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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

2) I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to suggest a weapon that can't fire past the length of a tank - these are usually high-powered energy weapons, which realistically would dissipate incredibly quickly in an atmosphere.

Not a chance since the exact same range is used for all types of energy and solid ammo weapons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

People hitting eachother with swords when plasma weapons exist is fine and dandy - there are protective systems that can mitigate the effects of plasma about as well as modern body armor mitigates the effects of bullets, and, well: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10.

I guess that is why swords are such common place weapons in modern armies. Also, a bayonet is a completely different thing from a sword, and not what I was talking about. Stop trying to move the goal posts.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The fixed-wing jet aircraft are a problem, and I hate them, but they're not as core to the game as warjacks are to WM/H so I can tolerate their existence.

Except that you said that your problem was with CRA / CMA and not with warjacks. Jets in 40k are just as ubiquitous as CRA / CMA in WMH, if not more so.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The rest of your post is just inane nonsense justifications for rules mechanics that don't even function the way you claim they do in your post. All 10 people don't hit one person (unless he makes all of his saves, and has a different save value than the rest of the unit, which only happens rarely),

So my post is inane nonsense that doesn't even reflect the rules, but you immediately identify an instance where that happens? Right...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

and a failure to charge the full distance isn't "tripping," it's a multitude of factors including but not limited to one's footing on the terrain.

The "tripping" part was me just forging the narrative, the same logic applies that all of those factors, whatever you interpret them to be, affect all the members of the unit at the exact same time and in the exact same manner...

Your suspension of disbelief seems to vary pretty wildly but at the same time is pretty consistent with the fact that if a rule is in 40k, then is completely plausible to happen in reality, any other game? Nah, that is a complete fabrication!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) Well, the 10 rounds into the same spot in the vest or the glass will be more effective. Now you just need to demonstrate that inches-thick steel plates have the same properties as vests and glass. Because neither Warjacks nor 40k tanks are made of glass or kevlar.

Warjacks aren't made of "steel plate" and a pretty common way to break medieval armour was to hit it repeatedly in the same spot until the armour broke. You can see examples of this in practically every movie or book ever made about it.

And this doesn't matter one bit, because we are talking about a game and the CRA / CMA ability is in the game, like many people have said, so that if you bring a light infantry unit against a heavy armoured one, at least you'll still get a chance to do some damage.

I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.

+1

Especially with Warcaster/warlocks and their growth with the narrative.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm in a minority I suppose who think they are doing a good job, certainly models-wise, but IMO also rules-wise. 7th is a pretty decent improvement from 6th, and I enjoyed the gak out of 6th. They just charge too much, and are doing weird practices like DLC-only releases for a tabletop game with a large community of book nerds.

If GW were selling all their stuff for ~60-75% of what its going for now, I have a sneaking suspicion that the popular criticism against the game would diminish significantly.

Well, when you are strictly looking at the quality of the rule writing, 6th was a huge improvement over 5th and 7th was small improvement over 6th, so I'd agree that they are trying and somewhat succeeding in making their rules better.
The issue is, these improvements have to be bought for a lot of money, and they just don't measure up. Even in 7th there are some really unclear rules which should have been accompanied by more examples or pictures (psychic focus). Some rules which fail to point out that other, previous installments of the rule are no longer in place (blast markers+ruins) and on top of that some half-assed update-FAQs.

In the end, the BRB wasn't exactly the problem of 6th edition, and that's coming from an ork player. The combination of tau support and the undercosted riptide, prescience for a dime a dozen, overpowered wave serpents, flying monstrous creatures, the two 2+ rerollable deathstars and ranged D weapons were what broke the previous edition. Most of those were the result of sloppy play-testing before releasing the codices. They fixed most of those in 7th, which is actually a good sign, but not all of them. Sadly we now have to wait till 8th for them to fix the new issues they've cause.

 sgtpjbarker wrote:
I am wanting a lot from GW. I call them and write them and tell them. I buy what I like and I pass on what I don't like. I am impressed that they release product faster than anyone else in this hobby. I have never run a company, but I have worked in a fortune 500 company at HQ, eye opener, things more slow and there are a lot of problems that you never expected. The larger the company, the more difficult it is to make a product that will please everyone.

