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.
If it were a good game it wouldn't matter whether your opponent was competitive or not, you could still have an enjoyable game as long as they weren't a complete TFG.
And if the rules were better written then there is less for TFG to use as loopholes aren't there or interpreting in a weird way is impossible as the intention and meaning are clear and actually match up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/13 11:32:03
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.
Oh I know, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even with that, it's not like the warboss running in at full speed on his bike is going to have much in the way of finesse other than to simple punch something real hard or grab *something* and try to tear it off More to the point, most vehicles (particularly MBT's) really shouldn't have anything *that* vulnerable anywhere on their front arc except maybe locomotion (popping a wheel or breaking a tread link) that would be vulnerable to such an attack.
The rear armor value stands in for the top armor, which is generally considerably thinner than the forward armor:
That's a Panther, something that one might reasonably treat as the WW2 equivalent of a Leman Russ. The front is 80mm (sloped), where the top is only 15mm - less than 1/5 the thickness. The Panther rear is 30mm, 2x as thick as the top. If anything, HtH units should get +1AP against the rear armor value.
Modern MBTs are even more extreme in the armor thickness front vs top.
In some ways, that might make sense, however GW has pretty much always used the side armor to represent top armor values (such as with Barrage weapons), and I certainly don't think that the earlier aforementioned Warboss, seated in his bike, is striking at the top armor, especially at any sort of direct angle
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
When i gave My rating of the game it was based on the game rules itself. I had to leave out the fluff, opinions of model quality, and all those little things that can vary wildly with personal aesthetics. I went off the rules as written, how they were written, and how the game plays over the time allowed.
As such i gave it a 3. The conflicting rules, lack of editing that leads to conflicting rules, and the unnecessary application of special rules for special rules sake just makes the actual game a mess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: In some ways, that might make sense, however GW has pretty much always used the side armor to represent top armor values (such as with Barrage weapons), and I certainly don't think that the earlier aforementioned Warboss, seated in his bike, is striking at the top armor, especially at any sort of direct angle
The part that actually makes it even more laughable is that the speed of the vehicle makes little to no difference. It doesnt matter if the vehicle in question moved 1" or 36" you still are hitting the soft spot on a 3+ regardless if in an real life situation the tank is moving at. 5 or 85 mph
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/13 03:37:43
See pics of my Orks, Tau, Emperor's Children, Necrons, Space Wolves, and Dark Eldar here:
I gave it a 5 in its current state. I'd give it less, but compared to other games, I think it edges a whole bunch of them on enjoyment and pretty much in every single case on aesthetics for me - I can't stand the low quality models, uncohesive army design and outright bad design in a lot of competitors
That's not to say 40k doesn't have its weird out of place units that are particularly badly designed but at least when I look at my IG army everything looks like it goes together cohesively, unlike games like Infinity where you get limited choice in models and have models within the same faction that frequently look nothing alike - you might have Soviet heavy infantry dressed in some futuristic battle armour in the same army where you've got a US Marine from the gulf wars, medieval scotsmen wearing kilts, and giant anthropomorphic dogs.
If I could, I'd still play 40k regularly. But everyone in my local area quit. The only time I ever see 40k being played is between maybe 2-4 guys who arranged a game on a weekend, sometimes, at a local FLGS. One club that had a big 40k following for years had its interest collapse almost overnight. There hasn't been a tournament in over a year in any of my local stores or clubs. Invasion events where stores would arrange to have trips down to Warhammer World and compete stopped. Because of that the hobby veteran store managers who managed two of my local stores each for about 5-10 years both quit and got seemingly replaced by talentless 20~ year olds without even the skills to paint scenery to a decent standard.
To be honest it basically means I'm done with wargaming, period, because when I started 40k I knew I was making a solid investment that I could rely on to last years before it burned out. If I go to FLGS' around me, the vast majority of people play card games and board games now, with maybe a few people playing the odd skirmish game. I haven't ever seen anyone play DZC, I don't think I've ever seen anyone play Infinity outside of a tournament. and the only people I knew who played FoW don't seem to anymore. I bought a Firestorm Armada fleet and the game died out within a month. There isn't a single wargame left with a decent following and long lasting appeal and life expectancy that interests me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/13 14:36:14
That's not to say 40k doesn't have its weird out of place units that are particularly badly designed but at least when I look at my IG army everything looks like it goes together cohesively, unlike games like Infinity where you get limited choice in models and have models within the same faction that frequently look nothing alike - you might have Soviet heavy infantry dressed in some futuristic battle armour in the same army where you've got a US Marine from the gulf wars, medieval scotsmen wearing kilts, and giant anthropomorphic dogs.
To be fair,
If you put vostroyans, Cadians, valhallans, mordians, elysians, and catachans next to each other, you'd say the same thing. Only thing consistent across the range is lasguns. But yet, they're all imperial guard, even if they look nothing alike. Is it thst strange to expect different nationalities on different parts of a planet with different cultures and weapons would look, and be equipped differently? I don't think so.
