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.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

I miss Witchhunters versus Blood Angels and not all their friends.

I wish that when 6E was released, everyone got a flyer. We have armies with no dedicated AA STILL.

 TheKbob wrote:
Is Warhammer 40k really that bad?

charging the highest prices in the industry for gaming material, hobby supplies, and models.

I actually find "some" of their line competitive. The starter set is very good value. Some of the plastic boxsets are decent (wraithguard which I bought for example, a lot of options, that are built very easily indeed). The $10 per model for this size is quite normal (FOW tanks are now $11 each for similar, or smaller size). Finecast is another story and is a joke IMHO, I will be looking for metal characters or converting my own.

besides, I purchased my Ghostwarrior box for $270 and have both codexes for free so I shouldn't complain.

Meh, we never needed flyers except as for something for GW to put out that everyone didn't have already just to get new revenue streams. Half of the flyer rules are similar to the old VDR rules for flyers, and lots of people didn't even like those.

But I agree with you. It's crazy that I can "wax nostalgic" about mono-lists.

 TheKbob wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

I miss Witchhunters versus Blood Angels and not all their friends.

I wish that when 6E was released, everyone got a flyer. We have armies with no dedicated AA STILL.

All this.

Back when I actually gave 6th a try I refuse (and still do) to be forced to buy fething scenery as part of my army. Aside from it being a transparent cash grab (note how all the 40k scenery got a price bump when 6h came out) it makes zero sense to me that a mobile strike force like Space Marines bring along bunkers and barricades with them.

Come again?

Tell me where it says the army brought the scenery with them

bullyboy wrote:

I don't see random psyker powers as a bad thing.

Random psychic powers, from a game design, wouldn't be a bad thing if they were all created relatively equal. However, we know that not every power and not every table is as good as each other. The Telekinesis and Pyromancy tables are generally ignored. Biomancy and Telepathy are main stays of Chaos based armies and Divination runs rampant in Eldar and the Imperium.

Not all psychic powers are created equal within said tables. We know that divination is chock full of good ones. However, granting a 4++ invulnerable save to 50 fearless conscripts has a HUGE game changing element. Misfortune can take heavily resilient units and crush them. The efficiency increase from Prescience is astounding for many, already good units.

Previously, psychic powers would cost points to balance their uneven levels of power. By being able to select powers, you'd also have better ability to control army strategies. Most armies that need a specific power stack psykers to increase their odds of landing the required power. Otherwise, we can see a Mastery Level 1 Psyker with Prescience and know what's generally going to happen. Personally, I would love to be able to take Scrier's Gaze more often if I could develop a reserve base list developed on the concept of complete reserves control. Since I cannot rely on getting this power, building an entire army on the concept would not work.

So, as implemented, random psychic powers are bad when they are not created equal in power; with such hard swings as being back breaking (Fortune/Misfortune) to nigh worthless depending on what you're playing (Scrier's Gaze for an army with zero reserves or zero strategy of reserves).

bullyboy wrote:

A commander would not be a good commander if he didn't have a wide range of tactical prowess.

Aye, fair enough in theory. In practice though he gets the ability to infiltrate even though he's arriving by drop pod, or some other stupidity that completely disconnects you from the game.

A wide range of tactical prowess makes sense, having it randomly assigned isn't...

Tell me where it says the army brought the scenery with them

Uh....the terrain placement phase?

It's convenient when a patrol can strike deep into the enemy lines, but still within a stones throw of their own defense lines and bastions.

Lots of times my entire Epic army does not have AA ability where aircraft can be a large part of the game, yet it's pretty much a given that you should take an Aegis line in 40K, in which the action represents 1/10 of an Epic battlefield (or more accurately, one single phase of a turn between two formations).

This thread is quite the cry-fest.

The game is the best it has ever been in a lot of ways but people don't want to acknowledge or objectively discuss any of the mechanics because they want it back how it was when they started because 2nd/3rd/4th/5th edition was CLEARLY superior.

Yawn.

If you note the history edition to edition you will see why a lot of these things make sense:

Clunky unwieldy and bloated game mechanics.

