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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
And that kind of goes contrary to the whole "forge the narrative" BS that GW spouts out, doesn't it? If you don't play competitive (not a competitive game, remember that line of gak?) then you'll get steamrolled by the skew lists with little or no chance of winning because you aren't doing a skew list yourself.

And that's supposed to be a good thing?

People who face cheese (as that was the initial above complaint) put themselves in that environment. Those builds occur at tournaments. If people don't want to face those lists or play in that environment don't go to competitions. There's plenty of room for people to make friends and plan "fluff battles".

It's pretty much like, if you only want to play flag football, don't go to your college and tryout for their full contact football team. (Talking American football here, not soccer).

Bad news man, normal people at FLGS bring those kinds of lists too, not just to tournaments.

Hence why I said to make some friends and schedule games. If your friend are bringing cheese to fluff games, you're making the wrong kinds of friends.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Bad news man, normal people at FLGS bring those kinds of lists too, not just to tournaments.

And why do they bring them? Because, whether they're in a tournament or not, they're still building lists to win, so working on exactly the same mindeset. Again, it all comes down to playing with like-minded players, so the players looking for a narrative game can have one while on the next table along, two optimised listscan battle to the death.

Communication could fix so many of these problems.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I've had no such issues and I play 3 different armies in a competitive meta. Sounds like you just gotta adapt to the current meta.

Difference between "couldn't" or "wouldn't".
The advertising for GW is to pretty much play what you want: everything has a point value so there is a token attempt at being fair right?
No.
It is no great stroke of genius to play the current "meta" army lists but then we are limited to a rather narrow number and permutations of builds right?
Kinda boring, not as advertised.
LoW has further separated the decision of trying to get a "take all comers" army together as looking not even remotely viable.
Just widening the gap of the army selection rock-paper-scissors game.

The "direction" of GW right now if I was to go by your method with the armies I have is:
- Field an AM/IG army with Pask.
- Throw in a Baneblade for giggles.
- Get an Imperial Knight allied in if you want that extra big unit but is not a big deal points-wise.
- Have a bunch of conscripts for a meat shield.
- Scrape together any remaining points for veterans in Chimeras to grab objectives.

It would be easier with Tau or Eldar.

You know that wouldn't be that bad, at least most of it would be IG. The thing is that the best list, unless someone plays eldar, is some sort of amalgamat of 3-4 codex in form of multi CAD and ally. Even worse is the fact that some units don't make sens without ally or forifications. Grav centurions need either a pod or escape hatch, purfires need a pod. IG blobs work best with azrael inside. The game in 2 editions I played went from, I want to play IG to I have to play IG with marines a Knight or Inquistion ally or else why bother. I get the whole new codex makes old good stuff bad, but why suddenly GW forces people to buy multiple books to get one army is beyond me. How many people have the cash to support something like that, specialy when it can be invalidated by a single codex update.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I've had no such issues and I play 3 different armies in a competitive meta. Sounds like you just gotta adapt to the current meta.

Difference between "couldn't" or "wouldn't".
The advertising for GW is to pretty much play what you want: everything has a point value so there is a token attempt at being fair right?
No.
It is no great stroke of genius to play the current "meta" army lists but then we are limited to a rather narrow number and permutations of builds right?
Kinda boring, not as advertised.
LoW has further separated the decision of trying to get a "take all comers" army together as looking not even remotely viable.
Just widening the gap of the army selection rock-paper-scissors game.

The "direction" of GW right now if I was to go by your method with the armies I have is:
- Field an AM/IG army with Pask.
- Throw in a Baneblade for giggles.
- Get an Imperial Knight allied in if you want that extra big unit but is not a big deal points-wise.
- Have a bunch of conscripts for a meat shield.
- Scrape together any remaining points for veterans in Chimeras to grab objectives.

It would be easier with Tau or Eldar.

Most of that is how I would play at a tourney. I enjoy pask, baneblades, a big ole vostroyan platoon, etc.

RTT and GT tourneys offer rules prior to sign ups. Don't like those rules, saw your money and doń attend. Instead invite your buddy over for a nice foots logging unit banning fluffy game.

Instead invite your buddy over for a nice foots logging unit banning fluffy game.

Must be nice to live in a place where flats are three size what normaly people own here.

Makumba wrote:

Instead invite your buddy over for a nice foots logging unit banning fluffy game.

Must be nice to live in a place where flats are three size what normaly people own here.

I do love my country.

Cool, but how does it help people in places where flats are smaller and you only play at shops.

