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.

Am I happy with 40k? Yes.
Do I think it could be better? Yes.

 Fenris Frost wrote:
Your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the most important guys to you survive every time?

One word: abstraction. When you're trying to play a game with 200+ models on the table you don't need a perfect simulation of reality. "Remove your choice of models" is a straightforward abstraction that is easily explainable fluff-wise (someone picks up the melta gun or assumes command of the squad), and you don't need to worry about the occasional fluff situation where the melta gun is broken by the shot that kills its user in a game with that many models.

And of course you can ask the exact opposite: your unit gets shot to pieces, why would the sergeant in the back survive every time instead of being shot first? Do you really think it's realistic to have the sergeant standing completely exposed in the open at the back of the unit while the enemy puts shot after shot into the models in front of him? Are snipers that roll a 6 to hit really the only shooters in the entire 40k universe capable of saying "hey, let's pick a specific guy to shoot at"?

- Weapon power levels are able to grow because the model carrying them can be lost over the course of the game.

Why is this a good thing? Why do weapon power levels need to keep increasing?

- In turn, it gives extra value to the "scrub" models, who can actually have a use in the game besides being wound counters for their Sergeants.

No it doesn't. Those "wound counter" models are still wound counters, the only difference is that you use them as wound counters by putting them in front of the sergeant instead of by saying "the meatshield takes the wound".

- It allows you a defense against faster assaulting units when a few casualties can make or break a long charge.

Given the relative power of shooting and melee right now this is not really a convincing argument.

- It gives you an incentive to use a bigger unit rather than several small ones.

No it doesn't.

- It allows you to actually remove scoring models from an objective, as opposed to having to kill the entire unit.

Who cares? Why is it better to make scoring units easy to remove? There's a huge difference between "this rule has a strategic effect" and "this rule has a desirable strategic effect".

- Without it, Strength D becomes completely foolish, since it will only ever kill the worst guys in a unit.

Well yes, and that's how it should be. D-weapons are supposed to be specialized tools for killing heavy tanks and expensive elite infantry units where there are no "worst guys". They're not supposed to be a general "kill everything" weapon.

- It introduces at least some degree of realism.

Lol no. It's not realistic at all.

- It is SUPER easy to teach and explain. Why does this not matter to anyone?!

You know what's even easier to explain? "Roll saves and then remove your choice of models". Closest-first (unless you can't see the closest model, or they pass their LoS roll, etc) allocation is more complicated than the alternative. So if having a rule that's easy to teach is important then you should agree with me that the current rule sucks.

I consider it LITERALLY the easiest rule I've had to learn in my entire decade playing this (and numerous other) games.

It isn't hard to learn, it's hard to use. "Remove the closest model" is simple, the hard part is arguing about whether the melta gunner or the meatshield is 0.00001" closer and should be removed by the single remaining unsaved wound, or spending absurd amounts of time carefully arranging a unit to maximize protection for its key models.

Colehkxix wrote:
Give all models Look Out Sir, the idea being that the weapon is not destroyed and another member of the team picks up the weapon? Just an idea that will never happen.

This just results in an extra roll that is really not necessary. The previous system (allow owning player to allocate, unless the unit takes more wounding hits than there are models, in which case the shooter gets to choose one specific model to take a save) dealt with it much more elegantly.

I don't feel like THAT much has changed.

I mean, still no plastic Sisters, but plenty of marines and plenty of whining. So no dramatic change or end of the world yet.

Nothing has changed apart from the constant price rises, because less than half the people that used to buy 40k are still buying in to 40k.

Apart from rules slowly replacing meaningful player choice, with RANDUM and counter intuitive, and complicated alternatives they have not changed.

So GW targeting the easiest to please , has made no difference to the easiest to please, apart from them having to pay more.
Because all those wanting more value for money nave moved on...

''..Although it is very difficult to polish a turd, GW have found rolling in lots of glitter makes it shine enough for some..'

Note that, due to terrible poll wording, the people who are satisfied with the game are currently tied with the naysayers despite what the results show. Indifferent players are actually very close to second as well.

