that you are fine with the game and leave off. To constantly post saying that the topic is wrong and that posters are wrong and whining is to make yourself appear trollish. This is because you are not on-topic nor are you contributing to the discussion.
If you don't like the discussion....then you always have the freedom to not perticipate in or read the thread.

C)Again, if you don't like theads like this then why are you getting involved with them. Is it because you believe that if you don't agree then those who do are wrong and need to be quieted/corrected?

Your sweeping statement that such threads are, "bad for the community at large' is amusingly ironic. You wrongfully accuse me of making such statement then turn around and actually make one yourself.

I disagree that players discussing their greivances with the edition is bad. As I stated in point #3 up above, such discussions can be very helpful if people actually discuss and then act when a concensus is reached.

D)I agree that not everyone needs to enjoy the same things. My question is, "If you really feel that way then why are you trying so hard to convince me that I am wrong for my reason in moving to something different? Why are you trying so hard to say that I am discussing wrong?".


Note- I played my Tau all through 5th and now, right on the eve of getting a new codex, I'm quitting the edition that is suppossed to be favorable for them. I have 12000+ points in Tau alone, more in Eldar and feel that I have a right to discuss with the community at large why I am dropping this edition at this time. Also, I have been on this forum long enough to know that, as it is not in violation of Dakka Dakka's rules, I have the right to start and frame my threads in any manner I damn well please.

Thanks for finally contributing with some of the issues that you have with 6th ed.

May the dice gods be fair to you,
ff

It is not so much that I feel that you need to agree it is more that when many people post negative arguments I feel the need to present the other side. Like I said I prefer discussions to be....here is an issue I have here is my proposed solution(which you have some of.)...rather than here is my laundry list of issues. Just a difference of opinion, that if I do ever choose to quit I won't feel he need to justify myself. But to each their own. You are correct, you are not breaking my forum rules, and are entitled to do as you please.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
No, the technological edge has been removed from the Imperium. Necrons have it just fine. As do Eldar. Those two armies don't plan a single battle nor fight one unless everything is in place and ready to go. If they get caught with their pants down they withdraw. and fight the battle right at a later date. They never have random generals leading their armies, and they certainly know what their objectives are before they go to war.

It's the stupid Imperials that fit the description of how you see 40k battles fought.

Meh, The logistics of those two armies pale in compared to the nightmare that imperial logistics would be. The Guard in many ways is so large they have very little opportunity to shift commanders, much less whole armies around to fit a specific purpose.

Necrons have their own hampering as their tech conceivably would destroy everyone if they really wanted, but they just seam to fight for whatever reason.

Eldar are hampered by having the most advanced technology that sucks! Seriously the shurikan catapult has to be one of the worst weapons in the game....and it used to be the best.

Right now warlord traits are free, I guess if you wanted to pay for something specific you should be able to, but it should be at a premium, while others who don't want to pay still get the free roll. I suppose you could do the same with psyker abilities.

I come from the days where 40k was very very random, you just had to adapt and overcome. It made the game more fun, people didn't take losses so hard, you just did the best you could. Which is actually more realistic, rarely in the real world do two evenly matched armies come to battle. I really liked the game more when it was not so competitive.

I agree with Andrew here - comparing it to the (presumably US) military, fighting on one small planet which it can circumnavigate in hours, is ridiculous. The Imperium has a huge issue with distance, and also with the 'honour' of various factions. The invasion of Fortress Planet X requires overwhelming firepower and siege tactics to break? Sorry, all that's available are 10 regiments of Teeshirtian Light Infantry and the only Space Marines within a squillion space-miles are the Crazy-Screaming-Chainsword Marines. Honour demands that Chapter Master Mental take command of the invasion. Go Imperium!

Even factions like the Eldar are limited by millenia of tradition and dwindling numbers. Again, the assault of Magic Crystal Planet requires overwhelming firepower, but Saim Hann only has two Fire Dragons left in it's temple so the Wild Riders want to have a go....

McNinja wrote:I mean really, what does a Librarian do before a battle? Pick a book of spells, close his eyes, point at a random spell? No, he learns his gak before the battle and doesn't waste time learning stupid spells that are ineffective or useless.

Well, in pretty much all the fluff, psykers don't 'learn their spells' at all. A psyker has a few intrinsic abilities, which they hone, but they don't 'learn' the same ones. If your regiment of IG is assigned a telepath, then that's that - they can't switch to a pyromancer before the battle.

The game rules actually allow you MORE control over this than is 'realistic' in the setting by allowing you to pick deck. If you were the Captain of the 2nd company of Generic Marines, you can't just pick what Librarian you have assigned to you - it's beyond your control.

Maybe it's not the 6th edition rules that are wrong (okay, maybe the way fliers and warlord traits work, but psykers are the dark god's bitches- it's their playing field after all. If you want to choose your powers, get the codex stuff.), maybe it's that we're playing it wrong.
I find the 6th ed rules to be quite fun on the small scale (ten marines, a razorback and and librarian for lolz), anywhere between 250-750 points works out quite well for "narrative" gameplay. At that scale it's boring without some of the flavor 6th provides.
For anything over 1,000 pts, yes it is kinda silly that roughly 50% of the rulebook needs house ruling to work properly.

