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.

Played as a casual Sunday afternoon game with a narrative structure and maybe even throwing the points system out the window (the way it used to be played in the Rogue Trader or Laserburn days) is still a great way to play 40K. Instead of playing a rulebook scenario, make one up.

How about a convoy ambush? The attacking player picks a number of stealthy or fast moving units with a decent number of heavy weapons. The defender sets up a mechanised column travelling lengthways down the centre of the board. Attacking player gets first turn. Attacker wins by getting 1VP for every enemy vehicle or unit killed or routed from the board. Defender gets 1VP for every unit of vehicle that makes it off the board with a set number of turns. Special rule: terrain is bad so no vehicle can move flat out and fast vehicles are limited to normal vehicle movement. Deployment: Defenders deploy in vehicles in line down middle of the board, no closer than 24" to any board edge. Attackers: Scouts/Infiltrators may deploy within 12" of vehicles, but out of LOS. All other attacking units arrive from reserves (any table edge) or Deepstrike.

We played this very scenario a few weeks ago. The attackers were a SM Captain with Jump-pack, three Scout Squads with Missile Launchers, two assault squads with melta and power fists. The defenders were four IG veteran squads in Chimera's escorted by a pair of Salamander scout vehicles and a Leman Russ.

Great fun game. No FOC. No points values. No where near balanced.

I suggest you try this sort of thing out before giving up on 40K altogether.

 Peregrine wrote:

 LeadLegion wrote:
Ultimately, 40K was designed as a game you sit down and play with your mates on a Sunday afternoon.

But it really isn't. 40k is designed to be a "game" that can be used to show kids how awesome their new space marine models are going to be. The idea of being able to play with them is just bait to put in front of the customers and hope to get more sales, whether or not anyone actually plays the game is a distant secondary concern. So you get a minimal-effort game that's maybe adequate for pushing some space marines around the table occasionally, but not much else. And you have a company that clearly has no interest in improving the game because the additional sales to people who like the improved game would not be enough to justify paying competent game designers to make it. It's much more efficient to hire the incompetents who can't get a job anywhere else and have them do a rush job every time you have a new model to sell. And hey, when tax season comes around you can write off their salaries as a charitable donation!

A casual "mates on a sunday afternoon" version of 40k that was specifically designed for that purpose would have much better balance, much more straightforward rules, and be a lot more fun.

I think you've misinterpreted me a little. 40K Rogue Trader was originally built as a narrative game that you can sit down and play with your mates. Just read some of the original random scenario's included in the Rogue Trader rulebook. I agree that since then 40K has evolved to become a game system designed solely to sell more models (I even say so later in the same post) but the game today is still a reflection of it's Rogue Trader roots in that "game balance" has never been a consideration in 40K design philosophy.

Edit: Added deployment rules for the narrative convoy scenario.

It's been an arms race for a long time now; I stopped playing in 3rd edition and there was the same kind of garbage then: Iron Warriors, Mauleed Marines (6-man Las/Plas squads), 3x Wraithlords, Space Wolves having everything regular Marines had but better, etc. That's just how the game is.

I do think part of the solution is to play smaller points; too many people want to play huge 2k+ battles and that's when the game completely breaks down into who can launch nukes faster. I'd say the game is most balanced, inasmuch as it's balanced at all, from 750-1500 points. You could still fit some cheese in at 1500 but not everything you want to and certainly not the real game breaking things without really hurting your army.

@ Wayne: When you say you mean you stopped playing in 3rd ed do you mean that (like me) you left the game for a couple of editions but eventually came back to it?

I'm just asking for reasons of clarity: Plenty of people in Dakka seem to have stopped playing 40K a decade or more ago, haven't played a game since, yet still offer opinions on the current state of the game.

Personally, I think you're spot on with regards to your comments on points levels and (im)balance skew, but I'm just curious about your current "playing status"

 LeadLegion wrote:
@ Wayne: When you say you mean you stopped playing in 3rd ed do you mean that (like me) you left the game for a couple of editions but eventually came back to it?

I'm just asking for reasons of clarity: Plenty of people in Dakka seem to have stopped playing 40K a decade or more ago, haven't played a game since, yet still offer opinions on the current state of the game.

