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.

Even if you are into fluff, the game ca be quite a bad experience.

How does a fluffy Saim-Hann or Iyanden army fare vs. let's say a fluffy Deathwing or CSM army ?

Having a game that's aimed at casuals isn't bad, but IMO current 40k is at best aimed at casuals with enough in-depth game knowledge so they can discuss list beforehand and reach a mutual conclusion of what's balanced against each other.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"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"

Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.

CSM and IG would like to have a word with you about being "the worst list in the game".

They're better than BA; especially with FW in play.

It isn't really aimed at anything or anyone.

That's the issue.

It isn't simple or cheap enough to be for casuals, and it isn't balanced enough for competitive play, and isn't well written enough to provide for a good narrative experience.

Salous wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"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"

Are you remembering to put your models out? Because that's about the only way BA can beat Necrons. BA are god awful and very possibly the worst list in the game. So yea, there IS something wrong with BA.

Most Necrons are beaten easily in melee, BA player I play against goes melee heavy. Not easy to win when he is about to get most of his army in melee by turn 2 and then sweeps the crons' in CC.

Shoot them. In the face. They die. BA have no deathstars, and no good way to get invisibility. BA, point for point, do not have good durability and only average assault efficacy compared to other assault lists. And we don't get skyhammer, either. BA, ironically, aren't that great at assault. The fact that the rules of the game make BA mediocre at assault is a knock right there, given that that's the BA entire reputation. The Nids are in a similar boat, but at least they have a pentaflyrant crutch.

I miss the days when the only pre-game discussion was about how many points a side and maybe what mission. Sure it wasn't perfect back then but it was no where near as bad as it is now. With the additions of Knights, formations, LoW, and allies has just added more imbalance issues into a game that already had imbalance issues.

If you can find people that all agree on how to play wither being casual or competitive then go have fun. 40k is what you make it to be. Where this creates problems is when people can't agree because they have different views on how they want to play. I have this issue with my friends. Some think formations are all fair while some don't, others hate allies, and some think some units(dreadknights for example) should be limited to one only. It is a mix of casual and competitive players that can't agree and the games usually end on turn 3 or 4 in a landslide. I am on the verge of not playing with them any more due to this.

The only games I have enjoyed lately are with my brother since we agree not to be jerks to each other when making a list and our games are usually 50/50 that come down to the last couple of turns.

I only got into the game a few years ago so I can't say what balance issues there were back in the day, but at the moment it's just power-creep bonanza. If you're going to get back into it, and people at your FLGS play Eldar, you will NEED to impose changes to them. Namely ranged D weapons will need to be toned down a bit. I find 2d3 wounds on a 6 is reasonable and noone will usually argue that.

Aside from Ranged D, limitations on formations are also advised. IMO just CADs is how the game should be. That being said, the new codexes all having formations, they are fairly balanced against eachother's super-formations. Battle companies(AKA space marine parking lot) are very strong, as are skyhammer formations. Aspect hosts for eldar are very common, fire dragons and warp spiders with BS5 are scary. Decurion for necrons. Orks kinda got screwed with theirs nothing really as strong as free transports, although calling a WAAAGH every turn is pretty badass. Space puppies and Dark Angels kinda got more of the same as their SM bros, although DA got a pretty strong land speeder formation that can overwatch within 24". DA have replaced Tau as the undisputed overwatching kings of the universe. Tau Codex drops soon apparently, I'm waiting to see if they buff their overwatch to be even better than DA or give them something else.

Overall, I agree with most of the posts here. The rules favor casual play, if you wanna go to a tournament, bring a cheesy build or prepare to get stomped by 10 free razorbacks/tough necrons/ranged D+BS5 aspect warriors/Drop pod relentless devastators.

General state of 40K? I've just started fielding my fun Ork trukk boy army when Dark Angels super overwatch is just released and New Tau cheesebots are 'round the corner....

Should I start selling them now?

The general state of 40K is pretty terrible. I hate how the game is basically Apocalypse now, there is no distinction. Superheavies, formations, EVERYTHING is kosher and that drives me insane. Building a TAC list is impossible, and unless you play regularly with a specific group of people you will have a very hard time settling on an agreed upon interpretation of the rules. I really, really miss the simplicity of 5th edition.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
The general state of 40K is pretty terrible. I hate how the game is basically Apocalypse now, there is no distinction. Superheavies, formations, EVERYTHING is kosher and that drives me insane. Building a TAC list is impossible, and unless you play regularly with a specific group of people you will have a very hard time settling on an agreed upon interpretation of the rules. I really, really miss the simplicity of 5th edition.