Any mechanic that has been changed from a previous edition has either been changed to add depth or streamline it, or changed for purposes of dealing with an outstanding issue from before. I'd like to see a list of these, because frankly wound allocation, when psychic powers happen, infiltrating and scouting with attached characters, how to place terrain, how cover works, and

Lack of direction in the game.

Actually that whole "Forging the Narrative" is a pretty clear direction in the game. There is not only "Competitive" or "Non Competitive" games.

Random tables for everything as a poor substitute for genuine strategy,

This happens to deal with things people min-max, and it is a good way of including mechanics that do not need to be balanced against each other as tightly. Psychic powers are wildly different from each other and to balance them, they would have to be "equal"...making what we've had for two editions now, some powers way too good and other ones too crappy. The psychic powers are able to be a lot more spread out in terms of power level if you don't have the choice of which to have all the time (incidentally, kiss your Prescience goodbye come 7th, netlisters ). Generally this is a sensible design decision -- otherwise the definite best powers are all that ever get used and the Psyker HQs become way better than their counterparts because they always get an awesome ability that outclasses the other HQ's. I know, I know "they should make them equally valuable" well I'm sorry we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that a guy shouting out an order or holding a banner is going to need to be less useful than a guy warping reality so he can move faster than time and space is.

Wound allocations.

You bring this, the single most strategic aspect of gameplay in 6th edition, up right after saying the game has no genuine strategy? Point taken... Also in virtually every shooting situation and most assault situations, wound allocation is fast and easy now, compared to a min-maxing nightmare of weirdness last edition. This is a HUGE step forward, probably the best change of the edition as it makes so much more of gameplay fast and intuitive, AND adds strategic depth. Stop putting your HQ on the edge of your squads.

Flyers very poorly implemented.

Compared to what? They've never been in the game before, and I think they are pretty effectively implemented other than one oversight (the fact that they shoot at the ground easily while in the sky, and thus have no real reason to ever slow down and become vulnerable).

Lack of balance (always an issue)

This is a vague term everyone gets all excited about throwing around, the point values book to book are relative only to what else is in that book as GW has said many many times since 5th edition, So saying a thing from one book is imbalanced against another is patently ridiculous, and is further rendered moot by the fact that the allies system grants several armies the option of the game's best units and formations.

Sloppy codex design.

These are the most beautiful books they have ever produced, in full color. But I assume you are talking about the actual lists and such. I just don't see it. When was the last serious need for an FAQ? Things like "are grenades weapons I can swap out?" Come on. The page in each codex with the wargear lists are explicit of what you can and can't take, and only very rarely is there ever more than momentary confusion (i.e. Space Marine codex and the having-more-than-one-artifact thing). Go look at YMDC, man. People aren't asking questions becomes of codex confusion, they are asking question because of corner-case scenarios (a lot of which probably don't even happen, but are theoretical and ultra-rare).

Price hikes.

The only legitimate complaint so far.

Lack of company support for the community.

This cesspool? If I were them I wouldn't spend money on this venomous, arrogant fanbase getting support either. 40k players are among the most disdainful I've ever encountered in tabletop gaming, so much so that I started my own club almost entirely as a refuge against people who play this game but hate it, and have been successful because of that. That shouldn't be a thing that happens.

5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative". They made far too many changes to the game that are simply unilateral. Change for the sake of change.
The development of the game moves sideways, not forward as a result. My biggest bugbear being wound allocation. Yes, it needed tweaking (but only then only a handful of units could abuse it, for the most part it was fine) not completely overhauling into a system that is more appropriate for a game the scale of Warmachine and not 40k where some factions can run armies into the triple figures.

This bit is mind-boggling to me. 6th Edition wound allocation is fast and easy in the majority of cases, almost intuitively so. I teach new players a lot and have seen people learn literally by saying only the words "It's the closest guy first" and being done with it. Actling like 5E needed a minor tweak is ridiculous, and the guys saying we should just pick who dies is even more ridiculous because it doesn't acknowledge the fact that there needs to be a way for us to intuitively and quickly threaten a unit's best models with strategic approaches and tactical skill. It makes it EASIER to remove casualties for a large unit, not harder. It was also revolutionary in that it made the positioning of important models matter more than ever before. How was this "change for the sake of change" when it is probably the source of almost all the on-the-table strategy? It's made model placement second in important only to list building, IMO.