Personally, I think you're spot on with regards to your comments on points levels and (im)balance skew, but I'm just curious about your current "playing status"

Kinda.. I've wanted to come back to the game, but the prices and shoddy rules turn me off and really make me think it's not worth it. I mostly lurk at my FLGS to watch others play and talk about the game. I was going to buy some things, eager to start again, but then I started to calculate how much it would actually cost me to even get a starting army and with all the problems the rules seem to have... I haven't actually played a game of 6th edition because I feel like GW is just screwing around.

Are people forgetting that the new Knight Titan is really bad?

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:
Are people forgetting that the new Knight Titan is really bad?

Iranna.

That's not the point. The point is that GW has added more and more things that were beforehand solely the domain of Epic and meant for huge battles and said it's okay to use them in regular 40k games.

WayneTheGame wrote:


That's not the point. The point is that GW has added more and more things that were beforehand solely the domain of Epic and meant for huge battles and said it's okay to use them in regular 40k games.

Such as?

If you mean Riptides and Wraithknights, then I would remind you that MCs with 6 wounds and/or a 2+ save have always existed in the game a la Tyranids.

If you mean Escalation, then I would remind you that it's an expansion. As in, you have to choose to allow it.

All GW has done is added more variety to the game, it's up to you whether you want to use it or not.

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:


That's not the point. The point is that GW has added more and more things that were beforehand solely the domain of Epic and meant for huge battles and said it's okay to use them in regular 40k games.

Such as?

If you mean Riptides and Wraithknights, then I would remind you that MCs with 6 wounds and/or a 2+ save have always existed in the game a la Tyranids.

If you mean Escalation, then I would remind you that it's an expansion. As in, you have to choose to allow it.

All GW has done is added more variety to the game, it's up to you whether you want to use it or not.

Iranna.

For NOW it's an expansion. The rumors of 7th edition state that Escalation will become part of the core game, so not so easily refused as much as you can refuse to play with Flyers today.

I maintain what GW should have done is make a solid set of core rules that are balanced for competitive play, and THEN add everything else as optional rules to help you "forge the narrative" with campaign/story games where you don't care so much about balance. Fortifications, Flyers, Escalation, etc. should have all been "advanced" rules with a disclaimer that states it's meant for adding flavor to themed battles, and not so much meant to be used when you turn up for a game at the local shop. Basically they are doing the opposite: You don't need rules in the game to come up with scenarios for narratives and campaigns, but those rules make competitive play very hard to balance.

Anyways it's a moot point as for me personally it's not even the rules that make me not want to play, it's having to spend a few hundred dollars on even a starting army.

WayneTheGame wrote:


For NOW it's an expansion. The rumors of 7th edition state that Escalation will become part of the core game, so not so easily refused as much as you can refuse to play with Flyers today.

I maintain what GW should have done is make a solid set of core rules that are balanced for competitive play, and THEN add everything else as optional rules to help you "forge the narrative" with campaign/story games where you don't care so much about balance. Fortifications, Flyers, Escalation, etc. should have all been "advanced" rules with a disclaimer that states it's meant for adding flavor to themed battles, and not so much meant to be used when you turn up for a game at the local shop. Basically they are doing the opposite: You don't need rules in the game to come up with scenarios for narratives and campaigns, but those rules make competitive play very hard to balance.

So essentially, you're getting worked up over what could happen, rather than what has happened? Until you've got the book in your hands, I'd reserve judgement such as this. Wait until summer, maybe then your tears will be valid.

With the exception of fliers, that's what they done? They introduced 6th edition, then added all the Escalation expansions a year later. You're complaining about something they didn't do: namely, break the game by forcing you to play with Expansions you do not like. Allies, fortifications and fliers are nowhere near as fundamentally terrible as you're making out. You have the choice to use Escalation and the like.

Essentially, don't hate the game, hate the player who takes advantage of it.

Iranna.

It's interesting to see all the different view points. Make no mistake i think they're all valid points and views.

I was going to put into my original post that i think 2 codexes recently released are a slight exception to the rule: Dark Angels and Tyranids... Anyway.