I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

If you want large games, you may want to consider trying Epic Armageddon (or epic 40k), the rules of which are free PDF files, and you can have a space marine battle company of 160 marines for £15 (GBP). Admittedly, it is still way overpriced, and retardedly small, but the rules are quite balanced. Plus it's awesome to spend only £30 and then be able to have 300+ troops all perfectly lined up and ready to be massacred.


On a side note:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I think a good question is why do we have armies that are so focused on assault? Its a pew pew game, warhamer is the hack hack game! Overwatch was needed because without it the game was turning into a close combat game, that was getting out of hand. Too many units just suicide charging around the field to get into CC or melta range. It just felt weird.

Khorne demands slaughter, you can't stick an axe in someone half a kilometre away.

EDIT: Spell check, and fixing punctuation.

I can relate to the randomness of warlord traits, on more than one occasion I've had one of my friends roll for a trait only to get one that did absolutely nothing either because he had some special rule that already gave him the warlord trait or because my army made his trait useless, in which case I allowed him to re-roll his trait, I always play home games and we are pretty lax when it comes to stuff like that. we have tossed the idea around of allowing each other to hand pick their warlord trait but haven't tried it out yet. I also feel that rolling for charge distance could use some revising because I think it sucks when you fail your charge roll, then have to stand there unable to move and take a bunch of overwatch shots to the face, I think you should at least be able to move the charge distance you rolled but that's just my opinion

COOL! Some one was interested in Beachhead! Thanks H!

Out of curiosity, since my group has always been pretty much Gentlemanus Maximus about rules, (for instance, the necron player has self banned his one flyer in our ~500-750pt games) on average just chime in with how many houserule and equivalent you have. Any and all things you do to this already "Beer and Pretzels" game to tweak it. Just throw a number down. Like for us it's like five(?) in general and 1-3(90%sure) each in codex. This isn't a contest now so keep your answers tame please. Also want to say this is my FAV game to sandbox houserule in.

HondaTuning wrote:
I can relate to the randomness of warlord traits, on more than one occasion I've had one of my friends roll for a trait only to get one that did absolutely nothing either because he had some special rule that already gave him the warlord trait or because my army made his trait useless, in which case I allowed him to re-roll his trait, I always play home games and we are pretty lax when it comes to stuff like that. we have tossed the idea around of allowing each other to hand pick their warlord trait but haven't tried it out yet. I also feel that rolling for charge distance could use some revising because I think it sucks when you fail your charge roll, then have to stand there unable to move and take a bunch of overwatch shots to the face, I think you should at least be able to move the charge distance you rolled but that's just my opinion

We've been playing it the following way. You roll your D6 and then pick from the options that number provides. They seem to be far less useless this way.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Also want to say this is my FAV game to sandbox houserule in.

Yeah that's my opinion too. Houseruling no buildings or allies, 6" charge for infantry, 12" for calvary, pick what Warlord trait you want.

Selym wrote:

I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

Dear gods, i hope not, i'm allready at a 40models count in a 2k game..., and i'm allready under the impression of having nothing on the table, so a 1k game?, gods allmighty, even has a newb i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...

Also, personnaly while i agree that there is bad rules designe with 6th, to me the LoS and Scale, is just a trivial matter, they are not gamebreaking, and gods knows that i allready struggle to paint 28mm models due to bad eyesight, but 15mm?, it would like being blind!

The Real flaws are elsewhere and far more lets say atainable, then redoing the whole game scale.

-The Nerfbat that CC has gotten, why the hell is nearly every CC USR gimped if you assault 2 units?, even by just entering in contact because you don't have a choice, and don't start me on FC...
-Stupid HP rule, while i'm aware that wasting firepower on a rhino to see the thing survive a whole game, just because your foe rolled Shaken and Stunned for every Pen hit, is frustrating, having a rule that litteraly says" IF 5 Gobs spit on it, it is destroyed" is way more frustrating...

Was so difficult to NOT add the "0HP=Destroyed" line?, and just say that when at 0HP, you roll the damages, even if you make Glancings Hits on it?

-Disembarkment rules, boy was that a stupid choice they made, killed 40% of the armies efficientcy.

-Randomness all over the place!, why 2D6 assault range?, why not like Battle?, 6"+1D6" ?

-Focus Fire rule...

-Challengs

-Scenarios&Missions

ANd so much else who just doesn't make little sens

The weirdest:
Throwing Grenades, why can only 1 dude throw one?

 Shandara wrote:
The weirdest:
Throwing Grenades, why can only 1 dude throw one?

Consider the Imperium often has Krak grenades on everyone in most of their armies.

Would you really prefer them to be flinging S6/AP4 nades from 10 models instead of 20 boltgun shots?

That's a question of balancing the cost/availability of the grenades, not hamstringing the grenade rules to fix it.

which is an issue with the release design of GW. Unless they were to release all books at the start of an edition, having a grenade rule that is not limited to 1 per squad, leads to them needing to errata every book to make it fair points wise. (All marines get Krak and frag for free (except templars). What about an IG blob throwing 50 S6 shots for 1 point per model...

I agree if they had balanced the grenades with that intent, having all models throw grenades would be fine. But they did not so throwing one is a good balance.

Just wanted to add my two pence to this as our gaming community of 6 friends have all switched back to WHFB because of the state of 40k.

We as casual gamers enjoy having a nice background or lore to many of the games we play but have found that as soon as we started playing more, people began naturally moving towards power and cookie cutter lists just to remain competitive.

