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.

 Ailaros wrote:

daviszero wrote:I prefer more tactic minded games.

Then ignore everything else. If you want a real tactics game, then you've got to play a real tactics game, like Chess or Go, or any of a huge pile of them.

Don't waste your money on a dice game, warmachine, 40k, or otherwise.

That's the single most inaccurate thing I've ever seen you say, Ailaros. You're using hyperbole to paint a black and white picture that's far from the truth. There are plenty of games out there that use dice but still require a great deal of strategy and tactics. 40k just isn't one of them anymore. I've been playing since RT and I'd advise against starting up with 40k. Here are my reasons.
1. The company is rotting from the inside, doesn't respect its customers/player base and doesn't deserve to be supported.
2. The game is becoming more pay to win with each addition. The rules are now more about getting you to buy models than having fun in the game.
3. It's much more expensive to get a good sized game with 40k. (1,500 pts more or less.) Other games you can get good sized armies for half the price or less.
4. Rule books are too expensive and might now be coming out every two years.
5. With the FOC now gone, armies can be anything which makes finding even/fair matches that much harder for pick up games. Great for small groups of like-minded people, but lousy for strangers.
6. There are better games out there. The other games support fluffy, casual and competitive type gamers. So, whatever style you play, you're good to go.

Keep in mind that these are my opinions and you may find the new craziness incredibly fun. Maybe money's no object and you don't care about the price. To each his own.

@jasper76

I... you're actually joking.

No?

Ok. Considering the entire 40K forum has been talking about Daemon factory, and the fact the GW officially sanctioned it in the FAQs should tell you it's not just a "local thing". In fact, a lot of people have something to say over it.

Or are you going to say that the imbalances 40K presents now, as well as the problems still prevalent from 6th, are just a "local thing"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Considering I'm priced out in the UK as well, (let alone, say, Australia, NZ, Canada, and so on) - I guess that's a "Local thing"?

Really.

 jasper76 wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:
It's fun, if you can work past the myriad problems with the game.

I doubt OP wants to deal with Daemon factory, for example. Screamerstar?

I'm sorry, but I cannot in good conscience recommend 40K to anyone now. The price alone is bad enough, then we move onto the game's problems...

This must be a local thing. I mean, I never even bothered to look up what precisely is meant by Daemon Factory or whatever its called...I can only assume it is Pink Horrors summoning Pink Horrors summoning Pink Horrors ad infinitum to fill up the board up to secure all objectives.

Who in their right mind would want to play that army, as anything other than a 1-off novelty? Maybe at tournaments for prizes I guess. Noone I know would even play it as a novelty.

Some players aren't looking for anything reasonable, like socialization. They can't be house-ruled, reasoned, gentleman's agreement, or negotiated with. Some players, just want to watch the game burn.

@liquidjoshi

Nope, was not joking, Sorry if you took offense. All I mean is someone local to your area or areas you play in will actually have to procure and possibly assemble and paint a whole gak ton of...Pink Horrors. In my local area, I'll worry about it when I see it...if I do, the dude will 95% be a total stranger, and that player will then have to invite me to play, because it seems like a real snoozer.

If the guy was wearing a pink hat, pink pants, pink shoes, or any combination thereof, I would go ahead and ask him for a game.

P.S. Honest ?...what does "I'm priced out" mean?

 StarTrotter wrote:

daviszero wrote:
I prefer more depth than chess. Plus I like the models

Tip here. When it comes to this, just ignore Ailaros. Don't get me wrong, he's right on many things but there are many wargames that are just fine. It doesn't need to be perfect balance for serious tactical excercise, heck, Chess isn't even balanced. Wargames can be tactical but don't look at 40k for it. Warmachine, X-Wing, Drop Zone. Go for those for a more tactical match.

I'm going to be the third or fourth guy saying this, but ignore Ailaros on this topic. He has a very... interesting view of wargaming. Extreme black and white thinking, which he generally provides a source to support, and that source is always his own blog.

If games can be viewed on a spectrum of player agency, with chess at one end and Candyland at the other, 40k has been edging towards the Candyland side with each new edition. There are much better wargames for tactical play, and they are pretty much universally cheaper and better written. There's been an explosion of new or newly popular wargames in recent years. I would advise you to look around and see what you like and what people around you are playing before you even consider 40k again. You can end up with rules and armies for multiple other equally enjoyable game systems for the same price as one 1750pt 40k force. Hell you could start playing Infinity and X-Wing both for just the cost of the 40k rulebook.

