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.

GAdvance wrote:
They way Maelstrom missions make you play feels like a MASSIVE improvement to me, forces you to be ready for anything

Ready for everything. This is simply impossible. Some bad draws and the game can be gone. Maelstrom is too random in a tournament setting. In our RTTs, we played Maelstrom one of three games.

Our local events dropped Maelstrom entirely, there was too much record keeping and too many things being forgotten and too many games where one side racked up an insurmountable advantage by turn 3 due to favorable rolling.

The ITC's modified Maelstrom is better, but still suffers from many of the problems at the core concept.

Backfire wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm most saddened that Kill Points have continued on through subsequent editions

I don't mind Kill points. They discourage annoying and unrealistic suicide tactics and MSU. Problem during 5th edition was that many older armies were not designed for them and played with a huge handicap.

I don't think there's much that they adapted really in subsequent editions, the problems are still there, I just think most people accepted them and moved on. We still have the fundamental problems of something like a Knight being worth just as much as a Drop Pod, or a squad of guardsmen worth as much as a full brood of Carnifexes.

Unlike GW though, the ITC are actively looking for input into their missions to make it better.

GW is more 'here is the game, play it.'

Did you win? What worked well? Here is a box I reserved for you to buy so that you can have even greater success!
Did you lose? Unlucky! Why did you lose? Against that unit? Well this unit would really help against that unit and lucky for you I reserved a box for you to buy!

I look at 40k as something to play because my friends aren't willing to change gaming systems. These are the same guys that have arms of money to spend on models.

Can we get a line in the Dakka Code that states whether or not you like 7th or 40K in general? I think that would save a lot of time.

 Vaktathi wrote:
We still have the fundamental problems of something like a Knight being worth just as much as a Drop Pod, or a squad of guardsmen worth as much as a full brood of Carnifexes.

Kill Points tend to be an auto-lose for my Dark Eldar.

Maelstrom is a good idea on paper but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. It's almost absolutely random so a string of good/bad luck drawing the cards can make you win or lose a game regardless of how you are playing. Also while it's meant to force static gunlines to move their asses, it can still allow for very conservative strategies, you can bring your gunline, sit your ass around two objective markers and then shoot everything to death. Between points from the objectives you're holding and points from shooting things out of the table you're still likely to get a win.

Unless there's a lot of terrain on the table. Of various heights. Which should be mandatory in every single game.

 GangstaMuffin24 wrote:
Can we get a line in the Dakka Code that states whether or not you like 7th or 40K in general? I think that would save a lot of time.

Seriously. Also, loving how every thread on 40k immediately turns into "this game sucks and this is why you shouldn't play it". Bad enough they already have one for AoS, can we make a "General AoS discussion for AoS optimists " thread for 40k too?

My fgoup loves Maelstrom. Since the release of 7th, we never played Eternal War missions anymore

Indeed. What a horrifying concept it must be to have people disagreeing with you over the quality of a game. And on a forum of all places.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed. What a horrifying concept it must be to have people disagreeing with you over the quality of a game. And on a forum of all places.

Hey, it's as rational as leaving a game you hate, saying you're leaving a game you hate, continuing to come on forums telling people you hate said game, for years.

I left World of Warcraft right before Cataclysm. Do I go on Mists of Pandaria or whatever crappy sequel they're on forums and continue to badmouth said game? Nope. :

6E really hurt the game with my group (11 of us, everyone having at least one 40K army), mostly with complaints of wound allocation during shooting really slowing down the game and killing the beer-and-pretzels vibe.

7E pretty much killed it, mostly due to the disgust from expensive rulebooks being negated so soon, and a lot because of Unbound & Formations. Since 7E came out only four of the group have played 40K at least once, and one of those said to hell with it after the Eldar codex being replaced after less than a year (not an issue with changes in power creep, just money wasted on rules).