When you are staring at an army book and only 1 or 2 units of it are honestly viable (especially as we do by banning named characters to forge our own narrative), the games become immensely frustrating. As a Necron player before, I started with multitudes of units to try them all out and see how they played, a few months down the line into 6th and all I have left that I find can play against most armies are solid blocks of Immortals and Anni Barges + the occasional doom scythe (we limit flyer use).

There's too much stuff that gets railed off the board within the first turn in 40k. it is truly Shoothammer this edition. It has seemed that all of us in our community have gone through some natural cycle of optimising a high number of weapons at lower AP's or just spamming a large number of high shot weapons and standing in lines and shooting 3 levels of hell out of each other.

Firstly, this is asbolutely boring to us. CC is where the game really begins to throw the random turns of event that you end up talking about for weeks in the future. Secondly, CC seems just about impossible to press unless you have a very fortunate deployment.

When things do get into CC, those armies that were once kings of it come up short. As a Necron player, my friends faces drop everytime MSS gets used. Then at the same time, I love the look of Lychguards and Triarch Praetorians, yet they are just an immense waste of points when I could have more Immortals.

Our transition back to WHFB has seemed timely and we much further enjoy it over the turn system of 40k. We are just not willing to entertain the exorbitant prices of 40k and GW's methodology for releasing new 40K armies.

We end up with months on end of inbalance and by the time a few more armies come out, your collected army suddenly has most of it's viable tactics stripped away in an instant. I'll tell you now, after removing the standard Croissant spam, necrons are an immensely boring army to play, however they have the potential to be one of the most exciting if even 30% of the codex was in some way usable.

Now they have at least errata'd the OP stuff, what's left is Croissants.

Bring on more WHFB is the message you get from our little community. 40K has just not been good to us as casual gamers since 6th Ed.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
COOL! Some one was interested in Beachhead! Thanks H!

Out of curiosity, since my group has always been pretty much Gentlemanus Maximus about rules, (for instance, the necron player has self banned his one flyer in our ~500-750pt games) on average just chime in with how many houserule and equivalent you have. Any and all things you do to this already "Beer and Pretzels" game to tweak it. Just throw a number down. Like for us it's like five(?) in general and 1-3(90%sure) each in codex. This isn't a contest now so keep your answers tame please. Also want to say this is my FAV game to sandbox houserule in.

Yeah I like the cinematic opportunities and stories that can come out of games like that.

We houserule anything can ally with each other (so we can play BA GK Orks v Tyranids 3000), fortifications after terrain deployment, hand pick warlord traits, BAO missions, and are generally fairly relaxed about the strict rules. We just look to have fun and get a little day buzz going.

I say bring on 7th edition. 6th is a series of minigames. Deployment is a game, reserves are a game, warlord traits are a game, Look Out Sir! is a game, challenges are a game, dogfighting with aircraft is now a game thanks to Crusade of Fire, and Assault continues to be a game. I think that 6th ed is a perfect example of the whole being less than the sum of all of its parts. Now, I am enjoying it, and I love the new DA codex and models, but...6th ed imho shows how long-in-the-tooth 40k is as a system. It needs a ground-up redesign; a totally new ruleset. Love the fluff, love my models, don't even mind paying high prices (new job ftw) but the game mechanics lack any and all elegance.

p.s. I think fliers are a perfect example of GW understanding that they have a big, big problem. Push higher end models to pre-existing armies because we know that fewer and fewer people are starting new armies. Look for GW $200 single model units in the next 2 years that are not FW.

On the talk of 6th ed rules, me and a friend have decided on playing a campaign, with the following ideas:

Any battle played with the 6th ed ruleset should be roughly 1000 points, preferably less. This is because in small doses (read: low points) the 6th ruleset is actually quite good, by giving more flavour to a game. For example, Warboss Zrug and his band of drunken gun nuts are rather characterless under fith ed, being a warboss with twin shoota and powerklaw sitting with two groups of 10 shooty boyz. They move up, a heavy bolter SM tactical squad in cover shoots down one unit, and a small unit of assault marines takes out the rest. simple, straightforward, boring.
Under 6th, you get a game of:

What slowed strategy has this numskull of an ork conceived this time?

Warlord traits: What random acts of behavior shall this boss exhibit today?
Random charges: "WHO PUT STONES IN MY BOOTZ?"
Random terrain: "Why did that ork choose to fight here?"
Shooting when charged: Them boyz got some balls charging that gunline, or they're having a hilarious time spewing shots at those squishy humies!

Although I do have to admit that it only works if you're there to have a laugh, and you can explain away the randomness with orkoid illogicality.

For the larger battles, with an apocalyptic feel, we're planning on using Epic Armageddon, because the 6th ed rules become increasingly unwieldy and unbalanced the more points you put into a game. However, the opposite is true when you get into epic 40k games, where 1 formation vs 1 formation will be pretty unfair, but once you shove those points up skywards, there are all sorts of tactics, ploys, bluffs, counter-attacks to use, assault is still valid, and having a warlord titan on your sided costs only £30.75 GBP.

Jedziah wrote:

We as casual gamers enjoy having a nice background or lore to many of the games we play but have found that as soon as we started playing more, people began naturally moving towards power and cookie cutter lists just to remain competitive.