Practically everything is random? The terrain, psychic powers, and the charge range is random. Most of which were good changes as I've already described (the terrain changed because the same reason the psychic powers were, because we as players always min-max and you can't (really) min-max random things.

And all these vague complaints, as usual, result in the game being declared an unplayable mess. I wish some of you guys would encounter an actually broken ruined game and get some perspective, man -- this hyperbole is off the charts.

6th is the version with the least stupid immersion breaking meta-gamey crap going on and for that reason I consider it the best so far. I could go on all day about the previous two iterations and their myriad more serious issues this edition addressed.

bullyboy wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Is Warhammer 40k really that bad?

charging the highest prices in the industry for gaming material, hobby supplies, and models.

I actually find "some" of their line competitive. The starter set is very good value. Some of the plastic boxsets are decent (wraithguard which I bought for example, a lot of options, that are built very easily indeed). The $10 per model for this size is quite normal (FOW tanks are now $11 each for similar, or smaller size). Finecast is another story and is a joke IMHO, I will be looking for metal characters or converting my own.

besides, I purchased my Ghostwarrior box for $270 and have both codexes for free so I shouldn't complain.

Some is competitive, I agree. But not their special characters in cheap plastic or finecast, or the realization, such as Fantasy, that even if appropriately priced, you'd need 80 models to make an effective unit for some armies, thus multiplying the box price by 4-8 times. Yes, a unit of Bane Knights is $85 for Warmachine, but those are larger scale models in metal and $8/metal mini isn't that bad of a price. When Privateer Press moved the Bane Thralls from metal to resin, they dropped $20, as they should.

The price per model is the more subjective comment of the three, however within their own little realm, their costs are mostly ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This thread is quite the cry-fest.

I have not "cried" a single bit, nor posted something so inflammatory. So you should probably first look at yourself and why you're posting. Next, look at what someone like myself has posted and dispute facts of the matter. And that fact is Games Workshop sees you as a walking wallet and has gone so far as saying such in a court of law, where lying is crime.

So defend that.

bullyboy wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

bullyboy wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Yes it is.


5th was the best edition IMO. Sure, it had its faults but it was nowhere near 6th's utter stupidity, where practically everything is random "forging the narrative".

I don't see that much random, what are you referring to? You still decide where to move, who to shoot at, when to assault if you choose to, etc.

Random psychic powers...

Random charge distance...

Random warlord traits (so my commander has a different set of abilities today than the dud yesterday... Yeah, there's forging the narrative)

Mysterious terrain...

Basically, 'choice' replaced with 'roll on table x' because gw aren't interested in balance, viable options across the board or playtesting to fix things.

I don't see random psyker powers as a bad thing. Charge distances is probably problematic, will have to see. Warlord Traits didn't exist when i played so adding something in, even if random, is not that big of a deal. A commander would not be a good commander if he didn't have a wide range of tactical prowess.

Overall, 'm not buying that randomness is rampant in this ruleset, and isn't the reason for the hostility of many players.

Allow me to firstly address random psychic powers.

From a fluff perspective, it makes no sense, especially when we have models that represent races or individuals that are supposed to be superlative at manipulating their powers to achieve their ends.

Secondly, from a gameplay perspective, the utility of the powers is uneven, with some bordering on broken, some near useless in any situation, some whose utility is connected to who is using them.

This prevents a player from making any sort of advance planning in his list,unless he is willing to take huge gambles with what he will roll.

Warlord Traits one can level similar criticisms at, except that, in general, they aren't hugely influential, so less critical. For instance, the previous two games in a row, I've rolled the "+1 to reserves roll for your Warlord and his unit" trait for my Bloodthirster. The issue with this is a) he can't be attached to a unit, so it only applies to him, and b) reserving anything in an assault based army like daemons needs a very good reason, otherwise you're simply diluting your threat saturation and preventing a unit from inflicting any real damage for an extra turn. The last game I roll the one that confers armour and fleshbane - much more useful. Now, if I wanted to "forge a narrative" that really disrupts the consistency of my Bloodthrister as a persistent character, and as a player, the wide variation in utility again, like psychic powers, is just irritating.

