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.

So many things are useless in-game. Lists have to be very particular in order to even stand a remote chance against anything. All the IG lists I see are just the same melta spam over and over. Orks can't even stand up to Eldar and Necrons, about %90 of all wargear is useless etc. etc. etc. I love the backstory and the models, but can't stand how the rules work. Is there any way to enjoy this game without having the same army as every other (insert faction) player and not getting wiped from the board? I think not.

Possible if you stick to a close group of gaming friends and mix things up, but in all seriousness, what you said about loving lore and fluff but hating the rules is a pretty common mindset. A lot of people I see and talk with who plays 40k pretty much says 'the lore is great'

Well, luckily, you're wrong. For most factions, anyway. You certainly don't have to spam Meltas to play guard, not with guards generous FW support and the new formations.

 Chef_of_Cadia wrote:
So many things are useless in-game. Lists have to be very particular in order to even stand a remote chance against anything. All the IG lists I see are just the same melta spam over and over. Orks can't even stand up to Eldar and Necrons, about %90 of all wargear is useless etc. etc. etc. I love the backstory and the models, but can't stand how the rules work.

Welcome to the perennial story of 40k.

Is there any way to enjoy this game without having the same army as every other (insert faction) player and not getting wiped from the board? I think not.

For tournaments and pickup gaming? No.

If you have a close knit group of tight gaming pals who think as you do, and everyone's willing to put the effort in to address such issues, you can, but outside of that, 7E really is a gigantic honking mess.

the_scotsman wrote:
Well, luckily, you're wrong. For most factions, anyway. You certainly don't have to spam Meltas to play guard, not with guards generous FW support and the new formations.

What you've done there is focus on the specifics and totally miss the general.

OP, yes, you're right. Some of it harks back to the very earliest days when stuff had options because they should have those options, and the odds of them ever being useful were tiny even if they had an in game function at all, but it was cool nonetheless. (There were literally dozens of mutations Chaos Champions could have, for instance, like 'Bizarre Appearance')

But realistically the choice that is so often cited by people defending 40K is merely an illusion of choice, and to give yourself the best fighting chance of an even contest, it boils down to the same handful of options.

Forge World are doing a much better job with 30K, but the main game is plagued with irrelevant and ineffective options.

 Azreal13 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Well, luckily, you're wrong. For most factions, anyway. You certainly don't have to spam Meltas to play guard, not with guards generous FW support and the new formations.

What you've done there is focus on the specifics and totally miss the general.

OP, yes, you're right. Some of it harks back to the very earliest days when stuff had options because they should have those options, and the odds of them ever being useful were tiny even if they had an in game function at all, but it was cool nonetheless. (There were literally dozens of mutations Chaos Champions could have, for instance, like 'Bizarre Appearance')

But realistically the choice that is so often cited by people defending 40K is merely an illusion of choice, and to give yourself the best fighting chance of an even contest, it boils down to the same handful of options.

Forge World are doing a much better job with 30K, but the main game is plagued with irrelevant and ineffective options.

My thing is, you'd think if everything in 40k is fairly unrealistic and follows the rule of cool, you'd think weapon and upgrade choices would too. But no, there's pretty much only enough valid army lists for each army to count on one hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also don't get me wrong, I don't hate that I can't field conscripts armed with sticks and expect to win, there are going to be bad lists in any game. It's just I wish there weren't so many wrong answers in 40k.

There's far more than one valid army list per codex. Sometimes something out of the blue can surprise your opponent, however, I think the main issue is different.

40K isn't designed to be competitive. People will always "hate the rules love the background" when they try to make it a game worthy of tournaments or cutting edge tactical play. It's not about that. It's about having cool moments with your toy soldiers. It's about having a laugh with friends at how you can't ever roll a 2+ save.

Tournament and WAAC play is what makes 40K unbalanced. It's really not meant to be played like that.

 Griddlelol wrote:

40K isn't designed to be competitive. [...]
Tournament and WAAC play is what makes 40K unbalanced. It's really not meant to be played like that.

40k is designed to sell stuff and not to be played at all.

The unbalance is there because no one cares. That is also a reason why GW stopped selling rules before the models came out (instead of writing balanced rules the hide them until the boxes are sold, so no one can test them and decide upon the rules if the unit is worth it).

