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.

I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

Backfire wrote:Uh, of course MtG is profitable. GW really has NOTHING on WOTC when it comes to milking money from the playerbase. It got really, really cynical after 4th Ed, which is why we quit.

Why is the profitability of magic a given? It isn't just because it is there, it is because players like it and continue to buy into it. Whether you found it cynical after 4th or not, plenty of others didn't and still don't. I don't play in official events because I stopped aggressively buying magic cards a long time ago. The cool thing is that nothing in the rules has changed so much that I can't play with any of the cards I still own. Some of them might be a little underpowered compared to some current similar cards, but I can still use them if I want. That backwards compatibility even keeps the players who don't want to buy up a ton of cards from the most current set happy. I can think of at least a dozen games following the same collectible rarity random booster selection of Magic that came out around the same time and not a one of them still exists in the market, except maybe through ebay. The rest haven't been in production for a long time indeed. WotC is certainly doing something right with Magic.

Also it isn't milking money from the playerbase if the players happily buy the product and use it and continue to do so. Some of the ways official events are run are not WotC just wanting to make more money, but a direct result of player feedback wanting official events to focus within a certain subset of cards at any given time to ensure deck parity. You can't blame or insult WotC for giving its players what they asked for.

GW seems to have the mentality that no matter what they do everyone will just love it, despite the existence of tons of resources like Dakka that spell out what a lot of players want and don't want.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Now someone please explain to me the randomness of 2d6 charges. Is that GWs way around balancing movement and weapon ranges, what's the point? Fun? Serious question, I don't get it.

6th edition looks kind of ridiculous so far for me, and I haven't even played it yet. Hi to all, btw.

Random charge is just another aspect of the fog of war. You assault and realize that you weren't as close to their position as you thought, or you get hung up in the terrain or your charge just fizzles due to less enthusiasm. Always being able to charge a specific distance regardless of conditions or situations is kind of silly when you think about it.

You are certainly welcome to consider it ridiculous. I am also at a loss for the need of "mystery" terrain, but some people like it. It is a simple process to just ignore it completely. Doesn't take away from anything and doesn't require much of any effort at all. Mysterious forest= Forest, Mysterious river= river, Mysterious ruins= ruins, and so on and so on.

I fail to understand people who complain that their armies are ruined because of rules that affect every army equally. It isn't as if other forces are doing things that your favorite army can't do anymore. No one is getting the ability to charge after running, or an immunity to overwatch. It is all the same. I also find it funny how much panic overwatch is causing to people who like close combat. A BS 1 is hardly the end of the world. Try playing a game where the comparative overwatch fire is done at the standard abilities for those firing in overwatch and not as limited and nerfed as it is in 40k. The overwatch rules in 40k are laughable at best. A tactical squad of marines should make mincement of anything charging at them with CC weapons in hand. These battles play closer to napoleonics with artillery and some shooting, but ulimtately with units coming into contact with cutlass and bayonet. It really is laughable all things considered.

Skriker

Frozen Ocean wrote:Demonstrate, then. Don't just post something that implies "You are all fools! Hahaha!". Demonstrate your point - with minimal amounts of research - if you do, in fact, have a point.

It would be nice to see "My Ork list is totally crap now, bla bla" that isn't followed by "lol don't play Orks then, durrr". While the person (in this example) who is complaining about their Orks isn't reacting maybe how they should, it doesn't call for so much of the feedback to be "suck it up".

I'm not agreeing with all the statements made here. I don't agree that GW added flyers or allies to force people to spend more money. Even if I did, I still wouldn't really care. The issue I see here is far too many responses being crude and unhelpful, even downright derisive.

Maybe it's because I'm a forum admin, I don't know, but this is not how discussions are done.

I didn't realise there was a discussion occurring. Instead you are creating strawman arguements.

Still...

Take the example of the claim that GW does not respond to the internet/customers that was made earlier in the thread (and is a staple of this meme). A number of podcasts have interviewed games designers - notably Gav Thorpe - about their job and he made the point that large amounts of his time would be spent searching through forums and blogs too find out what people were saying. In his Standard Bearer column Jervis fequently asks people to write to him with his suggestions and concerns. There are plenty of other examples - not the least of which is the subtle ways in which GW leaks rumours - hence my comment about minimal research.

As for derisive comments - including the tone of your contribution (fanboys' etc) - what do people expect when they open threads like this?

guiltl3ss wrote:I joined 40k for the hobby. 6th makes me feel like I can enjoy my various models to a much greater degree. Since I do not play in tourneys I cannot comment on that, but I do feel the changes were made to make the game more "fun." Since it IS a game, I think making it more "fun" is much more important. If you don't enjoy it, don't play. I think that is fair.

