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.

Makumba wrote:

A competitive army doesn't necessarily mean an unfluffy army, neither is the reverse necessarily untrue. The difference between what most people think of as a 'casual' list and 'competitive' list is a casual list will generally feature models and units that are there for reasons other than efficiency (the player likes the models or fluff, it is thematically appropriate etc) whereas a competitive list is only concerned with taking the most efficient options, and will frequently spam those options to the exclusion of all else.

But that is not the definition of campetitive . Competitive means something that is used in a competition like a tournament or league . Everything else is non competitive , I fail to see how what is in a list deems a list competitive or not . Otherwise everyone could call every list competitive , just because he doesn't like it or the person who has it.

Like I said before, none of this is inherently a problem if you play the same opposition frequently and can find some middle ground so every player approaches list building from a similar mindset, but while the majority of players continue to play pickup games, or in a club where you have too large a group to really reach an agreement, very powerful lists which are legal, while arguably not sporting, will remain a problem unless GW one day finally realises that tightening up the rules and improving inter and intra faction balance is of benefit to everyone.

I am confused . The only moment what this could be true . if people would , out of their own will pick , pick bad armies and expect to get the same gaming expiriance as people playing normal armies .

Something is starting to smell a bit "under a bridge-y" here, but I'll extend the benefit of the doubt due to language barriers or similar.

When talking about 40K "competitive" and "casual" are largely shorthand to describe different approaches to the game. There are far more units in the game than will ever be seen at tournament level, and sometimes people like to use the models they own in a game. For instance, if I wanted to build a "competitive" daemons list, I wouldn't consider Bloodcrushers a good choice, but I love the models, I am very happy with the paint job I've done in mine, and I like the idea of giant quasi-mechanical demonic cavalry thundering towards my opponent, so in an environment where winning or losing wasn't so important (a "casual" environment) I may still field them.

If, however, I anticipated a more "casual" game, but my opponent bought a "competitive" list, the odds are I'd be obliterated, and wouldn't have as much fun while playing.

If the rules, or specifically the codexes, were better balanced internally and with each other, then this possibility goes away. The fact youre struggling to understand why anyone wouldn't take an army with all of the best units they possibly could suggests you are at the "competitive" (in the context of what I've outlined here) end of the player spectrum, which, as I said, is fine in and of itself, as long as your opponents approach the game the same way, but if you play someone whose main objective is more about choosing units whose fluff or models they like, and essentially telling a story of a battle, rather than going all out to win, then one, or perhaps neither, of you is going to find the game unfulfilling.

I don’t think the game itself is very much fun. And not because of the usual reasons, but it goes to the game’s core. I personally find the rules are bloated and disjointed, yet the overabundance of regular and special rules don’t introduce or allow much variety of any type, and are all over the place so even with two (very large) books you only have the knowledge to play your own army and actually know nothing of everything else. Plus they’re not very good at creating a realistic or fluffy game as I find most of the strategies, tactics and many rules result either unintuitive, illogical or plain weird.

The game needs a large amount of models (or models that are very large), in some cases big enough that deployment space becomes a problem especially if you want some cover, yet the number of actual independent units is usually low.

The rhythm of edition change and new codexes inevitably makes some codexes or units broken in the functional sense (the most evident example was making some units meant to be skimmers flyers overnight without changing their cost)

The only upsides I find are that I like collecting and thinking on new quirky armies, something you can’t do on many other systems and that it’s what everyone else plays around here. I’m begging for them to try some Epic, or HotT, but it’s either WH or go home.

Makumba wrote:
One thing everyone seems to forget is that both people need to have fun to make it a fun game.

Not true I had seen and played many games , where only one side had fun.

Paradigm wrote:you just have to rely on the integrity of the player and their respect for the game and setting

Paradigm wrote:...after a few weeks of doing this, you'll get to know who plays how, and can play those who share your view. The chances are there will be quite a few (probably a majority) who will play in the same way as you, so it shouldn't be hard to find a regular group of opponents.

I'm just going to echo these two statements.

