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.

I discuss both positives AND negatives. I also make it plain that my views are purely my opinion and support the right of others to disagree without harrassing them or contesting each and every point of view they have. It is all about attitude and treating others with dignity and respect.

40k right now is convenient because I have lots of stuff and GW has little impact on me except the odd codex or model.

The "straw-man" poll is interesting, looking at my past interests it can shed light on what 40k means to me:

I notice I seem to mostly be attracted to 6mm (1:258 scale)

I would say that 40k is going toward a 28mm (1:73) version of Epic 40k (6mm / 1:258).
I am VERY happy playing this, check out http://www.netepic.org/

Battletech has always been a favorite and with "Alpha-Strike" it has a new shine to it:
http://www.catalystgamelabs.com/battletech/

X-wing 'nuff-said.
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite.asp?eidm=174

Federation Commander. A more humane version of Starfleet Battles.
http://www.federationcommander.com/

Robotech RPG Tactics, also a 6mm scale game, waiting on box set in next month or so... see kickstarter (6mm scale):
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rrpgt/robotech-rpg-tacticstm

I guess you could say that being "happy" (content, indifferent, un-inspired, apathetic.. new word! "insouciance") with GW's 40k is less the question than being MOAR! happy with other games.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I discuss both positives AND negatives. I also make it plain that my views are purely my opinion and support the right of others to disagree without harrassing them or contesting each and every point of view they have. It is all about attitude and treating others with dignity and respect.

Yeah, I discuss positives and negatives too. I don't feel the need to constantly repeat that I do that either.

It should also go without saying that subjective statements are also opinion based. Further, who isn't supporting anyone's right to disagree, let alone harass others?

You can disagree with someone while treating them with dignity and respect.

Once more, if you have something to say, just say. You grandstand about posting etiquette more than you post. Someone disagreeing or holding a differing opinion than you isn't grounds for you to remind everyone about everything you write is your opinion and we should respect it.

Just as a straw poll, how many other games do people who self identify as happy with 40K play/have played?

You cant be implying that they're happy because they're ignorant. Can you?

 Ratius wrote:

Just as a straw poll, how many other games do people who self identify as happy with 40K play/have played?

You cant be implying that they're happy because they're ignorant. Can you?

Given the rabid "GW is doing everything right" even in the face of dropping sales that I've seen around the internet....

I am curious if this new Tyranid thing keeps up.

We shouldn't forget that the Nid codex dropped lacking a bunch of units, and that these new toys should have been included on day 1, but it does show...well...something anyways on GW's behalf.

I suspect we'll see something more like this before Christmas, and I'm curious if their sales will reflect that. Will it be enough to keep plodding along, or even turn back the fall from the last report? Who knows.

I'm really not a fan of the bugs so the release has no interest for me, but something Guard related might sway me out of a few dollars if its good enough.

 Ratius wrote:

Just as a straw poll, how many other games do people who self identify as happy with 40K play/have played?

You cant be implying that they're happy because they're ignorant. Can you?

In a manner of speaking, but I am genuinely interested if there's any correlation between people who seem to enjoy the game disproportionately. I mean, I'm happy to criticise plenty about it, but I'll be the first to admit it is still possible to have fun, but then I've played all of GW's major systems except LotR, Battletech, the first Warzone, a handful of Warmachine games, some Infinity, I own the rules to DZC and Bolt Action and I've seen FoW played, on top of all that I've played multiple CCGs, from the obscure ones like Alien vs Predator and ?
The X Files to the forgotten ones like Decipher's Star Wars CCG, the still hanging in there ones like L5R and, of course, Magic. All of these going back over twenty years gives me, I feel, a solid platform for comparison.

I wonder if there is anyone with a similar, or superior, gaming CV (so to speak) who still thinks 40K is the be all and end all, or if there is a heavy bias towards those with limited experience of other systems, or even multiple editions of 40K.

If there's a strong correlation between 40K advocates and those who have limited experience of other systems, it would certainly endorse GW's closed eco system approach.

WayneTheGame wrote:

Talys wrote:

To say that you'd get steamrolled with all-Terminator army -- what's wrong with that?! Allied forces in World War 2 would also have been flattened if they had deployed only tanks, with no infantry, aircraft, or command and control. Chess would be a terrible game if you replaced all your units with knights. Being able to field an army that's homogenous is not the markings of a good wargame >.<

I'm certainly not saying GW has the BEST ruleset, but look at any game, and there are people unhappy with the rules in some way.