Most people don't have an issue with the product itself, just with the quality of the product. GW had years to get their rules up to current state of art, being a large company is no longer a valid excuse. Gaming as a whole (PC and tabletop) has become a huge industry with lots of experience and established best practices. People can go to college and become MoA in game design. Nowadays people expect that non of the available game pieces are useless pieces of junk, not in any game. Nowadays people expect table top games to have a FAQ include in its release and more help available online. I have a lot of board games (many of the expensive kind, with hundreds of pieces in little plastic bags), and only a single one has a rule like Warhammer 40k's most important rule, and that would be Munchkin, which tells you to resolve all rule disputes by loudly shouting at each other. Guess what that one is making fun of?

There simply is no excuse for their game being as bad as it is now. They have enough time and money to fix their problems. If they are lacking the skills to fix their problems, then they can buy people who have those skills. Between pen&paper role play games, board games, video games, trading card games and even rival wargames, there should be experienced people willing to lend them their skills. Other companies have hired their own players in order to understand their own games better, with success.
The only thing they can do is get better. I for one have faith in them, since we are seeing little signs of improvement here and there. Even despite their annoying pre-release marketing and ridiculous pricing on the mek gunz, I'm still pumped for the ork codex. I also fear it though, because it might shatter all hope I have for Warhammer 40k. We'll see.

Sim-Life wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.

+1

Especially with Warcaster/warlocks and their growth with the narrative.

While this is true, for some reason (maybe years of playing MMOs?) Warmahordes seems more like a game where the fluff is irrelevant. I know it's not, and I know it has fluff (and I like some of its fluff), but for whatever reason playing a game of Warmachine feels soulless to me.

What I would like is for GW to own up to their "oopsies" and use FAQs and Errata to correct Codex mistakes. For instance, how much different would have 6th Edition been if GW had reFAQed the Helldrake to a 180 or 90 Degree arc or Hullmounted RAW? How different would 6th have been if they had owned up to their mistakes and Errated the Serpent Shield to 24" Range or Errated the price of the Twin Linked Scatter Lasers to 20pts or the Serpent Shield to a D6 not a D6+1 any of which would have dilluted the Wave Serpents efficiency. Or errated the BRB stating that when a 2+ save is rerolled it is only successful on a 4+, ie changed 2+ Rerollable from 1/36 to 1/12. Or Errated the Tau Signature Systems to limit them to 2 or 3 selections per model. Or Errated the price of the Ion Accelerator to 25pts. Or if they had Errated the Annihilation Barges price to 100 or 110. Or Mind Shackle Scarable to be on 2d6. Or if they had errated the BRB so FMCs couldn't assault the turn they changed Movement Modes etc. Or tweaking the Allies chart. Or if they errated the base marine price for BA, or errated their heavy weapon prices. So many possible examples of things that could have been Erratted in a simple FAQ/Errata that would have greatly improved gameplay and balance for many.

IMO the more viable units, lists, and strategies that players have access to the more models they will ultimately buy, build, and play.

GW can't win because everyone won't be happy with anything, but a few changes here and there and owning up to mistakes and correcting them would greatly alleviate some of the problems they face.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.

+1

Especially with Warcaster/warlocks and their growth with the narrative.

While this is true, for some reason (maybe years of playing MMOs?) Warmahordes seems more like a game where the fluff is irrelevant. I know it's not, and I know it has fluff (and I like some of its fluff), but for whatever reason playing a game of Warmachine feels soulless to me.

I found myself experiencing the same thing. I think it is because your brain gets so caught up in all the math calculations and vector analysis and correct order of activations needed to implement that pretty cool tactic that you just thought out that it doesn't leave much room for immersing yourself in the story of the battle!