Tournaments just show how bad the rules actually are which would take a little bit longer for non-tournament players (but even those how play just narrative realise bad design and have to make their own house rules. There is no one I know how play 100% stock 40k out of the box)

 Griddlelol wrote:

40K isn't designed to be competitive. People will always "hate the rules love the background" when they try to make it a game worthy of tournaments or cutting edge tactical play. It's not about that. It's about having cool moments with your toy soldiers. It's about having a laugh with friends at how you can't ever roll a 2+ save.

But you don't need bad rules to have "cool moments" in game

The best way to play 40K without feeling forced to be uber-competitive is to walk away from the competitive sphere and get out of the "must win" mindset.

40K is not, nor will ever be, a competitive game, regardless of what the competitive scene tries to FAQ.

There are no wrong answers in 40K, just wrong mindsets.
The sooner people get over "competitive" 40K the better. This isn't MTG, with massive $$$ prizes, or MOBAS, designed from the ground up for absolute competitive play.
This is a game about Your Dudes. I still want balance in game (stop powerful unit spam, reworking PPM), and GW to put 2 minutes thought into their rules sometimes (Sod overwatch), but the minute you start balancing around competitive play is when you officially kill the game off.

 Izural wrote:
The best way to play 40K without feeling forced to be uber-competitive is to walk away from the competitive sphere and get out of the "must win" mindset.

40K is not, nor will ever be, a competitive game, regardless of what the competitive scene tries to FAQ.

There are no wrong answers in 40K, just wrong mindsets.
The sooner people get over "competitive" 40K the better. This isn't MTG, with massive $$$ prizes, or MOBAS, designed from the ground up for absolute competitive play.
This is a game about Your Dudes. I still want balance in game (stop powerful unit spam, reworking PPM), and GW to put 2 minutes thought into their rules sometimes (Sod overwatch), but the minute you start balancing around competitive play is when you officially kill the game off.

QFT.

40k is a terrible game, mechanically.
40k is a great way of generating stories about that one Codicier who stood his ground atop a fortress wall and killed the lord of change who had just slain his Epistolary tutor, or the guard Colonel who survived his command squad's massacre and killed the daemon prince responsible, or the conscripts who killed Typhus and were probably subsequently executed or zombified.

It's also a good litmus test for the kind of person you are- specifically if you're the kind of person who likes stories that go: And then I fired all my weapons every turn and by turn 3 he had nothing left.

Tournament and WAAC play is what makes 40K unbalanced. It's really not meant to be played like that.

That's true.
But there is still a tournament scene out there. Not so much in Germany, but in the States you have GT's at a regular basis.

 Izural wrote:
The best way to play 40K without feeling forced to be uber-competitive is to walk away from the competitive sphere and get out of the "must win" mindset.

40K is not, nor will ever be, a competitive game, regardless of what the competitive scene tries to FAQ.

There are no wrong answers in 40K, just wrong mindsets.
The sooner people get over "competitive" 40K the better. This isn't MTG, with massive $$$ prizes, or MOBAS, designed from the ground up for absolute competitive play.
This is a game about Your Dudes. I still want balance in game (stop powerful unit spam, reworking PPM), and GW to put 2 minutes thought into their rules sometimes (Sod overwatch), but the minute you start balancing around competitive play is when you officially kill the game off.

A balanced game is a game balanced for competitive play

40k is just a terribly written game and the more you care about the outcome of the game being determined by something other than your army composition and the result of a few random dice rolls, the more it's going to bother you.

You don't have to be super competitive or a tournament player or a WAAC player to find 40k rules terrible.

I don't care if I win or lose, I don't play tournaments.... I still find 40k terrible because even though I don't care if I lose, when winning becomes either a predetermined outcome based on list selection or a random event based on a couple of lucky rolls, I start to lose interest in the game. I feel like I might as well be playing army men and going "pew pew pew", at least then I could come up with better stories than "The Scatterbikes killed all the Orks while the Wraithknight would not die, the end".

 Griddlelol wrote:
There's far more than one valid army list per codex. Sometimes something out of the blue can surprise your opponent, however, I think the main issue is different.

40K isn't designed to be competitive. People will always "hate the rules love the background" when they try to make it a game worthy of tournaments or cutting edge tactical play. It's not about that. It's about having cool moments with your toy soldiers. It's about having a laugh with friends at how you can't ever roll a 2+ save.

Tournament and WAAC play is what makes 40K unbalanced. It's really not meant to be played like that.

