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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

TheNewBlood wrote:

"Owner Chooses" is a terrible method for wound allocation. I hear it's how it was done in 5th edition, and it seems like it's open to too much abuse. You could have a giant squad and allocate wounds from shooting onto the models in back, meaning that you'd have to be 100 percent dead or 100 percent stupid not to end up in CC. It's even more abusable with multiwound models. You think Decurion Wraiths are bad now? Imagine if you had to deal five wounds to a five-strong unit before the Necron player even started removing models. "Closest First" does slow the game down, and gets tricky when multiple different saves come into play, but only the most colossal rules lawyer would literally make you take one saving throw at a time.

It overall saves time and arguments. Multi-wound models are easy; remove whole models. It also allows for your characters to lead from the front. Unless you find it more cinematic for your Marine Captain to be hiding in the back? The current wound allocation are a complete time wasting gak show.

Yup. Makes the game a complete fustercluck. The wound allocation stupidity is one of the biggest dealbreakers in actually getting me to try 7th.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I would love 40k to get the AoS treatment, with fewer, more characterful Special Rules, everything on one page. Then fill the rest of the books on background, stories and artwork. Win!

I'm not looking forward to it. GW will probably make me jump across the table to bite my opponent on the neck to get a charge bonus for my Death Company.

Of course there is very little chance I'll be playing 8th edition anyway if GW remains on its current course.

Heaven knows what they'll come up with for Tyranid players. Harvest your opponent's... biomass ( ) to get a bonus.

Martel732 wrote:

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Grumblewartz wrote:

1. Read the last page of comments for ample evidence or any other similar thread. The sheer fact that people were surprised that this one started out positive shows just how toxic the internet community has become.
2. And your point? 40k has always been like that. Factions rose and fell based on codices and core rule sets. Imperial Guard tank companies used to be invincible against all but a few armies.

No faction was invincible in the earlier editions. Many factions were strong, and there was a disparity in power sure. But dexes could play against each other in standard formats and expect a chance at winning. Nowadays that is not the case. A decurion force will pretty much auto win against anything chaos marines care to try.
My point is the disparity in power between factions, not builds, is higher than ever in 40k.
When gk could do this against demons it caused an uproar because until then, no faction just upped and auto failed against a faction. Some factions, many in fact, were regulated to mono builds that varied in power. But no faction was flat out unable to play, as is the case now.

There are no unplayable factions in 40k. Chaos, Guard, orks... they can all be played, and they can all win. Hell, I have played CSM numerous times with my Necrons, and guess what? CSM have won most of them.

BA are pretty damn close to unplayable.

Nothing wrong with BA either. Hell, thats the only army I have yet to be able to beat in the past 5 months with my Necrons. I have played them in 500, 750, 1000, 1250, and 1500 pt games. My necrons have lost every match. Again, all armies can be played. Sure, some have better units than others, but all codexs have units that are useful, all have combos that can be good. Every match does not have to be a tournament " win at all costs" match. In fact, I would argue that most games of 40k played around the world are not tournament games. As long as you stop trying to break the game by creating "unbeatable" lists, every army can be fun to play, and will be able to win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:
Salous, I'm not doubting your games but that is a very odd list to beat well...anyone. Helbrutes are really awful...I can't imagine how he destroyed multiple ghost arks turn 1 with any amount.

A prince owning with powers is very expensive and if not nurgle or tzneetch very easy to kill. I don't know of any good offensive powers we get....I usually take biomancy with mine. What power set did he use?

Maybe we play in different metas. I use plague marines with prince and lord on bike with brand as my strongest list. 2 drakes and either termies or mauler fiends/ forge fiends depending on how many tanks I take. I try to eliminate how str 4 and under shooting performs, and weaken str 6 shooting, but against stronger lists it doesn't seem to matter.

I've run an emperors children list with 6 blastmasters and a ton of termies and drakes, but it performs worse against most lists.


I haven't looked at that formation, but isn't the best thing about it the demons?

I thought helbrutes were bad as well, but his had las cannons on them. Pinned my Ghost Arks turn one and made them explode. From that point onword, my warriors were out in the open and able to be killed easy. Also, all the games we played were 1850 or 2000 pts. As far as the prince goes, I don't remember all the powers he had, all I remember was a very hurtful lance that destroyed my stuff.

The meta in my area changes from person to person. Before the match we will talk and decide if we want to do a regular "fluffy" game, or a "build the best list you can" game. For fluffy games, we let eachother know what we're bringing, and we tailor our lists to make sure that both are equal in power. For the CSM matches, we did not tailor our lists, we played kill points.

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:



Salous, I'm not doubting your games but that is a very odd list to beat well...anyone. Helbrutes are really awful...I can't imagine how he destroyed multiple ghost arks turn 1 with any amount.

A prince owning with powers is very expensive and if not nurgle or tzneetch very easy to kill. I don't know of any good offensive powers we get....I usually take biomancy with mine. What power set did he use?

Maybe we play in different metas. I use plague marines with prince and lord on bike with brand as my strongest list. 2 drakes and either termies or mauler fiends/ forge fiends depending on how many tanks I take. I try to eliminate how str 4 and under shooting performs, and weaken str 6 shooting, but against stronger lists it doesn't seem to matter.