From my perspective, 6th edition is neither suited for tourneys nor for "adventurous" fun - the randomness spoils the former, suits the latter but the explanations are silly and anti-climatic. I love the 40k world and came to enjoy the hobby aspect a lot but if the game is driven towards a total luckfest, what's the point of FOC, points, heavy rulebook, strict guidelines etc, It's not the matter of tourneys and winning imo but the game having depth, which for me translates into more fun. Random snake in the forest eating the space marine should be left for rpgs, boardgames and such not unit based tactical game, imo. The impact of the new throws might turn out not that significant but still, what's the point? Not to mention all they had to do is make it optional or write some rules for buying the warlord abilities for example.

I love epic, cinematic events on the table in 40k but consider the outcomes of a fierce tactical battle more cinematic than Space Marine drowning by accident in Industrial Ooze.

Skriker wrote:Random charge is just another aspect of the fog of war. You assault and realize that you weren't as close to their position as you thought, or you get hung up in the terrain or your charge just fizzles due to less enthusiasm. Always being able to charge a specific distance regardless of conditions or situations is kind of silly when you think about it.

Thanks for the answer but I'd also like to know if there are mechanical downsizes to a fixed charge distance, or this is just for the reasons you mention. If it was the latter, would be hard to accept just because of the wide results margin, it's kind of unfluffy and not realistic to see hormangaunts making 2 inches assault and terminators making 12. Just when I've come to accept the random running distance in 5th they come up with 2d6 charge, I really try to find a sensible reason for it.

Skriker wrote:You are certainly welcome to consider it ridiculous. I am also at a loss for the need of "mystery" terrain, but some people like it. It is a simple process to just ignore it completely. Doesn't take away from anything and doesn't require much of any effort at all. Mysterious forest= Forest, Mysterious river= river, Mysterious ruins= ruins, and so on and so on.

Yes I know but with 5th edition, the more strictly I followed the guidelines (terrain, missions, objectives, wound allocations) the more it seemed balanced. It's also quite an expensive book to be forced to make house rules before even starting.

I said ridiculous mainly because of Look Out Sir, I know it's not much different than in 5th (mechanicaly better) but the explanation is soo bad... it can only instigate laughs at my table no epic for sure. It won't stop me from playing and possibly enjoying the 6th but the rules should be much much better imo.

Skriker wrote:I fail to understand people who complain that their armies are ruined because of rules that affect every army equally. It isn't as if other forces are doing things that your favorite army can't do anymore. No one is getting the ability to charge after running, or an immunity to overwatch. It is all the same. I also find it funny how much panic overwatch is causing to people who like close combat. A BS 1 is hardly the end of the world. Try playing a game where the comparative overwatch fire is done at the standard abilities for those firing in overwatch and not as limited and nerfed as it is in 40k. The overwatch rules in 40k are laughable at best. A tactical squad of marines should make mincement of anything charging at them with CC weapons in hand. These battles play closer to napoleonics with artillery and some shooting, but ulimtately with units coming into contact with cutlass and bayonet. It really is laughable all things considered.

Skriker

Genestealer based list is hurt a lot, I don't complain but it's a fact. Have to see how it works now, will be harder for sure - the matter is, how much.

Backfire wrote:

Kurce wrote:

Backfire wrote:Of course, I myself ragequit MtG when they changed to 6th Edition, so maybe I am not one to criticize

Funnily enough, lots of time you see people holding MtG as some sort of paragon how GW should run things. I always get a good laugh out of it.

You do realize that the game was barely playable until they introduced the stack that instantly fixed just about every timing issue that could even occur in the game when they revised the rules, right? You ragequitting MtG when they did the rules overhaul is very laughable since they... ya know... fixed the game with it.

That was indeed a good change: it was everything else which went to hell, which is why I quit. Along with all my Magic-playing friends. Note that I did not quit because of 6th ed, timing was coincidental.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skriker wrote:
This are all things that GW could greatly benefit from. Often they try to reinvent the wheel when they write their rules instead of refining and enhancing them. The shift from 5th to 6th seems less of a dramatic change and maybe they are learning this *finally*. The simple fact is that by improving and continually refining their game, Wizards of the Coast has seen magic continue to be popular and wholly profitable for over 20 years with minimal price increases on the product. They keep coming out with new card sets and people contiue to buy them. That is pretty darn impressive and something other game companies could learn from.

Uh, of course MtG is profitable. GW really has NOTHING on WOTC when it comes to milking money from the playerbase. It got really, really cynical after 4th Ed, which is why we quit.

Your post seemed to imply that you quit because of the changes to the rules that came about in 6th. And I do not see how Magic became cynical... I cannot understand how this even applies to Magic. What about Magic became cynical exactly?

Kurce wrote:[
Your post seemed to imply that you quit because of the changes to the rules that came about in 6th. And I do not see how Magic became cynical... I cannot understand how this even applies to Magic. What about Magic became cynical exactly?