According to GW's own fluff, Terminators are the best of the best of the best and can subjugate an entire world. Comparing it to the allies in WW2 deploying only tanks is idiotic and ridiculous. An all-Terminator army is supposed to be something that happens in 40k (the 1st Company of a Marine Chapter), so there's no reason other than lazy design and poor balance why they would get crushed just for being an all Terminator army.

It's best to read such fluff as largely a degree of propaganda of sorts, a few dozen dudes, no matter how powerful, aren't going to conquer anything on their own against an opponent with any sort of functioning command structure and relevant numbers (they just can't be everywhere they need to be and their enemies would be easily able to encircle them and pound them to dust with heavy weapons) though they may be able to knock off whatever administration rules a world if they have surprise, but, even in the fluff, fall prey to all sorts of weapons that are fairly common. On a table, much the same thing happens, they get outmaneuvered, tarpitted, and pounded by heavy and specialist weapons. One will also note the Ultramarines 1st company was entirely destroyed last time it deployed as one big terminator force

There's also a big difference between a 40k game and 40k fluff, in that most 40k games are pitched battles of a sort. The Dark Eldar for instance would never directly attack an Imperial Guard mechanized battlegroup arrayed for battle from the front as a 40k game would normally be set up, that would be insane for them (as it often bears out to be so on the table), instead they're going to try and strike before the Imperial Guard get to their positions or engage the IG's support/logistics elements, or move around an outflank them, but the game just isn't capable of effectively portraying such things.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
GW despite what complainers think, don't hate us. They don't set out to make us nerd rage. They don't have a vendetta against the player base. They are trying to keep the game fresh. Innovation isn't always well received but at least they're freaking trying.

I like the direction of the game. Toned down power levels, model releases outside of codex time. I LOVE LoW in regular games. I love flyers. There's more good than ba and at least they aren't regurgitating the same old junk.

When we stop hyper focusing on negativity, and start smelling the roses. I'm very happy with their single model releases and not just doing it at codex time with these nids. Let's hope this is a trend.

Oh brother...

Try not to be the living embodiment of my sig.

I think someone fell in an Egyptian river...

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Hobbies aren't meant to be accessible to everyone. I would love to collect motorcycles. I don't have the means to do so. All things to consider while gauging whether or not to be involved in something.

Although if you make pals, can't you guys negotiate what to bring at play at your shops available?

True, but at what point does it become too unaccessible for most players and forces GW under?

Doubtful. GW is the best of its kind on its scale. The other war games are mostly skirmish. NOT to mention it has the best models and best background.

This is what you just did there.

 Skinnereal wrote:
Most armies are lacking any real AA unit options.

Mine lack an AA option. Forget about the distinction between “real” options and “unreal/useless/uneffective” options. And that is just the icing on the cake of the “no new release for the last ten years”, by the way.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Offhand, I would say that if you like the game, play and enjoy it. Dont try to force liking it down someone elses throat.
Likewise, if you dont like it, dont play it. Move on to whatever game you like and the forums for that game and dont spend your time trying to ram your dislike down others throats who do like it.
of course, thats just my viewpoint.

I've found that people who have claimed they don't play 40k anymore come to this forum quite often and put the game down. If I quit 40k, I wouldn't be on its forums. I've always found this hysterical.

 Paradigm wrote:
Communication could fix so many of these problems.

You know what else would have fixed those problems? Making it harder to build non-fluffy, cheese-fest lists, instead of just making the FOC optional ...

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Offhand, I would say that if you like the game, play and enjoy it. Dont try to force liking it down someone elses throat.
Likewise, if you dont like it, dont play it. Move on to whatever game you like and the forums for that game and dont spend your time trying to ram your dislike down others throats who do like it.
of course, thats just my viewpoint.

I've found that people who have claimed they don't play 40k anymore come to this forum quite often and put the game down. If I quit 40k, I wouldn't be on its forums. I've always found this hysterical.

That is all.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Offhand, I would say that if you like the game, play and enjoy it. Dont try to force liking it down someone elses throat.