MWHistorian wrote:There are plenty of games out there that use dice but still require a great deal of strategy and tactics.

No there aren't.

The fact that the success or failure of your actions are determined randomly throws any serious strategy out the window. Any game where a person can win a game just because they're lucky isn't real strategy. It's a conflict of its very definition.

Some dice games use fewer random effects, but that makes them slightly less not a serious strategy game. Any game that uses dice will never be even remotely in the same league as ones that don't.

 Ailaros wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:There are plenty of games out there that use dice but still require a great deal of strategy and tactics.

No there aren't.

The fact that the success or failure of your actions are determined randomly throws any serious strategy out the window. Any game where a person can win a game just because they're lucky isn't real strategy. It's a conflict of its very definition.

Some dice games use fewer random effects, but that makes them slightly less not a serious strategy game. Any game that uses dice will never be even remotely in the same league as ones that don't.

But most of them are STILL better at allowing some semblance of tactics and strategy than 40k. Maybe not "serious strategy" but a lot more than 40k offers, which is barely any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
P.S. Honest ?...what does "I'm priced out" mean?

Typically means "I want to play, but don't want to pay the insane costs to begin playing" in the context of 40k. At least that's how I use it when I talk about being priced out of 40k.

daviszero wrote:
Been away from 40k for a while. I went to the GW website and saw alot has changed. Since ill be starting from scratch I wanted to know if the game was worth coming back to.

If so, what army would be best for me? I am looking for an army that is highly adaptable and mobile.

I used to play nids but dunno if I want to again.

Honest answer to an honest question. Regardless of your disposable income, wait 2-3 weeks before spending a dime. Further FAQ's and a community consensus on what will be accepted in GTs. (if that's your thing) will likely be sorted out by then... With luck.

If you're looking for tactical skirmishes, check into Warmahordes/Infinity.

If you're looking for tactical warfare, check into DZC.

If you don't care about tactics/strategy and just love the fluff/looks of 40k then go 40k.

 Ailaros wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:There are plenty of games out there that use dice but still require a great deal of strategy and tactics.

No there aren't.

The fact that the success or failure of your actions are determined randomly throws any serious strategy out the window. Any game where a person can win a game just because they're lucky isn't real strategy. It's a conflict of its very definition.

Some dice games use fewer random effects, but that makes them slightly less not a serious strategy game. Any game that uses dice will never be even remotely in the same league as ones that don't.

No for many things use randomness particularly critical chances. From there one can manipulate them. As per rolling dice, as long as the dice rolls are in higher values statistics can be used. Or perhaps because there's a 1% chance of the medication killing you it's not worth the random risk

 60mm wrote:
If you're looking for tactical skirmishes, check into Warmahordes/Infinity.

If you're looking for tactical warfare, check into DZC.

If you don't care about tactics/strategy and just love the fluff/looks of 40k then go 40k.

You forgot to add larger community which makes it easier to find a game to the list of benefits 40k has over every other miniatures game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ailaros wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:There are plenty of games out there that use dice but still require a great deal of strategy and tactics.

No there aren't.

The fact that the success or failure of your actions are determined randomly throws any serious strategy out the window. Any game where a person can win a game just because they're lucky isn't real strategy. It's a conflict of its very definition.

Some dice games use fewer random effects, but that makes them slightly less not a serious strategy game. Any game that uses dice will never be even remotely in the same league as ones that don't.

MTG along with most TCGs Disagree with you.

Monopoly along with most board games disagree with you.

Roughly 70% of the people responding to your edgy comments on this forum disagree with you.

 Ailaros wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:There are plenty of games out there that use dice but still require a great deal of strategy and tactics.

No there aren't.

The fact that the success or failure of your actions are determined randomly throws any serious strategy out the window. Any game where a person can win a game just because they're lucky isn't real strategy. It's a conflict of its very definition.

Some dice games use fewer random effects, but that makes them slightly less not a serious strategy game. Any game that uses dice will never be even remotely in the same league as ones that don't.

Variables don't cancel out tactics. There will always be variables, even in real warfare. It's about probability. You move unit A up to attack the enemy, they have a good chance of killing 40% of them, but maybe they'll kill more or less. It's a bit of a gamble. Tactics doesn't mean "no variables." The variables just have to be within the characters limit to control. Your ideas of what wargamming are, are....odd and don't really fit with what wargamming is generally considered.

My advice for the OP, ignore Aileros. There's a lot of good advice in this thread. Think about what you really want.