Expansion creep became rather insane at around, or after, Alliances. Before that, they really didn't know how to handle expansions. First they were too strong, the designers did not realize players would pick & choose best cards (even though it seems like a no-brainer). Then they went to other extreme and became really weak. After Fallen Empires and Homelands flopped, they realized people did not want to buy weak expansions regardless of how good stories and themes they had. So they began to release expansions which were clearly much more powerful than the base game and most of the earlier editions. And the release schedule became just insanely hectic, tons of new stuff coming out of every few months. Plus the card design got really lazy. What the heck is the point of a card which is exact same as some earlier card, but more powerful? That will just invalidate earlier card, thanks a lot. It was so obvious ripoff scheme that nothing GW has done comes close.

Magic, when I started it at 3rd edition, was fun casual game. At around 5th/6th edition it became a competive tournament game, and those of us, who wanted just to have fun, bailed out. It was no longer the same game, it was no more FUN. Rules changes were actually irrelevant, although my post might imply that (removal of Banding was lame, but I think it happened afterwards). It was a policy change which drove me out.

Now, the lesson here is that I was sure that MtG was going down the drain. EVERYONE I knew had quit, whole scene around me died. So couple of years later I was hugely surprised to find out that MtG was thriving. They had built a new playerbase, the fact that they had driven out most of the old grognards didn't matter. It wasn't the same scene anymore, and there is no way I'd return, but for those involved it didn't matter, that was what they wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Skriker wrote:

Backfire wrote:Uh, of course MtG is profitable. GW really has NOTHING on WOTC when it comes to milking money from the playerbase. It got really, really cynical after 4th Ed, which is why we quit.

Why is the profitability of magic a given? It isn't just because it is there, it is because players like it and continue to buy into it. Whether you found it cynical after 4th or not, plenty of others didn't and still don't. I don't play in official events because I stopped aggressively buying magic cards a long time ago. The cool thing is that nothing in the rules has changed so much that I can't play with any of the cards I still own. Some of them might be a little underpowered compared to some current similar cards, but I can still use them if I want. That backwards compatibility even keeps the players who don't want to buy up a ton of cards from the most current set happy. I can think of at least a dozen games following the same collectible rarity random booster selection of Magic that came out around the same time and not a one of them still exists in the market, except maybe through ebay. The rest haven't been in production for a long time indeed. WotC is certainly doing something right with Magic.

Also it isn't milking money from the playerbase if the players happily buy the product and use it and continue to do so. Some of the ways official events are run are not WotC just wanting to make more money, but a direct result of player feedback wanting official events to focus within a certain subset of cards at any given time to ensure deck parity. You can't blame or insult WotC for giving its players what they asked for.

GW seems to have the mentality that no matter what they do everyone will just love it, despite the existence of tons of resources like Dakka that spell out what a lot of players want and don't want.

That has to be most unintentionally hilarious post of the week, providing the very same parallel I drew and exactly proves the point I was making.

I find the new shooting wound allocation rules are kind of needlessly complex and unrealistic, so a space marine/IG squad loses the guy carrying a flamer, meltagun or heavy weapon they are just going to leave the section/platoon weapons on the ground? Derpy derp

Battle hardened space marines reduced to BS 1 "snap fire" (whatever that is?) because the enemy is assaulting them say what? Nice to know space marines of the future have less training then your average infantryman nowadays.

It would be interesting to know if GW actually had anyone whos Military advising them on these rules.

Dont even get me started on challenges, I can understand that in fantasy warhammer but where in modern warfare is your dudes going to hold back while your sergeant is going hand to hand with an enemy commander.

Grunt21 wrote:I find the new shooting wound allocation rules are kind of needlessly complex and unrealistic, so a space marine/IG squad loses the guy carrying a flamer, meltagun or heavy weapon they are just going to leave the section/platoon weapons on the ground? Derpy derp

Battle hardened space marines reduced to BS 1 "snap fire" (whatever that is?) because the enemy is assaulting them say what? Nice to know space marines of the future have less training then your average infantryman nowadays.

It would be interesting to know if GW actually had anyone whos Military advising them on these rules.

Dont even get me started on challenges, I can understand that in fantasy warhammer but where in modern warfare is your dudes going to hold back while your sergeant is going hand to hand with an enemy commander.

In turn...
Maybe the gun was damaged when the guy was shot? Half the weapons in most armies don't leave a lot to bury... Meltaguns and plasmaguns are often described as being as hot as a sun.
Marines are surprised by the sudden rush of troops at their location and fire for effect, trying to stop the rush without having the time to line up a shot (See the Dawn of War intro when the orks charge the marines... some pretty awful shooting there, and even Marines can get worried, they ain't fearless).
You see your buddy and the enemy commander wrestling in a knife fight, while someone else is trying to actively stab you with something sharp. You might wanna help, but there's that sharp thing in the way... or think of it like great heroes whose presence cowers most opponents, and your leader tells you to stay back, that this foe is his as he charges into battle. Hell, that's like half the 40k novels out there.