Please stop telling me what to do.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I wonder if there is anyone with a similar, or superior, gaming CV (so to speak) who still thinks 40K is the be all and end all, or if there is a heavy bias towards those with limited experience of other systems, or even multiple editions of 40K.
If there's a strong correlation between 40K advocates and those who have limited experience of other systems, it would certainly endorse GW's closed eco system approach.

Played 40k since 3rd edition.
Always liked 40k "fluff" and the wide variety of "iconic" units.
If not for the fiction and esthetic of the setting, I would have little interest to play from a tactical standing.
I have little else to say other than it is a very weak means of employing tactics in a way that has meaningful logical impact.
The spectacle of it and the uneven gameplay of it does make for all manner of ups and downs emotionally.
Due to the extreme amount of randomization in the game tactical decisions seem more like "suggestions" than commands carried-out.
As pointed out, there is definitely more control exerted in list building than inside the actual game.

Based on other games I listed earlier; it is far more satisfying to play other games for a true tactical challenge with logical outcomes.
It is unfortunate that the two groups of players could not be better combined, it feels like a missed opportunity.

 insaniak wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Communication could fix so many of these problems.

You know what else would have fixed those problems? Making it harder to build non-fluffy, cheese-fest lists, instead of just making the FOC optional ...

Actually, I think that would annoy just as many people. There are people that play the game just to build those 'non-fluffy, cheese-fest lists' and pit them against others of a similar calibre, and even though I am at pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum, I would not want those options taken away from those players, as I imagine to them it would be just as annoying as it would be to me if a new edition rolled around and my Deathwing were non-playable, for example. For everyone that has used the new army selection rules to build a super-cheese-list-of-doom, there is someone who has been able to run non-Deathwing 1st Co lists, all-tank IG lists without Forge World, or that scenario-specific army they've always thought was cool.

With 7th Ed, GW has given us the option to take the game to either extreme, and it is up to us as players and individuals to decide what we make of those options.

Yeah, because getting a group of people to agree on anything is such a straightforward process?

We buy the rules to give us a structure to play the game, not to have a hand waved at us and told 'whatever'

 Talizvar wrote:

I would say that 40k is going toward a 28mm (1:73) version of Epic 40k (6mm / 1:258).
.

As I said before, I would die happy if GW actually dropped all pretences of being a Skirmish Game and made it an actual 28mm Epic.

I dont know if playing 7 non GW games regularly counts...

But the big difference to me (not talking about anything but gameplay) is the fact that after a game, win or lose, its not "what units should I replace/change" its always "I think these need to be used differently". Thats a huge difference in my opinion. How you use models is far more important than what models you have.

I only feel the need to change models when I simply want a new models to toy with or add to my collection. I dont feel the need to buy to compete.

40k and fantasy are the games I put on the bottom two shelves of my display. Lord of the rings however is amazing... We where shocked to find it was made by GW when playing it.


BUT I agree with the above, communication fixes 99% of the problems people have with 40k.

 Paradigm wrote:
Actually, I think that would annoy just as many people. There are people that play the game just to build those 'non-fluffy, cheese-fest lists' and pit them against others of a similar calibre, and even though I am at pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum, I would not want those options taken away from those players, as I imagine to them it would be just as annoying as it would be to me if a new edition rolled around and my Deathwing were non-playable, for example. For everyone that has used the new army selection rules to build a super-cheese-list-of-doom, there is someone who has been able to run non-Deathwing 1st Co lists, all-tank IG lists without Forge World, or that scenario-specific army they've always thought was cool.

People were doing that before GW decided to just forget about the FOC.

Those people who like to build the hardest lists possible would still be able to do in a less unbalanced system. But if there was a little less power variation available from army selection, it wouldn't be as big a problem when those people run into players who aren't as into list optimisation.


Segregating the community off into different groups doesn't do anything positive for the game.

I think it's totally legitimate that some players prefer a game where unit choice is less important than unit tactics -- in other words, where units may have different abilities, but are versatile enough that they can adapt to any situation.

On the other hand, I also don't think a game is inferior if units are not perfectly versatile, and where all units are a tradeoff between strengths and weaknesses, and where army composition is very important.

I prefer the latter, because to me, building an effective army and experimenting with different units is a lot of fun. And, there SHOULD be a penalty for building an army that doesn't make sense. I agree that the opposite makes it easier to get into the game.

Talys wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I dont know if playing 7 non GW games regularly counts...