I've run an emperors children list with 6 blastmasters and a ton of termies and drakes, but it performs worse against most lists.


I haven't looked at that formation, but isn't the best thing about it the demons?

I thought helbrutes were bad as well, but his had las cannons on them. Pinned my Ghost Arks turn one and made them explode. From that point onword, my warriors were out in the open and able to be killed easy. Also, all the games we played were 1850 or 2000 pts. As far as the prince goes, I don't remember all the powers he had, all I remember was a very hurtful lance that destroyed my stuff.

Well, a hellbrute has a Bs of 4, so I would think it's a
3+ to hit, 4 to glance, 5+ to pen (AV 13 till first penetrating shot right?), then immobilized, then a second shot to explode (which, wow good rolling t here)? And you didn't have a cover save?
To do that the chances are pretty small. I can't believe it happened twice, he's very lucky. Lascannons are pretty bad anti tank, I use the termies dropped as my anti-tank. I'm guessing your basic troops died to the heldrake? The decurion didn't make them tough enough to survive for a few turns?

The only lance power I know of for CSM is the final pyromancy power. Its a 12" beam thats a melta gun. It's good against a parking lot, but the most amount of models I've ever have it hit was 3. With the limited range you might get to use it twice, and DP's die to a stiff breeze outside of combat. Rolling a 6 for a power is lucky as well, considering pyromancy is very subpar compared to biomancy.

Losing against BA with necrons is also mind boggling. I can make a decurion list (I play at similar point levels) that can get pushed across the board and can't possibly lose to a CSM force or a BA force (barring astronomical die rolls, like your ghost ark). Just...a ton of wraiths and warriors. CSM and Ba lack the firepower to kill them, and the necron force is very fast. Just putting enough wounds to go through a few wraiths with the decurion on requires a large amount of fire power, and they are so fast, its hard to get more than a single turn of shooting at them. Maybe 2 turns if the cover is light before they engage.
Never being able to beat BA with necrons is something I can't imagine. What is your decurion list?

Salous wrote:

The meta in my area changes from person to person. Before the match we will talk and decide if we want to do a regular "fluffy" game, or a "build the best list you can" game. For fluffy games, we let eachother know what we're bringing, and we tailor our lists to make sure that both are equal in power. For the CSM matches, we did not tailor our lists, we played kill points.

Honestly if I brought helbrutes I'd probably get some funny looks at my local store. We don't list tailor though, pretty much ever. None of the other games require it, since fantasy died off (though it would have been a lot better with it, I'll admit).

Akiasura wrote:

Salous wrote:

Akiasura wrote:



Salous, I'm not doubting your games but that is a very odd list to beat well...anyone. Helbrutes are really awful...I can't imagine how he destroyed multiple ghost arks turn 1 with any amount.

A prince owning with powers is very expensive and if not nurgle or tzneetch very easy to kill. I don't know of any good offensive powers we get....I usually take biomancy with mine. What power set did he use?

Maybe we play in different metas. I use plague marines with prince and lord on bike with brand as my strongest list. 2 drakes and either termies or mauler fiends/ forge fiends depending on how many tanks I take. I try to eliminate how str 4 and under shooting performs, and weaken str 6 shooting, but against stronger lists it doesn't seem to matter.

I've run an emperors children list with 6 blastmasters and a ton of termies and drakes, but it performs worse against most lists.


I haven't looked at that formation, but isn't the best thing about it the demons?

I thought helbrutes were bad as well, but his had las cannons on them. Pinned my Ghost Arks turn one and made them explode. From that point onword, my warriors were out in the open and able to be killed easy. Also, all the games we played were 1850 or 2000 pts. As far as the prince goes, I don't remember all the powers he had, all I remember was a very hurtful lance that destroyed my stuff.

Well, a hellbrute has a Bs of 4, so I would think it's a
3+ to hit, 4 to glance, 5+ to pen (AV 13 till first penetrating shot right?), then immobilized, then a second shot to explode (which, wow good rolling t here)? And you didn't have a cover save?
To do that the chances are pretty small. I can't believe it happened twice, he's very lucky. Lascannons are pretty bad anti tank, I use the termies dropped as my anti-tank. I'm guessing your basic troops died to the heldrake? The decurion didn't make them tough enough to survive for a few turns?

The only lance power I know of for CSM is the final pyromancy power. Its a 12" beam thats a melta gun. It's good against a parking lot, but the most amount of models I've ever have it hit was 3. With the limited range you might get to use it twice, and DP's die to a stiff breeze outside of combat. Rolling a 6 for a power is lucky as well, considering pyromancy is very subpar compared to biomancy.

Losing against BA with necrons is also mind boggling. I can make a decurion list (I play at similar point levels) that can get pushed across the board and can't possibly lose to a CSM force or a BA force (barring astronomical die rolls, like your ghost ark). Just...a ton of wraiths and warriors. CSM and Ba lack the firepower to kill them, and the necron force is very fast. Just putting enough wounds to go through a few wraiths with the decurion on requires a large amount of fire power, and they are so fast, its hard to get more than a single turn of shooting at them. Maybe 2 turns if the cover is light before they engage.
Never being able to beat BA with necrons is something I can't imagine. What is your decurion list?