As a group we've replaced it with Bolt Action, and are very happy about it.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Hey, it's as rational as leaving a game you hate, saying you're leaving a game you hate, continuing to come on forums telling people you hate said game, for years.

Has it ever occurred to you that people might still like some parts of the game? e.g. the background, the characters, the characters they've made, the models, their armies etc. What they want are for the rules to improve. And, I just don't see the issue with them sharing those views.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed. What a horrifying concept it must be to have people disagreeing with you over the quality of a game. And on a forum of all places.

Hey, it's as rational as leaving a game you hate, saying you're leaving a game you hate, continuing to come on forums telling people you hate said game, for years.

I left World of Warcraft right before Cataclysm. Do I go on Mists of Pandaria or whatever crappy sequel they're on forums and continue to badmouth said game? Nope. :

Even though Dakka might have once been a 40k forum (in the grim dark days before I joined), these days it's more of a general wargaming forum.

If you kept visiting the dedicated WoW forums to complain about it then sure, it'd be a bit crazy. But if you still frequented a general MMO forum and occasionally posted how WoW has gone down the toilet in the WoW section of the forum... I'd say that'd be quite rational.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed. What a horrifying concept it must be to have people disagreeing with you over the quality of a game. And on a forum of all places.

Hey, it's as rational as leaving a game you hate, saying you're leaving a game you hate, continuing to come on forums telling people you hate said game, for years.

I left World of Warcraft right before Cataclysm. Do I go on Mists of Pandaria or whatever crappy sequel they're on forums and continue to badmouth said game? Nope. :

Even though Dakka might have once been a 40k forum (in the grim dark days before I joined), these days it's more of a general wargaming forum.

If you kept visiting the dedicated WoW forums to complain about it then sure, it'd be a bit crazy. But if you still frequented a general MMO forum and occasionally posted how WoW has gone down the toilet in the WoW section of the forum... I'd say that'd be quite rational.

Keyword "occasionally". There's tons of threads that have nothing to do with analyzing the state of the game, just people saying they enjoy it, before people come in to start spewing about how GW is terrible, 40k is terrible, and anyone who plays it is dumb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Hey, it's as rational as leaving a game you hate, saying you're leaving a game you hate, continuing to come on forums telling people you hate said game, for years.

Has it ever occurred to you that people might still like some parts of the game? e.g. the background, the characters, the characters they've made, the models, their armies etc. What they want are for the rules to improve. And, I just don't see the issue with them sharing those views.

If it stopped there, sure, that'd be okay. Namely, the vapid amount of 40k hate I see here is nonsense. I have seen people calling others dumb simply because they still enjoy 40k.

At this point, I'm just convinced half these people hopped on the anti-GW bandwagon as opposed to having a legitimate grievance.

Thank goodness there are all the GW fanboys to set us straight with how GW is mankind's best hope for survival, and how 40k is the best game ever made in the whole of human history, and that anyone who doesn't enjoy it is dumb.

Its fine for me. I play with friends and none of us are "try hards" or have any meta tournament lists. Its just all about drinking beers, eating food, and rolling dice.

 vipoid wrote:
Thank goodness there are all the GW fanboys to set us straight with how GW is mankind's best hope for survival, and how 40k is the best game ever made in the whole of human history, and that anyone who doesn't enjoy it is dumb.

Ah, straw manning are we? K. Was trying to make a point about how 40k has a toxic community outside the game, but sure, I'm the bad guy.

OT, I'm having a blast with 7th. Is it broken? Sure, but it gives me joy and I get to play with little army guys going "Pew pew!"

 jreilly89 wrote:

Ah, straw manning are we?

No more than you've been doing.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Was trying to make a point about how 40k has a toxic community outside the game, but sure, I'm the bad guy.

And my point is that undeserved praise for 40k and GW is just as toxic.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Thank goodness there are all the GW fanboys to set us straight with how GW is mankind's best hope for survival, and how 40k is the best game ever made in the whole of human history, and that anyone who doesn't enjoy it is dumb.