But the big difference to me (not talking about anything but gameplay) is the fact that after a game, win or lose, its not "what units should I replace/change" its always "I think these need to be used differently". Thats a huge difference in my opinion. How you use models is far more important than what models you have.

I only feel the need to change models when I simply want a new models to toy with or add to my collection. I dont feel the need to buy to compete.

40k and fantasy are the games I put on the bottom two shelves of my display. Lord of the rings however is amazing... We where shocked to find it was made by GW when playing it.


BUT I agree with the above, communication fixes 99% of the problems people have with 40k.

I think it's totally legitimate that some players prefer a game where unit choice is less important than unit tactics -- in other words, where units may have different abilities, but are versatile enough that they can adapt to any situation.

On the other hand, I also don't think a game is inferior if units are not perfectly versatile, and where all units are a tradeoff between strengths and weaknesses, and where army composition is very important.

I prefer the latter, because to me, building an effective army and experimenting with different units is a lot of fun. And, there SHOULD be a penalty for building an army that doesn't make sense. I agree that the opposite makes it easier to get into the game.

What I mean is, you dont have units that are so useless or redundant that if you have purchased them you have to replace them to compete. The easy example is the rough rider. I personally think I have the coolest rough rider conversions I have ever seen, but ultimately they are useless. If I went to a tournament I would not be able to win even using them in the most efficient manner available. I would call that inferior because it forces you (if you wish to compete) to buy other units instead of working a way to use the units you have.

If someone has built sniper rifles on their army they are gonna regret it as well. Not because they cant learn how to use them, but because there is no point using them if you want to compete.

So in many ways I would say its inferior. Because a game that relies on you owning the right units pretty much gives you no options should you want to compete.

In contrast to all the games I play were everything is a decent option and can be used properly. Obviously my suicide Japanese with anti tank weapons are gonna be useless if no tanks are available, but one game allows me to trade them back for rifles, the other one gives me extra order dice to play with. A suicide team as a very specific task and opponent to do, and with no tanks in the area it literally cannot do anything besides move and defend itself in combat maybe. But both games offer a tradeoff IN game for them. As mentioned before. In 40k, if you have brought a lasgun to a game filled with platoon guardsmen its a useless unit and no matter how well you use it, you will go away from the game thinking how pointless all your tank weapons have become. Because there is nothing you can do about bringing anti tanks guns against an army with no viable targets. And in 40k anti tank guns can shoot infantry too. So in 40k units are actually more versatile (they can shoot anything and do anything) but are also more likely to be pointless. I dont have this problem in other games. yet.

I dont know if im explaining it right, games that rely on you having certain units and NOT having other units despite it looking like you can take them all is inferior to a game where you can take the units you need and want without them being wasted or replaceable because they are wrong?

You're not doing a great job Swasto, as I'm uncertain exactly what you're trying to say.

Are you trying to say that 40K units generally have better in game utility, but suffer from poor internal and external balance overall.

I dont know... I give up.

My writing is terrible sometimes...

Ignore my posts.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I dont know... I give up.
My writing is terrible sometimes...
Ignore my posts.

No I think what you said boils down to:

Some units are truly useful and the rest are garbage, a distraction, given rules to justify buying but not to be considered for competitive play.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Offhand, I would say that if you like the game, play and enjoy it. Dont try to force liking it down someone elses throat.
Likewise, if you dont like it, dont play it. Move on to whatever game you like and the forums for that game and dont spend your time trying to ram your dislike down others throats who do like it.
of course, thats just my viewpoint.

I've found that people who have claimed they don't play 40k anymore come to this forum quite often and put the game down. If I quit 40k, I wouldn't be on its forums. I've always found this hysterical.

That is all.

It matters because people who've quit consistantly put 40k down on the 40k sub forum of dakka. I find that silly. If I wasn't in the 40k hobby, I wouldn't be on the 40k sub forum. Plain and simple.

Chaos got Drop Pods, Tyranids get decent units. I have hope for the future!

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
It matters because people who've quit consistantly put 40k down on the 40k sub forum of dakka. I find that silly. If I wasn't in the 40k hobby, I wouldn't be on the 40k sub forum. Plain and simple.

If it got me angry enough for a rage-quit, discouraging others "for their own good"... it would be a public service, trying to help, make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
You may be motivated for other reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GrafWattenburg wrote:
Chaos got Drop Pods, Tyranids get decent units. I have hope for the future!