When you are staring at an army book and only 1 or 2 units of it are honestly viable (especially as we do by banning named characters to forge our own narrative), the games become immensely frustrating. As a Necron player before, I started with multitudes of units to try them all out and see how they played, a few months down the line into 6th and all I have left that I find can play against most armies are solid blocks of Immortals and Anni Barges + the occasional doom scythe (we limit flyer use).

These two statements are in direct conflict with each other. You and your group are clearly not as casual as you claim.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Jedziah wrote:

We as casual gamers enjoy having a nice background or lore to many of the games we play but have found that as soon as we started playing more, people began naturally moving towards power and cookie cutter lists just to remain competitive.

When you are staring at an army book and only 1 or 2 units of it are honestly viable (especially as we do by banning named characters to forge our own narrative), the games become immensely frustrating. As a Necron player before, I started with multitudes of units to try them all out and see how they played, a few months down the line into 6th and all I have left that I find can play against most armies are solid blocks of Immortals and Anni Barges + the occasional doom scythe (we limit flyer use).

These two statements are in direct conflict with each other. You and your group are clearly not as casual as you claim.

I do not believe casual gaming and liking to also be able to win occasionally are directly conflicting.

There's only so many times you will play 40k if you field cool units which always lead you to losing.

Trying to keep the quote spam to a minimum, so some editing was in order. Sorry for butchering anything.

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Selym wrote:

I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

Dear gods, i hope not, i'm allready at a 40models count in a 2k game..., and i'm allready under the impression of having nothing on the table, so a 1k game?, gods allmighty, even has a newb i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...

-The Nerfbat that CC has gotten, why the hell is nearly every CC USR gimped if you assault 2 units?, even by just entering in contact because you don't have a choice, and don't start me on FC...
-Stupid HP rule, while i'm aware that wasting firepower on a rhino to see the thing survive a whole game, just because your foe rolled Shaken and Stunned for every Pen hit, is frustrating, having a rule that litteraly says" IF 5 Gobs spit on it, it is destroyed" is way more frustrating...
-Was so difficult to NOT add the "0HP=Destroyed" line?, and just say that when at 0HP, you roll the damages, even if you make Glancings Hits on it?

To Selym, absolutely, but I like the challenge of small games. I see these bigger games(like 2k+) and can't personally(please note, personally) understand why you'd play a game that crammed full of stuff. It just looks like a shooting gallery/dice bath. I see no strategic maneuvering or notably clever positioning because you filled the whole board with stuff! It's like looking at a football game where both teams have thirty players on the field at once. There is nowhere to go! Nowhere to kick/throw the ball thats 'open'! It looks like a tactical blunder from the get go because no matter where you go there's just more bad guys. But that's just me.

But to Slayer...Huh? I think I understand your first sentence, but it's hard to tell. I just played an 850pt game with 34 models on the board as Tau against 30-35 models on the Eldar side.(epic game btw, fantastic duel between a lone 'insane heroism' Dire Avenger and an equally alone Gun Drone ) So I'm gonna guess your running like Grey knights or some equally point intensive army. So its this feeling you have of not having anything on the board that confounds me. Do you mean in relation to your opponent? Any commander is going to want more tools at his disposal, for sure. But I can't fathom this feeling of yours. Like, lets say you bring 3k points and your opponent does too, you net about anther 10-15 models, more clutter, and would you still feel like you don't have anything on the board? Just by comparison of your opponent having equally more? Please elaborate my good sir. To the other things you say I really dig your idea on hull points. But I feel like any game that has guns in it should hose CC by default. I love the idea of a game that has Chainswords and Power axes and whatnot. But seriously folks, remember Indianna Jones reaction to crazy sword guy!?

Shandara wrote:The weirdest:
Throwing Grenades, why can only 1 dude throw one?

I know right? At least now they can actually throw the thing! But yeah, that's totally a balance-to-cinematic thing. Allows for potential special rules that throw multiple grenades to come in the future though. Still funky as funk

Jedziah wrote:We as casual gamers enjoy having a nice background or lore to many of the games we play but have found that as soon as we started playing more, people began naturally moving towards power and cookie cutter lists just to remain competitive.
-When you are staring at an army book and only 1 or 2 units of it are honestly viable (especially as we do by banning named characters to forge our own narrative), the games become immensely frustrating. As a Necron player before, I started with multitudes of units to try them all out and see how they played, a few months down the line into 6th and all I have left that I find can play against most armies are solid blocks of Immortals and Anni Barges + the occasional doom scythe (we limit flyer use).
-There's too much stuff that gets railed off the board within the first turn in 40k. it is truly Shoothammer this edition. It has seemed that all of us in our community have gone through some natural cycle of optimising a high number of weapons at lower AP's or just spamming a large number of high shot weapons and standing in lines and shooting 3 levels of hell out of each other.
-Firstly, this is asbolutely boring to us. CC is where the game really begins to throw the random turns of event that you end up talking about for weeks in the future. Secondly, CC seems just about impossible to press unless you have a very fortunate deployment.
-We end up with months on end of inbalance and by the time a few more armies come out, your collected army suddenly has most of it's viable tactics stripped away in an instant. I'll tell you now, after removing the standard Croissant spam, necrons are an immensely boring army to play, however they have the potential to be one of the most exciting if even 30% of the codex was in some way usable.