Ah, straw manning are we? K. Was trying to make a point about how 40k has a toxic community outside the game, but sure, I'm the bad guy.

OT, I'm having a blast with 7th. Is it broken? Sure, but it gives me joy and I get to play with little army guys going "Pew pew!"

Yes, because it's the player's fault...

I'll make you a guarantee, almost 100% of the people you accuse of being 'toxic' will have at some stage or another thought that 40K was awesome.

People want, or wanted, to like and enjoy the game, and the constant tinkering by the makers with little or no regard for the quality of experience they were generating has actually prevented them from doing so. I it any wonder they're annoyed and frustrated?

Personally, I have no issue with people struggling to understand how people continue to enjoy playing 40K, when there's a wide variety of alternatives from companies who are successful while simultaneously doing all the things GW doesn't do. Playing any one of the multiple games out there that are more affordable, better balanced, are created by people who engage with a wider community (and not just fans that are willing to attend their own events,) and (purely subjectively, of course) are more fun really makes it hard to overlook the massive flaws in 40K.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed. What a horrifying concept it must be to have people disagreeing with you over the quality of a game. And on a forum of all places.

Hey, it's as rational as leaving a game you hate, saying you're leaving a game you hate, continuing to come on forums telling people you hate said game, for years.

I left World of Warcraft right before Cataclysm. Do I go on Mists of Pandaria or whatever crappy sequel they're on forums and continue to badmouth said game? Nope. :

Thing is playing WoW on a private server costs nothing. Playing w40k costs 700$ or more, and everyone wants their money back. I would totaly leave the game, If I could sell my army. I am not the best w40k player in the world, so am still looking for other people advice how to make my army work.

 vipoid wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Ah, straw manning are we?

No more than you've been doing.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Was trying to make a point about how 40k has a toxic community outside the game, but sure, I'm the bad guy.

And my point is that undeserved praise for 40k and GW is just as toxic.

Please point out where in this thread I said/did that. My point was bagging on other people's fun is stupid. If people have fun with 40k, no matter how broken/overpriced/flawed it may be, why pick on said person's fun?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Thank goodness there are all the GW fanboys to set us straight with how GW is mankind's best hope for survival, and how 40k is the best game ever made in the whole of human history, and that anyone who doesn't enjoy it is dumb.

Ah, straw manning are we? K. Was trying to make a point about how 40k has a toxic community outside the game, but sure, I'm the bad guy.

OT, I'm having a blast with 7th. Is it broken? Sure, but it gives me joy and I get to play with little army guys going "Pew pew!"

Yes, because it's the player's fault...

I'll make you a guarantee, almost 100% of the people you accuse of being 'toxic' will have at some stage or another thought that 40K was awesome.

People want, or wanted, to like and enjoy the game, and the constant tinkering by the makers with little or no regard for the quality of experience they were generating has actually prevented them from doing so. I it any wonder they're annoyed and frustrated?

Personally, I have no issue with people struggling to understand how people continue to enjoy playing 40K, when there's a wide variety of alternatives from companies who are successful while simultaneously doing all the things GW doesn't do. Playing any one of the multiple games out there that are more affordable, better balanced, are created by people who engage with a wider community (and not just fans that are willing to attend their own events,) and (purely subjectively, of course) are more fun really makes it hard to overlook the massive flaws in 40K.

It's the player's fault when someone starts a thread with "I'm trying to start *insert army here*" and people flock to the thread to scream "Choose another game, 40k sucks/is overpriced/broken. That doesn't scream wrong to you?

Please point out in this thread where I said that. I never said 40k is perfect, I said that it's dumb people pick on people who have fun playing 40k.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:

Thing is playing WoW on a private server costs nothing. Playing w40k costs 700$ or more, and everyone wants their money back. I would totaly leave the game, If I could sell my army. I am not the best w40k player in the world, so am still looking for other people advice how to make my army work.