I must admit for the "hate" Tyranids had seen, it is like the abused being greeted with praise: the contrast is like rainbows and unicorns.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
It matters because people who've quit consistantly put 40k down on the 40k sub forum of dakka. I find that silly. If I wasn't in the 40k hobby, I wouldn't be on the 40k sub forum. Plain and simple.

If it got me angry enough for a rage-quit, discouraging others "for their own good"... it would be a public service, trying to help, make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
You may be motivated for other reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GrafWattenburg wrote:
Chaos got Drop Pods, Tyranids get decent units. I have hope for the future!

I must admit for the "hate" Tyranids had seen, it is like the abused being greeted with praise: the contrast is like rainbows and unicorns.

Nah I don't waste my time with things I've let go of. I'm not a vindictive girlfriend lmao.

 Swastakowey wrote:
What I mean is, you dont have units that are so useless or redundant that if you have purchased them you have to replace them to compete. The easy example is the rough rider. I personally think I have the coolest rough rider conversions I have ever seen, but ultimately they are useless. If I went to a tournament I would not be able to win even using them in the most efficient manner available. I would call that inferior because it forces you (if you wish to compete) to buy other units instead of working a way to use the units you have.

If someone has built sniper rifles on their army they are gonna regret it as well. Not because they cant learn how to use them, but because there is no point using them if you want to compete.

So in many ways I would say its inferior. Because a game that relies on you owning the right units pretty much gives you no options should you want to compete.

In contrast to all the games I play were everything is a decent option and can be used properly. Obviously my suicide Japanese with anti tank weapons are gonna be useless if no tanks are available, but one game allows me to trade them back for rifles, the other one gives me extra order dice to play with. A suicide team as a very specific task and opponent to do, and with no tanks in the area it literally cannot do anything besides move and defend itself in combat maybe. But both games offer a tradeoff IN game for them. As mentioned before. In 40k, if you have brought a lasgun to a game filled with platoon guardsmen its a useless unit and no matter how well you use it, you will go away from the game thinking how pointless all your tank weapons have become. Because there is nothing you can do about bringing anti tanks guns against an army with no viable targets. And in 40k anti tank guns can shoot infantry too. So in 40k units are actually more versatile (they can shoot anything and do anything) but are also more likely to be pointless. I dont have this problem in other games. yet.

I dont know if im explaining it right, games that rely on you having certain units and NOT having other units despite it looking like you can take them all is inferior to a game where you can take the units you need and want without them being wasted or replaceable because they are wrong?

Ok, yeah, I get it and am happy to concede that there are some 40k units that are clearly much better alternatives, making certain units obviously weak and inferior. I'm happy to agree that 40k would be a better game, if there were fewer of these issues.

It bothers me less for a couple of reasons. First, as a proportion of my entertainment gaming (I'm not including painting/modelling, as this is in the "hobby" bucket rather than entertainment gaming), 40k is a pretty small ratio of my time. I've spent a lot more time on computer games, including FPS and RTS; plus, in the past, Magic the Gathering, and in the present, Hearthstone (the computer TCG by Blizzard). You probably see where I'm going with this... the type of balance issue you describe (where there is one unit/card that is ridiculously better than another) is so prevalent that I've simply become desensitized to it, and I choose the superior alternatives.

Frankly, in tabletop boardgames it's less an issue, because most gaming groups I've been in have adjusted for these in house list adjustments. Also, when you say, "competitive", that assumes many things, most importantly, that you're matched with someone who is equally skilled and has similar experience and resources. This is just so rare for me. There's often people I pair with that have gimped armies, where I have to gimp my own list or play with fewer points for the game itself to be "competitive"... or... fun. In essence, I'm trying to correct the problem that you describe

Again, I do take your point and agree with it. 40k would be a better game if every model could be effective in a general way, without it either being a specific answer to an uncommon situation, or being simply obviously inferior to another available alternative (how many times have people asked, why take a chainsword instead of a bolt pistol?).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

GrafWattenburg wrote:
Chaos got Drop Pods, Tyranids get decent units. I have hope for the future!

Tyranid Drop Pod too

I think I am going to have to start buying Tyranids, hehe. I've always loved so many of the models. This may put a crimp on ever getting my Dark Eldar army done!