Any game is only as fun as the people playing it. 40k is no exception. In fact, I'd say that, for lots of reasons, it's MORE true for 40k than for a lot of other games. I'd also say that this is more true of 6th edition than 5th or 4th.

Think of 40k as being like D&D. Both of them have bloated, disjointed rules with LOTS of interaction between them, making mockery of game balance (before you even get to the part where you roll dice to see what happens). Like D&D, the quality of the game is determined by the quality of the people you play it with. If your D&D group is composed only of people who want to abuse the rules as hard as they are able to come up with the strongest possible characters, and that's all they're getting from the game, then you better have that mindset too, or it's going to quickly become a drudgery of pointless grinding and leveling.

If, on the other hand, the people around you are more the fun and creative types that like experimenting and doing weird stuff that will create interesting stories with friends, and you're that kind of person, then 40k will be a blast for you.

If anything, the first thing you should do when deciding if you want to get back into 40k or not is to go out to your FLGSs and actually spend time with the people that you would be gaming with. A little research never hurt anyone.

 Ailaros wrote:

Think of 40k as being like D&D. Both of them have bloated, disjointed rules with LOTS of interaction between them, making mockery of game balance (before you even get to the part where you roll dice to see what happens). Like D&D, the quality of the game is determined by the quality of the people you play it with. If your D&D group is composed only of people who want to abuse the rules as hard as they are able to come up with the strongest possible characters, and that's all they're getting from the game, then you better have that mindset too, or it's going to quickly become a drudgery of pointless grinding and leveling.

Uh... But D&D has a guy called the Game Master who has the authority to enforce balance.

D&D has a person who can arbitrarily change what happens in the game. If anything that kind of power makes the game MORE dependent on the quality of people, not less.

I mean, imagine if you were playing 40k, and it was arbitrated by a third person who could just say "nope, that meltagun didn't actually kill that land raider". Sound like you'd be relying even more on the integrity of the people and their respect for the game, rather than less.

 Ailaros wrote:
Think of 40k as being like D&D. Both of them have bloated, disjointed rules with LOTS of interaction between them, making mockery of game balance (before you even get to the part where you roll dice to see what happens). Like D&D, the quality of the game is determined by the quality of the people you play it with. If your D&D group is composed only of people who want to abuse the rules as hard as they are able to come up with the strongest possible characters, and that's all they're getting from the game, then you better have that mindset too, or it's going to quickly become a drudgery of pointless grinding and leveling.

If, on the other hand, the people around you are more the fun and creative types that like experimenting and doing weird stuff that will create interesting stories with friends, and you're that kind of person, then 40k will be a blast for you.

If anything, the first thing you should do when deciding if you want to get back into 40k or not is to go out to your FLGSs and actually spend time with the people that you would be gaming with. A little research never hurt anyone.

Very good advice, I've been going to the shop on Thursdays ("miniatures night") and just kind of hang out there, seeing who brings what army or what sort of games are going on to get a feel for the meta and if the people are WAAC types or "I'll play what looks good, winning be damned" types. To be honest the more I think of it the more something with more balanced rules like Warmahordes or seems like it'd be better overall since those games don't have to deal with such a huge imbalance that depends entirely on the local meta...

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Think of 40k as being like D&D. Both of them have bloated, disjointed rules with LOTS of interaction between them, making mockery of game balance (before you even get to the part where you roll dice to see what happens). Like D&D, the quality of the game is determined by the quality of the people you play it with. If your D&D group is composed only of people who want to abuse the rules as hard as they are able to come up with the strongest possible characters, and that's all they're getting from the game, then you better have that mindset too, or it's going to quickly become a drudgery of pointless grinding and leveling.

Uh... But D&D has a guy called the Game Master who has the authority to enforce balance.

The problem come from when the "Game Master" is not fair an balanced.

Again come back to the group more than the system. If the group lets the game be out of ballance, but is having fun there is no issue. If the Game is balanced, but no one is having fun there is an issue.

What would be the batter game in that case?

 Ailaros wrote:
D&D has a person who can arbitrarily change what happens in the game. If anything that kind of power makes the game MORE dependent on the quality of people, not less.

