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.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You can leave out the stuff that doesn't fit.

I think 40K works best at 1,200 to 1,750 points, which is a size of game that forces the player into difficult decisions about what to take in the army.

*1850 =)

Sure, but I assumed KK was subtracting the seemingly mandatory ADL and Quadgun that is so near ubiquitous these days.

I just wouldn't play with them in the available line-up.

1. I agree with the basic premise of the thread -- 40K is being grown larger than the system can support.
2. It's unfair to provide some armies with super weapons which are not available to other armies, who also don't have counter-weapons.

If your looking for a company level game that utilizes scale well, I highly recommend flames of war

I have a big collection and love playing with my toys.

Not liking a particular model is... fine. But its not really a reflection on thegame.

as far as the game, ranges are impossible to get perfect ANYWAYS. I play a dozen game systems and none of them do it the same.

why arepeople trying to base their ENJOYMENT on RALISM in a game set i nthe 41st Millenium? I GUARANTEE you the rules weren't why ANYONE picked up this game. Seriously.

 Flippa wrote:
If you believe nearly everyone on here GW doesn't care about the veteran player base and are only interested in the churn of kids. What do kids like... big guns and tanks.

Time to stop playing 40k or go back to second edition rules where infantry with the odd walker was king.

What version of 2nd edition were you playing??? I seem to recall games that consisted of minimal troops, maximum characters loaded down with wargear, and loads of vehicles and dreadnaughts. And of course, no infantry actually moved much, they just hung out in overwatch all the time.

I not so fondly recall a game against a Dark Angel army that pulled out all the stops, LR loaded with terminators (cyclone missile launchers too), an assassin with polymorphine and virus grenade (I played orks at the time), devastator squads, predators, land speeders, dreadnaughts, and a teleporting terminator armour wearing captain with vortex grenades. I think he had 1 squad of tac marines.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
I hate the use of Named special characters, in games. Yeah sure an 10,000pt Apoc battle might be worth say Kharn's time. But a 1850 point battle with a couple of tac squads is hardly worth the time of the warmaster. Or any other big named character. I guess it boils down to fluff, and people are just using the best units they can for the points they have available, with it being a game and all. But i still prefer fluffy battles.

In the same way that named characters would not be taking part in a small skirmish, neither would there be orbital barrage support, entire artillery division support, titan supprt, and all of the other ridiculous scale things 40k does.

But that's because your game of 40k is not representing the entire battle, it's representing a focal point of a much larger battle. Calgar is there, with more drop pods screaming down and lance batteries from orbiting ships blowing units to peices? That's because it's an enormous battle, Calgar is in the thick of it, he's calling reinforments in and providing pinpoint coordinates of important enemy troop positions to orbiting ships.

Larger scale - more models required to play the game. It doesn't help that the game isn't well balanced at 1k (not that it's well balanced in general but you know what I mean) and thus most people play 1.5 k and upwards. Usually 1850 or so is good to get all the "cool" big kits in while still keeping a solid core of troops. This makes the hobby very difficult to get into - once you've started it's much easier to add on bits and bobs but building up a 1.5k or 2k list from the ground up especially for Orks or Guard must be pretty crazy unless you can find people willing to play 1k and below on a regular basis (which in my experience is fairly difficult.)

I hear alot about 2nd edition with its infantry and walker focus, and can't help but think I came into the hobby 20 years too late.

I personally have a strong dislike for named characters, armies that drop 33% of the board's worth in pie plates with pinpoint accuracy, and fliers. To a much lesser extent I hate the mech focus, but that one is more subjective - I'd rather infantry, walkers, and the occasional support tank than a fleet of Leman Russes, but it's simply a 'different game' to have so many tanks as opposed to a 'worse game' to have that other stuff.

If it were up to me...

>Named characters an optional add-in, rather than something to be home-ruled out. Limited to 1 per 1000 points

>Fliers are more of a fire support thing like in Flames of War, rather than a unit moving about the board. IE, roll for reserves as per usual, if it comes on then your flier essentially strafes something and then feths off again.

>Artillery again draws from FoW, or to use a more in-universe example, the Renegades and Heretics list from Imperial Armour. It would be fire support from off the table, must target an enermy model like everyone else, and the model must be visible to either 'any model' or a designated spotter. Reckon it should always scatters even if a hit is rolled too, and be fired from reserve to prevent those unstoppable turn one alpha strikes where the other guy literally cannot influence the outcome of the devastating barrage at all.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I hear alot about 2nd edition with its infantry and walker focus, and can't help but think I came into the hobby 20 years too late.