What it all boils down to though, is every thing, in army creation or during the game, which is randomly determined, divorces the player from influencing the result by one more notch. Now, in the context of if shots hit, wound etc, this is somewhat appropriate, and the probability of that can be influenced by good target choices etc., to produce the best possible outcome.

Arbitrary rolls on arbitrary tables contribute very little to the player experience (except maybe Orks, as that's the army's character, and anyone attracted to them is likely going to enjoy it) and are probably more likely to generate a negative (rolling something useless) for the player, or negative for his opponent (rolling a broken/borderline broken combo or power/effect that is extra effective against their list) than it is a positive.

EDIT
The design studio also seem to be using random in lieu of balance too, at least in some cases, and that is poor game design.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

I miss Witchhunters versus Blood Angels and not all their friends.

I wish that when 6E was released, everyone got a flyer. We have armies with no dedicated AA STILL.

All this.

Back when I actually gave 6th a try I refuse (and still do) to be forced to buy fething scenery as part of my army. Aside from it being a transparent cash grab (note how all the 40k scenery got a price bump when 6h came out) it makes zero sense to me that a mobile strike force like Space Marines bring along bunkers and barricades with them.

Come again?

since our group doesn't use fliers, all these fortifications probably won;t be used. If they are, it will probably be with a defensive themed list with a mission that creates a "siege" like mentality. At least both players would know ahead of time.

bullyboy wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Anyone remember when Universal Special Rules came out in 4th edition, and there were 22 of them spread across three pages? And not every single model in the game had a USR attached to it?

I miss that simplicity.

I miss Witchhunters versus Blood Angels and not all their friends.

I wish that when 6E was released, everyone got a flyer. We have armies with no dedicated AA STILL.

All this.

Back when I actually gave 6th a try I refuse (and still do) to be forced to buy fething scenery as part of my army. Aside from it being a transparent cash grab (note how all the 40k scenery got a price bump when 6h came out) it makes zero sense to me that a mobile strike force like Space Marines bring along bunkers and barricades with them.

Come again?

since our group doesn't use fliers, all these fortifications probably won;t be used. If they are, it will probably be with a defensive themed list with a mission that creates a "siege" like mentality. At least both players would know ahead of time.

Yes, but that is not 40k that is homebrew. And while there is nothing wrong with homebrew, thats not what you asked us. I you had asked us if homebrew 40k was bad the answer would most certainly be no, provided of course you have other people who will agree to it as well.

 TheKbob wrote:
[b]

If you want some actual discussion from someone more accredited than my research, start here:

http://masterminis.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-future-of-games-days-games-workshop.html

It's a 13 part series on how Games Workshop is not looking good. Who this gentleman is and what his credentials are can be found on the first page. Plus, he sells a great product in the minis scene too. I recommend it.

Until Games Workshop shows that I am more than a walking wallet, I will be forgoing purchases. I have been since the December to Remember event. The same expenditures for one 40k army have given me a three armies in three different skirmish games. Two of which I've been supported by company supported volunteers who aid in the growth and development of their communities.

That was a very well written series by someone that's obviously educated in the field. Thanks for sharing.

As an aside, I am of a similar mindset, although perhaps more aggressive in my shift to other games. I've actually liquidated all of my 40K at this point and that marks the first time I've done that since I've started gaming (mabe 15+ years now?). I have good gaming buddies and we had done our best at shoring up wonky rules, limiting power builds, etc.--but at some point, between work, children and life--you just want a clean game you can crack a beer and play, without having discussions on how to interpret rules (or finding one particular army you've collected is the rock to your friends scissors).