 Ailaros wrote:
40k is as cheap or expensive as you want to make it. You can spend $20 or $2000.

You cannot even get the rules for $20.

Get ready to pay $135 up front for one codex and the rules.

My best advice is that you should get into a different game.

From wrote:

 60mm wrote:
If you're looking for tactical skirmishes, check into Warmahordes/Infinity.

If you're looking for tactical warfare, check into DZC.

If you don't care about tactics/strategy and just love the fluff/looks of 40k then go 40k.

You forgot to add larger community which makes it easier to find a game to the list of benefits 40k has over every other miniatures game.

At your LGS. 40k is either dead or practically dead at many LGS and my LGS has a great DZC community. Even if your vast blanket of a statement were true, it wouldn't change the fact that 40k has no tactical/strategic depth to it for those who want that.

Football has a community far larger than 40k could ever dream of so it would be even easier by a light year to find people to pal around with. I mean, it's not at all what you're looking for in a mini game but hey, it's a way bigger community.
^That's the logic you just tried.

My recommendation would be for X-Wing (amazingly great game) or Warmahordes. If you want tactics, 40K isn't your game. 40K is about paying to win, and is more and more designed for people who want to push models around a table going, "Vroom, vroom! Rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat! Boom! Pow!" Great models, great fluff, increasingly horrid as an actual game to play.

 Ailaros wrote:

No there aren't.
The fact that the success or failure of your actions are determined randomly throws any serious strategy out the window. Any game where a person can win a game just because they're lucky isn't real strategy. It's a conflict of its very definition.

Only if the player has no ability to manipulate or change those odds or a single roll is game breaking.

How I place my long gunners for example- what they can see, what's in range (and what I target) and how I split their firepower are all strategic choices I make that will have a huge impact on their battlefield performance that has nothing to do with how hot or cold my dice are. Indeed poor choices by me could render the dice utterly irrelevant. All this is inherent in the base rules of Warmachine and applies to every single model. Add in other factors like if I want to throw out buffs like Dead Eye or Fire Group, want use debuffs like Time Bomb or Temporal Barrier on the enemy, go for the Aim bonus or utilise Combined Attacks and suddenly the random dice aspect of my game has decreased significantly. Is it still a factor? Of course but my choices have mitigated it significantly. Most importantly my skill now plays a far more important. Luck is not the ruling factor.

 60mm wrote:

From wrote:

 60mm wrote:
If you're looking for tactical skirmishes, check into Warmahordes/Infinity.

If you're looking for tactical warfare, check into DZC.

If you don't care about tactics/strategy and just love the fluff/looks of 40k then go 40k.

You forgot to add larger community which makes it easier to find a game to the list of benefits 40k has over every other miniatures game.

At your LGS. 40k is either dead or practically dead at many LGS and my LGS has a great DZC community. Even if your vast blanket of a statement were true, it wouldn't change the fact that 40k has no tactical/strategic depth to it for those who want that.

Football has a community far larger than 40k could ever dream of so it would be even easier by a light year to find people to pal around with. I mean, it's not at all what you're looking for in a mini game but hey, it's a way bigger community.
^That's the logic you just tried.

Actually I was speaking as a whole. Do any of the games you have listed have communities the size of BoLS, Warseer, bolter and chainsword, DAKKA, 3++? Do they have dedicated events for them every year all across the globe with similar turnouts to say... adepticon?

I know for fact that the west coast of the united states has a very active 40k community. There are 5 stores within driving distance of my home not including GWs that have people showing up weekly for 40k.

Your second sentence is actually a logical fallacy. Which is pretty hilarious considering you're attempting to demean my logic.

StarTrotter wrote:No for many things use randomness particularly critical chances. From there one can manipulate them. As per rolling dice, as long as the dice rolls are in higher values statistics can be used. Or perhaps because there's a 1% chance of the medication killing you it's not worth the random risk

Sure, 40k is like backgammon or blackjack or craps, where you play the odds, and learning to play better odds is a skill. That doesn't make blackjack any more serious of a strategy game than warmahordes, 40k, or craps.

From wrote:MTG along with most TCGs Disagree with you.

Lol. MTG isn't a strategy game. It's a card game. Who flips the right cards first wins, just like in every other card game.

Like blackjack, it is possible to play better odds, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not a test of player skill nearly as much as player luck.

From wrote:Roughly 70% of the people responding to your edgy comments on this forum disagree with you.

So?.