GW isn't going for realism, they're going for cinematic. They want that epic feel that is supposed to encompass 40k, not foxholes, mud, and trenches... though we have those too, along with rampaging plague demons and space dinos.

Sephyr wrote:

Let's take the Warlord table as a minor example. It's not the core issue but it is revealing.

You have offensive, defensive and terrain abilities sharing the same table. Your charge-forward assault HQ can end up with a defensive power that only applies if he camps back in his home turf. Your base-sitting sniper HQ can get furious charge if he ever strolls to the enmy deploy zone, which he won't. You may gain a bonus in ruins playing a forest or desert table with nary a ruin in sight. You can gain Acute senses when not having a single outflanker on the table.

In -good- games, the tables would have been better, or allow some player input. In the RPG Deathwatch, for instance, you roll your power armor's special abilities on a similar table. Except they actually know a bit about game design and let you always pick the options above or below the one you rolled if you wan, because they know it's dumb to expect a Devastator to get an armor that gives CC bonuses and say it's fine.

House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Backfire wrote:

Kurce wrote:
Your post seemed to imply that you quit because of the changes to the rules that came about in 6th. And I do not see how Magic became cynical... I cannot understand how this even applies to Magic. What about Magic became cynical exactly?

Expansion creep became rather insane at around, or after, Alliances. Before that, they really didn't know how to handle expansions. First they were too strong, the designers did not realize players would pick & choose best cards (even though it seems like a no-brainer). Then they went to other extreme and became really weak. After Fallen Empires and Homelands flopped, they realized people did not want to buy weak expansions regardless of how good stories and themes they had. So they began to release expansions which were clearly much more powerful than the base game and most of the earlier editions. And the release schedule became just insanely hectic, tons of new stuff coming out of every few months. Plus the card design got really lazy. What the heck is the point of a card which is exact same as some earlier card, but more powerful? That will just invalidate earlier card, thanks a lot. It was so obvious ripoff scheme that nothing GW has done comes close.

Magic, when I started it at 3rd edition, was fun casual game. At around 5th/6th edition it became a competive tournament game, and those of us, who wanted just to have fun, bailed out. It was no longer the same game, it was no more FUN. Rules changes were actually irrelevant, although my post might imply that (removal of Banding was lame, but I think it happened afterwards). It was a policy change which drove me out.

Now, the lesson here is that I was sure that MtG was going down the drain. EVERYONE I knew had quit, whole scene around me died. So couple of years later I was hugely surprised to find out that MtG was thriving. They had built a new playerbase, the fact that they had driven out most of the old grognards didn't matter. It wasn't the same scene anymore, and there is no way I'd return, but for those involved it didn't matter, that was what they wanted.

This sounds to me that you took issue with power creep. Not with the rules being changed. I completely understand being irked by power creep. However, I disagree with your stance on printing new things that invalidate old things. If old things are insanely overpowered but the effect was still very cool then a new version could be made so that the power is toned down but the effect remains intact. Likewise, if the old version is very weak but the effect is cool then a new version could be made to power it up some but keep the effect intact.

Now, what I would argue is that the game was still insanely "powerful" back in the day; even during the time in which you played it. Of course, the term "powerful" is relative; powerful then is not powerful now and vice versa. Back in Magic's olden days, spells were EXTREMELY powerful. This was because they did not understand how to balance spells versus creatures. That is why you have a cards like Serra Angel (which is completely unplayable in Magic's current state) and cards like Swords to Plowshares (the single best removal spell ever printed).

That is why in today's current Legacy format (the format where you can play any card in Magic except for those deemed too powerful and meet the ban hammer), you typically see spells from Magic's old days and creatures from Magic's newer sets. The designers of Magic found out that creature permanents needed to be buffed big time or spells needed to be nerfed big time. Around that time that you said you finally quit, they were still tweaking this balance out a lot. Case in point, look at the entire Urza block. It had sick, nasty creatures. Sure. But, it had even sicker spells that would annihilate people on turn 1. Yes. They realized this was a mistake and started banning things left and right and the subsequent sets dropped off in power level quite a bit. But, that is how the game works. Sometimes they let things slip through the cracks and things need to be fixed.

Now, compare this to GW's policies on game rules and game balance. What is their policy?

Their policy is this: We. Don't. Care.

They do not address game imbalance AT ALL. They do not address rules problems AT ALL. And they don't care to. This is why this company irritates me to no end to the point that I just sort of gave up on this game.

It is sort of a shame to because I remember playing this game when I was young and I thought this game was the epitome of badass-ness. I only played a small handful of games with my uncle. I went through school, moved off, went to college, got a job, started making money, and then found out some guys I knew played 40K. I got into 40K during 5th. Sadly, it didn't last very long...

EDIT:

CT GAMER wrote:

House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Why even write rule books? If you are going to modify rules that have problems or rules that you disagree with, then why even use a rule book? Just make up your own rules for the game.