So piece it out on eBay? Sorry, guess what. Games change, if it's that bad and you want out, cut your losses and sell your stuff at any price.

The point isn't about how much it costs to play X game, the point is coming onto a forum to bitch about said game you played years ago and rage about how its changed is childish.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Please point out where in this thread I said/did that.

Please point out where I said you did.

 jreilly89 wrote:
My point was bagging on other people's fun is stupid. If people have fun with 40k, no matter how broken/overpriced/flawed it may be, why pick on said person's fun?

But, by the same measure, forums are places for discussing all views - not just negative ones. The knowledge that many people dislike the current rules really shouldn't ruin your own fun in any way. Unless of course you're not having as much fun as you've convinced yourself you're having.

And, in any case, I'm sure many people appreciate being able to share their dislikes about 40k, and probably feel better for doing so. So, why should they be forced to stop just because you don't want to see differing opinions?

 jreilly89 wrote:

Spoiler:

 vipoid wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Ah, straw manning are we?

No more than you've been doing.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Was trying to make a point about how 40k has a toxic community outside the game, but sure, I'm the bad guy.

And my point is that undeserved praise for 40k and GW is just as toxic.

Please point out where in this thread I said/did that. My point was bagging on other people's fun is stupid. If people have fun with 40k, no matter how broken/overpriced/flawed it may be, why pick on said person's fun?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Thank goodness there are all the GW fanboys to set us straight with how GW is mankind's best hope for survival, and how 40k is the best game ever made in the whole of human history, and that anyone who doesn't enjoy it is dumb.

Ah, straw manning are we? K. Was trying to make a point about how 40k has a toxic community outside the game, but sure, I'm the bad guy.

OT, I'm having a blast with 7th. Is it broken? Sure, but it gives me joy and I get to play with little army guys going "Pew pew!"

Yes, because it's the player's fault...

I'll make you a guarantee, almost 100% of the people you accuse of being 'toxic' will have at some stage or another thought that 40K was awesome.

People want, or wanted, to like and enjoy the game, and the constant tinkering by the makers with little or no regard for the quality of experience they were generating has actually prevented them from doing so. I it any wonder they're annoyed and frustrated?

Personally, I have no issue with people struggling to understand how people continue to enjoy playing 40K, when there's a wide variety of alternatives from companies who are successful while simultaneously doing all the things GW doesn't do. Playing any one of the multiple games out there that are more affordable, better balanced, are created by people who engage with a wider community (and not just fans that are willing to attend their own events,) and (purely subjectively, of course) are more fun really makes it hard to overlook the massive flaws in 40K.

It's the player's fault when someone starts a thread with "I'm trying to start *insert army here*" and people flock to the thread to scream "Choose another game, 40k sucks/is overpriced/broken. That doesn't scream wrong to you?

Please point out in this thread where I said that. I never said 40k is perfect, I said that it's dumb people pick on people who have fun playing 40k.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Makumba wrote:

Thing is playing WoW on a private server costs nothing. Playing w40k costs 700$ or more, and everyone wants their money back. I would totaly leave the game, If I could sell my army. I am not the best w40k player in the world, so am still looking for other people advice how to make my army work.

So piece it out on eBay? Sorry, guess what. Games change, if it's that bad and you want out, cut your losses and sell your stuff at any price.

The point isn't about how much it costs to play X game, the point is coming onto a forum to bitch about said game you played years ago and rage about how its changed is childish.

Little defensive are we?

I didn't say you were overlooking the flaws in 40K, you'll notice the word "personally" at the start of that whole paragraph.

Should give you a clue to my intent.

No, it isn't the player's fault if they're so pissed off they act the way you say (I think you're being a tad hyperbolic, but whatever) the root of that cause is the issue. In this case a company who should be really worried their actions generate that sort of negativity in their potential or former customers.

So piece it out on eBay? Sorry, guess what. Games change, if it's that bad and you want out, cut your losses and sell your stuff at any price.