This is what we hear so often. Its no longer a pure pick-up game as it has been in the 5th edition.

The game has changed so much since I started (2nd) that it honestly makes me a bit upset that I've collected so many minis over the years. The addition of all this Apoc style stuff (Flyers, Superheavies, D-Weapons, etc) has taken much of the fun out of the game for me.

I remember seeing a predator on the board with triple Las setup, and being scared of it doing good damage. I remember Land Raiders being worth their points. I look at it now and its just gone so far (in a bad way imho) from its roots that it doesn't resemble the past editions much past the models.

Not to mention that the prices have gotten so high that I feel like I don't see many new players at events.

Not that I don't enjoy playing still, because I do love playing- I just don't see myself buying any more models or having any of my friends decide to pick up the game without borrowing one of my armies.

Before APOC players had to set up special games with agreed upon limits for various things. These games would take all day to play. And from what I understand they could be pretty fun, but you had to devote your time to it. The rest of us would bring our X point army and play any number of people and games with X point armies just by showing up and having a good time. No special planning necessary.

Now APOC players pretty much have to do the same thing, So nothing has really changed for them, but the show up and game players are now forced to deal with the things that kept us from being APOC players in the first place.

This is not a good direction.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
The general state of 40K is pretty terrible. I hate how the game is basically Apocalypse now, there is no distinction. Superheavies, formations, EVERYTHING is kosher and that drives me insane. Building a TAC list is impossible, and unless you play regularly with a specific group of people you will have a very hard time settling on an agreed upon interpretation of the rules. I really, really miss the simplicity of 5th edition.

That is one of the two main reasons I dumped 40K.

I never wanted to play Apocalypse. When it was a separate optional rulebook that was fine. People who liked it could play it, and people who didn't, didn't have to worry about all the Apocalypse stuff.

Basically the problem is that GW don't think about what customers want from GW's games, they think about what GW want from customers, i.e. more money. So they changed the game to offer expensive options for large models -- in other words, Apocalypse, Planet Strike and so on. Not everyone was interested, so GW tried to make it compulsory by including the extra rules into the core rulebook. The result was that a lot of people dropped out of playing the game at all. The extra sales of Apocalypse type stuff (and doublr price codexes, etc) to the remaining players doesn't seem to have compensated for the loss of sales to people who dumped the core game.

Indeed, Apo games were totally different in the past from regular 40k pickup games. We play Apo regularly at a bimonthly basis with 5000 pts per player and 2 to 4 players per side. Its usually a great laugh.

What's even worse is that they had some mechanics for limiting the power of at least some of the Apoc stuff, like the Escalation bonuses if your opponent had a LoW and you didn't, or *gasp* points costs for formations, that they just decided to not bother with anymore.

The unbounded games make the situation even worse.
Okay, I want to field 3 Dreadknights, one Seer Council on Jetbikes, an Ork Stompa, and some cheap fearless meat units. Happy hunting. But what does the opponent say?

Even in our Apo games, each player can only field one army without allies. Before this house rule, I fielded the units above and whatnot. Even in Apo games, my opponents were complaining about this.

 Vaktathi wrote:
What's even worse is that they had some mechanics for limiting the power of at least some of the Apoc stuff, like the Escalation bonuses if your opponent had a LoW and you didn't, or *gasp* points costs for formations, that they just decided to not bother with anymore.

I really miss the points costs for formations.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is one of the two main reasons I dumped 40K.
I never wanted to play Apocalypse. When it was a separate optional rulebook that was fine. People who liked it could play it, and people who didn't, didn't have to worry about all the Apocalypse stuff.
Basically the problem is that GW don't think about what customers want from GW's games, they think about what GW want from customers, i.e. more money. So they changed the game to offer expensive options for large models -- in other words, Apocalypse, Planet Strike and so on. Not everyone was interested, so GW tried to make it compulsory by including the extra rules into the core rulebook. The result was that a lot of people dropped out of playing the game at all. The extra sales of Apocalypse type stuff (and doublr price codexes, etc) to the remaining players doesn't seem to have compensated for the loss of sales to people who dumped the core game.

This I think is a concise summary of the issue.
It has been clearly said by the company they feel they are a model company not a game company: hence the recent store name changes.
We are seeing less of the old rules being grandfathered into the new and new rules could use more play-testing so playability is becoming... limited.

I do like the models, I can "forge the narrative" and have some pretty epic (pun intended) battles.
I did like how in 6th they tried to compile all the special rules so the game was more modular, they still feel they need to create special rules in codex's so it was a rather fruitless exercise.