Bad rules are what makes 40K unbalanced. The massive variance in power among units and codexes would exist with or without tournaments and would cause problems for friendly matches as well. Characterising 40K as a narrative game falls flat when it's based on army lists and win states instead of campaigns. GW dropped the requirement for a game master when they transitioned to 2nd edition because using points-based army lists was so much more convenient and popular. Playing matches has been the base state of the game for twenty years now.

Either GW should move back to the RT model and publish campaign books and scenarios instead of codexes or they should make a well-written, compelling wargame which is as useful to tournaments as it is to casual play.

Obviously I meant playing competitively unveils the balance issues. However, I'd argue they aren't balance "issues" at all, since the game isn't intended for competition.

I'm not a WAAC player, TFG, or someone who participates in tournaments. That said, the rules need massive revision/overhaul.

What bad could come from GW hiring an outside gaming company to come in & create a balanced competitive ruleset? Where each codex was nearly equal in power? When I walk into any FLGS, what are people playing?

Flames of War, Dropzone Commander, Heavy Gear, Firestorm Armada/Halo: Fleet Battles/Dystopian Wars, X-Wing, Malifaux, Warmachine, Magic the Gathering etc etc

What are they not playing? WH40k

This is because the rules are a damn mess, there is little to no communication from GW, models continue to skyrocket in price, support for 40k via FW is being dropped etc.

If GW wants to compete with these systems, then they need to make the game playable so it can get some visibility again. Otherwise its going the way of the dodo.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Obviously I meant playing competitively unveils the balance issues. However, I'd argue they aren't balance "issues" at all, since the game isn't intended for competition.

The balance issues are hugely there unless you specifically houserule against them or don't care about what you're doing to the point that it doesn't matter whether you're using rules at all or are throwing some dice around for the sake of it. "Competition games" have been part of WHFB, 40K, BFG, Warmaster and so on since the very start of them. Necromunda and such have a greater campaign focus but are nonetheless about vying for supremacy. If 40K is non-competitive, why doesn't it rely on a game master? Why isn't it structured more like Inquisitor? That was, after all, a narrative-focused game.

Never mind that balance issues can exist in games not meant specifically for competitions, too. Dungeons and Dragons had huge power imbalances among classes to the point that a non-magic class would end up useless because whatever they could do there was a spell for it. Magic ruling supreme made classes that couldn't cast spells less able to contribute which decreased the fun their players had. A well-balanced game with clearly written rules is of benefit to tournament and story gamers alike.

It still amuses me to this day that some people seem to believe that an unbalanced, lazily written, clunky and obsolete ruleset is some sort of requirement in order to enjoy a relaxed game.

Because clearly the better balanced, written and tested rulesets in the marker do not allow players to have any kind of fun.

Not only 40k is currently one of the worst game systems for sci-fi/space fantasy out there, it's also the most expensive one by a sea mile. But hey, it's ok 'cuz beer & pretzels.

Rosebuddy wrote:

The balance issues are hugely there unless you specifically houserule against them or don't care about what you're doing to the point that it doesn't matter whether you're using rules at all or are throwing some dice around for the sake of it. "Competition games" have been part of WHFB, 40K, BFG, Warmaster and so on since the very start of them. Necromunda and such have a greater campaign focus but are nonetheless about vying for supremacy. If 40K is non-competitive, why doesn't it rely on a game master? Why isn't it structured more like Inquisitor? That was, after all, a narrative-focused game.

Never mind that balance issues can exist in games not meant specifically for competitions, too. Dungeons and Dragons had huge power imbalances among classes to the point that a non-magic class would end up useless because whatever they could do there was a spell for it. Magic ruling supreme made classes that couldn't cast spells less able to contribute which decreased the fun their players had. A well-balanced game with clearly written rules is of benefit to tournament and story gamers alike.

The game has evolved, they would lose customers if they changed it too much. Simple answer.

Korinov wrote:It still amuses me to this day that some people seem to believe that an unbalanced, lazily written, clunky and obsolete ruleset is some sort of requirement in order to enjoy a relaxed game.

Because clearly the better balanced, written and tested rulesets in the marker do not allow players to have any kind of fun.

Not only 40k is currently one of the worst game systems for sci-fi/space fantasy out there, it's also the most expensive one by a sea mile. But hey, it's ok 'cuz beer & pretzels.

Nice, you seem to have read something completely different to what I wrote. That takes serous skill.

 Korinov wrote:
It still amuses me to this day that some people seem to believe that an unbalanced, lazily written, clunky and obsolete ruleset is some sort of requirement in order to enjoy a relaxed game.