Salous wrote:

The meta in my area changes from person to person. Before the match we will talk and decide if we want to do a regular "fluffy" game, or a "build the best list you can" game. For fluffy games, we let eachother know what we're bringing, and we tailor our lists to make sure that both are equal in power. For the CSM matches, we did not tailor our lists, we played kill points.

Honestly if I brought helbrutes I'd probably get some funny looks at my local store. We don't list tailor though, pretty much ever. None of the other games require it, since fantasy died off (though it would have been a lot better with it, I'll admit).

His prince and heldrake took out my warriors. Both games were really close, all coming down to the last turn to figure out who would win. The Decurion did help me survive when the ghost Arks went down, but warriors are still easy to kill in CC even with 4+ reanimation.

With the BA matches I did not use Decurion. I only use Decurion when my opponent asks me to, or if we're playing a tournament style game. Most games I use Decurion is when one of my buddies plays his Ad mech formation that gives them all the free upgrades. Some of the closest/best matches I have played was 2k points of Necron Decurion vs that Ad mech formation.

Salous wrote:


I thought helbrutes were bad as well, but his had las cannons on them. Pinned my Ghost Arks turn one and made them explode.

While this is certainly possible, it doesn't make Helbrutes good, it just means they get *very* lucky. Against a Jinking Ghost Ark, you're looking at about a 1-in-20 chance of any particular Helbrute accomplishing that with a TLLC, for two do to it in the same turn is about 1-in-400, or rolling a "20" on a D20 twice in a row. Possible, but very unlikely most of the time. I wouldn't judge the strength of a unit or an army off of something like that.

F***ed.

The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"

So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.

Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!

One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.

The extreme comments just continue. _______ [insert army name here] is unplayable! _________ [insert weapon/special rule/psychic power] here is unplayable. Blah Blah Blah. There is no serious failing in the game mechanics that was reasonably avoidable. The codex creep is inevitable, since the game has existed for so long, not every army is as popular as the other, and it takes time to update things. That has been an accepted reality of the game since the beginning. Would it be nice if they updated all the codices at the exact same time on the exact same schedule and all work perfectly "balanced" based on some perfect ideal that would make every player on the planet happy - sure, sign me up. It would also be fantastic if they sold all their models for $5 a box set.

If _____ is unbeatable, if _______ is ruining every game, then change the scenario, play a different way, have a narrative campaign, restrict army composition...you know, do what the game was intended for. GW has said countless times - and from the beginning might I add - that the game was never designed for tournament style play. If you aren't seeking to break the game in every army design, then guess what, it plays quite enjoyably. But, no, why not just blame GW for not making an extremely complex game completely and utterly impervious to players seeking to break the system, yeah, it is totally evil GW's fault. I bet they spend their holidays clubbing baby seals too.

It takes time to update? We're seeing the BRB and army books updated 2 years apart from each other. Did Eldar even go 2 years?

The thing isn't just that they release bad rules, it's that they don't care. They could release Blood Angels with a typo giving all their bolters Instant Death. And it would fine.
IF they did FAQs and errata in an attempt to fix it.

They don't, because they don't care.
And it's not simply a matter of having to selectively stop taking good and bad units, no matter how numerous they are. Because then you stop playing the game and making the armies you really want to play because the rules are inhibiting you in the worst way.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
It takes time to update? We're seeing the BRB and army books updated 2 years apart from each other. Did Eldar even go 2 years?

The thing isn't just that they release bad rules, it's that they don't care. They could release Blood Angels with a typo giving all their bolters Instant Death. And it would fine.
IF they did FAQs and errata in an attempt to fix it.

They don't, because they don't care.
And it's not simply a matter of having to selectively stop taking good and bad units, no matter how numerous they are. Because then you stop playing the game and making the armies you really want to play because the rules are inhibiting you in the worst way.

Pretty sure that's what I said. It takes time and certain armies - the more popular ones - get faster updates. It has always been that way, haha. Stop playing the game because your super favorite army isn't top tier...you do understand how self-centered that sounds right? If only GW did exactly what YOU wanted, it would all be superb huh?

 Grumblewartz wrote:

Pretty sure that's what I said. It takes time and certain armies - the more popular ones - get faster updates. It has always been that way, haha. Stop playing the game because your super favorite army isn't top tier...you do understand how self-centered that sounds right? If only GW did exactly what YOU wanted, it would all be superb huh?

No, it hasn't 'always been that way' - I've been into this game for longer than a person really should and 'White Dwarf' was how the codecies and rulebook were updated - and they were doing it just about every month.

If he does what the internet 'meta' says, he's going to be a cheesefesting powergamer even if he isn't; and if he goes fluffy with whatever he likes the look of theres a good chance he's going to get ROFL-stomped by accident when playing against anything with a new codex.

In all seriousness i CANNOT recommend that to ANYONE.

"yeah, the buy-in's only £300 to find out whether or not you want to play"

 SirDonlad wrote:
F***ed.

The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"

So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.

Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!

One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.

I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.

Salous wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
F***ed.

The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"

So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.

Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!