I think my annoyance is more that push by the owning company to make the points i raised earlier more prominent. Like bigger and better units.

I also understand its just a cause of reality, the company GW needs to make money. Making a balanced game that ticks by wont really do that. So the only thing they can do is introduce new toys, reduce the points so you have to buy more and then go from there.

I think maybe i need to look at kill team and go from there.

I also don't have a local place to play games, so i only get occasional games on vassal where people dont worry about maxing out things because there is no intrinsic cost.

I would still very much like to see a more balanced game with maybe less out right carnage.

I still feel the game largely revolves around i go first and nuke your army then win.

 pretre wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Mate, this isnt new.

the exact same threads about "broken things ruining the game" were written fifteen years ago when 40k third edition was a thing. you talk about the helldrake? meet the eldar starcannon of third edition. meet the alaitoc disruption table. meet crystal targetting matrices. meet ulthwe seer councils. meet third ed blood angels.

And it continues.

How about fourth edition? ever here of the abomination that was the Siren Prince, or else Iron Warriors?

Fifth edition - blood angels, space wolves and grey knights.

Sixth edition. tau and eldar.

Not being cheeky, but things that broke the game have always been there. you have not stumbled onto some hitherto unknown conspiracy, or failure that somehow slipped by the vigilance of the 40k community this is simply how GW writes games.

And there are solutions.

(1) treat all the new stuff as "options". GW give you the tools. You, the gamer have the choice to use them or not. play with a friend, and chat and decide what you want. Dont look to what GW does as a "how to" guide - dont look to GW to tell you how to play. - look at it as great models that you can do with as you wish. how about you take control? how about you decide? the best way to enjoy 40k is via a casual, co-operative and gentlemanly manner.
(2) play other games.
(3) grow older and bitter, consumed by hatred and rage,like many other 40k vets

/slowclap

I came here to say this and found myself pleasantly surprised.

(4) Actually learn to enjoy the game?

On a separate note can I ask is a slowclap a sign of approbation in the US, as it is just the opposite here, a sign of derision and mockery.

Boniface wrote:


I also understand its just a cause of reality, the company GW needs to make money. Making a balanced game that ticks by wont really do that. So the only thing they can do is introduce new toys, reduce the points so you have to buy more and then go from there.

I don't think this is true at all. Plenty of games have balanced rules in a good ruleset that make plenty of money and are experiencing significant growth.

If GW's latest financial report is a sign of anything, its that their plan of making poorly balanced rules, introducing new toys and reducing points is stagnating their growth.

Drager wrote:


On a separate note can I ask is a slowclap a sign of approbation in the US, as it is just the opposite here, a sign of derision and mockery.

I don't think so. The "original" (tm) slow clap is more the slow clap of someone breaking the silence, where nobody else dares to clap or expected to be impressed by a given performance. It usually continues with more and more people joining in the clap and, at least in hollywood movies, ending with standing ovations.

The cynical version came later. I could be wrong though.

@Wayne: Thanks for clearing that up. I was curious.

@ Boniface: Try playing a few scenarios where you pick forces based on what it appropriate to the narrative of the scenario, rather than worrying about points. You'll find that this kind of game feels very much like a game of killteam, but on a larger scale.

@Drager: That slow-clap thing used to confuse me for a while too.. Those movies where somebody starts a slow-clap and then everybody else joins in with enthusiastic applause had me scratching my head.

@Zwei: Nah. The derisive slow-clap has been a "thing" in Britain since at least my grand-father's youth and possibly as far back as the Tudor era.

 LeadLegion wrote:

@Zwei: Nah. The derisive slow-clap has been a "thing" in Britain since at least my grand-father's youth and possibly as far back as the Tudor era.

Possibly.

Either way, here's what I tend to think of in a "classic" slow clap.

Small games fix a lot of problems... but small games suck. If I wanted to play small games, I wouldn't be playing 40k in the first place.

The problem with 40k is it can't decide what it wants to be. In 3rd ed. it became a slightly-larger-than-skirmish game, and I personally liked that. Then they just started adding units that would never be seen in a game of that size, flyers, superheavies, wraithknights, riptides, I wasn't even a huge fan of the Land Raider when it came out.