Within other factions like pan-o And yu-jing, although they represent various different arms of their respective militaries and paramilitaries, you have a far more homogenous look across the board.
What you could do, if you were interested and if things looking cohesive is a thing, you could do worse than look into infinity sectoral lists. Within Ariadna, you have 'french' and 'Scottish' themed sectorals already, with American and Russian incoming.
Funnily enough I have some Pan O here on my desk and have been commenting to my roommate how much I love that you can see the the similarities across the armour types, but they are nice and subtle.
The light infantry have the chest plate and the shin guards, the medium infantry then has the exact same armour over a different pose, with extra thigh plates. The heavy infantry in the powered armour then has a heavier chest piece and a muscle like mesh under the armour, but the same thigh plates and the same shin/knee guards with extra plates built up over the top.
The marines I have been assembling on the other hand are all different, but the differences are really superficial, one guy has an eagle, one has a sword, ect, but it is all purely different decorations tacked on, barely anything in the way of different armour marks, and even the armour marks still don't seem to change anything, they are just different shapes. The only example of any practical changes in marine armour I can think of is the mk8 chest with the added protection over the soft armour of the neck.
One of those two lines feels like it was well thought out and practical, and one feels like a toy...
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
jonolikespie wrote: The marines I have been assembling on the other hand are all different, but the differences are really superficial, one guy has an eagle, one has a sword, ect, but it is all purely different decorations tacked on, barely anything in the way of different armour marks, and even the armour marks still don't seem to change anything, they are just different shapes. The only example of any practical changes in marine armour I can think of is the mk8 chest with the added protection over the soft armour of the neck.
To be fair, SM armor is mass production of sorts, but if you really want unique looks of Power Armor, you need to either go Chaos or Khorne-but-not-Khorne Black Templars.
Mr.Omega wrote: I gave it a 5 in its current state. I'd give it less, but compared to other games, I think it edges a whole bunch of them on enjoyment and pretty much in every single case on aesthetics for me - I can't stand the low quality models, uncohesive army design and outright bad design in a lot of competitors
That's not to say 40k doesn't have its weird out of place units that are particularly badly designed but at least when I look at my IG army everything looks like it goes together cohesively, unlike games like Infinity where you get limited choice in models and have models within the same faction that frequently look nothing alike - you might have Soviet heavy infantry dressed in some futuristic battle armour in the same army where you've got a US Marine from the gulf wars, medieval scotsmen wearing kilts, and giant anthropomorphic dogs.
If I could, I'd still play 40k regularly. But everyone in my local area quit. The only time I ever see 40k being played is between maybe 2-4 guys who arranged a game on a weekend, sometimes, at a local FLGS. One club that had a big 40k following for years had its interest collapse almost overnight. There hasn't been a tournament in over a year in any of my local stores or clubs. Invasion events where stores would arrange to have trips down to Warhammer World and compete stopped. Because of that the hobby veteran store managers who managed two of my local stores each for about 5-10 years both quit and got seemingly replaced by talentless 20~ year olds without even the skills to paint scenery to a decent standard.
To be honest it basically means I'm done with wargaming, period, because when I started 40k I knew I was making a solid investment that I could rely on to last years before it burned out. If I go to FLGS' around me, the vast majority of people play card games and board games now, with maybe a few people playing the odd skirmish game. I haven't ever seen anyone play DZC, I don't think I've ever seen anyone play Infinity outside of a tournament. and the only people I knew who played FoW don't seem to anymore. I bought a Firestorm Armada fleet and the game died out within a month. There isn't a single wargame left with a decent following and long lasting appeal and life expectancy that interests me.
The ad-hoc nature of that army fits the fluff. They are supposed to be a rag tag group from the different groups living unharmoniously on one planet. Other factions are more harmonious.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
The part that actually makes it even more laughable is that the speed of the vehicle makes little to no difference. It doesnt matter if the vehicle in question moved 1" or 36" you still are hitting the soft spot on a 3+ regardless if in an real life situation the tank is moving at. 5 or 85 mph
They need to bring back a ruling like that of 5th (I think it was 5th?) where if you turbo boosted then the vehicle itself is hit on 6s. That would make Dark Eldar a lot better right off the bat.
jonolikespie wrote: Funnily enough I have some Pan O here on my desk and have been commenting to my roommate how much I love that you can see the the similarities across the armour types, but they are nice and subtle.
The light infantry have the chest plate and the shin guards, the medium infantry then has the exact same armour over a different pose, with extra thigh plates. The heavy infantry in the powered armour then has a heavier chest piece and a muscle like mesh under the armour, but the same thigh plates and the same shin/knee guards with extra plates built up over the top.
The marines I have been assembling on the other hand are all different, but the differences are really superficial, one guy has an eagle, one has a sword, ect, but it is all purely different decorations tacked on, barely anything in the way of different armour marks, and even the armour marks still don't seem to change anything, they are just different shapes. The only example of any practical changes in marine armour I can think of is the mk8 chest with the added protection over the soft armour of the neck.
One of those two lines feels like it was well thought out and practical, and one feels like a toy...