Don't worry, it's rose-tinted-glasses syndrome. 2nd edition may not have been plagued by vehicles like mech Guard now, but it had it's own massive set of problems. It got away with it because, for 2nd edition, GW didn't even have a pretense of balance. They just said 'feth it, put it in, and let the players figure it out'. The most they ever did for 'balance' was when Andy Chambers came out and said 'That virus outbreak card? We're terribly sorry. Tear it up please'.

Well I think there are deffinatly to many tanks and vehiches in games. The second game I ever played (which was recently) was me and another guy on 1 team against a guy playing dark angels. It was a 1500 point game and let me tell you the boar felt TINY.

My opponent fielded a land raider, a rhino, and a vindicator and that just seemed like to much. My side was space marines with only some bikes for vehicles. I got obliterated because I didn't have any big tanks.

I feel games are more fun with lots of infantry and 1 large vehicle or 2 MAX. The board is just to small for a bunch of vehicles and with more infantry you have to be more strategic instead of just blowing everything apart with a vindicator for example.

I prefer 750-1000 point games because it feels more tactical and you need to pick units that don't cost a lot and you can't bring to many big units.

P.s I am fairly new to the game and I am not really into getting the big huge tanks and vehicles :p

Wait until you see the big huge guns and fliers. If you think the tanks are bad, they're honestly pussycats compared to this broken rubbish.

Edit: Make that "the big huge guns and most of the the fliers" because some aren't all that bad

chiefbigredman wrote:
My opponent fielded a land raider, a rhino, and a vindicator and that just seemed like to much. My side was space marines with only some bikes for vehicles. I got obliterated because I didn't have any big tanks.

I feel games are more fun with lots of infantry and 1 large vehicle or 2 MAX. The board is just to small for a bunch of vehicles and with more infantry you have to be more strategic instead of just blowing everything apart with a vindicator for example.

The problem is some armies can pack a deployment zone full of infantry and make the board still feel far too small. My Tyranids have this problem - especially if we roll the diagonal of short edge deployments. I actually get sort of embarassed when I see my opponents armies and double check that they're playing the same points level.

 Jancoran wrote:
I have a big collection and love playing with my toys.

Not liking a particular model is... fine. But its not really a reflection on thegame.

Actually, I rather like the big models themselves, it's not "disliking a particular model", it's "disliking the trend of large models and fliers". I love fliers, I'm an aircraft guy, I collected model planes since I was about 7 (compared to wargames when I was about 10). But they don't really fit with a 28mm wargame.

as far as the game, ranges are impossible to get perfect ANYWAYS. I play a dozen game systems and none of them do it the same.

I don't think anyone is expecting perfection.

why arepeople trying to base their ENJOYMENT on RALISM in a game set i nthe 41st Millenium? I GUARANTEE you the rules weren't why ANYONE picked up this game. Seriously.

For me, it's less about realism and more about the fact the models barely fit on the table, so manoeuvring becomes impossible and the game has always been about wise manoeuvring for me. It's a game on a reasonably small field of battle where models move a short distance each turn and fire a short distance, having ginormous models messes up that dynamic IMO.

As for your last comment, I'm not sure what you're getting at, many people play 40k for the rules. I play Fantasy for the rules and I mostly stopped playing 40k because I didn't like where the rules were heading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I hear alot about 2nd edition with its infantry and walker focus, and can't help but think I came into the hobby 20 years too late.

Don't worry, it's rose-tinted-glasses syndrome. 2nd edition may not have been plagued by vehicles like mech Guard now, but it had it's own massive set of problems. It got away with it because, for 2nd edition, GW didn't even have a pretense of balance. They just said 'feth it, put it in, and let the players figure it out'. The most they ever did for 'balance' was when Andy Chambers came out and said 'That virus outbreak card? We're terribly sorry. Tear it up please'.

2nd edition had its flaws, I think the reason most people liked it was because even though it lacked balance, the premise was good. I preferred the way you'd move, I preferred the save modifier system to the AP system, I preferred the scale of the battles (3rd edition onwards the movement phases are my least favourite because of the sheer number of models now), even though the combat was too cumbersome and needed some streamlining, I thought it was more entertaining.

2nd edition definitely had it's flaws, I don't think anyone denies that. But many people prefer the underlying structure of 2nd edition. The AP system is still one of my biggest hates of 40k.