I want to play 1500pt-2000pt games, just without the large-model spam (and also with minimal death start units).

IMO, GW should come out with a tiered system of playing, so instead of saying it's free for all and let the gamers sort out the mess (because sorting out the mess yourself is only really practical if you play with the same people regularly), actually tier the units so gamers can pick a tier they want to play at.

You could even base the tiers on the old Epic detachment system. Where you select your army as if it were a detachment for Epic 40k to give severe penalties for wanting to take certain models by limiting what else you can take.

In the UK slow clapping is the traditional way for an audience to show its disapprobation of being kept waiting long beyond the start of a live show at the theatre, etc.

A sort of "Get a move on and start the show, we're bored".

It has also been used as a form of heckling during an event.

@AllSeeingSkink

A number of games systems use the detachment system at the moment. Flames of War, for example. There was a Weird War II game that did it really well (but the name is escaping me just now).

It would certainly shake up the game a bit. Not sure if it would actually improve game balance. Match-ups between certain types of detachment would be pretty unbalanced. At least without introducing lots of new models to the game to cover the gaps (I'm thinking specifically of a typical infantry detachment versus an airmobile detachment full of fliers, but I expect there will be others).

That being said, it's an interesting notion. I think I like it.

@Zwei: Yeah, that bit at the end of cool runnings is a classic example of culture-clash where a slow-clap is concerned. I remember having an argument at school during an English module on media studies about whether the slow-clappers were mocking the team or not. I remember thinking that the guy who started clapping slowly was being a git and that the folks that started clapping "properly" later were not only showing their support for the team, but also showing their disapproval of the guy who clapped first. The teacher had a very hard time convincing us that the clapping was approbation right from the start.

Oh well.

Can't argue history there. Perhaps the derisive one was the first

Personally, I thought of a slow clap as a sign of approval until internet gifs taught me the possible alternative meaning...

Exactly the same experience as myself Zwei, only reversed .

Boniface wrote:
So with the imminent arrival of the new Knight in standard 40K brandishing a big gun and D weapon I think I'm going to throw in the towel.

It's been getting obscene with every codex getting some sort of 1 up more powerful gizmo designed to be better than or a counter for the previous thing (to an extent). From what I've seen the only balanced (I use the term loosely) codexes have been dark angels, and nids.

Chaos got the drake which started the ball rolling. Tau got the riptide that pretty much broke the game, then it all fell into disarray with Eldar getting mega buffs across the board, wraithknights and waveserpents. Space marines couldn't be left out in the cold so they got (I know it's old from previous editions) grav guns to help counter MCs and vehicle spam. Now the titans are making their way into 40k.

It's at this point I just give up. It's just not fun or funny anymore. It's basically geared towards 1 turn victory.

What happened to the days when you would field a small group of guys and try to overcome each other with some mediocum of skill?
You just wouldn't see hordes of Eldar serpents, or titans running a mock on every battlefield.

Does anyone else feel like 40k has just become an arms race?

Do you play because you like the game? Or do you play because you want to win tournaments?

I'm lucky, my son got me into the game. We play at home for fun. Because we like to play. We make up rules like, 1500 points infantry only. If the only reason you play is to show the models at the local shop, or because you have to win every tournament than that's where your problem is. You're turning this hobby into a job.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The problem with 40k is it can't decide what it wants to be. In 3rd ed. it became a slightly-larger-than-skirmish game, and I personally liked that. Then they just started adding units that would never be seen in a game of that size, flyers, superheavies, wraithknights, riptides, I wasn't even a huge fan of the Land Raider when it came out.

I want to play 1500pt-2000pt games, just without the large-model spam (and also with minimal death start units).

I agree, I don't like the direction the models have taken. It used to be that a Leman Russ or a Wraithlord looked big and imposing on the table, but this has been since skewed by superlarge tanks and walkers. What's worse is that their proportions are the same as the old units, so it messes with your sense of scale (the Wraithknight is particularly bad about this, since it is has regular humanoid proportions).

I really dug the look and feel of the game circa the early 2000's, with tons of little troops and tanks, and the occasional giant alien monster. That sort of scale looks really cool on the table.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
Arms race? Latest and Greatest codex?