One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.

I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.

I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.

Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
F***ed.

The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"

So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.

Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!

One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.

I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.

I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.

Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.

Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other. Necrons as a whole do very well against Guard, my best winning % is against guard, but I have lost a few games to the Guard. Only time a Necron player should play Decurion is when they're playing against a new codex like SM, Eldar, and Ad mech, or if they're playing a tournament style list, otherwise it will be alot harder for them to beat necrons.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I would love 40k to get the AoS treatment, with fewer, more characterful Special Rules, everything on one page. Then fill the rest of the books on background, stories and artwork. Win!

This would be a win-win situation for GW.
But according to the rumors, GW seems to plan its games at three stages: AoS with free rules, 40k as it is, and HH as premium game at a higher price segment.

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
F***ed.

The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"

So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.

Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!

One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.

I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.

I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.

Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.

Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other. Necrons as a whole do very well against Guard, my best winning % is against guard, but I have lost a few games to the Guard. Only time a Necron player should play Decurion is when they're playing against a new codex like SM, Eldar, and Ad mech, or if they're playing a tournament style list, otherwise it will be alot harder for them to beat necrons.

Again, Decurion or no, I haven't seen IG beat the new Necron book at all, and struggles to find any battle reports that showed such.

The idea that a Decurion, of any type, should only be played against certain armies defeats the idea that any army can beat any army in a casual setting, especially when people often run the same list against everyone regardless or build a specific army. If they can't beat a Decurion it doesn't mean they can beat the army, simply put. We're not talking an ultra competitive specific build or kit for a particularly abuseable unit, we're talking the primary core detachment for an entire army. Knights again likewise can be very similar, just running 5 Knights is something many armies just can't contend with.

Salous wrote:

Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other.

Which works fine in theory, but in reality, it severely limits a lot of opportunities. Some people have to try to not break the game a lot harder than others. Basically it boils down to Timmy plays ba, so can't play x or y because it's cheesy. Tom plays necrons and can't play a through z with 1 - 9 on top because it's cheesy. Thinking about it, in a way it's not fair on imaginary Tom that he is only allowed to play a small amount of his codex because it's so out of whack with what ever else is out there. And who defines who is trying to break the games. We had a post on the forum recently where the guy was complaining about his mate calling his army cheesy because he stuck his troops in transports.

The problem with not trying to break the game is that it's a race to the bottom frankly. it can work, but it puts such s focus on self restraint, self policing, negotiation compromise and playing with one hand tied behind your back. And different players playing different factions have to do this to far greater or lesser extents for an arbitrarily 'fair' fame. And it's potentially a different 'fair' for every player. It almost makes competition and playing better out to be dirty words.

In my mind, There is value in just being able to play a damned game, sans negotiations and just being able to get on with it.

Before you say anything, I play other wargsmes in the aos/forge the narrative style. . I have yet to play flames of war with points. We often play forge the narrative style infinity. We do custom scenarios, and theme the armies to each scenario so that they make sense in the context of the mission and the narrative we are trying to play - recon forces only means that, not a squadron of king tigers. It's great fun. But it needs like minded players, a lot of time to organise and frankly, it has its limitations.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
F***ed.

The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"

So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.

Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!

One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.

I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.

I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.

Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.

Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other. Necrons as a whole do very well against Guard, my best winning % is against guard, but I have lost a few games to the Guard. Only time a Necron player should play Decurion is when they're playing against a new codex like SM, Eldar, and Ad mech, or if they're playing a tournament style list, otherwise it will be alot harder for them to beat necrons.

Again, Decurion or no, I haven't seen IG beat the new Necron book at all, and struggles to find any battle reports that showed such.

The idea that a Decurion, of any type, should only be played against certain armies defeats the idea that any army can beat any army in a casual setting, especially when people often run the same list against everyone regardless or build a specific army. If they can't beat a Decurion it doesn't mean they can beat the army, simply put. We're not talking an ultra competitive specific build or kit for a particularly abuseable unit, we're talking the primary core detachment for an entire army. Knights again likewise can be very similar, just running 5 Knights is something many armies just can't contend with.

So, because you have not personally seen it means it does not happen?

I have never said any list could beat any list. I Have been saying any codex can beat any codex. There is no arguing that certain armies have a tougher times against others, and there is no arguing that certain formations are harder to beat than others. Its really simple, in a casual game (the majority of games played) all codexes have a change of winning. When one side brings something that is known to be very powerful vs something that is known to not be able to handle it, bad games happen. You wan't to avoid bad games and have a fun match? Or do you want to always bring the best possible list available and bitch when others can't beat it?

Think of it in sports terms. You have pro teams, and you have college teams. Both play the same game, use the same basic rules, both have certain pieces that can be used in either settings (college players good enough to play pro and start) but if a college team tries to face pro team, guess what would happen. Decide if you want to play "pro" or "college" and don't intermix the two in the same game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

Salous wrote:

Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other.