Because clearly the better balanced, written and tested rulesets in the marker do not allow players to have any kind of fun.

Not only 40k is currently one of the worst game systems for sci-fi/space fantasy out there, it's also the most expensive one by a sea mile. But hey, it's ok 'cuz beer & pretzels.

At our local store, we play mostly 40k and WMH atm.
I think that WMH is not much cheaper than 40k when you play at the 50 pt level.

I'd love to play certain units but they get shot off the board before doing anything (Warptalons !)
I am therefore pushed into playing only certain units if I want a hope of winning or even competing. Heck I shouldn't really be using power armoured chaos marines if I'm trying to be competitive
I think 40k has become too big to be balanced.
lots of armies
loads of units, each with it's own options
attempts at keeping the units close to their lore.
the latest unit being op in order to raise sales
And all the while the number one priority of GW is to make money.

there are many numbers of problems and they come down to huge conflicts of interest and half baked schemes that have been half heartedly written around or over in an effort to keep the ball rolling.

many times in the past GW has tried taking the game in new directions with new modes like stronghold assault, and terror from the skies in an effort to make units that are bad in normal play useful in other formats. this hasnt panned out as planned. and when these didnt work games workshop has rather then fixing them used them as a springboard to push more stuff such as turning cities of death into a maelstrom of war rip off they then forgot to sell the card deck for despite mentioning it dozens of times in their shield of baal rulebooks. they then steamrolled any chance for those units to ever dig in and well the communities quickly dumped those game modes when they werent different enough.

in addition you have the community. the community has become very disjointed. a number of editions ago games workshop started flattening out the armies and then publishing more generic books after a period of book expansion in flavour and diversity. when this happened the fun silly campaigny players started filing out the door. they couldnt tell the stories they wanted anymore with their modls on table. the heroic defenses, the ambushes, the outflanking pincer attacks. this left the tournament players and rather then build the game to only fit their needs they tried converting them into those players. which is what we were subjected too for part of 7th and all of 6th and the tail end of 5th ed even. however a lot of this conflicted with the brb rules writers who wrote for flavourful unique army design with interlocking joints. the sad part is that largely the community is still tournament heavy and when attempts to casualize the feth out the game bottomed out the game became a mess for them to manage as well which makes them frustrated. and if new players come in wanting the cinematic experience they wont find it a lot of the time.

this is then compounded by the fact that they then had corporate breathing down their necks to push sales and move units and so they started cannibalizing models or rules for the sake of sales

so we have corporate, you have rules that have been thuggishly written over in a very ham fisted approach, then you have new players getting the idea games workshop wanted from their game in the future but an existing community that doesnt want to play ball. and then you have alternative rulesets being cannibalized for the sake of time and making units worthless that shouldnt have been.

40k is a mess that you would need to go back to the drawing board on. but at the same time you would need to sit down and tell the community that no we dont want tournament players anymore. and if you did that thered be a lot of broken hearts but people would move on and from ehre you could go about starting to address corporate. its sad but if the game wants to heal and finally get rid of its old dead weight its going to need to take huge sales hits and watch its communities walk out the door. otherwise your just painting over an ever increasing number of layers of paint. i liken it a lot to that in fact. people have just painted it over again and again sometimes in totally the wrong color in places not even the whole wall rather then strip down the wall and start anew.

1) don 't play 40k, go play something more balanced and good (WarmaHordes, Malifaux, etc.)

2) Stop caring, have fun, profit

Pick one. I doubt GW will rewrite the rules anytime soon, it will keep being the mess it is. But it's a fun mess

 jreilly89 wrote:
1) don 't play 40k, go play something more balanced and good (WarmaHordes, Malifaux, etc.)

2) Stop caring, have fun, profit

Pick one. I doubt GW will rewrite the rules anytime soon, it will keep being the mess it is. But it's a fun mess

GW is not even interested to update the older codices.
Atm they prefer to release supplement books with new formations in them.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
1) don 't play 40k, go play something more balanced and good (WarmaHordes, Malifaux, etc.)

2) Stop caring, have fun, profit

Pick one. I doubt GW will rewrite the rules anytime soon, it will keep being the mess it is. But it's a fun mess

GW is not even interested to update the older codices.
Atm they prefer to release supplement books with new formations in them.