Did I fall asleep and now the new Nid and Space Marine codexes are winning every game? I hope not, my Nids liked being the underdogs.

Right. Codex creep - the idea that all new codices are slightly more powerful than the last, has always been a lie.

Yes, we have tau and to a lesser extent, eldar, but we also have DA, CSM, SM, and Tyranid, and those are hardly overpowered armies rolling over everyone. It's pretty hard to make the case for some spiraling arms race when only codices by Mat Ward and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating.

 Ailaros wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
Arms race? Latest and Greatest codex?

Did I fall asleep and now the new Nid and Space Marine codexes are winning every game? I hope not, my Nids liked being the underdogs.

Right. Codex creep - the idea that all new codices are slightly more powerful than the last, has always been a lie.

Yes, we have tau and to a lesser extent, eldar, but we also have DA, CSM, SM, and Tyranid, and those are hardly overpowered armies rolling over everyone. It's pretty hard to make the case for some spiraling arms race when only codices by Mat Ward and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating.

..Oh?

Only Mat Ward? Phil Kelly and Eldar excluded? Considering his 4th edition skimmerspam, his Space Wolves (one of the top three dex in 5th)

And then you have Cruddace, and his IG (One of the top ones in 5th).

Ward's worst never compared to Eldar and Tau, who have drastically changed the meta around themselves.

 Ailaros wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:
Arms race? Latest and Greatest codex?

Did I fall asleep and now the new Nid and Space Marine codexes are winning every game? I hope not, my Nids liked being the underdogs.

Right. Codex creep - the idea that all new codices are slightly more powerful than the last, has always been a lie.

Yes, we have tau and to a lesser extent, eldar, but we also have DA, CSM, SM, and Tyranid, and those are hardly overpowered armies rolling over everyone. It's pretty hard to make the case for some spiraling arms race when only codices by Mat Ward and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating.

You mean, besides that fact that Phil Kelly has broken 3 editions in a row, with his Codexexs?? Are you seriously going to play that stupid?

I'll lay it out for you.

Phil Kelly- Eldar 4th. Dominated the tournament scene when it was released, until 5th toned down skimmers.
Phil Kelly- Space Wolves Dominated the tourney scene with IG, until Grey Knights were released at the end of 5th
Phil Kelly-Eldar 6th. Now dominating the Tourney scene...

3 editions in a row.

Phil Kelly also wrote CSM, and DE, and worked on CSM and tyranid (5th) and Imperial Guard (3.5). I also don't think Space Wolves was that stupid overpowered either. Much more just a few people being pouty about bloodclaws and longfangs.

So once again, it's the codex creep blinders on. You forget all of the good or reasonably balanced codices and focus only on the couple of them that you don't like. It's that kind of disregard for data that makes the idea of codex creep possible.

Plus, in this specific case, the only thing you're showing is that Phil Kelly is a bad eldar writer. Cruddance is bad at writing tyranid, but that doesn't mean all of his other work is overpowered garbage.

 Ailaros wrote:
Phil Kelly also wrote CSM, and DE, and worked on CSM and tyranid (5th) and Imperial Guard (3.5). I also don't think Space Wolves was that stupid overpowered either. Much more just a few people being pouty about bloodclaws and longfangs.

So once again, it's the codex creep blinders on. You forget all of the good or reasonably balanced codices and focus only on the couple of them that you don't like. It's that kind of disregard for data that makes the idea of codex creep possible.

Plus, in this specific case, the only thing you're showing is that Phil Kelly is a bad eldar writer. Cruddance is bad at writing tyranid, but that doesn't mean all of his other work is overpowered garbage.

Does one good codex fix all the others one has to suffer through for an entire edition? The reasonable don't do jack when you have to deal with the errors that continue to plague the system for years to come.

Also CSM is indicative of his natural style, a few must takes, and the rest are trash, it's a poorly written codex that didn't fix any of the errors of the old while adding new issues to deal with, there's a reason it's called Codex: Heldrake considering it's that one unit that's keeping them relevant.

DE was an alright codex, but still had bad internal balance, and how many people liked the 5th edition Tyranids again?