Which works fine in theory, but in reality, it severely limits a lot of opportunities. Some people have to try to not break the game a lot harder than others. Basically it boils down to Timmy plays ba, so can't play x or y because it's cheesy. Tom plays necrons and can't play a through z with 1 - 9 on top because it's cheesy. Thinking about it, in a way it's not fair on imaginary Tom that he is only allowed to play a small amount of his codex because it's so out of whack with what ever else is out there. And who defines who is trying to break the games. We had a post on the forum recently where the guy was complaining about his mate calling his army cheesy because he stuck his troops in transports.

The problem with not trying to break the game is that it's a race to the bottom frankly. it can work, but it puts such s focus on self restraint, self policing, negotiation compromise and playing with one hand tied behind your back. And different players playing different factions have to do this to far greater or lesser extents for an arbitrarily 'fair' fame. And it's potentially a different 'fair' for every player. It almost makes competition and playing better out to be dirty words.

In my mind, There is value in just being able to play a damned game, sans negotiations and just being able to get on with it.

Before you say anything, I play other wargsmes in the aos/forge the narrative style. . I have yet to play flames of war with points. We often play forge the narrative style infinity. We do custom scenarios, and theme the armies to each scenario so that they make sense in the context of the mission and the narrative we are trying to play - recon forces only means that, not a squadron of king tigers. It's great fun. But it needs like minded players, a lot of time to organise and frankly, it has its limitations.

Its really not hard to make sure your list is not over the top. From a necron perspective its this. Don't use decurion unless tournament/new codex formation, don't spam wraiths, don't spam particle beamer tomb blades against 5-6+ armor save infantry spam armies. You can bring any unit from the necron codex and still have a balanced game, just don't spam your best top of the line choices.

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
F***ed.

The reason i got into 40k was seeing a game of 40k being played on the other side of the room from a game of epic 40k. I saw the titans and numbers of epic and looked across at 40k and thought "I want that at that scale!"

So looking at 7th you'd think i was in my element; but the truth is a good concept can be ruined by its realization - 7th edition and codecies since the grey knight one are abysmal and clearly haven't been playtested and the decisions made have NOT been made by someone wanting to create a fun, balanced game.
I wanted to see the full panoply of war in 40k but the execution of that is abysmal.

Properly thought through rules take a lot of time to make and consider; they cost a lot in man-hours (or woman-hours) and were clearly one of many things tagged for 'cost-cutting measures' when GW became publicly owned.
It's the result of thier habit of not releasing proper FAQ'S or updates - the only way to attempt to balance the game without faq's is to buff everything to 'competitiveness' with each upcoming codex to the book they screwed up in the first place!

One step forward; two giant leaps backwards.

I play big ass 2k+ battles all the time with big ass superheavies and walkers, and the game plays just fine... All the new codexs work well playing one another. The only issue is when a new codex goes against an older one with both players trying to break the game by creating unbeatable armies. As long as both players are not trying to break the game, all codexs do well against one another, especially in large games.

I have yet to see Necrons running a Decurion, no matter of what composition, lose a non-tournament "casual" game to anything yet, and I still haven't seen IG beat the current Necron book in any context (and, at least last time I checked in August, hadn't found a battle report of such either). There's very much a power disparity where you can take relatively casual lists from one book and absolutely hog-smash another.

Knights are another army where if you just bring 5 to a relatively casual game, quite often you get a shitshow.

Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other. Necrons as a whole do very well against Guard, my best winning % is against guard, but I have lost a few games to the Guard. Only time a Necron player should play Decurion is when they're playing against a new codex like SM, Eldar, and Ad mech, or if they're playing a tournament style list, otherwise it will be alot harder for them to beat necrons.

Again, Decurion or no, I haven't seen IG beat the new Necron book at all, and struggles to find any battle reports that showed such.

The idea that a Decurion, of any type, should only be played against certain armies defeats the idea that any army can beat any army in a casual setting, especially when people often run the same list against everyone regardless or build a specific army. If they can't beat a Decurion it doesn't mean they can beat the army, simply put. We're not talking an ultra competitive specific build or kit for a particularly abuseable unit, we're talking the primary core detachment for an entire army. Knights again likewise can be very similar, just running 5 Knights is something many armies just can't contend with.

So, because you have not personally seen it means it does not happen?

You'll note that I also stated that (at least last time I looked, last month), I found no battle reports where the IG defeated the current Necron book (written or Youtube). I mean, not saying it *can't* happen, but that I wasn't able to find one in about an hour's search despite finding probably ~40 or so battle reports and 8 or 9 months of play now. That kind of stilted result should be indicative that there isn't a reasonable ability of one army to beat the other.

I have never said any list could beat any list. I Have been saying any codex can beat any codex. There is no arguing that certain armies have a tougher times against others, and there is no arguing that certain formations are harder to beat than others. Its really simple, in a casual game (the majority of games played) all codexes have a change of winning. When one side brings something that is known to be very powerful vs something that is known to not be able to handle it, bad games happen. You wan't to avoid bad games and have a fun match? Or do you want to always bring the best possible list available and bitch when others can't beat it?