I mean, imagine if you were playing 40k, and it was arbitrated by a third person who could just say "nope, that meltagun didn't actually kill that land raider". Sound like you'd be relying even more on the integrity of the people and their respect for the game, rather than less.

With the Gm I was referring to the balance issue: it doesn't matter if something is unbalanced because the GM can change it at will. It is like you had a third guy who could rewrite your codex and even the rulebook at whim.

You think it is not funn? Do you se all the activaty on the tactics, painting and modelling, backround, general and battlereports forum? All of the people posting there are having fun, or they would be somewhere else. The only once who voice the bad ideas are the only explisit comments you recodnise. Look harder.

Sure, but the GM is still a person. A person making decisions about what they think is how things are supposed to be and forcing it on everyone else. That's part of the problem with "balance" really - it's impossible to agree on. The more open that a game is to personal tastes (like 40k or D&D), the more that people will claim it's imbalanced. Nobody calls chess imbalanced because chess is nearly devoid of player input compared to other games.

WayneTheGame wrote:To be honest the more I think of it the more something with more balanced rules like Warmahordes or seems like it'd be better overall since those games don't have to deal with such a huge imbalance that depends entirely on the local meta...

Well, it all depends on what you're looking for. If you want to spend a weeknight each week playing a perfectly balanced game that depended only on real player skill, then I have no doubt that you can find a chess club somewhere.

Personally, I wouldn't find that engaging, because chess eventually boils down to rote - "Oh, you opened with E4, so now I'm going to sicilian defense, and then you respond with an Alapin variation, etc., etc." But if the risk of stagnation is worth it for an actually balanced game, then I'd go with that. If you want the kind of flexibility that a game like 40k has, then you're going to have to accept that the kind of experience you have is going to be much more determined by the kinds of people you play with, than the rules themselves.

 Ailaros wrote:
Sure, but the GM is still a person. A person making decisions about what they think is how things are supposed to be and forcing it on everyone else.

And if he makes a wrong decision then the players tell him to change it to a better one and he will change it to a better one. It is not like he is restricted in any way or form to stick to his decisions. After all it is his job to make good decisions.

Really, 40k could use a GM role to "forge the narrative" in each battle. That would make tournaments pretty crazy .

I didn't find 6th ed fun at all, so I stopped playing it, put the armies into storage and walked away. I still have it all, so should they ever come up with another edition I want to play, I'll just need to get the army book and play around and shuffle things - but until that day, they will stay in the shed of shame.

Prior to this, I played every preceding edition.

If it's not fun, STOP. Why prolong the suffering if you don't enjoy it?

AtoMaki wrote: And if he makes a wrong decision then the players tell him to change it to a better one and he will change it to a better one.

Exactly. In D&D, you're relying on the decisions of the people who are playing. On their integrity, and on their respect for the game. Likewise in 40k. Somewhat less so, of course, as there's no GM, but there's still a lot of that there.

 chromedog wrote:
I didn't find 6th ed fun at all, so I stopped playing it, put the armies into storage and walked away. I still have it all, so should they ever come up with another edition I want to play, I'll just need to get the army book and play around and shuffle things - but until that day, they will stay in the shed of shame.

Prior to this, I played every preceding edition.

If it's not fun, STOP. Why prolong the suffering if you don't enjoy it?

I felt this way, I'd spent almost a year buying and modelling my daemons before I actually got my gak together enough to actually paint what I needed to field a legal force.

I played two games, once against Necrons where I literally charged his whole line turn two, and then spent the rest of the game just punching him in the face, but thanks to some lucky LD rolls on his behalf he didn't run. There was no challenge, no tactics, I hadn't even run a particularly strong list, it was derived from what I had available and finished (mono Khorne hybrid circus/dog rush) and no fun. Other was against Eldar, same list, and just got mown down. I was really beginning to reconsider playing 40K, but have joined into the club slow grow league, and I've found the smaller games much more enjoyable, it eliminates a lot of the crap that isn't fun to play/play against and makes a lot more units useable. So perhaps the key to fun games of 6th is smaller games?