I've been playing Warmahordes for some time and haven't looked back. They spend some capital on developing a more nuanced background and long term, I can see PP moving in an even greater portion of disgruntled 40K players.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:


As an aside, I am of a similar mindset, although perhaps more aggressive in my shift to other games. I've actually liquidated all of my 40K at this point and that marks the first time I've done that since I've started gaming (mabe 15+ years now?). I have good gaming buddies and we had done our best at shoring up wonky rules, limiting power builds, etc.--but at some point, between work, children and life--you just want a clean game you can crack a beer and play, without having discussions on how to interpret rules (or finding one particular army you've collected is the rock to your friends scissors).

I've been playing Warmahordes for some time and haven't looked back. They spend some capital on developing a more nuanced background and long term, I can see PP moving in an even greater portion of disgruntled 40K players.

Two of my armies are collections; the Paladins being a six month long labor of love and my Sisters being the army I have always wanted. They may very well soon get "Tupperware'd" by removing the foam from my bags, putting them in tupperware, and storing under my bed.

The Eldar army sitting in boxes on my shelf is my "anti-GW" drug right now. It stops me from buying new stuff because I can't justify another army with a really good one on the shelf. I don't have a wife and kids (cat doesn't count...), so I have the disposable income and time to not really care. I have been playing more skirmish games lately, though.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
This thread is quite the cry-fest.

The game is the best it has ever been in a lot of ways but people don't want to acknowledge or objectively discuss any of the mechanics because they want it back how it was when they started because 2nd/3rd/4th/5th edition was CLEARLY superior.

Yawn.

If you note the history edition to edition you will see why a lot of these things make sense:

ha. cute. Im quite happy to objectively discuss things, and funnily enough, i dont see the need to have things back at 4th ed when i started. 40k doesnt get better, it merely changes. ten years ago, folks moaned about all sorts of things. they still do now.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Clunky unwieldy and bloated game mechanics.

Any mechanic that has been changed from a previous edition has either been changed to add depth or streamline it, or changed for purposes of dealing with an outstanding issue from before. I'd like to see a list of these, because frankly wound allocation, when psychic powers happen, infiltrating and scouting with attached characters, how to place terrain, how cover works, and

Indeed. why, for example do i use a different system for damaging vehicles than infantry? games like infinity, starship troopers, and warmachine use a universal resolution mechanism. 40k? two, because why? bloat. why do i use strength to beat through vehicle armour, with AP being meaningless, but againsy infantry, i use AP to determine if i get through armour? really? bloat. its an excessive second layer of mechanics that really add nothing. How about the three-roll system? roll to hit/wound/save and then you've got FNP and whatever rolls. Compared to the sublime and beautiful system in infinity where you roll to hit (mods from distance/cover) and then roll to save against the power of the weapon that hit you. beautiful. 40k. lots of extra rolls that add nothing. Why the disctinction between walkers and MCs? its arbitrary, and kinda pointless.

also fenris, GW has a habit of changing mechanics to fix previous problems that just add a whole new layer of problems. take for example how they "fixed" third editions rhino rush in fourth. they turned transports into coffins and utterly ruined a whole playstyle for people.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
T

Random tables for everything as a poor substitute for genuine strategy,

This happens to deal with things people min-max, and it is a good way of including mechanics that do not need to be balanced against each other as tightly. Psychic powers are wildly different from each other and to balance them, they would have to be "equal"...making what we've had for two editions now, some powers way too good and other ones too crappy. The psychic powers are able to be a lot more spread out in terms of power level if you don't have the choice of which to have all the time (incidentally, kiss your Prescience goodbye come 7th, netlisters ). Generally this is a sensible design decision -- otherwise the definite best powers are all that ever get used and the Psyker HQs become way better than their counterparts because they always get an awesome ability that outclasses the other HQ's. I know, I know "they should make them equally valuable" well I'm sorry we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that a guy shouting out an order or holding a banner is going to need to be less useful than a guy warping reality so he can move faster than time and space is.

and yet some psychic disiplines are better than others. sensible? yeah, fair enough, but it comes at the expense of choice. random is not a substitute.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Lack of direction in the game.

Actually that whole "Forging the Narrative" is a pretty clear direction in the game. There is not only "Competitive" or "Non Competitive" games.