Although I must say that being forced to buy a car, to transport the multiple army collections you need to get 1 good army, a flat , to have a place to play, and all the Iclass stuff to get the DLCs and codex in non back breaking size, would be funny as entery cost for a game.

Makumba wrote:
Cool, but how does it help people in places where flats are smaller and you only play at shops.

Although I must say that being forced to buy a car, to transport the multiple army collections you need to get 1 good army, a flat , to have a place to play, and all the Iclass stuff to get the DLCs and codex in non back breaking size, would be funny as entery cost for a game.

Or people in America who don't have the space for gaming at their house?
Also, transporting multiple armies for PUG's is too big a PITA. Without multiple lists finding a PUG that isn't embarrassingly lopsided is "problematic" at best.

Hobbies aren't meant to be accessible to everyone. I would love to collect motorcycles. I don't have the means to do so. All things to consider while gauging whether or not to be involved in something.

Although if you make pals, can't you guys negotiate what to bring at play at your shops available?

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Hobbies aren't meant to be accessible to everyone. I would love to collect motorcycles. I don't have the means to do so. All things to consider while gauging whether or not to be involved in something.

Although if you make pals, can't you guys negotiate what to bring at play at your shops available?

True, but at what point does it become too unaccessible for most players and forces GW under?

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
GW despite what complainers think, don't hate us. They don't set out to make us nerd rage. They don't have a vendetta against the player base. They are trying to keep the game fresh. Innovation isn't always well received but at least they're freaking trying.

I like the direction of the game. Toned down power levels, model releases outside of codex time. I LOVE LoW in regular games. I love flyers. There's more good than ba and at least they aren't regurgitating the same old junk.

When we stop hyper focusing on negativity, and start smelling the roses. I'm very happy with their single model releases and not just doing it at codex time with these nids. Let's hope this is a trend.

Oh brother...

Try not to be the living embodiment of my sig.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Hobbies aren't meant to be accessible to everyone. I would love to collect motorcycles. I don't have the means to do so. All things to consider while gauging whether or not to be involved in something.

Although if you make pals, can't you guys negotiate what to bring at play at your shops available?

True, but at what point does it become too unaccessible for most players and forces GW under?

Doubtful. GW is the best of its kind on its scale. The other war games are mostly skirmish. NOT to mention it has the best models and best background.

Yeah the eldar players will say they want to play with their serpents, the necrons with their walls, the GK will spam their NDKs, everyone will want to ban FW, because it is too hard to get and check rules for. Because of the cost of the game everyone will concentrate on the best units and to keep cheating and anger in check tournament rules would be enforced as rules for normal games,ETC in case of Poland. Then some years later GW would decide that it is time to get rid of all the B&M stores .What would be big hit for people around the world, but stomached in places where there are GW stores and clubs. For places GW stores are one per country or less, and clubs are just as rare it would be rather shity.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Hobbies aren't meant to be accessible to everyone. I would love to collect motorcycles. I don't have the means to do so. All things to consider while gauging whether or not to be involved in something.

Although if you make pals, can't you guys negotiate what to bring at play at your shops available?

True, but at what point does it become too unaccessible for most players and forces GW under?

Doubtful. GW is the best of its kind on its scale. The other war games are mostly skirmish. NOT to mention it has the best models and best background.

Totally didn't answer my question at all. Like, not even remotely.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Hobbies aren't meant to be accessible to everyone. I would love to collect motorcycles. I don't have the means to do so. All things to consider while gauging whether or not to be involved in something.

Although if you make pals, can't you guys negotiate what to bring at play at your shops available?

True, but at what point does it become too unaccessible for most players and forces GW under?

Doubtful. GW is the best of its kind on its scale. The other war games are mostly skirmish. NOT to mention it has the best models and best background.

Oh bullgak. GW is probably one of the worst rules out there. The models and background are at least good (I would not say "the best") but games-wise it's a joke, and it's not really as a big a size as you are claiming unless you constantly play Apoc-sized games. A typical 40k army isn't that much more than Bolt Action or even an infantry-heavy Warmachine force; it's larger than Infinity or Malifaux for sure, but those are specifically for small games. 40k tends to look larger because you count transports as individuals, but even then something like an Iyanden army is going to be about the same size as a 50-point Warmachine army if you discount the Wave Serpents. Outside of Ork/Nid horde armies, 40k isn't really that large compared to other games.