I feel that 7th edition has fixed a lot of the nonsense found in 6th edition. We got more nonsense in return, but such is life. I personally am enjoying the introduction of new factions and armies to the game, along with the new ways of building an army. I am having loads of fun playing 40k in my particular gaming group, and have no intention to stop anytime soon.

I'm seeing that 53% are in some way not happy with the game, which is more than the combined happy option.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Note that, due to terrible poll wording, the people who are satisfied with the game are currently tied with the naysayers despite what the results show. Indifferent players are actually very close to second as well.

I have no idea how you're arriving at both of those faulty conclusions. The poll options as well as the results are quite clear. There is a strong yes, a weak yes, an indifferent, a weak no, a strong no, and a joke/abstain answer in that order. The strong no folks have consistently been the highest category running on average double the next highest answer and the combined unhappy votes have been consistently been in the majority for the duration of the poll so far (>50% weak/strong no combined). Feel free to have a minority viewpoint on the question (it is after all just an opinion) but don't try to blame the poll to soothe your bruised ego.

Exactly.

"Not really, but I don't let it affect me" is a negative choice. It's the one I picked and I HATE the changes in 6/7th edition (except for a few things like hull points and more maneuverable rapid fire options).

I think that, in general, 4th/5th were the best editions (especially 4th, the terrain and LOS rules were excellent), but in the end I don't play 40k for great rules. I play because it is the most amazing fictional universe to wargame in and the models rock. But it could be so much more with better rules.

The rule changes of 7th kicked me out of a game I loved for over 20 years. It became a game I no longer enjoyed.

 docdoom77 wrote:
Exactly.

"Not really, but I don't let it affect me" is a negative choice. It's the one I picked and I HATE the changes in 6/7th edition (except for a few things like hull points and more maneuverable rapid fire options).

I think that, in general, 4th/5th were the best editions (especially 4th, the terrain and LOS rules were excellent), but in the end I don't play 40k for great rules. I play because it is the most amazing fictional universe to wargame in and the models rock. But it could be so much more with better rules.

I actually thought when I made the poll that the weak yes/no and indifferent answers would be roughly equal and the clear favorites with the strong answers in the minority. You can probably infer that from the first post. I actually tried to be as objective in the wording of the poll answers as I could since I've seen so many polls with utterly stupid opinionated answers that insult people who chose them. Despite my very strong viewpoint on the current state of 40k, I worded the poll so as not to do that as well as put the answers that I don't agree with first to avoid any favoritism on my part. I'm quite suprised by the clear single biggest pool of respondents as well as the total number of respondents so far. Frankly, the results on dakka mesh with the yearly financial results in that GW likely has a shrinking fanbase in part BECAUSE of the changes they're making not despite them. I can't walk into my FLGS on a 40k game day and automatically get a game in like I used to back in 5th edition. The dozen to two dozen weekly 40k day gamers has consistently and slowly dwindled at my FLGS to only 3-4 during the last two abbrreviated editions. On top of the rising prices, decreasing utility of books, and IMO horrible rules changes, I can no longer be "guaranteed" to find a game anymore where I play. If the latter wasn't true, I might be tempted to vote weak no but that combined with the rest puts me personally in the strong NO vote with the highest number of folks.

 warboss wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Note that, due to terrible poll wording, the people who are satisfied with the game are currently tied with the naysayers despite what the results show. Indifferent players are actually very close to second as well.

I have no idea how you're arriving at both of those faulty conclusions. The poll options as well as the results are quite clear. There is a strong yes, a weak yes, an indifferent, a weak no, a strong no, and a joke/abstain answer in that order. The strong no folks have consistently been the highest category running on average double the next highest answer and the combined unhappy votes have been consistently been in the majority for the duration of the poll so far (>50% weak/strong no combined). Feel free to have a minority viewpoint on the question (it is after all just an opinion) but don't try to blame the poll to soothe your bruised ego.