Space Wolves were one of the armies placing very, very highly in tournaments. So yes they were actually one of the armies that dealt with GK on the Tournament scene and placed very well.

And before 5th edition IG was pretty much one of the lowest tier armies on the chart, so it's not as if 3.5 IG was any good if that was your idea of balance.

And as for reasonably balanced or good, I suppose you shouldn't be speaking about ward then, considering his Space Marines and Blood Angels were pretty middle average, his GK were built for 6th, along with necrons.

As of late, I've gone back to Fantasy for pick up games because it's better balanced. I didn't think that'd be a statement I'd ever say whilst 8e magic is as broken as it is, but there we go. See, in Fantasy, I can actually make a good army for ~£250 which I can field and play with. My armies will contain about 70 models in a few units. I can easily then add details to the units, make unit fillers with spare parts etc and bring the cost down further. On top of that, the game is fairly fast to play and there's a lot of comp stuff should you wish to play that way. Every phase of the game, be it movement, magic, shooting or combat, is very important to your army. You must be able to compete in all phases, or at least minimise damage from them or else you will lose. Armies can rarely be constructed in an unfluffy way and even in tournament lists, you'll see that many of the top players have something which you could easily see being in a background story. Should you wish to use a Forge World army, you will be welcomed pretty much everywhere - I'm yet to see any refusal to play Chaos Dwarfs anywhere at all.

Why do I bring this up? Because this is where 40k used to be - cheaper, faster and lower model counts. Instead, we have an extremely bloated rules system with everything being a corner case of a corner case where model counts are regularly huge and the game is more about gaming the system than actually trying to play well in all aspects of the game. Tau and Eldar basically totally ignore the assault phase as anything other than a way to lock up pests and kill tanks - they can easily win without ever seeing combat VS quite a few armies. Movement is so absurdly important in 40k that we have a system where whoever can move furthest with durable units in one turn basically always wins; this was true at the start of 6e with Necron flyers+GK for support, it's still true now with Eldar just zipping around and firing with stupidly durable tanks. Str D is somehow even MORE broken than flipping magic spells - I remember getting super annoyed at the spell which was hard to cast in the lore of metal which just turns you into gold on a 5+ with no chance to save; the fact that there's a gun which does the same on a 2+ in 40k is almost unbelievable. The background is not represented at all in 40k unless you specifically try to, and even then it's not even possible a bunch of the time. The best lists in events are things which are utterly absurd in the face of the fluff, which severs the player base into people who'd rather win and people who'd rather represent the background; a needless and frustrating division for many of us. Games of 1850 points take about 2 and a half hours between experienced players, and about 4 if someone is new to an army, which is dumb. A "good" army in 40k can cost anywhere from £300 (if you're using the jet council) to almost £800 (most horde lists like IG, almost any list with a lot of Forge World, almost any Escalation list by non-Necrons, etc); this not only costs out new players but makes trying to stay with the releases really strenuous. There's absolutely no semblance of balance in any of the rules and there's still a divide over FW as the rules swing so wildly between broken (the R'varna, thudd guns at the start of 6e) and utterly useless (most of the Eldar stuff not called a hornet, all the DE stuff). In contrast to Fantasy, I'm yet to see a single tournament that allows FW army lists; heck, I've seen people refuse to play them in casual games. The community is so divided, so in contempt of GW and the creators that it doesn't trust anything that anyone else says and causes endless arguments. Want Escalation? Be prepared for whining about Revenants from people who dislike it. Want a game without it? Prepare for whining about jet councils from people who like it. It's just a mess. There's no consensus on what's broken, no consensus on what should and shouldn't be allowed, the mere mention of comp to some is an anathema and to others mandatory, allies are broken but not broken according to various groups - the entire thing is a total joke.