What helped me get through this is that every time that something cool or unusual happens I take a moment to imagine how that would have played out in "reality", like that time my Carnivean got tired of always missing Morvhana and picked up a Warspear and threw him directly at her, knocking her down and just biting her head off! Or how my Eyriss, no matter how easy a shot it is, always seems to miss it! EYRISS! /shakes fist angrilly!

Or how my Eyriss, no matter how easy a shot it is, always seems to miss it! EYRISS!

Well she IS a spy. Unless you play Ret.

Few things that I saw floating around...

Colossals are generally felt to be "okay" with only the Stormwall from Cygnar and the one for the Mercs being used frequently. The Cryx Unicorn can also be useful. The Battle Engines are all considered tepid.

The Gargantuans are considered greatly limited and very rarely used, with the Skorne one frequently considered the only one worth bringing. Again, Battle Engines here are considered very meh. The Woldwrath could be useful in a few tier lists but the Mountain King and Archangel are considered jokes. You buy them to paint and display, nothing more.

Games Workshop hobby supplies are all pretty much garbage save the paints. The paints are just the worst value compared to P3, Reaper, and Vallejo. The brushes are terrible when you can purchase Rekab sable hair brushes for $5 a pop compared to the GW $10 brushes. And if you're seriously into painting, you're buying Kolinsky Sables from Raphael, DaVinci, or Windsor & Newton. Games Workshop tools are usually mediocre and they are overprice to hell and back for what you get. If you want good hobby tools that are also high quality, but a highish price, try Tamiya.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Except 40k. If you say anything good about 40k, fifteen people cram how gakky it is down your throat (citation: this thread).

No. You're making a generalization about anything not positive about 40k and construing it to be that no one is allowed to like it.

I don't think I've seen anyone on these boards actually tell someone they're not allowed to enjoy 40k. What I have seen are people who point out issues with the game and misconceptions like how 'casual' 40k is, or how its a better 'narrative' game. Discussing those points is a very far stretch from telling people they can't enjoy 40k.

If you want positivity, you have to hold up your end of the deal and not turn it into an us vs. them mentality or putting words in peoples' mouths.

There are a lot of issues with 40k, but you can still have fun and enjoy it. Besides, you can't seriously make a thread basically asking for peoples' thoughts on GW/40k and not expect some of the answers to explain what the issues are.

 insaniak wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It seems a bit unfair really.

Unfair how? Different people want different things.


The trick for any company is simply to find the path that more people approve of.

Which unfortunately has turned into the path of making money

I couldn't agree more with the OP.

The GW online community is the most negative , hate-filled community I have ever experianced.

Can you imagine how a dev must feel reading these forums? Why would a developer ever want to have a dialogue with this community?

WayneTheGame wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.

+1

Especially with Warcaster/warlocks and their growth with the narrative.

While this is true, for some reason (maybe years of playing MMOs?) Warmahordes seems more like a game where the fluff is irrelevant. I know it's not, and I know it has fluff (and I like some of its fluff), but for whatever reason playing a game of Warmachine feels soulless to me.

That's interesting. Because all of the characters in game have a history and personality. Could it be that you feel disconnected from the fluff because the game you're playing isn't reflected in the fluff? I know I've met a lot of warmahordes players that don't care about the fluff, but it is there and IMO very close to the surface. Of course I pick my Warlock/Caster based on the character and not the rules most of the time.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Sim-Life wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I disagree, I feel that Warmachine is more fluffy in gameplay and feels more dynamic and like a story than 40k.

+1

Especially with Warcaster/warlocks and their growth with the narrative.

While this is true, for some reason (maybe years of playing MMOs?) Warmahordes seems more like a game where the fluff is irrelevant. I know it's not, and I know it has fluff (and I like some of its fluff), but for whatever reason playing a game of Warmachine feels soulless to me.

That's interesting. Because all of the characters in game have a history and personality. Could it be that you feel disconnected from the fluff because the game you're playing isn't reflected in the fluff? I know I've met a lot of warmahordes players that don't care about the fluff, but it is there and IMO very close to the surface. Of course I pick my Warlock/Caster based on the character and not the rules most of the time.