At the time of posting this, the "Strong Yes" and "Weak Yes" have a combined 38% of the vote, tied with the "Strong No". There are two "Indifferent" responses, giving a combined 22% of the vote. The graph is misleading, as you have split the "Yes" and "Indifferent" votes while the "No" vote is not split. Wording and options are everything when it comes to polls.

Option 1: Strong Yes
Option 2: Weak Yes
Option 3: No Opinion
Option 4: Indifferent
Option 5: Strong No
Option 6: N/A

With this format, you are guaranteed to have more "No" votes, as there is only one option for them, while "Yes" and "Indifferent" are split between two options. A simple Yes/No/Indifferent poll wording would not only be simpler, but also more reflective of people's opinions. Leave the soft statistics and opinions to the comments.

It's still a very strong lean to the negative. Wording or not.

There is only one indifferent option.

I don't know what part of this is confusing you.

MWHistorian wrote:It's still a very strong lean to the negative. Wording or not.

The lean to the negative is misleading. The "No" option is tied with the two "Yes" options once the votes are combined.

Blacksails wrote:There is only one indifferent option.

I don't know what part of this is confusing you.

Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.

Sort of... I'm ok with it but it hasn't changed my gaming habits.

Not really... I'm not a fan of the changes but it hasn't affected what I do.

Emphasis mine.

The first one you consider a yes.

The second one you consider an indifferent.

They have nearly identical wording.

If you consider the second one indifferent, then surely you must consider the first one to be equally indifferent. Especially considering the use of 'Sort of' vs 'Not really'.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:It's still a very strong lean to the negative. Wording or not.

The lean to the negative is misleading. The "No" option is tied with the two "Yes" options once the votes are combined.

Blacksails wrote:There is only one indifferent option.

I don't know what part of this is confusing you.

Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.

Sigh.. whatever. You're clearly misreading the poll because it doesn't agree with YOUR opinion and for some reason you think that you can't have a minority opinion. It's ok to like something that most folks don't. I like the first AVP movie even though most people don't; I'm still alive and my psyche is intact despite that.

The "Sort of" and "Not really" responses are clearly the opposite sides a coin being the soft yes and soft no respectively to the question of "Are you happy?". If you ask your significant other or family member, "Are you happy?" and they tell you "not really", you really would think that is a completely neutral indifferent answer???

 Blacksails wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.

Sort of... I'm ok with it but it hasn't changed my gaming habits.

Not really... I'm not a fan of the changes but it hasn't affected what I do.

Emphasis mine.

The first one you consider a yes.

The second one you consider an indifferent.

They have nearly identical wording.

If you consider the second one indifferent, then surely you must consider the first one to be equally indifferent. Especially considering the use of 'Sort of' vs 'Not really'.

Which is the problem. The two questions have nearly identical wording, leaving it up to the pollee to decide which one best applies to them and splitting the vote. Like I said before, a simple Yes/No/Indifferent would have given much clearer results.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Wrong. Due to the way the poll is worded, there is a "I don't care" option and a "It doesn't affect me" option. Both of these express similar opinions, leading to a misleading vote split between the two options.

Sort of... I'm ok with it but it hasn't changed my gaming habits.

Not really... I'm not a fan of the changes but it hasn't affected what I do.

Emphasis mine.

The first one you consider a yes.

The second one you consider an indifferent.

They have nearly identical wording.

If you consider the second one indifferent, then surely you must consider the first one to be equally indifferent. Especially considering the use of 'Sort of' vs 'Not really'.

Which is the problem. The two questions have nearly identical wording, leaving it up to the pollee to decide which one best applies to them and splitting the vote. Like I said before, a simple Yes/No/Indifferent would have given much clearer results.

Then make your own poll with wording you like better?

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Which is the problem. The two questions have nearly identical wording, leaving it up to the pollee to decide which one best applies to them and splitting the vote. Like I said before, a simple Yes/No/Indifferent would have given much clearer results.

Either way your earlier statement is wrong about the combined yes being more than the no.

I'm sure most people think the poll is fine and understand it perfectly.

 warboss wrote:
Sigh.. whatever. You're clearly misreading the poll because it doesn't agree with YOUR opinion and for some reason you think that you can't have a minority opinion. It's ok to like something that most folks don't. I like the first AVP movie even though most people don't; I'm still alive and my psyche is intact despite that.