Indeed. lack of direction. what is 40k supposed to represent? Is it a platoon scale skirmish game? yet its got elements in it more appropriate to an army engagement (fliers, artillery, titans etc etc) whilst simultaneously micro managing each individual soldier to a level that is more appropriate in a skirmish game of twenty models a side. So yeah, lack of direction. 40k tries to be everything. but in trying to be everything, it fails because it doesnt have a clear direction, or design goal.

"forge the narrative". yeah, thats all well and good, but it cant fix the mess that it doesnt know what its supposed to be.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Wound allocations.

You bring this, the single most strategic aspect of gameplay in 6th edition, up right after saying the game has no genuine strategy? Point taken... Also in virtually every shooting situation and most assault situations, wound allocation is fast and easy now, compared to a min-maxing nightmare of weirdness last edition. This is a HUGE step forward, probably the best change of the edition as it makes so much more of gameplay fast and intuitive, AND adds strategic depth. Stop putting your HQ on the edge of your squads.

So why is it my highly skilled sniper team can only shoot the guy closest to them instead of being able to pick out officers and the guy with the meltagun? hmm? Its hardly "strategic" as you claim Fenris - its just a bloated mechanic. plus the constant measuring to "whats closest" gets tiring. there are far easier ways of implementing "which guy dies".

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Flyers very poorly implemented.

Compared to what? They've never been in the game before, and I think they are pretty effectively implemented other than one oversight (the fact that they shoot at the ground easily while in the sky, and thus have no real reason to ever slow down and become vulnerable).

compared to other games for a start?

40k games are the wrong scale for flyers. epic is where they belong.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Lack of balance (always an issue)

This is a vague term everyone gets all excited about throwing around, the point values book to book are relative only to what else is in that book as GW has said many many times since 5th edition, So saying a thing from one book is imbalanced against another is patently ridiculous, and is further rendered moot by the fact that the allies system grants several armies the option of the game's best units and formations.

indeed. allies are the saving grace for tyranids. oh, wait....

to be fair, i'll agree with you that you can't simply compare 100pts of X to 100pts of Y. the rest of the army comes into play. but its still the case that some units are vastly more powerful than others, and some codices are vastly more powerful than others.

not that i care. im quite enjoying the state of play with Privateer Press games.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Sloppy codex design.

These are the most beautiful books they have ever produced, in full color. But I assume you are talking about the actual lists and such. I just don't see it. When was the last serious need for an FAQ? Things like "are grenades weapons I can swap out?" Come on. The page in each codex with the wargear lists are explicit of what you can and can't take, and only very rarely is there ever more than momentary confusion (i.e. Space Marine codex and the having-more-than-one-artifact thing). Go look at YMDC, man. People aren't asking questions becomes of codex confusion, they are asking question because of corner-case scenarios (a lot of which probably don't even happen, but are theoretical and ultra-rare).
.

Lists? no sir, please ask me what i mean before assuming. it just makes you look bad. because as it stands, you've gotten it completely wrong, and just walked right into it...

what do i mean by "sloppy"? simply put, whats in it. I found everything i've read in sixth, bar farsight enclaves simply to be poor quality. I loved the fifth edition codices - i consider them to be the high water mark. space wolves? BA? Dark eldar? Orks? especially orks. Imperial Guard? brilliant reads - each and every one. then i had codex grey knights which was absurd, followed by codex:comedy robots (necrons). It just felt the fluff was written for twelve year olds. it was all so... kiddy. they were lacking soul. to me, they were simply not enjoyable on any level. And sadly, most of what i've come across in sixth hasnt done anything for me. i actually sold the chaos codex to a friend, i was so disapointed with it - and im one of those silly people that never sells books! sloppy? yeah, i genuinely mean that, and i say it with great sadness.

 Fenris Frost wrote:

Lack of company support for the community.