CT GAMER wrote:House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Not seeing the benefit. As with mysterious terrain, part of the intention seems to be to shake up the game by having things happen between list building and deployment , and can alter the flow or strategy of a game - I'm hardly seeing this as a bad thing. If a warlord gets a power counter to his intended role, you need to incorporate that into your battle plan. If suddenly he can hold an objective all on his own, or gives an offensive/defensive/leadership buff you need to be able to account for how this development will affect your plan.

Marrak wrote:
In turn...
Maybe the gun was damaged when the guy was shot? Half the weapons in most armies don't leave a lot to bury... Meltaguns and plasmaguns are often described as being as hot as a sun.
Marines are surprised by the sudden rush of troops at their location and fire for effect, trying to stop the rush without having the time to line up a shot (See the Dawn of War intro when the orks charge the marines... some pretty awful shooting there, and even Marines can get worried, they ain't fearless).
You see your buddy and the enemy commander wrestling in a knife fight, while someone else is trying to actively stab you with something sharp. You might wanna help, but there's that sharp thing in the way... or think of it like great heroes whose presence cowers most opponents, and your leader tells you to stay back, that this foe is his as he charges into battle. Hell, that's like half the 40k novels out there.

GW isn't going for realism, they're going for cinematic. They want that epic feel that is supposed to encompass 40k, not foxholes, mud, and trenches... though we have those too, along with rampaging plague demons and space dinos.

I thought Space Marines were supposed to be pretty close to fearless, ever since I've been playing 40k they've always had some sort of rule that stops them falling back regardless of the circumstances and when you think even the most elite of modern soldiers only have a few years of training and experience compared you your average Marine who has decades if not centuries of conditioning to not get scared despite the horde of Orks bearing down on them. I've never really read too many of the novels aside from the Space Wolf ones though, but ever since I started collecting I've been under the impression "fear" was not an issue for the Adeptus Astartes.

I find that 40k isn't *necessarily* that tactical when it comes to the actual play of the game. Those who use a 'shooty' army shoot and move minimal amounts to line up fire lanes/specific targets etc. Assualt armies run like hell to get to the enemy and chop it to bits. Armies of a balanced nature send their assaulters off on a suicide attack while shooters shoot.

There are far more random elements being added to assaults, which *can* lead to assaults being a redundant endeavour. Where as there isn't as much randomness in shooting, so there's a lower chance of shooting being a redundant effort. I remember in one of the GW teaser releases (it may have been beasts of war actually now I think about it) they were talking about assaults becoming a far more risky move. Was this necessary? Not really. Increase the risks of failure if you don't nerf the effectiveness of assaults, yes. But they have nerfed assaults as well as increased the risk, making shooting a safer and more effective choice.

Over all this doesn't effect most armies as the largest portion of the turn is the shooting phase for most of them. This makes armies with a more *limited* shooting capability less competitive and less effective. The primary example: Tyranids. In 5th ed Tyranids suffered drastically to shooting, now they *can* suffer from it even more. This doesn't of course mean they will as they can charge from huge distances away now though this is of course subjective to luck. And luck has never been a tactical element as it is exactly that, luck. On a real battlefield VERY little is left to luck or chance.

Ok here's my rant...

This is one of the saddest threads ever. The internet has failed all of you!

40k is a niche game that will never go mainstream. GW knows this and markets it as such. Either you like the models, fluff, hobby, game, can afford it (even considering ebay) or not. If not, don't play.

Balance does not mean what you think it means. WH40k is balanced by your meta.
Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

Balance does not mean every troop choice is equal. WH40k has troop choices that are loosely given points based on situations they can be used in. Some choices are good, some bad.

You may think a troop choice is useless but in fact it may be the best most optimized choice to counter a combo that THE INTERNET HAS NOT EVEN THOUGHT OF YET or future rules developments. Or maybe it's there so you can make a less optimized choice for most opponents you may play against. (see above) Nobody said you could just arbitrarily choose your army, cross your fingers and you'd be master of the universe.

6th edition changed the game for EVERYONE. Nobodies tanks work the same. Play some games without your ego on the line. So what if you might have a slight disadvantage now. If you can't have fun while losing maybe playing games isn't your thing. This is a constantly evolving game. It is exactly why people can play for 20 years and still enjoy it.

If you haven't bought a model in 2 years, you're not really playing 40k. At least your missing a huge side of it. Lets say I buy a new finecast HQ for $15. The time I'll spend on that model will be well worth the price. I'll spend at least 2 hours painting it (probably a lot more) and an unlimited amount of time playing it on the battlefield. It can be put in a display (if I'm proud of the job I did on it). Right now I have a stormraven I bought over a year ago. I got it partially assembled just so I can use it in games and have spend an hour or two on it now and then over the last year. The amount of hobby time I've gotten out of it has been well worth the price.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

This is one of the main reasons I haven't liked 40k since 2nd edition. The theme of the game changed to rock-paper-scissors of an AP system. Going up against 'nids? Take lots of cheap heavy bolters and gun them down. Going up against marines? Those same heavy bolters are only worth half of what they were before.