The "Sort of" and "Not really" responses are clearly the opposite sides a coin being the soft yes and soft no respectively to the question of "Are you happy?". If you ask your significant other or family member, "Are you happy?" and they tell you "not really", you really would think that is a completely neutral indifferent answer???

If I "misread" the poll, how many other people who voted do you think also "misread" the poll?

Yeah, I'm opinionated. Just check my signature. I'm perfectly fine being in the minority on some issues; I even thing that the Decurion is balanced! What I don't like is when people make assumptions about what I think simply because I don't agree with them.

Context is everything. One person's "No" is another person's "I don't care".

I think the poll's validity will be ok by assuming that the vast majority of folks who read the question "are you happy?" and see the answer "not really" will consider that to be a soft negative as intended.

The poll does show that (at least) many people are unhappy with how 40k is currently.
That's a problem for the 40k community and if this continues there won't be much of a community left. (As shattered as it is at the moment.)

I thought the point of the poll worked quite well. There are very few games that people would ever be entirely happy with. This poll gives a good distinction of the types of dissatisfaction that can exist that don't necessary entail quitting the game. IMO this poll would also work well with other games, which I'm assuming is the goal.

That's an interesting result so far... That's a lot of people who've dropped the game.

Just to be clear, it's dropped or cut back significantly. It's pedantic but there was a perplexing case of confusion earlier so I wanted to clarify.

I've played one game since Christmas that I can think, and that was with my own modified Ruleset, I've just been playing X Wing as it's easier to transport and I feel like I can win against anything if I play well enough, rather than things being somewhat of a foregone conclusion depending on what faction and models you're running.

 warboss wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Exactly.

"Not really, but I don't let it affect me" is a negative choice. It's the one I picked and I HATE the changes in 6/7th edition (except for a few things like hull points and more maneuverable rapid fire options).

I think that, in general, 4th/5th were the best editions (especially 4th, the terrain and LOS rules were excellent), but in the end I don't play 40k for great rules. I play because it is the most amazing fictional universe to wargame in and the models rock. But it could be so much more with better rules.

I actually thought when I made the poll that the weak yes/no and indifferent answers would be roughly equal and the clear favorites with the strong answers in the minority. You can probably infer that from the first post. I actually tried to be as objective in the wording of the poll answers as I could since I've seen so many polls with utterly stupid opinionated answers that insult people who chose them. Despite my very strong viewpoint on the current state of 40k, I worded the poll so as not to do that as well as put the answers that I don't agree with first to avoid any favoritism on my part. I'm quite suprised by the clear single biggest pool of respondents as well as the total number of respondents so far. Frankly, the results on dakka mesh with the yearly financial results in that GW likely has a shrinking fanbase in part BECAUSE of the changes they're making not despite them. I can't walk into my FLGS on a 40k game day and automatically get a game in like I used to back in 5th edition. The dozen to two dozen weekly 40k day gamers has consistently and slowly dwindled at my FLGS to only 3-4 during the last two abbrreviated editions. On top of the rising prices, decreasing utility of books, and IMO horrible rules changes, I can no longer be "guaranteed" to find a game anymore where I play. If the latter wasn't true, I might be tempted to vote weak no but that combined with the rest puts me personally in the strong NO vote with the highest number of folks.

I would be careful to draw too much conclusions from this poll. Topics like this tend to draw in only those who are negative about the game and those who are most vocal about supporting it. Most others have long tired from the constant topics Dakka has on this subject. Due to a biased sample population the results of this poll might not be indicative of the 40k community or even the Dakka community as a whole.
Also, the question itself can be interpreted in many different ways and the possible answers are ambiguously worded.

Equally, there's 117 posts in the thread, multiple instances from the same posters in a lot of cases, yet there's 357 responses at time of writing.

Suggests that many more people are voting than being vocal about it.

Plus you have to consider that a portion of the negative people who might have frequented the forums dislike the game so much that they're not around to vote anymore.