This cesspool? If I were them I wouldn't spend money on this venomous, arrogant fanbase getting support either. 40k players are among the most disdainful I've ever encountered in tabletop gaming, so much so that I started my own club almost entirely as a refuge against people who play this game but hate it, and have been successful because of that. That shouldn't be a thing that happens.

compared to what we get from Privateer Press in terms of endorsed and fully supported tournaments, prizes, contests, company feedback etc. yeah, its a big deal. and believe me, the PP community is very much on board and appreciative.

but i'll agree with you - 40k communities are on the whole, extremely toxix. an amusing term i heard for a group of 40k players is a "whine" of 40k players. holds true...

 Fenris Frost wrote:

6th is the version with the least stupid immersion breaking meta-gamey crap going on and for that reason I consider it the best so far. I could go on all day about the previous two iterations and their myriad more serious issues this edition addressed.

its better compared to third, fourth and fifth is hardly indicative of quality.

compared to games like Infinity and Warmachine, 40k simply doesnt rate at all for me.

but fair play, each to their own

Indeed. why, for example do i use a different system for damaging vehicles than infantry? games like infinity, starship troopers, and warmachine use a universal resolution mechanism. 40k? two, because why? bloat. why do i use strength to beat through vehicle armour, with AP being meaningless, but againsy infantry, i use AP to determine if i get through armour? really? bloat. its an excessive second layer of mechanics that really add nothing. How about the three-roll system? roll to hit/wound/save and then you've got FNP and whatever rolls. Compared to the sublime and beautiful system in infinity where you roll to hit (mods from distance/cover) and then roll to save against the power of the weapon that hit you. beautiful. 40k. lots of extra rolls that add nothing. Why the disctinction between walkers and MCs? its arbitrary, and kinda pointless.

The Universal table of resolution was one of the absolutely great things about Rackham's games called AT-43, and Confrontation: Age of Ragnorok.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Indeed. why, for example do i use a different system for damaging vehicles than infantry? games like infinity, starship troopers, and warmachine use a universal resolution mechanism. 40k? two, because why? bloat. why do i use strength to beat through vehicle armour, with AP being meaningless, but againsy infantry, i use AP to determine if i get through armour? really? bloat. its an excessive second layer of mechanics that really add nothing. How about the three-roll system? roll to hit/wound/save and then you've got FNP and whatever rolls. Compared to the sublime and beautiful system in infinity where you roll to hit (mods from distance/cover) and then roll to save against the power of the weapon that hit you. beautiful. 40k. lots of extra rolls that add nothing. Why the disctinction between walkers and MCs? its arbitrary, and kinda pointless.

The Universal table of resolution was one of the absolutely great things about Rackham's games called AT-43, and Confrontation: Age of Ragnorok.

That's a major problem of 40k. The AV system should be entirely eliminated as it's horribly balanced and makes Monstrous Creatures far more powerful than any similar vehicle just for the simple reason it has almost no chance of being removed from play by one shot.

MCs aren't as bad as they were in 4th edition, when they were hideously undercosted and vehicles were even more nerfed.

The Wounds/AV problem as been discussed a lot, and while I see a lot of merit in breaking it down into one single factor, I don't think that's practical without either making vehiciles highly suseptical to small arms or nearly immune to even mid range weapons.

the problem is that, say, T6 is wounded half the time by a scatter laser/multi laser/assault cannon, but is still wounded on 6's by a lasgun! You can argue that's not a bad thing, as lasguns should hurt very light vehicles, but it would take some balancing.

(compare and contrast Landspeeders, which hate S6 but shrug off small arms, to Attack Bikes, which hate both but die quicker to voluem of fire).

Could always make vehicles into creatures again, like in Rogue Trader?

Then everything in the game is affected similarly by attacks.


Or make weapons like 2nd edition, where high strength of a Lascannon meant it was good at penetrating vehicles, while the number of wounds it inflicted made it equally deadly to multi-wound large creatures. Made perfect sense to me back then, as either kind of target could be one-shotted if lucky.

The rules are pretty gash. Then again GW have always been pants at writing rules. However the lore/setting/models are great, so it really depends what you want out of the game. I enjoy it, but then I'm not a competitive player.

 Polonius wrote:
MCs aren't as bad as they were in 4th edition, when they were hideously undercosted and vehicles were even more nerfed.