The point isn't about how much it costs to play X game, the point is coming onto a forum to bitch about said game you played years ago and rage about how its changed is childish.

I don't have a bank account, so I can't sell or buy stuff online. Also I don't see eldar or sm armies being suddenly unplayable. But maybe if my army was good for 5-10 years and now sucked, it would take it better. But I play w40k for less then 3 years and the army was good for about 9 months of it. And while my army "new" book removes all the options and extra nerfs it for a new edition, marines or eldar get update after update , so I think I do have stuff to bitch about.

7th is ok.

I don't like fliers or super heavies or lords of war.

I do like Maelstrom missions.

I prefer HH games, anyway. Feels more like 5th edition.

Just want to point out that if you aren't actually playing the current edition, your opinion on the current edition doesn't matter. Gripes about Maelsrom which you never play is useless input, complants about large models or formations you never play are useless input.

Yes, its great to have an opinion, and to voice that opinion. But if your opinion is uninformed because you don't bother to actually gain any form of experience with the subject at hand, your opinion has no weight, its just being negative because you can. Now, if you are actually playing the game, and you want to voice your opinion on its bad points, feel free. If not, then please understand that no one cares about your assumptions on how bad you think it really is.

Points people hate, yet actually fix the game:

Maelstrom > fixes the game by breaking peole out of stale tactics

Formations > uses suboptimal units in optimal ways

Psychic phase > removes the confusion of when to use which power by consolidating all powers used into a single phase

Large models > grows the game by adding a new dimension (vertical) to our tactics. This includes flyers, GCs, and SHWs.

Things GW flubbed on:

Terrain < proper terrain fixs the game to balance out gunlines with melee, tall models with small models. Poorly pasted rules from the previous edition leave many complainers unable to think through the problem, leading to 7th Ed games played with 5th Ed terrain with all the problems associated.

Ambiguous Rules > this appears to be intentional, due to an industry wide concept that ambiguous rules lead to player interest via arguing over what those rules are trying to convey. Which is to say GW may be doing this on purpose rather thsn through incompetence. However, its generally more accurate to attribute to incompetence rather than to malice, I'm just willing to make an exception for GW based on their track record.

Non-issues:

Price gauging > while kits are more expansive, you are getting more for your money in kits these days in comparison to older kits dosn the years. Sorry Australia, GW is still F'ing you. : (

Assuming its a game > its a business, not a game. You pay to play. Complaining about it is just voicing your own childish ignorance on how economy works. If you don't like this specific financial model, don't sornd your money on. Vote with your wallet. Want things to change? Start by sprnding your money and time on the things you like.

That said, 7th Ed is in a good place. The 40k community is in a bad place, due in part to player expectations having drifted from the game's core concepts. Not every game is 'Ard Boyz. You are playing with someone, not against someone. The cancer is in the community mind set, not GW's bad business practices.

SJ

I actually still love 40k. The models, the background, heck the memories. Nope I don't play 7th anymore, doesn't mean I don't get to have an opinion on the game. Besides I still paint and model quite a bit.

There was always negotiations before a game in 40k, but 7th just brought it to a ridiculous level for me. Before 7th the normal questions were: okay what army do you plan on fielding, causal/tournament list, points, mission? Then you were playing. One of the last games of 7th I had was going to be against Eldar. Even with pre-negotiations on facebook, opponent still arrived with a full on netlist army. I play Orks, so I had to explain that it would not be a fun game with his scat bikes and wraith knight, among other units he had. This upset him quite a bit, and understandably it was a nicely painted army that he had put alot of effort into. So after an hour of trying to come up with lists that worked for a fun game, we just gave up. As I was about to leave another person asked for a game, he had a decurion Necron list. Sigh, why do people think it is fun to pull out a green tide or bully boy army (had both with me) just to turn around and put them away again.