It's why, since 3rd edition, rules wise I prefer Fantasy, because for the most part you can bring any army and through clever deployment and movement of your troops, beat any other army. The troop selection, while important, is a much less significant part of the game. Unfortunately I prefer the 40k armies though, lol.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

This is one of the main reasons I haven't liked 40k since 2nd edition. The theme of the game changed to rock-paper-scissors of an AP system. Going up against 'nids? Take lots of cheap heavy bolters and gun them down. Going up against marines? Those same heavy bolters are only worth half of what they were before.

It's why, since 3rd edition, rules wise I prefer Fantasy, because for the most part you can bring any army and through clever deployment and movement of your troops, beat any other army. The troop selection, while important, is a much less significant part of the game. Unfortunately I prefer the 40k armies though, lol.

I like the AP system because it feels more realistic to me. It makes sense that highly armors targets can shrug off small arms fire.

Games feel much less realistic when your huge armored robot can take 3 missiles or 8 heavy machine gun shots, or 15 pistol shots, or 200 sticks and stones thrown by children before being destroyed.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

This is one of the main reasons I haven't liked 40k since 2nd edition. The theme of the game changed to rock-paper-scissors of an AP system. Going up against 'nids? Take lots of cheap heavy bolters and gun them down. Going up against marines? Those same heavy bolters are only worth half of what they were before.

It's why, since 3rd edition, rules wise I prefer Fantasy, because for the most part you can bring any army and through clever deployment and movement of your troops, beat any other army. The troop selection, while important, is a much less significant part of the game. Unfortunately I prefer the 40k armies though, lol.

I like the AP system because it feels more realistic to me. It makes sense that highly armors targets can shrug off small arms fire.

Games feel much less realistic when your huge armored robot can take 3 missiles or 8 heavy machine gun shots, or 15 pistol shots, or 200 sticks and stones thrown by children before being destroyed.

The main thing I don't like about it is that it creates a balance issue (certain weapons are worth vastly more against certain opponents) and you have this sudden cut off point. A bolter, a storm bolter, a heavy bolter, a combat knife, a chainsword, a guardsman punching with his bare fist all have the same chance of penetrating Space Marine armour, then you have the sudden cut off point of a krak missile and now the Space Marine is no better protected than an armourless Ork, but then a Terminator the krak missile is relegated to the same worth as a heavy bolter. I know the strength and toughness stats somewhat alleviate that, but I still think it's problematic.

I much preferred it when weapon stats were more comprehensive and less generic. So each gun had it's own unique "short range", "long range", "to hit" bonus, "strength", "damage" (how many wounds it'd inflict, opposed to instant death like we have now), "save modifier" rather than AP and "armour penetration" to show that some guns are better at penetrating vehicle armour than others.

It made the game less about the rock-paper-scissors of army selection and more about what you actually did with the weapons you had chosen, how you moved your troops, how you selected targets, etc.

Kurce wrote:
EDIT:

CT GAMER wrote:

House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Why even write rule books? If you are going to modify rules that have problems or rules that you disagree with, then why even use a rule book? Just make up your own rules for the game.

You apparently havent read the rulebook then because they mention multiple times to modify the rules as you and your opponrnt see fit.

They also talk about using custom scenarios and terrain rules.



Now go to the tournament discussion section here on Dakka Dakka. The sportshammer players are already discussing how they plan to alter the rules for their events.

WH40K is rarely played 100% as written by anybody. It wasnt in previous editions, and it won't be in sixth...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bookwrack wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Not seeing the benefit.

The person I replied to was complaining about getting a random power that doesnt jive.

The obvious solution is to pick instead.

It was a response and solution to his specific gripe.

I like the randomness, he apparently didnt, but it is easily solved.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Marrak wrote:
In turn...
Maybe the gun was damaged when the guy was shot? Half the weapons in most armies don't leave a lot to bury... Meltaguns and plasmaguns are often described as being as hot as a sun.
Marines are surprised by the sudden rush of troops at their location and fire for effect, trying to stop the rush without having the time to line up a shot (See the Dawn of War intro when the orks charge the marines... some pretty awful shooting there, and even Marines can get worried, they ain't fearless).
You see your buddy and the enemy commander wrestling in a knife fight, while someone else is trying to actively stab you with something sharp. You might wanna help, but there's that sharp thing in the way... or think of it like great heroes whose presence cowers most opponents, and your leader tells you to stay back, that this foe is his as he charges into battle. Hell, that's like half the 40k novels out there.