The Wounds/AV problem as been discussed a lot, and while I see a lot of merit in breaking it down into one single factor, I don't think that's practical without either making vehiciles highly suseptical to small arms or nearly immune to even mid range weapons.

the problem is that, say, T6 is wounded half the time by a scatter laser/multi laser/assault cannon, but is still wounded on 6's by a lasgun! You can argue that's not a bad thing, as lasguns should hurt very light vehicles, but it would take some balancing.

(compare and contrast Landspeeders, which hate S6 but shrug off small arms, to Attack Bikes, which hate both but die quicker to voluem of fire).

You wouldn't make a vehicle T6. A DE aircraft might be T6 as it's a risk vs. reward device, but a Rhino would be T8; Av 12 = T9, Av 13, 14 = T10. Then you can add variety with amount of wounds and armor saves. An Av14 Monolith should be T10, W6, Sv2+, 5++ suggesting that it's sheer weight and density makes it an unstoppable field presence (as it is in the fluff, not just one melta gun away from debris).

You can balance it out by giving certain weapons "Vehicle Hunter" special rule so that anything still identified as vehicles would be easily injured by them, or unsaved wounds are doubled. Make them immune to poison, to boot.

I love how people always paint PP as this example of a perfect company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a great company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

Oh go on, you can't leave us hanging here. At least back up your statement with a story.

I too have to agree that the 6th Edition BRB is probably the best GW has ever put out. They have streamlined, clarified and explained many things that were unclear and hotly contested before. Sadly their Codex writing hasn't been kept as tight.

But all the random crap really gets my goat (and I feel like getting my coat). Random terrain features? Random warlord traits? Random psychic powers? Random harassment of the enemy as in CD Warp Storm table? Throw it out, all of it! Especially since many armies still are stuck with random, often bad, warlord traits when those with new books have traits tailored to be useful for their special characters.

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a perfect company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

I'm curious what's behind that assertion.

PP is stupidly expensive (aside from the basic box games and a few of the larger restic infantry units), but they put out a really polished game. I'm not willing to annoint them as always great, any more than I'd consider GW to always be bad. I think PP serves its fan base with a superior gaming product, though.

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a perfect company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

While I was doing other digging, I found this:



When's the last time we saw Jervis Johson post on his companies forums directly to a lowly customer?

I, too, would like to know how they sold out. As it stands, they are offering a well priced product for what you get with plenty of customer support. And wouldn't selling out imply they've gone public and/or sold the company for profit in some fashion that why wash their hands; in it for the bucks?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:
I love how people always paint PP as this example of a great company that loves it is fans, as if PP has not screwed over an entire community and refuse to admit that they sold out.

Oh go on, you can't leave us hanging here. At least back up your statement with a story.

Ever hear of Monsterpocalypse? probably not, it was a pre-painted miniature war-game, that was doing quite well with a good community tournaments held in major conventions and nice promos. Then back in 2010 they made a deal with dreamworks to make Monpoc movie, and after 2011 gencon it just stopped. Privateer Press still maintains that they are working on something but they said that 2 or 3 years ago, now the offical forums are nearly dead with only a few dedicated players left. Even the fan based tournament like the ones held be team Covenant are starting to go away.

But that isn't the bad part, I can understand if the game was costing them money to stop making it, but they have never admitted the game was dead. Leaving it in a sort of limbo for the players.There are some rumors, never confirmed though, that dreamworks offered them more money than they would have made off of MonPoc in a reasonable amount of time. Honestly I personally beleive this because I can not think of another reason as to why they did what they did. This is of course a rushed version and I'm sure if you looked into it you would find much better stated and more researched answers online.

Edit- I would like to point out that PP is still a good company, just not the perfect one everyone makes them out to be.

I don't think everyone is making them out to be perfect, just better.

Let's be honest, given the frame of reference, better doesn't even have to be that good!

 azreal13 wrote:
I don't think everyone is making them out to be perfect, just better.

Let's be honest, given the frame of reference, better doesn't even have to be that good!

I agree with you there, I still like PP and play Warmahordes.