The biggest irony for me is that GW claims the game isn't competitive and wants you to have a narrative, but their rules are so bad that you can't compare the two. If I want to play an all-Terminator army because it's a cool narrative, I'd get steamrolled even against a fluffy army because the rules for the models aren't fair to where a small but hard-hitting force can hold out against a larger but more fragile force.

speaking of mass combat. I read some epic rules, they seemed to be very good , a lot like FoW in space.

WayneTheGame wrote:


Oh bullgak. GW is probably one of the worst rules out there. The models and background are at least good (I would not say "the best" but games-wise it's a joke, and it's not really as a big a size as you are claiming unless you constantly play Apoc-sized games. A typical 40k army isn't that much more than Bolt Action or even an infantry-heavy Warmachine force; it's larger than Infinity or Malifaux for sure, but those are specifically for small games. 40k tends to look larger because you count transports as individuals, but even then something like an Iyanden army is going to be about the same size as a 50-point Warmachine army if you discount the Wave Serpents. Outside of Ork/Nid horde armies, 40k isn't really that large compared to other games.

The biggest irony for me is that GW claims the game isn't competitive and wants you to have a narrative, but their rules are so bad that you can't compare the two. If I want to play an all-Terminator army because it's a cool narrative, I'd get steamrolled even against a fluffy army because the rules for the models aren't fair to where a small but hard-hitting force can hold out against a larger but more fragile force.

Wow, that's harsh. 40k games can easily have fewer or more models on the table as Warmahordes. Like any wargame, more models = longer game, and not everyone wants an epic 6 hour battle, but pick Eldar, IG, SM, or Orks, and I can field 10,000 points of well-painted models and fill up (I do mean PACK) two 6x4 tables joined end to end with models and terrain. The game will also take days and many pizzas to finish.

To say that you'd get steamrolled with all-Terminator army -- what's wrong with that?! Allied forces in World War 2 would also have been flattened if they had deployed only tanks, with no infantry, aircraft, or command and control. Chess would be a terrible game if you replaced all your units with knights. Being able to field an army that's homogenous is not the markings of a good wargame >.<

I'm certainly not saying GW has the BEST ruleset, but look at any game, and there are people unhappy with the rules in some way.

To say that you'd get steamrolled with all-Terminator army

See there is a problem with that. If GW first hypes up terminator armies or any other kind of army, but then the rules for it suck your end up with sad people. If someone builds an army of X and there is no way to make it viable, then the army and rules for it better be free.

Talys wrote:

To say that you'd get steamrolled with all-Terminator army -- what's wrong with that?! Allied forces in World War 2 would also have been flattened if they had deployed only tanks, with no infantry, aircraft, or command and control. Chess would be a terrible game if you replaced all your units with knights. Being able to field an army that's homogenous is not the markings of a good wargame >.<

Well, 40k isn't reality, so comparing balance of a game to history is a pretty poor comparison. Likewise, Chess is a game of homogeneous armies; 40k and other wargames are not. It is expected that a legal army list that covers the basics of how to deal with most enemies should be balanced where the outcome of the game is predominantly decided on player decisions, not on codex selection.

So yes, an all terminator army that brings a balanced set of special and heavy weapons with the right support should be able to go toe-to-toe with a Guard mech heavy list, or a Tyranid monster mash, or an Ork horde; because all of those things should be balanced enough you're not working against a severe handicap from the get go.

I'm certainly not saying GW has the BEST ruleset, but look at any game, and there are people unhappy with the rules in some way.

Certainly, someone somewhere is going to upset about something, however small or insignificant. I debated at great length about whether a model should have +1 or +2 extra inches of total movement on the Spartan forums. We're talking an inch on a model already moving 9"/turn. That said, what you have to realize is the quantity and significance of the issues and the people unhappy with the rules.

Its unfortunate because GW has written some top notch rules in the past, but has seemingly forgotten how with 6th and 7th. Even some small things like random victory points on Maelstrom; its another layer of randomness on a layer of randomness.

40k still rocks it for me, background, models, fluff, games, army variety, fun.

Simplistic enough comment but on a basic level, all that matters.

 Ratius wrote:
40k still rocks it for me, background, models, fluff, games, army variety, fun.

Simplistic enough comment but on a basic level, all that matters.

Rock on man. Feel the same way. I love 40k!

Just as a straw poll, how many other games do people who self identify as happy with 40K play/have played?

Talys wrote:

To say that you'd get steamrolled with all-Terminator army -- what's wrong with that?! Allied forces in World War 2 would also have been flattened if they had deployed only tanks, with no infantry, aircraft, or command and control. Chess would be a terrible game if you replaced all your units with knights. Being able to field an army that's homogenous is not the markings of a good wargame >.<

I'm certainly not saying GW has the BEST ruleset, but look at any game, and there are people unhappy with the rules in some way.