MWHistorian wrote:Tactics doesn't mean "no variables." The variables just have to be within the characters limit to control. Your ideas of what wargamming are, are....odd and don't really fit with what wargamming is generally considered.

Of course tactics means variables, but it means variables a player can control. If uncontrollable variables are a sign of tactics, then Yahtzee is the most serious strategy game ever developed.

But it's not, because rolling dice isn't strategy, it's rolling dice. When a game doesn't test player skill against player skill, but tests die rolls against die rolls, it's a dice game, not a serious strategy game.

MWHistorian wrote:My advice for the OP, ignore Aileros. There's a lot of good advice in this thread. Think about what you really want.

What about ignoring anyone whose only advice is to ignore other people?

Warmachine is better for you if you are into resource management.

Hordes is better is you are into risk management.

Infinity is superb and nicely balances the risk/resource management paradigm pretty well. The only problem is that you will only be playing with a very few miniatures. If you like seeing a platoon roll across the board, you will be disappointed in Infinity as it models small special forces teams performing various missions.

From wrote:

 60mm wrote:

From wrote:

 60mm wrote:
If you're looking for tactical skirmishes, check into Warmahordes/Infinity.

If you're looking for tactical warfare, check into DZC.

If you don't care about tactics/strategy and just love the fluff/looks of 40k then go 40k.

You forgot to add larger community which makes it easier to find a game to the list of benefits 40k has over every other miniatures game.

At your LGS. 40k is either dead or practically dead at many LGS and my LGS has a great DZC community. Even if your vast blanket of a statement were true, it wouldn't change the fact that 40k has no tactical/strategic depth to it for those who want that.

Football has a community far larger than 40k could ever dream of so it would be even easier by a light year to find people to pal around with. I mean, it's not at all what you're looking for in a mini game but hey, it's a way bigger community.
^That's the logic you just tried.

Actually I was speaking as a whole. Do any of the games you have listed have communities the size of BoLS, Warseer, bolter and chainsword, DAKKA, 3++? Do they have dedicated events for them every year all across the globe with similar turnouts to say... adepticon?

I know for fact that the west coast of the united states has a very active 40k community. There are 5 stores within driving distance of my home not including GWs that have people showing up weekly for 40k.

Your second sentence is actually a logical fallacy. Which is pretty hilarious considering you're attempting to demean my logic.

I could not possibly point out your failure to grasp my point better than your own response. Cheers, masterfully accomplished.

Also, I'm pretty sure what you felt was a logical fallacy would be refered to as the second paragraph, not a sentence. And you are 100% correct, it was a logical fallacy. That's the point that flew over you at FTL speeds.

Ailaros wrote:

From wrote:MTG along with most TCGs Disagree with you.

Lol. MTG isn't a strategy game. It's a card game. Who flips the right cards first wins, just like in every other card game.

Like blackjack, it is possible to play better odds, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not a test of player skill nearly as much as player luck.

Games were the topic, games with dice as a random element that involved strategy. Do you mean to tell me that MTG has no strategy? If it's as much of a "flip of the cards" as you say then why do the same faces see the top tables time and time again? Because they're lucky? Have you ever played in a large MTG event or a game of sanctioned game of constructed MTG?

I have underlined some things in the quote below that you seemingly have missed.

Ailaros wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:There are plenty of games out there that use dice but still require a great deal of strategy and tactics.

No there aren't.

The fact that the success or failure of your actions are determined randomly throws any serious strategy out the window. Any game where a person can win a game just because they're lucky isn't real strategy. It's a conflict of its very definition.

Some dice games use fewer random effects, but that makes them slightly less not a serious strategy game. Any game that uses dice will never be even remotely in the same league as ones that don't.

Ailaros wrote:

From wrote:Roughly 70% of the people responding to your edgy comments on this forum disagree with you.

So?.

Fully aware.
However as someone with 18 posts he may not know of your... provocative posting style.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 60mm wrote:


I could not possibly point out your failure to grasp my point better than your own response. Cheers, masterfully accomplished.

Also, I'm pretty sure what you felt was a logical fallacy would be refered to as the second paragraph, not a sentence. And you are 100% correct, it was a logical fallacy. That's the point that flew over you at FTL speeds.

The OP asked if 40k was worth getting into. You responded with a list of other games as alternatives and gave few reasons why 40k might be OK for him. I added to what you had said because you didn't mention ease of finding a game as a positive quality. A large community of people to play with might be exactly what the OP wants (go figure). Perfectly relevant to the original question.