That's my experience. The casters are dripping with character and personality and their rules actually reflect this. As a fluffy player, that's one reason I'm attracted to Warmachine.

Pancakey wrote:
I couldn't agree more with the OP.

The GW online community is the most negative , hate-filled community I have ever experianced.

Can you imagine how a dev must feel reading these forums? Why would a developer ever want to have a dialogue with this community?

Could you give pause and think that other communities don't have this style of negative feedback loop because they are better served by the parent company of said game(s)? Equally valid line of reasoning. And from what I've read and heard discussed, most of the devs for GW, the unnamed guys behind the scenes, are in agreement with us negative chuckleheads and that it's management that's driving the game into the ground.

A great deal of negativity is centered around the poor rules, the game itself. No one has (serious) arguments over aesthetics. There maybe some grumpy tiffs over fluff, but that's usually when either GW is quietly murdering it or has made game rules that do not follow their own narrative; which then it is then expected for the "kids to play nice" and follow said narrative without any reason given to do so. Other games gives incentive to form fluffy armies, be it tier lists in Warmachine or sectorials in Infinity.

You see a lot of negativity because Warhammer 40k is usually a wargamers first game given the fact it just has a larger presence thanks to other channels like video games. They get in and then base all their assumptions on what wargaming is like based upon how GW operates. If they get brave and venture forth, they may become acutely aware that other companies care about their loyal customers, provide incentive for new players to start, and better maintain and support their communities ensuring that negative feedback doesn't become a constant loop, but rather something that is addressed. Even a simple "Oh, we missed that, check for it in the next update of X, thank you!" or "Play it like this, guys" for rules disputes would end a never ending cycle like YMDC.

I will stand with the notion if Games Workshop was a better company and provided a better product (or at least better support for their current product), then you'd see a massive decrease in negativity.

Pancakey wrote:
Can you imagine how a dev must feel reading these forums? Why would a developer ever want to have a dialogue with this community?

Can you imagine how the players feel after a lot of legitimate complaints go unanswered for years?

The least GW could do is take care of the YMDC forum.

It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.

I could do better promoting 40K myself:

The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.

etc. etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.

These are two reasons why I still like Warhammer 40k. For the models and because most people I know play it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.

I could do better promoting 40K myself:

The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.

etc. etc.

Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh

 Lobomalo wrote:


Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh

How so?

I've seen plenty of discussion about the issues with the game. All of which are back with examples in the game, valid comparisons to other wargames, and basic number crunching/analysis, not to mention obvious wording issues/generally unclear rules.

Not to mention the issues with pricing, the debacle that was finecast, and DLC type products for singular units.

Its fine to like GW/40k, but if you're going to discuss it with other people, at least present a real counter argument.

Pancakey wrote:
I couldn't agree more with the OP.

The GW online community is the most negative , hate-filled community I have ever experienced.

True

Pancakey wrote:
Can you imagine how a dev must feel reading these forums? Why would a developer ever want to have a dialogue with this community?

The community didn't arise out of a spontaneous fountain of rage; GW's misdeeds made it this way.

Really? You think so, all I've seen across the forums are mindsets based entirely on how things used to be and not how they are now. What I am seeing are people who are still adjusting to new rulesets and a more modern approach to war gaming.

Here is something that none of you have realized yet. The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.

Speaking as one of the new blood, the future of war gaming, change is good, random is good, looking back and longing for something in the past is not good at all.

The game has issues to be worked out, but honestly, none of them are as bad as any of you are portraying them except for the pricing on the models which is ludicrous.

In every competitive game I have played there are highs and lows, some armies will dominate for a season or two and others will have distinct disadvantageous when playing against other armies. There is no need to balance this approach because it is working as intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
I couldn't agree more with the OP.

The GW online community is the most negative , hate-filled community I have ever experienced.

True

Pancakey wrote:
Can you imagine how a dev must feel reading these forums? Why would a developer ever want to have a dialogue with this community?

The community didn't arise out of a spontaneous fountain of rage; GW's misdeeds made it this way.

First part is true, second part is half true.