Infinity miniatures are clearly designed by people who have spent a great deal of time looking at modern military photos, and understanding the types of things that soldiers need to carry into battle. Infinity miniatures generally look like they're carrying enough gear and ammunition to make it through a day of fighting. 40k minis, at best, have a pouch or two for extra magazines but it's all about the armor.
The difference is night and day. Infinity minis are gorgeous...40k minis are absolute garbage in comparison. I didn't realize just how easy it is to paint 40k until I started painting Infinity.
As for the game...40k is fun. It's a different kind of game though. It could be a lot better...'5th Edition was Best Edition' is really all that needs to be said, and it still had some pretty fatal flaws.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: As for the game...40k is fun. It's a different kind of game though. It could be a lot better...'5th Edition was Best Edition' is really all that needs to be said, and it still had some pretty fatal flaws.
5th ed was my first edition. I gave up the game because of the gross imbalance towards the end of it. And yet, I still consider it a better edition than 6th or 7th. I got as far as removing models from the front in the 6th ed demo game before giving up on it.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
I think there needs to be a poll with a bit more clarification behind it. I gave it a low number based on the rules alone and the supporting FAQ and how fast they answer that. Because that to me is the key to a game.
I don't like bringing up fluff, because G.I. Joe and Transformers had plenty of backstory but that didn't make action figures a game.
I don't like including a "fun" factor with plenty of side notes about playing with good people and house rules. As a kid I played with friends using Silly String with house rules and we had fun. That doesn't qualify Silly String as a good game though.
The short life span of 6th and the randomness of Maelstrom games really killed my love of the game. I'm still positive you could replace the card objectives with Uno cards and end up with a more balanced system.
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
I'm expecting an Imperial Knights supplement dedicated to GW's loyalist apologetics. Codex: White Knights "In the grim dark future, everything is fine."
"The argument is that we have to do this or we will, bit by bit,
lose everything that we hold dear, everything that keeps the business going. Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky."
-Tom Kirby
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
Or the fact that when playing RAW, any weapon system that wasn't barrage that could target a unit without LOS couldn't actually cause any casualties thanks to the wording of the casualty rules.
Is that finally fixed now or are Tau SMS still useless when fired out of LOS when playing RAW rather than the RAI everyone actually plays?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
Or the fact that when playing RAW, any weapon system that wasn't barrage that could target a unit without LOS couldn't actually cause any casualties thanks to the wording of the casualty rules.
Is that finally fixed now or are Tau SMS still useless when fired out of LOS when playing RAW rather than the RAI everyone actually plays?
The rules were written by professionals?
Um, no. They were written by people who are trying to sell models. That is all.
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
Or the fact that when playing RAW, any weapon system that wasn't barrage that could target a unit without LOS couldn't actually cause any casualties thanks to the wording of the casualty rules.
Is that finally fixed now or are Tau SMS still useless when fired out of LOS when playing RAW rather than the RAI everyone actually plays?
The rules were written by professionals?
Um, no. They were written by people who are trying to sell models. That is all.
I don't think you can even argue that. I mean look at the rules for Warp Talons and Mutilators. They were both new kits and so should have had great rules to go with them, right? Nah, they're often regarded as being some of the most useless units in 40K.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
If someone wants to argue the rules are fine and written by professionals, then please point me to a unit that had Missile Lock in it during the life span of 6th edition. Is there even a unit with the rule now?
Or the fact that when playing RAW, any weapon system that wasn't barrage that could target a unit without LOS couldn't actually cause any casualties thanks to the wording of the casualty rules.
Is that finally fixed now or are Tau SMS still useless when fired out of LOS when playing RAW rather than the RAI everyone actually plays?
The rules were written by professionals?
Um, no. They were written by people who are trying to sell models. That is all.
I don't think you can even argue that. I mean look at the rules for Warp Talons and Mutilators. They were both new kits and so should have had great rules to go with them, right? Nah, they're often regarded as being some of the most useless units in 40K.
Hmm, true. I don't know then! The only thing consistent with GW is their inconsistency.
I love how whenever someone complains its usually along the lines of "well the other fella doesn't stand a chance, that's OP and will destroy my opponent!". Not usually the other way round though.
darkcloak wrote: I love how whenever someone complains its usually along the lines of "well the other fella doesn't stand a chance, that's OP and will destroy my opponent!". Not usually the other way round though.
Is that a problem? I don't mind winning, but if it's a blowout, it's not even fun.
If it were a good game it wouldn't matter whether your opponent was competitive or not, you could still have an enjoyable game as long as they weren't a complete TFG.
And if the rules were better written then there is less for TFG to use as loopholes aren't there or interpreting in a weird way is impossible as the intention and meaning are clear and actually match up.
This matches my opinion perfectly - down to the grade!
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
More to the point, most vehicles (particularly MBT's) really shouldn't have anything *that* vulnerable anywhere on their front arc except maybe locomotion (popping a wheel or breaking a tread link) that would be vulnerable to such an attack. 
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