If games are easy to find it might be an appealing reason to get back into the game!

You weren't making a point in your response to me, you were comparing one completely unrelated thing to a miniatures game and belittling my response (that's two fallacies). Thanks for correcting my grammar, clearly you ~couldn't possibly~ come up with anything better to say to me.

TL;DR
40k having an active community is relevant to the first question in this thread.

daviszero wrote:
Been away from 40k for a while. I went to the GW website and saw alot has changed. Since ill be starting from scratch I wanted to know if the game was worth coming back to.

If so, what army would be best for me? I am looking for an army that is highly adaptable and mobile.

I used to play nids but dunno if I want to again.

With all respect to Ailaros, it's patently untrue that introducing an element of chance into a game removes all strategy. Backgammon and bridge, for example, both involve random chance and yet both rely heavily on strategy for victory. Or Risk, for another example. If chance were the only deciding factor it would become simply a lottery rather than a game. There is a continuum from zero-chance-pure-strategy like chess or checkers to zero-strategy-pure-chance, like Bingo or the lottery. Where each game falls on the continuum is a matter for debate perhaps (some games have mathematically optimal strategies for example) but you cannot win a game of bridge on chance alone; the odds will even out over time and the better player will win.

Sometimes well-thought-out plans will be thwarted by chance, but that's war. And life.

To the OP's question: 40k is a blast. I find the games very tactical and fun, especially at lower points levels. Depending how long you've been out, you might find some of the newer models really appeal to you (I was blown away by the newer necron stuff, for example, remembering what they looked like in 2nd ed) so I'd suggest taking a look and going with the army whose aesthetic you like. There aren't really any truly bad choices at the moment.

Eldar's probably the best if you're looking for mobility and guys that can deal with anything. If you want individual units to all be able to handle any kind of threat, marine's probably better, though, but they have questionable mobility (unless you like the drop pod style).

 Fos Kenos wrote:
Eldar's probably the best if you're looking for mobility and guys that can deal with anything. If you want individual units to all be able to handle any kind of threat, marine's probably better, though, but they have questionable mobility (unless you like the drop pod style).

Why are you giving recommendations like individual factions still matter?

7th Edition 40K is Calvinball. Make up your own rules, take whatever units from whatever codex you want.

If you're just starting from scratch, this is the best edition to get back into the game. If you don't have any models, you can throw together a list from whatever the heck you want, play Unbound on Kill-Points-Mode til you get the hang of the rules again, and then? You can pick a faction to grow your army from the myriad choices available, go Battle-Forged, get more into the tactics aspect, and go from there.

The Daemon farming and screamerstar stuff is internet echo chamber nonsense being hypothetically argued ad nauseam and you will probably never encounter it while playing the actual game. If you do, then by all means write up a batrep about it afterwards so there can be something fresh about it to whine over.

GW is an expensive luxury hobby. Most luxury hobbies are expensive. That's why they're luxuries. The majority of wargames have a similarly steep startup cost. Few others have an equally large player base. I would scout out your local hobby shop and see what's being played there before making any further decision. Talk to the locals and make sure they are people you could find yourself associating with while pushing miniatures around.

Assuming the local gamers aren't hideous trollbeasts, and a sizable number of them play Warhammer 40k, and you find a faction in the game you find interesting and would enjoy painting over and over, then yes, this game may be for you.

 Badablack wrote:
If you're just starting from scratch, this is the best edition to get back into the game. If you don't have any models, you can throw together a list from whatever the heck you want, play Unbound on Kill-Points-Mode til you get the hang of the rules again, and then? You can pick a faction to grow your army from the myriad choices available, go Battle-Forged, get more into the tactics aspect, and go from there.

The Daemon farming and screamerstar stuff is internet echo chamber nonsense being hypothetically argued ad nauseam and you will probably never encounter it while playing the actual game. If you do, then by all means write up a batrep about it afterwards so there can be something fresh about it to whine over.

GW is an expensive luxury hobby. Most luxury hobbies are expensive. That's why they're luxuries. The majority of wargames have a similarly steep startup cost. Few others have an equally large player base. I would scout out your local hobby shop and see what's being played there before making any further decision. Talk to the locals and make sure they are people you could find yourself associating with while pushing miniatures around.

Assuming the local gamers aren't hideous trollbeasts, and a sizable number of them play Warhammer 40k, and you find a faction in the game you find interesting and would enjoy painting over and over, then yes, this game may be for you.