If this topic popped up a year ago, I would have said I loved how 'big' 40k was. After getting into Flames of War, I can definitely say that the direction 40K is headed in it would be a lot better suited to a 20mm or hell maybe even 15mm game. The push towards more models and bigger stuff just doesn't jive with 28mm, at least in my opinion.

Well, I agree with the idea that, there being more veteran players - players who can only make their armies SO big - and I also would agree that GW is trying to turn 40k into epic (and has been trying to for some time now, cf. apocalypse and FW).

I don't however, buy all the cynicism, and I really don't buy that you need all these new toys to win games, or even to be competitive. I think they let it slip just a bit by making 6th ed a more pro-toys and less-boys kind of game, but still...

Furthermore, just because you CAN do 4,000 point games with knight titans and what have you doesn't mean you HAVE to. If a person buys a brand new Ferrari and gets a speeding ticket for doing 100 miles an hour in a residential area, the person can't blame the car. Just because the car CAN go fast doesn't remove the responsibility of using the car inappropriately. Likewise, 40k actually still plays shockingly well in the 200-500 point level with only the slightest modification.

If you want a skirmish game with infantry, then play 40k as a skirmish game with infantry. Just because a Ferrari can go 200 miles an hour doesn't mean it can't also go 40 miles an hour while taking you to the bank, or to church, or... wherever sensible people drive supercars.

Herzlos wrote:
I definitely agree, and even on a standard 6x4' table having more than a couple of tanks makes any real tactical play useless.

I also can't get my head around the idea of having field artillery, defence emplacements, superheavies and aircraft in an infantry skirmish that's taking place over a ground scale the size of a large car park.

Assuming 1" represents about 2 yards, a 6x4' board is meant to represent 144 x 96 yards, which would easily be covered by small arms fire and would be almost impossible for aircraft to manouvre in.

It's definitely approaching a game scale where it'd benefit greatly from using smaller figures, but I think they're just hoping people will use it like 28mm Epic, like the people playing Apocalypse with 50k points a side on 20ft tables.

I stopped using my Basilisk as it just didn't seem to fit in, and I haven't even opened up my Valkyrie kit because it'd be just as out of place. Most of the games I've played so far have essentially been infantry squads with the occasional mech/tank support, which seems OK for the game.

You never seen a A-10 or any type of close air support I am going to imagine. But yes tons of big models make the game lose its fun.

I've had a lot of fun with smaller games lately (1250 and below). I think the current rules with true line of sight and casualties fits small scale battles.

Kill team can also be pretty fun.

However, some transports have comparable dollar value and points cost. GW knows where they make their money.

The game I played last night was my boyz fighting 4 battle wagons that slowly crept up to my side of the board. my 2 squads of 25 boys had no chance vs all that armor. It was a good tactic and the game was alot of fun, but I would rather have my foot sloogin boys clash with other infantry.

I like the aspect of 40k being over the top, with huge armies beating the snot out of each other.

However, yes, it gets excessive when deployment zones are essentially "full" and it's just two giant blobs slowly walking towards each other.

I love 40K because it is over the top. But I love my sci-fi more Space Opera than hard sci-fi.

The entire galaxy is in flames. Monstrous creatures and ridiculous Titans meet on the battlefield for an epic battle.

Yes, 6th edition is pretty much the game I want to play right now. Besides, if I want to play something different I will. I don't play just one game, I play different games for different reasons. 40K is for epic silliness.

My friend and I were just discussing how it actually feels a bit more realistic now. Perhaps because we've actually been in battles, which in fact did consist of around 50 troops, a handful of heavily armored vehicles and a half dozen aircraft just overhead in what would presumably be the size of the game board. Admittedly, we didn't have large walkers on the battlefield which is totally unfair. And these were fairly small engagements, not snapshots of larger global conflicts like I assume 40k to be.

While I don't think the larger MCs are necessary, I don't think they are bad and they actually add more movement to the game. I'm not sure what people are referring to when they say it's too cluttered to perform a lot of tactical movement, perhaps because I play primarily Dark Eldar lately (though I don't really feel that way with my orks either).

I'm pretty sure over the top is one of the first terms that should come to mind when describing 40k.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, I agree with the idea that, there being more veteran players - players who can only make their armies SO big - and I also would agree that GW is trying to turn 40k into epic (and has been trying to for some time now, cf. apocalypse and FW).