Does this mean Fantasy is a good rule set? No, not at all. It's not terrible and only needs minor tweaks but it's still got a lot of issues. The fact that a rule set which made people quit in droves is less bloated, easier to pick up, clearer and more fluid than the current state of 40k is my way of showing what a pile of trash GW has left us with. Pick up games are incredibly hard to set up; rules are split here, there and everywhere; comp is being introduced despite vocal objections; you can't guarantee that if you pick up a box of figure it'll be remotely usable; an entire phase of the game is now more important to stop shooting than it is to actually do damage which is the opposite of the intent; games are regularly won by last minute contests and hiding rather than fighting; Str D is being pushed hard and is the most broken thing in the game by far, worse than 2e virus bombs and to top it all, it can be fairly boring to play rather than actually fun. The system as it stands is only really good for narrative games (which is all I play any more, anything else is a waste of time and takes as much effort to set up) and it's not even particularly good for that due to the non-fluffy powerful units. I absolutely hate what GW has done over the past 2 editions - 5e was decent for tournaments as lots of vehicles circumvented a lot of the bloatedness and was fairly fast to play, but the fact that just making them a bit worse then adding randomness created the slow game of today shows it wasn't a good rule set at all.

I won't lie - I still have fun games in 40k, they're just far fewer than ever. I almost wish Fantasy hadn't died the way it did because honestly, I'd rather play the most brutal, annoying magic gun line in that than almost any normal 40k game against Tau or Eldar, because at least I could still participate in the game and not just play hide and seek. It's a sad state of affairs indeed. I'm going to just take a break from it for a while, see how I feel about it after that but if this trend of garbage doesn't stop, I can't see a reason to play. I have more fun in other systems and if I wanted a frustrating, slow and hard to establish game of something which goes on forever, I'l just play monopoly with someone who hordes houses. At least I don't have to be worried my piece will be redundant in a month because the dog can **** on the pavement and lower property costs then.

 Ailaros wrote:
Phil Kelly also wrote CSM, and DE, and worked on CSM and tyranid (5th) and Imperial Guard (3.5). I also don't think Space Wolves was that stupid overpowered either. Much more just a few people being pouty about bloodclaws and longfangs.

So once again, it's the codex creep blinders on. You forget all of the good or reasonably balanced codices and focus only on the couple of them that you don't like. It's that kind of disregard for data that makes the idea of codex creep possible.

Plus, in this specific case, the only thing you're showing is that Phil Kelly is a bad eldar writer. Cruddance is bad at writing tyranid, but that doesn't mean all of his other work is overpowered garbage.

So, are you backpeddling from your previous statement? Because you said that only Codices by Mat Ward, and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating. This is clearly not the case, as I have demonstrated with Phil Kelly being significantly worse in the codex creep, than either of the two individuals you mentioned, as it is 3 editions in a row that he has caused codex creep to.


Are you going to forget the reasonably balanced Codexes that Matt Ward put out? Like, 5th Edition SM and Blood Angels? GK were shown to be quite balanced, in the edition they were intended for as well. (6th)


It's pretty clear you are the one that has the blinders on here, as you are just picking and choosing what facts you think are convenient. This is pretty much the normal course for your posts though, so I'm not surprised.

 Sasori wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Phil Kelly also wrote CSM, and DE, and worked on CSM and tyranid (5th) and Imperial Guard (3.5). I also don't think Space Wolves was that stupid overpowered either. Much more just a few people being pouty about bloodclaws and longfangs.

So once again, it's the codex creep blinders on. You forget all of the good or reasonably balanced codices and focus only on the couple of them that you don't like. It's that kind of disregard for data that makes the idea of codex creep possible.

Plus, in this specific case, the only thing you're showing is that Phil Kelly is a bad eldar writer. Cruddance is bad at writing tyranid, but that doesn't mean all of his other work is overpowered garbage.

So, are you backpeddling from your previous statement? Because you said that only Codices by Mat Ward, and one by Jeremy Vetock have been participating. This is clearly not the case, as I have demonstrated with Phil Kelly being significantly worse in the codex creep, than either of the two individuals you mentioned, as it is 3 editions in a row that he has caused codex creep to.


Are you going to forget the reasonably balanced Codexes that Matt Ward put out? Like, 5th Edition SM and Blood Angels? GK were shown to be quite balanced, in the edition they were intended for as well. (6th)


It's pretty clear you are the one that has the blinders on here, as you are just picking and choosing what facts you think are convenient. This is pretty much the normal course for your posts though, so I'm not surprised.

True enough it seems.