I typically play in the 1500 to 1850 pts range, against a wide range of competition. I find that level of points to be lots of fun. Daemons might be an exception, as I've never faced them, but I find I'm more able to use interesting tactics in 6th than in previous editions.

For what it's worth, I play Guard. I play actively mixed lists [as in, no duplicate units, other than an occasional double up of Plasma Vets in Chimera]. I've lost exactly 2 games since 6th edition hit, and I think I've won about 12 to 14 games. Five of those games were against Tau and Eldar, and each race has handed me one of my losses each. One loss was to a very... tight... Eldar list designed to take advantage of a tourney's Force restrictions [750 pts]. Another was against a well played Tau list [1850 pts] with a few different units, and a single Riptide.

I honestly think that 6th edition rewards players that DON'T spam units, and that take a variety of units to achieve different goals in different ways. I've been schooling most spam lists. Varied lists are tougher to face, as they open more tactical options. More so than earlier editions. Assuming you're building lists that have no glaring weakness, any list has a decent chance against most armies.

For instance, if I wanted to build a "competitive" daemons list, I wouldn't consider Bloodcrushers a good choice, but I love the models, I am very happy with the paint job I've done in mine, and I like the idea of giant quasi-mechanical demonic cavalry thundering towards my opponent, so in an environment where winning or losing wasn't so important (a "casual" environment) I may still field them.

Ok I am very confused what does painting have to do with playing the game . If you want to do a golden demon level bloodcrusher unit then your not going to use it for games , it could get damaged too easily , that is if painting is more important to you then gaming . If it isn't more important then gaming , then how did you get them ? They are bad unit , is it some sort of a "friend gave me a gift and it would not be nice to show that the gift is a bad one , so to avoid him losing face I use hist gift in a few games . But then I don't understand the whole painting part. Sorry.

Uh... But D&D has a guy called the Game Master who has the authority to enforce balance.

I have yet to see a GM balance caster classes against melee classes specialy fighter types .

No that is one person having fun, that is not a Fun Game, because someone did not have fun.

Two people meet , one eats the other doesn't . You can't say that there was dinner or launch didn't happen.

No it is not Crazy Talk.
What you are saying is because you saw the Three Riptides and a Eldar Seer was a game winner and went out and spent the money on them that everyone should NEVER be able to ask you to lave off to the side because they would like to make it to turn three.
What I am saying it out of the 6 games I play without them for one battle.
And this makes me the “Villain”, at least any time I suggest this concept I have all but called this.

I don't play tau or eldar. But if someone told me that I have to leave out some of the units that make my army I wouldn't be able to play games , most people here own one army and it is between 1500 and sometimes more up to 1999 . out of over 60+people playing in my city not 1/10th has more then 1999 and from what I have seen while in other cities it is the same there too. In fact I would say that probably 1/3 of all the people that start don't even get up to 1500pts , because of the nerfs and model cost.
Besides if w40k is a game and every games goal is to win, but someone decided he wants to buy bad units or models , which is fine it is his own choice, why do I have to pay for him being foolish and buying the wrong stuff. Why do I have to buy extra models , I don't want or like . That is like being punished for doing something good.

Makumba wrote:
I don't play tau or eldar. But if someone told me that I have to leave out some of the units that make my army I wouldn't be able to play games.

The Key was ASK not TOLD
I did not Say you could not. It was after you crushing me after 5 games in a row because of a Unit I would ask you to leave that unit out for One game.
Why is that a “Bad” thing?

Makumba wrote:

For instance, if I wanted to build a "competitive" daemons list, I wouldn't consider Bloodcrushers a good choice, but I love the models, I am very happy with the paint job I've done in mine, and I like the idea of giant quasi-mechanical demonic cavalry thundering towards my opponent, so in an environment where winning or losing wasn't so important (a "casual" environment) I may still field them.

Ok I am very confused what does painting have to do with playing the game . If you want to do a golden demon level bloodcrusher unit then your not going to use it for games , it could get damaged too easily , that is if painting is more important to you then gaming . If it isn't more important then gaming , then how did you get them ? They are bad unit , is it some sort of a "friend gave me a gift and it would not be nice to show that the gift is a bad one , so to avoid him losing face I use hist gift in a few games . But then I don't understand the whole painting part. Sorry.