Yep. I've pretty much given up on tourneys, but I still have a blast playing with buddies

 Griddlelol wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

The balance issues are hugely there unless you specifically houserule against them or don't care about what you're doing to the point that it doesn't matter whether you're using rules at all or are throwing some dice around for the sake of it. "Competition games" have been part of WHFB, 40K, BFG, Warmaster and so on since the very start of them. Necromunda and such have a greater campaign focus but are nonetheless about vying for supremacy. If 40K is non-competitive, why doesn't it rely on a game master? Why isn't it structured more like Inquisitor? That was, after all, a narrative-focused game.

Never mind that balance issues can exist in games not meant specifically for competitions, too. Dungeons and Dragons had huge power imbalances among classes to the point that a non-magic class would end up useless because whatever they could do there was a spell for it. Magic ruling supreme made classes that couldn't cast spells less able to contribute which decreased the fun their players had. A well-balanced game with clearly written rules is of benefit to tournament and story gamers alike.

The game has evolved, they would lose customers if they changed it too much. Simple answer.

GW would not lose customers if they one day released an excellent set of rules for 40K. The suggestion is laughable.

 Chef_of_Cadia wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Well, luckily, you're wrong. For most factions, anyway. You certainly don't have to spam Meltas to play guard, not with guards generous FW support and the new formations.

What you've done there is focus on the specifics and totally miss the general.

OP, yes, you're right. Some of it harks back to the very earliest days when stuff had options because they should have those options, and the odds of them ever being useful were tiny even if they had an in game function at all, but it was cool nonetheless. (There were literally dozens of mutations Chaos Champions could have, for instance, like 'Bizarre Appearance')

But realistically the choice that is so often cited by people defending 40K is merely an illusion of choice, and to give yourself the best fighting chance of an even contest, it boils down to the same handful of options.

Forge World are doing a much better job with 30K, but the main game is plagued with irrelevant and ineffective options.

My thing is, you'd think if everything in 40k is fairly unrealistic and follows the rule of cool, you'd think weapon and upgrade choices would too. But no, there's pretty much only enough valid army lists for each army to count on one hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also don't get me wrong, I don't hate that I can't field conscripts armed with sticks and expect to win, there are going to be bad lists in any game. It's just I wish there weren't so many wrong answers in 40k.

Unless your tau, eldar or space marines.

 jreilly89 wrote:
1) don 't play 40k, go play something more balanced and good (WarmaHordes, Malifaux, etc.)

2) Stop caring, have fun, profit

Pick one. I doubt GW will rewrite the rules anytime soon, it will keep being the mess it is. But it's a fun mess

Is Warmahordes really that balanced?

from what i understand there are entirely armies that can fully counter lists before it even hits the table. that sounds far from balanced.

Honestly a more balanced game while helping the tournament scene would still help the casual scene as they will be able to take whatever they want while still having a close game. it leads to both players having fun instead of one getting roflstomped for taking something subpar.

 Desubot wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
1) don 't play 40k, go play something more balanced and good (WarmaHordes, Malifaux, etc.)

2) Stop caring, have fun, profit

Pick one. I doubt GW will rewrite the rules anytime soon, it will keep being the mess it is. But it's a fun mess

Is Warmahordes really that balanced?

from what i understand there are entirely armies that can fully counter lists before it even hits the table. that sounds far from balanced.

Honestly a more balanced game while helping the tournament scene would still help the casual scene as they will be able to take whatever they want while still having a close game. it leads to both players having fun instead of one getting roflstomped for taking something subpar.

From what I understand, yes/no. There are still broken combos, but armies are more balanced and I believe PP releases FAQs a lot. Also, games are shorter, so it's not as much of a slog and the entry cost is cheaper, as you usually only field about 10-20 models.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for a cleaner ruleset and balanced armies, but I also know the arms race that is 40k and have come to accept it.

I play 40k and WM/H

Playing the most expensive Fraction in WM/H, it is till cheaper over all than 40k. Not only because I don't need 200€ of Books to play one Fraction, but also because an army to play with is about 250-300€.
Also their Army Boxes with a massive discount help the keep the price low. (compare it to a 1500 point, playable 40k list with 30% Discount and we never got boxes with playable forces in it from GW)

Balance is difficult, but you can always win against your enemy and compared to 40k, the balance is nearly perfect because every single unit of a Fraction has its place on the battle field
For tournaments you have 2 lists to get not into the problem of facing an Anti-List.

 Griddlelol wrote:

The game has evolved, they would lose customers if they changed it too much. Simple answer.

You mean like they did with every previous Edition of their games?