Its the forty-first millennium. We have guns. This is natural to shoot things. The answer that good soldiers have developed since the American Civil War(or so, input oppinion here) is to keep your goram head down. Pro tip: Start in cover. I did lol a bit there because you said get 'railed' off the board and I play Tau. Again, Indianna Jones vs. Crazy Sword Guy! Despite it being the most manliest weapon ever, you still might want to question bringing a Chain Axe to a Melta fight. As to your now 'boring' Necrons, be proud that you refined your game down to that point man! Thats like when a Magic or other TCG/CCG player gets a deck tuned just right, its the reward for all that work. And notably the time they move on to start a new deck, or in your case army.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Jedziah wrote:
Stuff. first two paragraphs notably. See above. I'm commenting on the reply.

These two statements are in direct conflict with each other. You and your group are clearly not as casual as you claim.

These two statements are not contradictory. It is not mutually exclusive to be a casual gamer and to want to weed out units/models that you don't have fun playing with because they are sub-par to another available option. That's just natural evolution to any game meta. It's that funky line between the initial "this model looks awesome!" reflex and the "This thing never does what I want it to" discovery. Interesting that you think otherwise. Now we agree to move on. (ACK! ninja'd lol)

Its the forty-first millennium. We have guns. This is natural to shoot things. The answer that good soldiers have developed since the American Civil War(or so, input oppinion here) is to keep your goram head down. Pro tip: Start in cover. I did lol a bit there because you said get 'railed' off the board and I play Tau. Again, Indianna Jones vs. Crazy Sword Guy! Despite it being the most manliest weapon ever, you still might want to question bringing a Chain Axe to a Melta fight. As to your now 'boring' Necrons, be proud that you refined your game down to that point man! Thats like when a Magic or other TCG/CCG player gets a deck tuned just right, its the reward for all that work. And notably the time they move on to start a new deck, or in your case army.

Glad you are laughing You make some very good points, however I don't see how the Necron Codex or 40k can be fun to collect and play if I am reduced to buying boxes of Immortals and Anni Barges. It makes no diversity for me to play, nor friends to play against.

I think I saw it in a post on WHFB that someone was quoted as saying 'The thing that makes a great and balanced army book is one which allows the gamer to field multiple army lists and combinations from a single book'

I am normally one that tries to field something a bit different, a bit 'new' and I've been the same whilst playing MTG too so I know that pain too

The Necron codex is one of those shining examples of something which could have been tremendous. Instead what we ended up with was for a long time, some seriously OP stuff which finally got erratad on one end and then some stuff on the other end which in use, simply doesn't add up to weight of its parts.

I used to have a tremendously fun Necron list to play during 5th which was almost entirely CC oriented. It was quirky, you didn't know the outcome but it made for some great fun battles we still talk about 5 months down the line. Under 6th edition , the army list can't get half way up the board or into combat before most of the squads are running and that is with some monstrously tough Necrons so I absolutely feel the pain of the Tyranid players out there.

I honestly can't put my finger on it, but something is just inherently wrong with how 6th Ed plays. We are not the first nor the last to feel that way. Anyways, we'll be over in WHFB kicking 6 flavours of Franz out of each other until we get an urge to play 40K again ;-)

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Trying to keep the quote spam to a minimum, so some editing was in order. Sorry for butchering anything.

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Selym wrote:

I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

Dear gods, i hope not, i'm allready at a 40models count in a 2k game..., and i'm allready under the impression of having nothing on the table, so a 1k game?, gods allmighty, even has a newb i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...

-The Nerfbat that CC has gotten, why the hell is nearly every CC USR gimped if you assault 2 units?, even by just entering in contact because you don't have a choice, and don't start me on FC...
-Stupid HP rule, while i'm aware that wasting firepower on a rhino to see the thing survive a whole game, just because your foe rolled Shaken and Stunned for every Pen hit, is frustrating, having a rule that litteraly says" IF 5 Gobs spit on it, it is destroyed" is way more frustrating...
-Was so difficult to NOT add the "0HP=Destroyed" line?, and just say that when at 0HP, you roll the damages, even if you make Glancings Hits on it?

To Selym, absolutely, but I like the challenge of small games. I see these bigger games(like 2k+) and can't personally(please note, personally) understand why you'd play a game that crammed full of stuff. It just looks like a shooting gallery/dice bath. I see no strategic maneuvering or notably clever positioning because you filled the whole board with stuff! It's like looking at a football game where both teams have thirty players on the field at once. There is nowhere to go! Nowhere to kick/throw the ball thats 'open'! It looks like a tactical blunder from the get go because no matter where you go there's just more bad guys. But that's just me.

I was actually advocating the use of smaller games, as opposed to larger ones, for the same reasons you mentioned
Hence "stopping armies at 1000 points", as an upper limit.

When i say that i have a 40-ish models count at 2k pts, i'm not kidding.

I run a classic World Eater list.

Kharn
Jugger Lord
16 Zerkers
10 Khorne CSM
2 Rhinos OR 2 Dreadclaws
5 Bikes
1 Heldrake
1 Mauler
1 Defiler
1 Land raider OR 1 Stormeagle

Now i have over 9kpts of WE & Demons(check my sig link), but lately we din't play much Apoc games.

So in our region 2k pts is the bare minimum for playing, we often play 3 to 4k games, so thts why my statement of 2k pts being very low for us.