Ok, I'm tired, and perhaps irritable, but I can't help but feel you're being wilfully ignorant, I'll try and keep it simple.

Not everyone prioritises winning when playing 40K - some players do, others enjoy the act of playing without necessarily being focused on the result. Without wishing to insult anyone who always goes all out to win, I'm too long in the tooth and have lived too much life to worry overmuch about something as insignificant as winning a game of toy soldiers.

Consequently, the models I choose to buy for my armies aren't always because they are the best units in the codex (which is already highlighting a flaw, there should be no significantly 'better' or 'worse' units, just different) but for reasons such as liking the way the models look.

If I buy models, I am going to paint them. I do sometimes paint display pieces, but I paint gaming pieces too, it is possible for me to be pleased with the end result of a unit's paint job without it being a Golden Demon standard paint job.

If I have painted a unit for gaming purposes, that unit now represents an investment of time and money to me, and I think it is understandable that I want to get gaming time in with that unit. (Let me just mention that Bloodcrushers were one of the 'better' units in the last book, as you seem to be struggling with that)

While I categorically do not care if I win or lose, I absolutely much prefer, and have more fun in, games where things are very equal and go perhaps to the last turn where victory for either player is uncertain, and both players know that one incorrect decision on their part could cost them the game than games where I spend most of the time getting gunned down by Tau firestorms or Waveserpent T/L Scatter Laser nonsense and my largest contribution to the game is picking my models off the table and putting them back in their box.

If the rules were better balanced between and within books, none of this would be important, as all the models every player wanted to run would have a reasonable chance of doing well, and who wins the game would be governed much more by who made the best decisions and reacted to their opponents moves in the best way and far less by who chose to use the 'best' units vs someone who chose units that they liked for other reasons.

But, they are not better, and so allow for people like yourself who cannot apparently compute the idea of not pushing things to the absolute limit in pursuit of victory to run lists that are demonstrably, objectively, better than others, rather than being balanced enough to make all unit choices valid, and the player the most important factor in who wins or loses a game, and that is what makes 40K less fun for many than some of the other systems out there.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Wings of Purity wrote:
I actually think putting your lascannon dude in the very front and have all his buddies behind him die for him is really stupid. I enjoyed the game then however, but I think the current edition has nice rules too, which prevents illogical situations like that.

The way it was always explained was someone else would pick up the weapon. They old rules even explicitly stated that.

The one with the rifle shoots! The one without, follows him! I guess it does make sense

 Anpu42 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
I don't play tau or eldar. But if someone told me that I have to leave out some of the units that make my army I wouldn't be able to play games.

The Key was ASK not TOLD
I did not Say you could not. It was after you crushing me after 5 games in a row because of a Unit I would ask you to leave that unit out for One game.
Why is that a “Bad” thing?

If your options were to either buy stuff you don't like and then he plays you or not buy them and then he won't play you , then your not being asked your being told what to do. It wouldn't be even good if you got your army for free , because it still take up space.

Also take out for what if someone would tell me , I don't want to play with vendettas . then my army is now around 400 points smaller and my troops have to walk , which means they die from shoting and I lose the game . If he tells me to not take manticores , then I don't have cover ignoring ammo , I probably won't lose because of this unless he has some sort of stealth/shrouded build , but am still playing with fewer points then he does . But the worse happens , if he doesn't like my troops . What am I suppose to do if he says , he doesn't want me to use vets . I can't counts as becuase IG blobs can't take so many special weapons . I don't have heavy weapon so even if he said ok to the counts as , I wouldn't have half the weapons they should have and what is more important I own 28 IG vets . the smallest working blob starts at 30 , the minimum is 20 and I would need two of those. So it would be 28 models vs 40 actualy needed , not counting any heavy weapons and without carrying what weapons the vets actualy carry vs what IG blob guards can use.

 azreal13 wrote:
[
Not everyone prioritises winning when playing 40K - some players do, others enjoy the act of playing without necessarily being focused on the result. Without wishing to insult anyone who always goes all out to win, I'm too long in the tooth and have lived too much life to worry overmuch about something as insignificant as winning a game of toy soldiers.