GW isn't going for realism, they're going for cinematic. They want that epic feel that is supposed to encompass 40k, not foxholes, mud, and trenches... though we have those too, along with rampaging plague demons and space dinos.

I thought Space Marines were supposed to be pretty close to fearless, ever since I've been playing 40k they've always had some sort of rule that stops them falling back regardless of the circumstances and when you think even the most elite of modern soldiers only have a few years of training and experience compared you your average Marine who has decades if not centuries of conditioning to not get scared despite the horde of Orks bearing down on them. I've never really read too many of the novels aside from the Space Wolf ones though, but ever since I started collecting I've been under the impression "fear" was not an issue for the Adeptus Astartes.

They may be close, but consider what usually does have fearless in 40k: rambling mindless monsters, or outright fanatics or lunatics with no sense of self preservation. Marines can get unnerved, disillusioned, or simply overwhelmed... hence why they can fall back, but they usually get it together just as fast... hence the auto-rally, unless they have an enemy too close, at which point they'll keep moving back... look at it like a tactical withdrawal because the enemy is too close to let them properly set up without getting wiped out.

A space marine is more than willing to die to get the job done. He's not so willing to die for no good reason, or to simply be a pointless sacrifice when he can fall back, get into a better position, and go about killing more enemies of the Emperor.

CT GAMER wrote:

Kurce wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Why even write rule books? If you are going to modify rules that have problems or rules that you disagree with, then why even use a rule book? Just make up your own rules for the game.

You apparently havent read the rulebook then because they mention multiple times to modify the rules as you and your opponrnt see fit.

They also talk about using custom scenarios and terrain rules.

The point is that we're discussing the rules as they were written; that we can make house rules doesn't make ill-balanced and unwanted changes any less disappointing.

Except the warlord powers aren't unbalanced they're just underwealming. I skip my roll altogether usually.

Shaozun wrote:
*SNIP* Infinity only produce models and rules (not even designing a rulebook to be published) which is how they can keep it in the price range of about $100 for an army (yet having a lot of customisability which is very deceptive) as their games are designed to be played small (think if W40k was based around 500 points instead, probably about $50 for it with as much customisability as infinity). *SNIP*

To be fair, Corvus Belli does produce deadtree rulebooks; however, the only difference between them and the free downloadable rules is the inclusion of fluff. The ruleset also gets errata'd / FAQ'd within days / weeks, not months / never. See, they not only have a web forum presence, they listen to feedback. Crazy, huh?

I'd also dispute the 'GW could do Infinity at half the price', because GW would sell them at SC rates, not line troops rates. Also, you're paying for sculpts that look more in-scale than the 'hydrocephalic-Rambo' look of many GW figs. Plus, you can be competitive in early play with the $36 starter box; your $100 example is a big Infinity army. The system is far more dependant on the commander than it is the commander's charge card.

So, I'll keep my 40K and WFB armies for modelling, but as far as fun, I'll go with Infinity, Dropzone Commander, and Sedition Wars.

Testify wrote:Except the warlord powers aren't unbalanced they're just underwealming. I skip my roll altogether usually.

Firstly, I disagree: the warlord traits have the capacity to be very powerful when a coincidentally useful trait is rolled for the right character in the right match-up; conversely, a good number of them will be nigh-useless or of negligible benefit for most characters in most lists and circumstances. That is not well-balanced game design, and not a system designed to reward good generalship; a criticism which is even more applicable to the random psychic powers and terrain rules. Secondly, I'll reiterate since you missed it the first time: we're discussing the rules as written, not your house rules. Otherwise I might as well claim that Codex: Space Wolves is perfectly-balanced... provided you increase the costs of Grey Hunters and Long Fangs.

Haha, it's funny, I play world of warcraft, and what people are saying in this thread is very familiar to what my wow buddies we're talking about onnce cataclysm came out after wrath of the lich king. Balance concerns, gameplay changes, lore changes, these were all talked about.

I quit wow though.

Remulus wrote: Haha, it's funny, I play world of warcraft, and what people are saying in this thread is very familiar to what my wow buddies we're talking about onnce cataclysm came out after wrath of the lich king. Balance concerns, gameplay changes, lore changes, these were all talked about.

I quit wow though.

It happens in every facet of nerd-dom, be it table top games or video games. Usually people have legitimate concerns over degradation, some people don't care either way, some people like the change, some people endure the change and reminisce for the good old days and for some reason there can't be a discussion about it without people flaming each other because everyone takes things personally even though almost none of it is actually levelled at people.

Simply put a random warlord trait is just stupid, example: Why would Creed have a trait for close combat? I'm not saying it wouldn't be useful to him, I'm saying it doesn't fit in with his 'meta' or his style. Yes I know this is a wild example but you get the point. Next up why would your 'horde killing deathray psyker' have a spell that makes him invisible? etc.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Balance does not mean what you think it means. WH40k is balanced by your meta.
Does your opponent have an all terminator / landraider army? You're going to need some low AP shooting.
Does your opponent have a horde army? Some templates and blasts will "balance" the game for you.