GW and an unchanging mindset from some of the more established players have created this. It's no secret how the hardcore players feel about the new edition, they make their opinions known every chance they get on any forum they can, but these are nothing more than the opinions of those who cannot let go and who don't like change.

The positive thing I feel, although it a specific to 7th, is that you choose the mission before doing up the army list. This give a certain amount of customization to the player. I know no one brings around 4000 points of miniatures for a 1500 pt pick up game but having a sideboard ability at least, doesn't take much more points. At least you have the option to not field units poorly built for a certain mission.

This leads to my view of things like imperial knights and riptide heavy lists or even a 4 land raider list. I believe in making sure my list has options against high AV, high armour save, hordes, MC, flyers most times. Than is usually easier in 1500 and up games. So if I face an extreme list, I am not completely helpless and I find it a challenge to put up a fight at that slight disadvantage. Ok, maybe not slight in some circumstances but I will just roll with the punches. At least now I don't have to worry about being non optimized for the mission.

Edited for typos.

 Lobomalo wrote:


Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh

Huh? Point to any common claim against GW and show that there's nothing backing it up please...

No facts besides the pricing, everything else is purely opinion and has no merit in a debate

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems the "anti-negativity" people are having trouble in bringing forward any substantive points to support positivity, as they still need to resort to ad hominem arguments.

I could do better promoting 40K myself:

The turn sequence is simple and easy to learn.
You can use a huge variety of models including scratch builds.
Loads of people everywhere play it because it is so widely played.

etc. etc.

Where as the negativity group has nothing substantial to back any statement, very interesting in a debate tbh

Price doubled in a few years -- now higher than any other game.
Lack of balance. Obvious for years, easily correctable and yet nothing done about it.
Bad proofreading. Simple editorial skills lacking, can partly be achieved by use of Word.
Lack of advancement in the rules. Still no Moral or C&C rules (except for Tyranids). Turn sequence stuck in the 1960s.
Bad "optional" rules being forced into the main ruleset: Flyers, Allies, D Weapons, Fortifications.
Codex release rate too slow.
Faster code release rate increases lack of balance, bad proofreading and price.

 Lobomalo wrote:
No facts besides the pricing, everything else is purely opinion and has no merit in a debate

Poorly designed rules? Lack of playtesting? Rushed, lacking products? Openly hating and mocking their customers? Those aren't "opinion" points. Those, sadly, are pretty darn solid points.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I get how you feel. I really do.

But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.

With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.

Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.

I definitely agree with this. A fix usually comes with a price with GW, and the price isn't acceptable for a lot of people.

I think GW's first big step would be to undo the blatant price gouging. But hey, let's not kid ourselves here...

All hobby supplies are higher price and/or lower quality than equivalents.
Narrow range of games available.
Shops do not stock everything needed for 40K or WHFB.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Really? You think so, all I've seen across the forums are mindsets based entirely on how things used to be and not how they are now. What I am seeing are people who are still adjusting to new rulesets and a more modern approach to war gaming.

Here is something that none of you have realized yet. The success or failure of this game has no bearing on the veterans who have played for the longest time You need new blood to keep the game going and speaking as one of the new blood for this particular war game, the changes in 7th, how things are now is absolutely amazing. I've already recruited half a dozen new players at least who've bought out a lot of their armies stuff in a matter of weeks.

Speaking as one of the new blood, the future of war gaming, change is good, random is good, looking back and longing for something in the past is not good at all.

The game has issues to be worked out, but honestly, none of them are as bad as any of you are portraying them except for the pricing on the models which is ludicrous.

In every competitive game I have played there are highs and lows, some armies will dominate for a season or two and others will have distinct disadvantageous when playing against other armies. There is no need to balance this approach because it is working as intended.

Of course it is, in fact GW's "modern approach to war gaming" was so successful that they lost 30% of their profits in 6 months! It was so great that they felt the need to release a new edition less than 2 years after the previous one was launched! That is the true mark of success right there!

Their "random is good" was so wildly received by old and new players alike, that their second flagship product disappeared from the list of top 5 most sold table top games in the US. This is, of course, great news!