While I categorically do not care if I win or lose, I absolutely much prefer, and have more fun in, games where things are very equal and go perhaps to the last turn where victory for either player is uncertain, and both players know that one incorrect decision on their part could cost them the game than games where I spend most of the time getting gunned down by Tau firestorms or Waveserpent T/L Scatter Laser nonsense and my largest contribution to the game is picking my models off the table and putting them back in their box.

Ah, a kindred spirit. I don't think it's an attempt to be contrary on Makumba's part, he's been part of several threads covering this topic and it does seem like this is just how some people choose to play the game. It's as foreign in nature to me as to you but some people do seem to actively choose to play only on that fine line of hardcore competitive play where not playing with the absolute most powerful list available is unheard of. It also seems to be the case that the models are preplanned so the entire contingent weighs in at the exact points limit for the games they play, no room for models to be swapped in or out.
*However* (and this shouldn't be taken as insulting simply an observation) these seem to be the people who have stopped having fun with the game and are now creating the threads and posts triggering this thread.
As such I guess my comment to the original poster is this, if you want to play on that fine razors edge maybe 40k isn't for you. If however you just want to make an army of some cool models and play some fun games with like minded folks and your local group caters to that, 40k is still huge fun.

WayneTheGame wrote:
All the threads I've been reading about 6th just make it sound like it's not fun at all. Things like a random charge move,

Adds a level of risk management.

WayneTheGame wrote:
having to remove models from the front (so you can't "hide" special/heavy weapons in the squad anymore and remove them last),

not true, with proper placement you can protect your special models

WayneTheGame wrote:
most lists seeming to be light on the Troops and heavy on transport/vehicles, being able to buy your own fortifications as though it was a troop, people fielding superheavy tanks/things in a normal game of 40k and having that be perfectly legal instead of requiring opponent's permission, special characters being able to be fielded without permission, etc. all of this is really making the game seem like it's one big "If I go first, you lose. If you go first, I lose" type of game.

not really true in many instances. Large buildings/ruins block LoS, and in fact being able to take fortifications helps reduce 'you go first you win'! Also, many missions scoring objectives is the best strategy for victory.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Most army tactics I look at have big sections saying what wargear/choices are just bad and should never be taken (and sadly it seems most of the time to be the Troops, i.e. the core of your army), or it's things like you want to spam X cheap transport and be "that guy" (e.g. Eldar w/Waveserpents, Necrons w/Night Scythes) just to have a chance at winning.

not sure its as bad as the internet claims. The way competitive list writing works if one choice was proved to be 1% better than another choice that second choice would never be taken.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Those might be extreme examples but the more I read about how 6th edition plays (I have not played a game, mostly due to not wanting to buy anything until I know I'd enjoy it) make it seem like it's just way less fun than I remember with all these additions that IMO have no place in the game (Apoc, Escalation, Strongholds or whatever else) and being encouraged to bring all the heavy units and none of the units an army would actually have.

I think it is the unhappy people that don't play and instead moan... the people who enjoy the game just get on with it

WayneTheGame wrote:
So honestly, is 6th edition as unfun as it actually sounds? I can forgive the ridiculously-high prices for GW figures, I can even forgive them adding some big toys like the Wraithknight or Riptide, but I can't forgive the rules discouraging actual armies and encouraging spamming transports or special units.

Personally I'm still enjoying all my games of 6th edition.

Makumba wrote:

Too much has already been said by for me to pick out specifically where you've already missed the entire point of what has been said...And like Azreal13 I'm growing tired of this...But for me personally...you need a bop on the head with a foam bat.

Going to carefully explain this:

1.All because something is in the codex doesn't instantly mean that some of the specific tribes, Castes, Craft Worlds, Chapters and all the other specifics to the armies in 40K use them to same extent as each other. if that was the case why bother with the different tribes and all the like? Why not just say everything is the same? You know why they have different chapters, Warbands and Castes etc? Because each one is unique and are known for using different stuff. The fact I have to explain this proves that you seem to care very little for that aspect and focus more on what is going to be more optimal and lead you to the win.