I don't however, buy all the cynicism, and I really don't buy that you need all these new toys to win games, or even to be competitive. I think they let it slip just a bit by making 6th ed a more pro-toys and less-boys kind of game, but still...

Furthermore, just because you CAN do 4,000 point games with knight titans and what have you doesn't mean you HAVE to. If a person buys a brand new Ferrari and gets a speeding ticket for doing 100 miles an hour in a residential area, the person can't blame the car. Just because the car CAN go fast doesn't remove the responsibility of using the car inappropriately. Likewise, 40k actually still plays shockingly well in the 200-500 point level with only the slightest modification.

If you want a skirmish game with infantry, then play 40k as a skirmish game with infantry. Just because a Ferrari can go 200 miles an hour doesn't mean it can't also go 40 miles an hour while taking you to the bank, or to church, or... wherever sensible people drive supercars.

I definitely agree with you Ailaros.
My gaming group does not play with flyers... yet.
Kill Teams are also increasingly fun as putting the weight of a game on some scouts is a totally new way of playing.

 Ailaros wrote:
Just because a Ferrari can go 200 miles an hour doesn't mean it can't also go 40 miles an hour while taking you to the bank, or to church, or... wherever sensible people drive supercars.

I'm not sure I'd compare anything GW make to a modern supercar. Maybe compare it to a 40 year old race modified carburetted muscle car with a crazy cam. It can go 200mph, it can also go 40mph, but if you want to drive it to church it's a pain to start, it will hardly want to run until it's warmed up and at typical church-going RPM it just splutters along, the suspension will rattle your bones and the exhaust will wake the neighbours. Sure it'll get you there, but it's not as good as a Toyota Corolla for getting to church.

Instead of the GW design team worrying about big units, how about actually updating the older/forgotten armies and bring them up to the 6th edition level. people will buy them to do new models.

 captain bloody fists wrote:
Instead of the GW design team worrying about big units, how about actually updating the older/forgotten armies and bring them up to the 6th edition level. people will buy them to do new models.

Two reasons.

1. You mean, like they did with Necrons, Grey Knights and Dark Eldar? Seriously, there's only one 'old, forgotten' army left, and that's Sisters of Battle. Those three releases were massive, with Dark Eldar replacing the entire range, Grey Knights replacing all of its core infantry kits and Necrons replacing everything above Warrior and Scarab. They were massive risks as well, and GW are probably waiting for their last marrive risk, which is Sisters. I could maybe see an argument for Templars and Orks here as well, but they're nowhere near 'forgotten'.

2. When they release a codex, they want units for that codex released for mutually supportive sales. People want the codex, which makes them want the new kits, or people want a new kit which needs the new codex. Releasing a bunch of Sisters of Battle kits alongside the Eldar codex wouldn't have made sense in any manner at all.

Well, and they haven't even been good at it either.

One could easily make the argument that they should wait instead of doing another army poorly, at least until they can get their "supported" armies completely done.

I mean, it's not like vendettas aren't popular or anything, but they still haven't made a kit for it yet. Likewise, most armies have at least a few units for which there are no citadel models.

If they can't even properly support their current ranges, it doesn't exactly make sense to try and reinvigorate an old one.

That all said, we'll probably see at least sisters get a revamp. Like DE or GK, they need the WHOLE THING redone, so naturally it's going to take longer. Unless you'd like a cobbled-together product...

 Ailaros wrote:
That all said, we'll probably see at least sisters get a revamp. Like DE or GK, they need the WHOLE THING redone, so naturally it's going to take longer. Unless you'd like a cobbled-together product...

And this is what I meant by risk. Sisters are the last army where the entirety of the range is metal, aside from what it's borrowing from the Space Marine range. This means not only does it ened its existing squads redone in plastic, it also needs more units added because its range of units is limited by the fact that it's so old. It's missed two whole editions of additional units - in particular 5th edition, where GW added a cornucopia of units to armies.

Sisters are a massive risk, just like Dark Eldar, Grey Knights and Necrons were, due to the extent the range needs to be revamped. Given how much GW are seperating armies, I wouldn't be surprised to see the borrowed Space Marine units (basically the Rhino chassis) replaced as well. it's a big undertaking, and they did 3 of these already last edition. it sucks Sisters were left till last again, but there's definitely a reason it's taken so long.

Yeah. And at least, of those three major revamps, they more or less got it right (Wardisms aside).

How did we get into people whining about Sisters?

Maybe it's because I'm a newer player but 40k seems right and fun to me