Heck on the 20 core players of our FGG, 14 of them have over 100k pts armies..., wich lets say 5 of them have 2-3 Full SM Companies, others be Hordes&Hordes of Orks,Nids,Guards and Chaos, one of our player has 6 Warhounds and 2 Reavers, and our FLGS Owner has a Warlord made out of 3 SW AT-AT...

And i think that you have more strategy and manoeuvring to do in a bigger games, only because you have to think how to move your units, because that unit needs to be moved before this one, so that i can move this one, but i must not forget that if i move this one first, it will block the path for that one.

Opposed to smaller games where you don't need to be cautious of that, because you have all the place and freedom to move wherever you like without a worry.

Of course its better to set yourself a limit on how big the game is, otherwise you'll be overburied( well in my case at 4k pts i just have 80 models on the board...)

To Selym: Don't know how you missed it bro but I was backing you. I'm advocating for smaller games too, hence the same reasons, lol.

Back to Slayer:*whistles* Hot damn. Looks like 4 of your units comprise like half of your list! (Drake, Mauler, Defiler, Raider.) And notably those are large imprint-on-board models to boot! While your local collections are impressive of course, lets keep the show and tell discreet. This isn't about the most toys after all, lol. I'll admit I hadn't thought of your logistical nightmare as an outlet of strategy, but I could see your point. And if I may be so bold, despite the illusion of freedom to move anywhere you mentioned, that 850pt game I mentioned earlier, on turn two one unit was boxed in near the deployment zone on each side, and later my command squad (with jetpacks!) got boxed in with no real tactically gainful move available but to stand still and not shoot. So yes, you still have to be cautious. And mindful of your opponents range/movement too, s/he can also go anywhere. I still say having so many units on board that you have to think what order to move them in is too 'Napoleonic' to constitute modern warfare tactics and probably explains some peoples love of WHFB. Whether that constitutes 'more' or 'less' strategy I can't say. I don't believe there is a 'more or less' to strategy, just more in depth or complete strategy than your opponents. In the end I guess we just agree to disagree right? I think you should try a little 750pt game. Might discover something new.

Edit: Whoops talking about the wrong guy. hehe

I see what you want to say, i don't say that its something bad really, just that like (i forget his name) said , been limited to 1000pts to have an optimal gaming experience, isn't what i search in 40k.

if i wanted rules that worked, and where fine tuned for a game with like 20 modeles, i would be playing Warmachines or Helldorado or something, you know what i mean?

And yes i played a >1k pts game once, it was a Patrol tournament that we did for a change in 4th, i filled 5 Khorne Chosen, for 400pts..., i runned a Full Aspiring Champs squad, with each of them with MoK,Deamonic Armor&Aura, FnP, Demonic Speed, Khorne's Axe, Talisman of Burning Blood( 1) and 1 Collar of Khorne..., even did modeles specialy for the occasion, but at 400pts the unit, i never played them after.

Or maybe on an occasion or two, to show a new player how to play, but even so we where playing at 1250 or 1500.

Well all of this to say that imo, the points range you play isn't really something that should be in the core rules, its more something of personal tastes and views about the hobby.

But yeah, the advantage about small scale games, is that you can quickly do a rematch.

Lanrak wrote:Hi focusedfire.
Just read you post and realised I felt exactly the same as you , but 2 editions before!

*snip*

To use your analogy..

To describe the differences between the Rt-2nd ed and 5th-6th ed gameplay I'll use a playground analogy;

Rt and 2nd ed were like two kids playing tag, hide & seek and war all in one.

3rd-4th ed is like 2 kids sitting in a sand box slamming their Tonka trucks into one another head on.

5th -6th is like 2 kids showing each other more and more 'shiney new toys' until one runs out.(A game of top trumps with minis.)

40k needs a rule set written specificaly for it IMO.
(We are trying to do this in the 40k in 40 pages thread.)

Thanks for the reply and psuedo invite to the 40k in 40 pages thread. I agree that a ground up redo of 40k is probably GW's best path for 7th ed..

As to the preference between RT/2nd ed and 3rd to 4th ed., I still prefer 3rd-4th ed'.. RT/2nd ed had a little too much "character"for my tastes. I know that the issues were more to do with the rules for the factions than the base rule set. But, c'mon, any ruleset that allowed the mixing of the Solitair with Blind grenades and the Web of Skulls(?? or something much like it) had balance issues.
Thats right, I wasn't playing myself back then but was surrounded by those that did. I waited for 3.5 / 4th ed. to hop in because I felt the game had matured into a better balanced system. Back then the points hadn't dropped so much and the average pick-up game was still more in the 1250 pt range.

Selym wrote:Maybe it's not the 6th edition rules that are wrong (okay, maybe the way fliers and warlord traits work, but psykers are the dark god's bitches- it's their playing field after all. If you want to choose your powers, get the codex stuff.), maybe it's that we're playing it wrong.
I find the 6th ed rules to be quite fun on the small scale (ten marines, a razorback and and librarian for lolz), anywhere between 250-750 points works out quite well for "narrative" gameplay. At that scale it's boring without some of the flavor 6th provides.

So, you agree that 40K is being played on a scale larger than intended. Cool. Your recommendation, which I edited out to save on space, that the player base limit themselves is great and I agree. Only problem is getting other players to reduce their list size.
Larger games are easy for the player in that they don't have to work as hard on unit selection and loadouts. Once they get spoiled by having so many tools to use they have a hard time giving up that crutch for a more tactics oriented squad based game.