What worries me is that you might actually believe all of this.

 Seaward wrote:

 Badablack wrote:
If you're just starting from scratch, this is the best edition to get back into the game. If you don't have any models, you can throw together a list from whatever the heck you want, play Unbound on Kill-Points-Mode til you get the hang of the rules again, and then? You can pick a faction to grow your army from the myriad choices available, go Battle-Forged, get more into the tactics aspect, and go from there.

The Daemon farming and screamerstar stuff is internet echo chamber nonsense being hypothetically argued ad nauseam and you will probably never encounter it while playing the actual game. If you do, then by all means write up a batrep about it afterwards so there can be something fresh about it to whine over.

GW is an expensive luxury hobby. Most luxury hobbies are expensive. That's why they're luxuries. The majority of wargames have a similarly steep startup cost. Few others have an equally large player base. I would scout out your local hobby shop and see what's being played there before making any further decision. Talk to the locals and make sure they are people you could find yourself associating with while pushing miniatures around.

Assuming the local gamers aren't hideous trollbeasts, and a sizable number of them play Warhammer 40k, and you find a faction in the game you find interesting and would enjoy painting over and over, then yes, this game may be for you.

What worries me is that you might actually believe all of this.

What worries me is people like you firing off one liners at people who've actually provided a reasonable commentary.

 Seaward wrote:
Why are you giving recommendations like individual factions still matter?

7th Edition 40K is Calvinball. Make up your own rules, take whatever units from whatever codex you want.

Making irate statements like this just goes to show that you're not happy with the change. We get it. There are plenty of other threads where you can go cry it all out of your system.

"7th Edition 40K is Calvinball. Make up your own rules" bs. 7th has fine rules with a few serious problems, namely Unbound and No cap on warp charges.

If you took a second to read some of the buzz surrounding the game at the moment you would find that it's pretty much unanimous amongst event organizers that unbound will not see play in any GT. If some one showed up at your LGS with a really min-maxed unbound army time and time again, do you think he would find people that want to play him regularly? I doubt it. The same goes for FOC spamming.

As for the warp charge issue! If you're not playing against some one who spams Psykers as hard as possible you wont even notice anything wrong with it... aside from invisibility.

The majority of wargames have a similarly steep startup cost

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No.
Its just GW. For a lot of companies you can get an average sized force for the cost of GWs two mandatory rulebooks.

From wrote:
What worries me is people like you firing off one liners at people who've actually provided a reasonable commentary.

It's not reasonable. It's uninformed at best, intentionally deceptive at worst. Other wargames offer similar barriers to entry? Please. Find me another popular wargame that'll cost you what 40K will cost you.

Making irate statements like this just goes to show that you're not happy with the change. We get it. There are plenty of other threads where you can go cry it all out of your system.

"7th Edition 40K is Calvinball. Make up your own rules" bs. 7th has fine rules with a few serious problems, namely Unbound and No cap on warp charges.

If you took a second to read some of the buzz surrounding the game at the moment you would find that it's pretty much unanimous amongst event organizers that unbound will not see play in any GT. If some one showed up at your LGS with a really min-maxed unbound army time and time again, do you think he would find people that want to play him regularly? I doubt it. The same goes for FOC spamming.

It's like you haven't even read the rules. Why would anyone worry about Unbound when you can break Battle-Forged just as easily?

You may be looking forward to Ultramarines and Dark Eldar fighting side-by-side. I'm not. I also don't make machine gun noises when I'm moving my plastic soldiermens around the board, though, so clearly this edition wasn't aimed at satisfying me. But hey, I hope you enjoy it. And I hope you spend gakloads of money on it. Games Workshop is counting on you to keep them afloat, because they're not bringing in new customers, and the old ones need to be milked hard to keep the numbers looking even average.

 Ailaros wrote:
40k is as cheap or expensive as you want to make it. You can spend $20 or $2000.

DakkaDakka is a jolly place, full of knee-slapping fun.

No disrespect to you, but that's a ludicrous statement.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Also I am 100% sure you can't play 40k in any way for $20

For $20, hrm... You could buy between one and three figures and some paints. And invent your own rules.

Well, OP, start playing or don't. Everyone I know is either in a tidalwave of orgasmic frenzy over the new edition or physically sick at the very idea of it. Consider making a proxy army or visiting your FLGS and spectating some matches- see what side you're on.

If you're on the side of people who are revolted by 7th, I'd get out and play something else. But if you like it, good'on'ya (I guess).