My point was that bringing relatively casual armies where you aren't bringing the ultra competitive stuff, you can clearly (and commonly) get absurdly stilted matches, as even if they're actively avoiding most or all of the truly abusive stuff like RP Wraiths, the fundamental mechanics of some of these things are just not overcomable by many armies, . Expecting a Necron player to not be able to run a Decurion against half the armies in the game, when it's the core army building mechanic of the army, is often just unrealistic. Likewise, if you're a Knight player running 5 Knights in an 1850 point list, you're not really going out of your way to make a cheesy army, you're really just taking the basic units of your army, and can still routinely curbstomp many armies in three or four turns simply because they can't stop that much 4+ shielded AV13 that can't be shaken/stunned. What's the Knight player to do? They'll basically have to run a different army if they want a more even game.

That's the problem we're running into.

Think of it in sports terms. You have pro teams, and you have college teams. Both play the same game, use the same basic rules, both have certain pieces that can be used in either settings (college players good enough to play pro and start) but if a college team tries to face pro team, guess what would happen. Decide if you want to play "pro" or "college" and don't intermix the two in the same game.

Aye, and that's what many people do, but it also means you're having to leave half the game "out" and spend lots of time with negotiations and often having to miss out on a lot of games. When you have that sort of a divide, the game doesn't really work and you're just patching it after the fact.

TL;DR Sure, any codex can beat any other codex, but that's a somewhat specious argument when it's built on the premise that one side is going to have to actively handicap itself on a game-by-game basis. That's like saying anyone can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match...if his hands are tied and he's taking enough Valium to stun a horse.

Deadnight wrote:

Salous wrote:

Again, as long as neither player is trying to break the game, all codexs can beat each other.

Which works fine in theory, but in reality, it severely limits a lot of opportunities. Some people have to try to not break the game a lot harder than others. Basically it boils down to Timmy plays ba, so can't play x or y because it's cheesy. Tom plays necrons and can't play a through z with 1 - 9 on top because it's cheesy. Thinking about it, in a way it's not fair on imaginary Tom that he is only allowed to play a small amount of his codex because it's so out of whack with what ever else is out there. And who defines who is trying to break the games. We had a post on the forum recently where the guy was complaining about his mate calling his army cheesy because he stuck his troops in transports.

We play BA vs Necron or Eldar all the time. You just give the BA player some extra stuff, recognizing that it's a pre-2015 codex, and that it's weaker. Same with Guard. Not really that hard to do, man.

If the BA player wants to just use pods for a taxi service, well that's different.

It just boils down to 1850, 2000, 2500 points... if you look at the table (because terrain matters, a lot), look at the 2 armies on side tables undeployed, two experienced players can easily tell within seconds, "Nah, this isn't going to work". So you just tweak it a little. And if you get slaughtered, laugh it off, say, "holy crap that was bad", tweak it more, play again.

 Vaktathi wrote:


TL;DR Sure, any codex can beat any other codex, but that's a somewhat specious argument when it's built on the premise that one side is going to have to actively handicap itself on a game-by-game basis. That's like saying anyone can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match...if his hands are tied and he's taking enough Valium to stun a horse.

At the end of the day, you get out of this game what you put into it. If you're unable or unwilling to communicate and compromise with your opponents, you will not find many enjoyable games. I understand your mind is made up about 40k, you don't like it. That is fine, this game is not for everyone.

 Talys wrote:


We play BA vs Necron or Eldar all the time. You just give the BA player some extra stuff, recognizing that it's a pre-2015 codex, and that it's weaker. Same with Guard. Not really that hard to do, man.

If the BA player wants to just use pods for a taxi service, well that's different.

It just boils down to 1850, 2000, 2500 points... if you look at the table (because terrain matters, a lot), look at the 2 armies on side tables undeployed, two experienced players can easily tell within seconds, "Nah, this isn't going to work". So you just tweak it a little. And if you get slaughtered, laugh it off, say, "holy crap that was bad", tweak it more, play again.

That only works with relatively small and well knit gaming groups playing casual games that all realize, and acknowledge, the score.

For pickup play, or something like a store league (even if it's not really competitive), that's just not typically a feasible option.

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


TL;DR Sure, any codex can beat any other codex, but that's a somewhat specious argument when it's built on the premise that one side is going to have to actively handicap itself on a game-by-game basis. That's like saying anyone can beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match...if his hands are tied and he's taking enough Valium to stun a horse.

At the end of the day, you get out of this game what you put into it. If you're unable or unwilling to communicate and compromise with your opponents, you will not find many enjoyable games. I understand your mind is made up about 40k, you don't like it. That is fine, this game is not for everyone.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).

40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.

To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.

One thing that is true about the current state is that GW have over the past two editions turned it into a much larger and messier game than it was.

We all know and admit there were balance problems in 4th and 5th edition, without superheavies, D weapons, flyers, formations, Unbound, allies, and scads more special rules and new units. All of these have been added in 6th and 7th, on top of other changes in rules like wound allocation and LoS.

Regardless of whether you like these options or not, they introduce a lot more interactions and chance for things to get complicated and unbalanced.

Therefore I think it must be said that 40K is no longer a game system so much as a sandbox that lets players pick and choose various different options and sections of rules to build up the kind of game they want to play.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
One thing that is true about the current state is that GW have over the past two editions turned it into a much larger and messier game than it was.

We all know and admit there were balance problems in 4th and 5th edition, without superheavies, D weapons, flyers, formations, Unbound, allies, and scads more special rules and new units. All of these have been added in 6th and 7th, on top of other changes in rules like wound allocation and LoS.