Balance does not mean every troop choice is equal. WH40k has troop choices that are loosely given points based on situations they can be used in. Some choices are good, some bad.

Actually balance DOES mean what we think it does. You don't know what your opponent will take. Therefore you select your armies with certain tasks in mind for each unit/character/vehicle. Yeah sure you can build an entirely close combat army, but then as soon as you run into an entirely low AP shooting army your screwed. The system GW uses for its strategy games is based on a dice roll with no modifiers to that dice roll, so its just as easy for a bolter to punch through a space marines armour as it is for a heavy bolter. Something with a higher calibre shell causes as much damage to the armour as something with a lower calibre shell? That's not balanced...

EDIT: The point I'm making in that example is that EVERYTHING can be measured out of 6, but there are more than just 6 chances of a bolter hitting its target in a logical situation. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 on a die thats all there is to it.

English Assassin wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Kurce wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
House rule: let each player PICK the power they want.

Why even write rule books? If you are going to modify rules that have problems or rules that you disagree with, then why even use a rule book? Just make up your own rules for the game.

You apparently havent read the rulebook then because they mention multiple times to modify the rules as you and your opponrnt see fit.

They also talk about using custom scenarios and terrain rules.

The point is that we're discussing the rules as they were written; that we can make house rules doesn't make ill-balanced and unwanted changes any less disappointing.

Yes I understand the need for some to bitch about something they just as easily coud fix themselves.

It is an internet tradition, and on Dakka it is almost mandetory.

Carry on...

CT GAMER wrote:Yes I understand the need for some to bitch about something they just as easily coud fix themselves.

It is an internet tradition, and on Dakka it is almost mandetory.

Carry on...

The problem is it's not always easy to fix. You have to get the person you're gaming with to agree to the change and personally I mostly play against people I really don't know that well in impromptu games to go throwing rule changes around.

An easy fix for me in 40k would be to play a modified version of 2nd edition, as that was my favourite edition. However finding people to play it with me is the not quite so easy bit.

Grunt21 wrote:Battle hardened space marines reduced to BS 1 "snap fire" (whatever that is?) because the enemy is assaulting them say what? Nice to know space marines of the future have less training then your average infantryman nowadays.

Dont even get me started on challenges, I can understand that in fantasy warhammer but where in modern warfare is your dudes going to hold back while your sergeant is going hand to hand with an enemy commander.

The simple reason for that BS 1 overwatch is that if they made overwatch realistic there would be no close combat in 40k. A unit with rapid firing mini-rocket launchers supported by a flame thrower and a heavy mini-rocket launcher shooting at a unit assaulting them should wipe them out without breaking a sweat. It was discovered in WWI that assaulting machine guns was suicidal and the weapons of 40k are supposed to be that much more impressive than that. The BS 1 overwatch is a bone thrown to people who complained that they could do nothing when charged, because if they got a real overwatch it would completely remove close combat from the game, except in very rare circumstances.

I definitely agree that the challanges rule is a pretty stupid addition to 40k. I can see a chaos warlord or an ork warload kicking his support to the side to take on the other side's boss, but no sensible real military officer would be doing that. It is also an easy way to make a less than capable hero, but who might have a dangerous weapon have no effect on the combat which is just silly. Oh your warlord challanges my sergeant with a power fist? Oh yeah that is going to go well for the sergeant...

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:That has to be most unintentionally hilarious post of the week, providing the very same parallel I drew and exactly proves the point I was making.

How is Wotc providing what the players want the same as GW no really caring what they want and expecting people to buy it anyway? Not even the same ballpark...

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marrak wrote:Maybe the gun was damaged when the guy was shot? Half the weapons in most armies don't leave a lot to bury... Meltaguns and plasmaguns are often described as being as hot as a sun.
Marines are surprised by the sudden rush of troops at their location and fire for effect, trying to stop the rush without having the time to line up a shot (See the Dawn of War intro when the orks charge the marines... some pretty awful shooting there, and even Marines can get worried, they ain't fearless).

Actually according to the new wording of They Shall Show no Fear, Marines actually *are* now fearless.

Skriker

I definitely agree that the challanges rule is a pretty stupid addition to 40k. I can see a chaos warlord or an ork warload kicking his support to the side to take on the other side's boss, but no sensible real military officer would be doing that. It is also an easy way to make a less than capable hero, but who might have a dangerous weapon have no effect on the combat which is just silly. Oh your warlord challanges my sergeant with a power fist? Oh yeah that is going to go well for the sergeant...

Real military commander?.... Seriously?

I'm pretty sure that it has been said a million times but comparng 40k to real life is silly.

In 40k heroes lead from the front. That's how it's always been.

If a space marine captain wasn't trying to take the warboss' head in single combat he wouldn't have made the rank of captain.