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Selym wrote:

I therefore propose we all stop our armies at 1,000 points worth of models, and then watch GW slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard.

Dear gods, i hope not, i'm allready at a 40models count in a 2k game..., and i'm allready under the impression of having nothing on the table, so a 1k game?, gods allmighty, even has a newb i never player a 1k game, that must be dreadfull to see...

Imho, 40 models in a 2000 pt game is fine for a Grey Knights build but, with any other 40k army, it would seem that you are making the newb mistake of spending to many points on the wargear and uber units.

Also, try a 500-1000 point game before you knock it. It will be a lot tougher than what you are used to if you play a good tactician and with an appropriate amount of terrain(Mre than what GW currently recommends).

Slayer le boucher wrote:
*snip*

Was so difficult to NOT add the "0HP=Destroyed" line?, and just say that when at 0HP, you roll the damages, even if you make Glancings Hits on it?

-Disembarkment rules, boy was that a stupid choice they made, killed 40% of the armies efficientcy.

-Randomness all over the place!, why 2D6 assault range?, why not like Battle?, 6"+1D6" ?

Though I disagree with the (Pro-cc focus)part of your post that I edited out to save space, I wanted to focus on the part where I agree with you. HP, Disembarkation and the randomness are all issues that need to go back to a previous edition or be reworked.

On the HP rule, how about. "Any glancing hits on a vehicle with 0 HP will inflict a shaken result and any penetrating hit on a vehicle with 0HP rolls on the damage table with a +1 added to any result(This is in addition to any bonuses recieved for high AP weaponry).

Shandara wrote:The weirdest:
Throwing Grenades, why can only 1 dude throw one?

On a real battlefield....One or Two guys throw grenades while the rest of the unit lays down cover/suppression fire. Though, I doubt that GW ever thought of this, They probably wrote the rule this way due to thats how it is shown in the movies.

Breng77 wrote:which is an issue with the release design of GW. Unless they were to release all books at the start of an edition, having a grenade rule that is not limited to 1 per squad, leads to them needing to errata every book to make it fair points wise. (All marines get Krak and frag for free (except templars). What about an IG blob throwing 50 S6 shots for 1 point per model...

I agree if they had balanced the grenades with that intent, having all models throw grenades would be fine. But they did not so throwing one is a good balance.

Absolutely agree. Also, I think that as new codices come out that you might see a "1 in 10" or a "1 in 5" can throw rule showing up for certain units.

Jedziah wrote:Just wanted to add my two pence to this as our gaming community of 6 friends have all switched back to WHFB because of the state of 40k.

*snip*

Firstly, this is asbolutely boring to us. CC is where the game really begins to throw the random turns of event that you end up talking about for weeks in the future. Secondly, CC seems just about impossible to press unless you have a very fortunate deployment.

A well written ruleset and proper scale setting would be very exciting. Also, as some one else said, WHFB is the cc game and 40K "should" be the shooting game.
If the game being shooty doesn't make for exciting game play then, rather than blaming the shooting portion, either it is a matter of personal preference or we need to look at the rules . FoW is an exciting game that revolves primarily around shooting, so I therefore propose that the issue is with the 40K ruleset.

To put it more accurately, the problem with 40K's shooting system is the scale it is played in. It is not as big of a deal with cc based armies because scale doesn't actually effect the cc mechanism. Scale affects los and cover and movement over long distances. CC is only about the last few feet before getting into hth and the melee itself.

Jedziah wrote:
*snip*

Our transition back to WHFB has seemed timely and we much further enjoy it over the turn system of 40k. We are just not willing to entertain the exorbitant prices of 40k and GW's methodology for releasing new 40K armies.

We end up with months on end of inbalance and by the time a few more armies come out, your collected army suddenly has most of it's viable tactics stripped away in an instant. I'll tell you now, after removing the standard Croissant spam, necrons are an immensely boring army to play, however they have the potential to be one of the most exciting if even 30% of the codex was in some way usable.

Now they have at least errata'd the OP stuff, what's left is Croissants.

Bring on more WHFB is the message you get from our little community. 40K has just not been good to us as casual gamers since 6th Ed.

My DE feel your pain. Also pretty much agree with everything above though I do find your last sentence hugely entertaining/ironic. Not because of anything you have said, rather for what the Casual Gamer Mafia said about the randomness and changes when 6th ed launched. The "CGM" all heralded 6th ed and its randomness as the best thing to happen to casual 40k play since beer & pretzels. If others feel as you do then the honeymoon is over and the CGM's contention that randomness = better has been proven wrong.

YakManDoo wrote:I say bring on 7th edition. 6th is a series of minigames. Deployment is a game, reserves are a game, warlord traits are a game, Look Out Sir! is a game, challenges are a game, dogfighting with aircraft is now a game thanks to Crusade of Fire, and Assault continues to be a game. I think that 6th ed is a perfect example of the whole being less than the sum of all of its parts. Now, I am enjoying it, and I love the new DA codex and models, but...6th ed imho shows how long-in-the-tooth 40k is as a system. It needs a ground-up redesign; a totally new ruleset. Love the fluff, love my models, don't even mind paying high prices (new job ftw) but the game mechanics lack any and all elegance.

p.s. I think fliers are a perfect example of GW understanding that they have a big, big problem. Push higher end models to pre-existing armies because we know that fewer and fewer people are starting new armies. Look for GW $200 single model units in the next 2 years that are not FW.