I don't think the rules are the problem. I have split my ork army into two parts and played against my friends on a few occasions and those were some very fun games with very little rules problems.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just want to point out that if you aren't actually playing the current edition, your opinion on the current edition doesn't matter. Gripes about Maelsrom which you never play is useless input, complants about large models or formations you never play are useless input.

Yes, its great to have an opinion, and to voice that opinion. But if your opinion is uninformed because you don't bother to actually gain any form of experience with the subject at hand, your opinion has no weight, its just being negative because you can. Now, if you are actually playing the game, and you want to voice your opinion on its bad points, feel free. If not, then please understand that no one cares about your assumptions on how bad you think it really is.

Points people hate, yet actually fix the game:

Maelstrom > fixes the game by breaking peole out of stale tactics

Formations > uses suboptimal units in optimal ways

Psychic phase > removes the confusion of when to use which power by consolidating all powers used into a single phase

Large models > grows the game by adding a new dimension (vertical) to our tactics. This includes flyers, GCs, and SHWs.

Things GW flubbed on:

Terrain < proper terrain fixs the game to balance out gunlines with melee, tall models with small models. Poorly pasted rules from the previous edition leave many complainers unable to think through the problem, leading to 7th Ed games played with 5th Ed terrain with all the problems associated.

Ambiguous Rules > this appears to be intentional, due to an industry wide concept that ambiguous rules lead to player interest via arguing over what those rules are trying to convey. Which is to say GW may be doing this on purpose rather thsn through incompetence. However, its generally more accurate to attribute to incompetence rather than to malice, I'm just willing to make an exception for GW based on their track record.

Non-issues:

Price gauging > while kits are more expansive, you are getting more for your money in kits these days in comparison to older kits dosn the years. Sorry Australia, GW is still F'ing you. : (

Assuming its a game > its a business, not a game. You pay to play. Complaining about it is just voicing your own childish ignorance on how economy works. If you don't like this specific financial model, don't sornd your money on. Vote with your wallet. Want things to change? Start by sprnding your money and time on the things you like.

That said, 7th Ed is in a good place. The 40k community is in a bad place, due in part to player expectations having drifted from the game's core concepts. Not every game is 'Ard Boyz. You are playing with someone, not against someone. The cancer is in the community mind set, not GW's bad business practices.

SJ

I'm actually not sure if you are being serious or attempting satire but are being too subtle

I'm not going to address all your crazy points because I'll assume for now that it's satire

"I'm not going to address all your crazy points because I'll assume for now that it's satire"

He likes the game. I hate it. There's no point in arguing about it. I still maintain terrain is a non-fix for poorly pointed units. But whatever.

I've always had the impression that his play group lets him set up the board the way he likes and never adapt to his play style, letting him baby seal club everyone to death with GK. I could be totally wrong, but that's just the impression I get from his L2P NOOB! posts. And the claims of things that fix the game but actually just break it more.

 vipoid wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Hey, it's as rational as leaving a game you hate, saying you're leaving a game you hate, continuing to come on forums telling people you hate said game, for years.

Has it ever occurred to you that people might still like some parts of the game? e.g. the background, the characters, the characters they've made, the models, their armies etc. What they want are for the rules to improve. And, I just don't see the issue with them sharing those views.

This again?

Do I have to link to this article on Cracked again?

Esp this part-

Anytime someone takes to social media or just has a discussion about what they don't like about a show, inevitably the haterade crew will pop up with their insightful remarks. "You're just a hater. If you don't like it, don't watch it." This misses the point entirely. A more dramatic reading of this is like saying if your kid does something foolish and pisses you off, you should kick them out since you don't like them.
That's not what's happening at all. It's precisely because you do like a show or a movie that you get frustrated when dumb-fethery is afoot. You're emotionally invested in the characters and storyline and it upsets you, even if it's a little silly to say so, when the characters are subjected to something idiotic.

Sub in "show" for "GW" and/or "40k" in that sentence and you're golden.