According to GW's own fluff, Terminators are the best of the best of the best and can subjugate an entire world. Comparing it to the allies in WW2 deploying only tanks is idiotic and ridiculous. An all-Terminator army is supposed to be something that happens in 40k (the 1st Company of a Marine Chapter), so there's no reason other than lazy design and poor balance why they would get crushed just for being an all Terminator army.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Just as a straw poll, how many other games do people who self identify as happy with 40K play/have played?

Infinity, Malifaux, Deadzone, Warpath, The Hobbit/LotR, ITEN, and a couple of homemade Historicals.

And I still have more fun playing 40k than any of those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:


According to GW's own fluff, Terminators are the best of the best of the best and can subjugate an entire world. Comparing it to the allies in WW2 deploying only tanks is idiotic and ridiculous. An all-Terminator army is supposed to be something that happens in 40k (the 1st Company of a Marine Chapter), so there's no reason other than lazy design and poor balance why they would get crushed just for being an all Terminator army.

Question: Have you actually tried playing an all-termie army, or are you just taking internet hyperbole based on the assumption that every opponent is bringing otimised GT-crushing lists to friendly games? Because I have played All--Terminator or Terminator-heavy armies many times, and have a majority win rate with them.

Have you actually tried playing an all-termie army, or are you just taking internet hyperbole based on the assumption that every opponent is bringing otimised GT-crushing lists to friendly games? Because I have played All--Terminator or Terminator-heavy armies many times, and have a majority win rate with them.

You know thinking this way every army and every unit is good, if we assume opponent always bring unoptimised and bad lists. And yes we had a friend play with terminators the GK ones. His army was horrible, we didn't even knew to do with him as no one wanted to play him. And then the new codex came and he bought 3 NDKs and his army works.

We had a guy from germany that was trying to play DA terminators here. I think he stoped coming after his 20+lost game.

Makumba wrote:

Have you actually tried playing an all-termie army, or are you just taking internet hyperbole based on the assumption that every opponent is bringing otimised GT-crushing lists to friendly games? Because I have played All--Terminator or Terminator-heavy armies many times, and have a majority win rate with them.

You know thinking this way every army and every unit is good, if we assume opponent always bring unoptimised and bad lists. And yes we had a friend play with terminators the GK ones. His army was horrible, we didn't even knew to do with him as no one wanted to play him. And then the new codex came and he bought 3 NDKs and his army works.

We had a guy from germany that was trying to play DA terminators here. I think he stoped coming after his 20+lost game.

To which I would say that almost every unit is good. Maybe not the best, but there's not a unit in the game that is worse than playing that many points down. And I assume opponents will bring non-optimsed lists because, in my experience, they do, and from what I've seen, the same is true of many if not most areas. In your area, it seems everyone shares your mindset of playing optimised ultra-competitive lists built purely for winning, but I am confident in saying this is, worldwide, the exception rather than the rule.

Offhand, I would say that if you like the game, play and enjoy it. Dont try to force liking it down someone elses throat.
Likewise, if you dont like it, dont play it. Move on to whatever game you like and the forums for that game and dont spend your time trying to ram your dislike down others throats who do like it.
of course, thats just my viewpoint.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Offhand, I would say that if you like the game, play and enjoy it. Dont try to force liking it down someone elses throat.
Likewise, if you dont like it, dont play it. Move on to whatever game you like and the forums for that game and dont spend your time trying to ram your dislike down others throats who do like it.
of course, thats just my viewpoint.

I don't think anyone is trying to force anyone to like or dislike anything. You have an amazing ability to completely misrepresent any discussion into something it was never about. Oddly enough, you can discuss the quality, flaws, and positives without forcing anything on anyone.

This also painfully ignores how someone can criticize something yet still enjoy it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Offhand, I would say that if you like the game, play and enjoy it. Dont try to force liking it down someone elses throat.
Likewise, if you dont like it, dont play it. Move on to whatever game you like and the forums for that game and dont spend your time trying to ram your dislike down others throats who do like it.
of course, thats just my viewpoint.

Well said!

Although if this was aimed in part at my own defence of 40k, I'm not so much trying to force it on anyone, just show that a different outlook on the game can make it more enjoyable for all involved. It pains me to hear people who have spent money on it finding they don't enjoy the game, so I just try and help there.