2. it isn't limiting yourself if you're doing something out of enjoyment and love for the aspect of their army they are fielding. They could pull off a win with their list while you would deem it that it is impossible because they didn't take the optimal/"best" thing of the codex. That victory is but an illuision cause they didn't go with what the internet/WAAC/Competitive players deem to be the better.

3. Being asked something isn't the same as being told. if you're thinking of it like that then you are truly in the mind set that some competitive players are in. You keep only the "best of the best" of your codex and will only field it because you only care for those units. if anyone is limiting themselves it's those who only buy the "best/optimal". Not this other person who tries to play new things/expand upon their army to simply have fun with some cool models. You think the ones you have are cool? That's good for you! But at the end of the day why did you get them? Got them because they look cool? Or did you get them because you heard they were the best and most destructive/can kill everything/will kill everything your foe brings.

4.You play a game to have fun. You lose, you win, or you get stuck or you break your game. That's the fundamentals of gaming. This is a hobby and a game. A hobby you do on your free time because you enjoy it and it, for many, brings them ease from life because they take part of their day/time to work on it. They do it because they have fun/enjoy it. Combine that with the game side of it, and this is a thing for you go in and enjoy. No real need to worry about winning or losing because you are in this for the fun of it. Not to focus on solely winning. Because I can promise you if that is all you care about/all you play is optimal/competitively then you're truly missing the point of this hobby.

Lastly number five is what it boils down too....The fact it seems you care about what's optimal/"best...the fact you call things being optimal, best, worse bad and the like is just the reason for why the OP started this thread...You're proving the very thing that kills the joy for those who only wish to play just to build up a story and see what they spent ours painting to look great, what they spent building together...to see their creations upon the battlefield expanding upon their own stories and fun with another person's army. Unlike, those, who label things bad and good who only care for winning, treating it like it's a tournament instead of a strictly for fun and social gaming time. Why does painting a model matter? Because think about how cool it looks to see a model that looks really good, upon a board that looks really good, running up against another army that is just as nicely painted. it looks theatrically brilliant and just draws you in further to the moment that you and your friend/foe are creating right there.



Sorry Wayne that I don't think I ever directly responded to your thread's initial question. I am very sorry. I started in 6th Edition. I'll admit that right now. But I've played with guys who have been playing this since the start. Who've seen how things have changed over the years and have mentioned to me over and over how things used to be. I've looked it up, I've read the old codexs for armies along with the old rule books. Seen batreps for a lot as well with different armies and different play styles along with just random fun rules thrown in. Missions, scenarios and even fun little objectives strictly in there for fun and the like. This hobby is grand and fun and dang it I love the heck out of it. I play space wolves not because of how they were in 5th, not because of how powerful their units are or for the possible cheese they can bring. I picked them because I love what they were based off of along with having spent weeks reading up on them.

This is why the hobby is still fun and why it's still worth it if you ask me. it's not about what the internet says or what those WAAC players deem...it's what makes your heart rush or brings a smile to your face when you pick up a codex and begin reading. it's what makes you excited to order a box of models and put them together then paint them. if you can still feel all this then yes Warhammer 40K is still as fun as ever. This gets multiplied by a great deal if you find a group that shares this. Even further if they are friendly and love just trying out random stuff with their armies and even tyring for Campaigns and truly narrative moments. That's my 2 cents about this.

I think one of the beauties of 40k is it can be many types of game.

For some the fun is designing 'the best list' and pitting it against other people's attempts to write the best list. Interestingly for this group to have fun there needs to be imbalance in the army book (or at least the potential for some options to stack synergy better than others).

For others the game is a collaborative story telling device, where you aren't competing to win, rather almost spectating and roleplaying to see how the battle would unfold.

Many more fall elsewhere on the continuum between these two points. The important thing here is to make sure the players / GM understand what each other are wanting from the game. As long as all participants can try to cater to each others expectations an enjoyable game should be possible. If an enjoyable game will not be possible the obvious thing is to not play/find new opponents.

nareik wrote:
I think one of the beauties of 40k is it can be many types of game.