This post if full of win. Consider it exalted.

Slayer le boucher wrote:When i say that i have a 40-ish models count at 2k pts, i'm not kidding.

*snip*

in our region 2k pts is the bare minimum for playing, we often play 3 to 4k games, so thts why my statement of 2k pts being very low for us.

Heck on the 20 core players of our FGG, 14 of them have over 100k pts armies..., wich lets say 5 of them have 2-3 Full SM Companies, others be Hordes&Hordes of Orks,Nids,Guards and Chaos, one of our player has 6 Warhounds and 2 Reavers, and our FLGS Owner has a Warlord made out of 3 SW AT-AT...

More does not equal better.

As to your gaming area having a "bigger" model count.... You playing with Unky Roy, Ripper or Raven?? Wait, you said 100k not 250 k + points. (See how that works). Also the guys I mentioned enjoy the challenge of smaller games as well as the head on bash fest of larger games.

Slayer le boucher wrote:And i think that you have more strategy and manoeuvring to do in a bigger games, only because you have to think how to move your units, because that unit needs to be moved before this one, so that i can move this one, but i must not forget that if i move this one first, it will block the path for that one.

Opposed to smaller games where you don't need to be cautious of that, because you have all the place and freedom to move wherever you like without a worry.

Of course its better to set yourself a limit on how big the game is, otherwise you'll be overburied( well in my case at 4k pts i just have 80 models on the board...)

First) IMHO, What you descride above is being a traffic cop dealing with the gridlock of an over crowded board. This is not the same as tactics nor does it have any more difficulty than playing tetris.
I also find that the overcrowded board you described a tedious imposition upon your opponent who has to wait while you play drill team/marching band with which ever turtle/armour wall you are using.

Second) You said earlier in the thread that you have never played a 1000 point or under game and now you are trying to say that you know it isn't as challenging.
How can you make such a statement without ever having played a low point game on a properly set up board?

That you really haven't played 40K at its originally designed points level becomes even more clear when reading your comment where you say, " Opposed to smaller games where you don't need to be cautious of that, because you have all the place and freedom to move wherever you like without a worry.".

You see, in lower point games the margin of error is much so much smaller that you have to use every bit of the board(terrain and movement) to prevent even the smallest losses. This is because you each have less on the table to work with. Each model lost is much more important because it represents a larger percentage of your overall force than they do in larger games.
Smaller games are less tolerant of poor Generalship at the lower points level. Foolish moves that leave a unit open and wasteful squandering of even one or two models can be a sure path to losing.

Using every bit of cover becomes critical.
Economy in list building is much more of a factor.
The extra room you mention is used to manuover so that the units dance at the edge of weapon range.

Third) Again, Your model counts seem to reflect that you overgear your units. Its easy to load a unit up with a bunch of wargear. Lower point games don't allow such luxury.


The only problem with lower points games these days, aside from the absence of the old style rules that prevent certain models from being taken in games under x points, is that even at lower point levels, the scale/terrain issue is worsening with each new edition. This is due to each edition seeing codices with new "larger" models and generally cheaper basic troops.

Dear FocusedFire,

----I as a fellow member of the 'Empire of the Rising Good' am hurt that you would commence a tirade of such awesome scale and not conjure forth some form of response to my - if I may be ever so bold and forward - well composed responses on many of the points that you have addressed and in the same breath simultaneously readdressed using the very points I had already put forth in perhaps a less complete manner. (Hows that for a sentence? ) Further, if you would do me the grandiose favor of picking a color other then bright teal for your posts it would be most advantageous to the continued health of my ocular organs as well the future function of my monitors brightness adjustment control mechanism. I believe no color modifications for standard replies is the forum accepted norm. Congratulations are at the least in order on your successful campaign of posting replies against, by my count, eight different posts/fronts in one prodigious swoop. Your victory by keyboard will be etched in the memories of millions. KAP-PLA!

From your brother in sophisticated electro-magnetic accelerated munitions, KnuckleWolf

Poor slayer, getting all beat up in this thread. I noticed your 'never played below 1k'/'played a low point game once' error as well but gave you the benefit of the doubt.
And its not hard to get small point games going. Just challenge them. And don't agree to play any more then what you want. Don't be a jerk about it but still force the issue. Or grab a new player who just got a battleforce box and go at it. All your points on what a small point battle entails are right on though FF, if slightly over enthused. And there is credence to the word strategy being applied to his 'traffic jam' as you call it. After all, in chess six out of your starting six-teen units are land locked until you move a piece out of the way. Please phrase your criticism as an oppinion.

I consider the issue with consolidation into CC to have been a major flaw in 3rd ed. It took until 5th edition to fix it and give the rest of the army a chance.

 focusedfire wrote:


Third) Again, Your model counts seem to reflect that you overgear your units. Its easy to load a unit up with a bunch of wargear. Lower point games don't allow such luxury.

8 Zerkers with a Champ with a pair of LC and Melta bomb+ Icon, seems like a wargear overload?
Kharn is also the cheapest of the HQ's in the codex.

I only take the bare neccesary, to expressly avoid overload and have a decent model count, wich isn't easy with a CSM army, even if you don't go crazy on options.

NOw i said in another post that i played 1000-ish games a few times, but they where only to show new players how the game went.