Regardless of whether you like these options or not, they introduce a lot more interactions and chance for things to get complicated and unbalanced.

Therefore I think it must be said that 40K is no longer a game system so much as a sandbox that lets players pick and choose various different options and sections of rules to build up the kind of game they want to play.

Indeed, the problem is that much of the functionality and mechanics are still build around the idea of being a game system rather than a sandbox, particularly things like missions, deployment, etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).

40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.

To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.

Game is still fine for pick up games, there is no reason why you can't communicate with other players and come to an agreement. If the other player is unwilling to compromise, then move on and find someone else to play. It is not hard to swap contact information with other players and set up times to play a match. If you're unable or unwilling to take this step to make sure you spend your gaming time wisely, then you're in the wrong hobby.

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).

40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.

To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.

Game is still fine for pick up games, there is no reason why you can't communicate with other players and come to an agreement.

Again, they may not have the requisite models with them to play something else or any number of other reasons. It's also super weird to play someone and be like "hey, I think your army is overpowered, so I won't play you unless I get an extra 500 points to play with". That doesn't come off very well to many people, especially if they're not tight gaming pals "in the know". Huge sections of the playerbase pay absolutely no attention to the metagame (or simply refuse to acknowledge it).

If the other player is unwilling to compromise, then move on and find someone else to play.

And this assumes there are other people to play, especially if you don't have all day to wait for other people to finish games. I had to go home without a game a couple of weeks ago because I had zero desire to play a quad-Flyrant nid-list with my CSM's and only had about a four hour gap to play (show up after work at 6pm, generally stay until ten, store closes at 10:30 and I have work the next day at 8am anyway). Well, the other 4 players were already starting games, nid player went home, and when everyone else gets done with their relatively casual games at about nine, there's really no time go get another game in. Not at all an uncommon situation.

It is not hard to swap contact information with other players and set up times to play a match. If you're unable or unwilling to take this step to make sure you spend your gaming time wisely, then you're in the wrong hobby.

At which point we're no longer talking about pickup play...

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).

40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.

To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.

Game is still fine for pick up games, there is no reason why you can't communicate with other players and come to an agreement.

Again, they may not have the requisite models with them to play something else or any number of other reasons. It's also super weird to play someone and be like "hey, I think your army is overpowered, so I won't play you unless I get an extra 500 points to play with". That doesn't come off very well to many people, especially if they're not tight gaming pals "in the know". Huge sections of the playerbase pay absolutely no attention to the metagame (or simply refuse to acknowledge it).

If the other player is unwilling to compromise, then move on and find someone else to play.

And this assumes there are other people to play, especially if you don't have all day to wait for other people to finish games. I had to go home without a game a couple of weeks ago because I had zero desire to play a quad-Flyrant nid-list with my CSM's and only had about a four hour gap to play (show up after work at 6pm, generally stay until ten, store closes at 10:30 and I have work the next day at 8am anyway). Well, the other 4 players were already starting games, nid player went home, and when everyone else gets done with their relatively casual games at about nine, there's really no time go get another game in. Not at all an uncommon situation.

It is not hard to swap contact information with other players and set up times to play a match. If you're unable or unwilling to take this step to make sure you spend your gaming time wisely, then you're in the wrong hobby.

At which point we're no longer talking about pickup play...

You can make all the excuses you want, but if you're unwilling to put in the effort, don't expect much in return...

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. Ultimately, as above, it's not always possible to get other players to "tone things down" (either because they don't see the disparity you do, may not have a different army they can run, etc).

40k has never been a well balanced game. However it *was* functional for pickup play with random people at one point, even if it wasn't spectacular. This is no longer the case. I can't go somewhere, agree on a points level, and just whip out what I've got in the bag, and play a game with at least a realistic (even if stilted) chance of victory (or defeat, depends on which side you're playing). I was able to run the same 2000pt CSM list through all of 5E, in 4 different major metro areas and across multiple states and dozens of events and tournaments and hundreds of pickup games, and never had to haggle over a single thing other than terrain setup and with an ok chance of winning or losing against just about any opponent. With 7E, just a couple of years later, this is no longer possible.

To say that 40k is anything other than a mess is, fundamentally, absurd, particularly relative to older editions.

Game is still fine for pick up games, there is no reason why you can't communicate with other players and come to an agreement.

Again, they may not have the requisite models with them to play something else or any number of other reasons. It's also super weird to play someone and be like "hey, I think your army is overpowered, so I won't play you unless I get an extra 500 points to play with". That doesn't come off very well to many people, especially if they're not tight gaming pals "in the know". Huge sections of the playerbase pay absolutely no attention to the metagame (or simply refuse to acknowledge it).

If the other player is unwilling to compromise, then move on and find someone else to play.

And this assumes there are other people to play, especially if you don't have all day to wait for other people to finish games. I had to go home without a game a couple of weeks ago because I had zero desire to play a quad-Flyrant nid-list with my CSM's and only had about a four hour gap to play (show up after work at 6pm, generally stay until ten, store closes at 10:30 and I have work the next day at 8am anyway). Well, the other 4 players were already starting games, nid player went home, and when everyone else gets done with their relatively casual games at about nine, there's really no time go get another game in. Not at all an uncommon situation.