For some the fun is designing 'the best list' and pitting it against other people's attempts to write the best list. Interestingly for this group to have fun there needs to be imbalance in the army book (or at least the potential for some options to stack synergy better than others).

For others the game is a collaborative story telling device, where you aren't competing to win, rather almost spectating and roleplaying to see how the battle would unfold.

Ironically though, GW have produced a ruleset that favours the first attitude while actively and publicly promoting the second!

Many more fall elsewhere on the continuum between these two points. The important thing here is to make sure the players / GM understand what each other are wanting from the game. As long as all participants can try to cater to each others expectations an enjoyable game should be possible. If an enjoyable game will not be possible the obvious thing is to not play/find new opponents.

Yeah, nice idea, won't last thirty seconds in the real world. You're expecting people to alter their approach to the game in order to facilitate someone else's enjoyment, which some simply won't be able to do (look at Makumba's confusion in this very thread, how would you expect someone who apparently can't fathom the idea of using a non optimal list to try and adjust to playing someone who is running something fluffy list sufficiently so they both continue to enjoy the game?) New opponents aren't always a possibility, not everyone who plays is based in a large urban area where a new opponent or fresh store is only a 10 minute bus ride away, and telling people to simply 'not play' because the game design has let them down isn't really addressing the issue.

The fact is, all the problems of fluffy/competitive, fun/not fun go away with a decently managed rules system, with timely, consistent and logical FAQs and errata, and a greater investment of time and resources in making a better written, more thoroughly tested, more balanced set of expansions. But GW can't be arsed, so we're left with the current situation where the game only functions with exceptional levels of input from the players, who, as you may have gathered, seldom come to a consensus on anything!

To the OP,

I, like you. have been playing since the end of 2nd edition. Unlike you I stayed with the game until now. In a one word to answer your question.....NO!

To expand a bit 6th edition is terrible, the randomness makes me sick. Allies, fliers, fortifications, superheavies and all the other nonsense in this edition have made me sell off all but one of my armies. I played a few games a month ago and I found NO enjoyment in any of them regardless of the outcome. I won some and lost some. Not a single game was remotely fun. I refuse to play this game until a 100% rewrite of rules occurs with people who actually have a fraking clue as to how to write rules. GW can kiss my shiney metal @ss until that occurs. In all likelihood that will never happen so my Dark Angels will probably be permanently shelved.

Just my 2 cents, take it or leave it.

Im going to repeat what I said the last time a similar thread popped up.

"I think it depends on how you play the game, I mean I don't run a club so much as I organise Games days every know and again for me and some friends and as regards Stronghold Assault and Escalation...

Never happened
Never heard of it
What is this apocalypse knock off you speak of?

We just house rule things that we agree would make the game less fun to play, its also generally accepted that you get a head slap for trying to squeeze a flier in below 750/1000 points. At least until every army gets THEIR OWN VIABLE anti air.

Were still enjoying 40k"

I played my first 6th edition game on sunday. I lost, but had fun as I watched my sternguard and command squad rapid fire a lord of change to his plasma death.

I consistently forgot to use my UM chapter tactics (which would have been big when a combat squad of sternguard rolled 5 "1"s while rapid firing plasma at a demon prince), forgot that my land speeders had "jink", forgot to use my devastator sgt's signum numerous times, etc etc.

I had fun because I wanted to have fun and made it fun for myself. Lining up all my little toy men that I paint and watching them do battle was fun, because I made it fun.

 rryannn wrote:
I played my first 6th edition game on sunday. I lost, but had fun as I watched my sternguard and command squad rapid fire a lord of change to his plasma death.

I consistently forgot to use my UM chapter tactics (which would have been big when a combat squad of sternguard rolled 5 "1"s while rapid firing plasma at a demon prince), forgot that my land speeders had "jink", forgot to use my devastator sgt's signum numerous times, etc etc.

I had fun because I wanted to have fun and made it fun for myself. Lining up all my little toy men that I paint and watching them do battle was fun, because I made it fun.

^This

A trick to not forgeting your UM Chapeter Tactics, make Chapter Tactics Chards.