It is not hard to swap contact information with other players and set up times to play a match. If you're unable or unwilling to take this step to make sure you spend your gaming time wisely, then you're in the wrong hobby.

At which point we're no longer talking about pickup play...

You can make all the excuses you want, but if you're unwilling to put in the effort, don't expect much in return...

Yes, I do believe you've repeated that platitude, but it doesn't actually address any of my above arguments on how the game doesn't function well for pickup play if all players aren't able and willing to accept the metagame problems as you do, if you don't have all day for play, if there isn't a huge number of players to just hop over to if someone can't agree to "reasonable" terms, and if players aren't bringing gigantic collections of models to swap out as necessary. These are all very real issues that many gamers routinely face, and simply hand-waving it away as "well you're just being a stick in the mud" is a rather weak argument for trying to prove the game is otherwise great.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes, I do believe you've repeated that platitude, but it doesn't actually address any of my above arguments on how the game doesn't function well for pickup play if all players aren't able and willing to accept the metagame problems as you do, if you don't have all day for play, if there isn't a huge number of players to just hop over to if someone can't agree to "reasonable" terms, and if players aren't bringing gigantic collections of models to swap out as necessary. These are all very real issues that many gamers routinely face, and simply hand-waving it away as "well you're just being a stick in the mud" is a rather weak argument for trying to prove the game is otherwise great.

You're missing the point. Don't go into your hobbies blind. If players are unwilling to help create an environment to pursue their hobbies in a productive manner, they will not get much out of it. If players are unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure a fun, fairly balanced game for both parties, they will not have fun. This came be said for any game. Name the most balanced miniature war game out there... there are good and bad lists for it, there will be unbalanced games for it. Its apart of the game, its something one must accept if they wish to enjoy their time in the hobby. This is life, you gotta put forth effort. Nothing is handed to us for free. This hobby is not for everyone, if they can't mean the necessary requirements to have fun and enjoy the game, be it communication, money for more miniatures, or a understanding of the state of the codexes, they need to find a new hobby.

Speak to local players, communicate, swap numbers, and you will find that the majority of your games will be fun. If one is unable, or unwilling to do this, they will not enjoy any game. This is the same for all games, be it video games, board games, or 40k.

The thing is, up to 6th edition it was a very different game and did not need nearly so much effort form players just to put together a playable game.

In terms of going in blind, people knew what they were dealing with, and got on with things. People who played earlier editions can't be blamed for not liking the changes since 6th. It isn't the game they signed up for any more.

Since 6th edition, the game has needed more and more effort and money to just keep up with, and sales have been dropping fast.

Salous wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yes, I do believe you've repeated that platitude, but it doesn't actually address any of my above arguments on how the game doesn't function well for pickup play if all players aren't able and willing to accept the metagame problems as you do, if you don't have all day for play, if there isn't a huge number of players to just hop over to if someone can't agree to "reasonable" terms, and if players aren't bringing gigantic collections of models to swap out as necessary. These are all very real issues that many gamers routinely face, and simply hand-waving it away as "well you're just being a stick in the mud" is a rather weak argument for trying to prove the game is otherwise great.

You're missing the point. Don't go into your hobbies blind.

I've been playing this hobby for a great many number of years and many editions, this isn't something I hopped into "blindly". It wasn't the issue before that it is today. 40k has never been perfect by any means, but it's an entirely different can of worms now than it was even just a couple of years ago.

If players are unwilling to help create an environment to pursue their hobbies in a productive manner, they will not get much out of it. If players are unable or unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure a fun, fairly balanced game for both parties, they will not have fun. This came be said for any game. Name the most balanced miniature war game out there... there are good and bad lists for it, there will be unbalanced games for it. Its apart of the game, its something one must accept if they wish to enjoy their time in the hobby. This is life, you gotta put forth effort. Nothing is handed to us for free. This hobby is not for everyone, if they can't mean the necessary requirements to have fun and enjoy the game, be it communication, money for more miniatures, or a understanding of the state of the codexes, they need to find a new hobby.

Again, the sort of effort you're talking about here, where people are going to have to change their entire army or the points levels involved based on their opponent wasn't something that was ever really a thing in previous editions outside of "don't bring a tournament WAAC army to a casual game" as opposed to having to tailor your army not to curbstomp opponents based on what they're playing *all* the time. It's not required in any other tabletop game I can think of like Dropzone Commander or Heavy Gear or Firestorm Armada or Infinity or X-Wing, etc, especially not to the degree that it's required for in 40k to have a good game.

Speak to local players, communicate, swap numbers, and you will find that the majority of your games will be fun. If one is unable, or unwilling to do this, they will not enjoy any game. This is the same for all games, be it video games, board games, or 40k.

Yes, I'm not saying I don't speak with local players and communicate and whatnot, in fact I get most of my games now by pre-arrangement, but I didn't have to do that in the past, and it has meant that in general I get fewer games than I used to (and I know I'm not alone in that), against a smaller variety of armies, and pickup play fundamentally is just not functional in the way it once was.