I find I have to set it up like a historic Napoleonic battle where the story and the scenario are there to be played out, how fair it is to be I can try to balance by objectives (defender has half force remaining after turn X gains a VP... etc).

In summary: GW is not interested in investing in a good game, just models that happen to have rules so you can play with them.
Since they do not do market research, I think it would be important to identify the population of their target customer and how much disposable income they have available to GW specifically.
It is becoming a limited enough population that may not be able to sustain GW even with the best of efforts.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Basically the problem is that GW don't think about what customers want from GW's games, they think about what GW want from customers, i.e. more money. So they changed the game to offer expensive options for large models -- in other words, Apocalypse, Planet Strike and so on. Not everyone was interested, so GW tried to make it compulsory by including the extra rules into the core rulebook. The result was that a lot of people dropped out of playing the game at all. The extra sales of Apocalypse type stuff (and doublr price codexes, etc) to the remaining players doesn't seem to have compensated for the loss of sales to people who dumped the core game.

While I see where you're coming from as an ex-40k player, I really don't think that's necessarily the case for 40k, although I do believe it is what happened with Fantasy.

Yes, GW has been working excessively hard to maximize the extent to which they monetize their customer base. And yes, they clearly overreached on Fantasy in particular, with the push for Hordes of expensive models, high-dollar centerpieces, all codified in ever-more expensive rulebooks and so forth. That's why 8E collapsed and GW had to retrench with a radically streamlined (for GW), FREE! AoS ruleset and army lists. While I appreciate the streamlining, it's a good first step.

IMO, the biggest problem with 40k is that GW probably doesn't actually play their own game the way that their customers do. That is, they don't have the casual / collector gamer (in)frequency of play, in which someone might only play once each weekend, 2 or 3 weekends each month, several months each year. Instead, they have this high-detail ruleset that really requires constant play to stay on top of. It's a deep contradiction in terms of what the product requires to play, and what the customer is willing to bear. In a sense, the inclusion of then-Apocalypse units and such isn't really a problem per se, aside from the extreme level of detail that some of these units possess.

Should GW finish the AoS experiment and conclude it to be a success, then one can only hope 40k gets a similar streamlining of the core rules, army lists, and unit datasheets. If all of the information is presented one a single page with no cross-reference required, then Apocalypse units aren't really a problem. That would do wonders in terms of aligning GW's rules with their purported casual / collector player base.

If all of the information is presented one a single page with no cross-reference required, then Apocalypse units aren't really a problem.

I find that all players with armies without a WK class LoW would disagree with that. The game is already as unfun as possible for some people, if others could suddenly start puting down apocalyps units GW would achive a miracle and make the game expiriance even worse.

The idea that GW isn't using AoS as a test case for 40k is just silly. Don't get hung up over AoS releasing without points values, or the temporary situation in which a few armies lack Knights. Everybody will get Knight-class units of some flavor, and they will all be "balanced" by the time that GW moves 40k to an AoS framework.

If they'd just keep 3 years between each codex cycle, playtest their rules, and release monthly FAQs... it'd be a great game

As I said in another thread:

Comparing it to the 40K of around 4th-5th edition, I gave it a 7 or in other words it’s got a lot of great things in it but it could do better:

Pros:
Games Workshop has done a good job of keeping 40K and general wargaming in the mainstream.
The new models and fluff is interesting- not necessarily balanced, but interesting. Especially the Adeptus Mechanicus.
I'm glad to see flyers added. They could do with some slightly more realistic* rules though.
Pre-measuring is great. If 40K was a PC game you'd press something like tab to get a range circle. (I can't remember if that's the case in DOW, anyway the principle is there.)
Glad to see overwatch added.

* Yes I know 40K rules aren't supposed to be 100% realistic, but they could at least make the flyers less like fast skimmers. The old Forgeworld rules were great, albiet somewhat complicated.

Meh:
Wound allocation and who you're able to fire at: In general I prefer unit-based rules rather than model-based rules, but at least it's not as bad as the 'magic disappearing wound' shenanigans of 5th edition.
Psyker powers: It's nice to see that the powers have been made more complex and fluffy, but an extra phase in the turn? Really?

Cons:
The codex creep is real.
True Line of Sight: I really dislike how the things like LOS are becoming increasingly literal rather than simulated. It's tabletop wargaming- it's not supposed to accurately portray what a model can or can't see.
Hull points...oh the damned hull points: Even when I'm benefiting from them in my mechanised lists I still don't like them. They make armour feel spongy, as if we're reducing armoured warfare down to mashing away health points rather than actualy fearing that IG battle cannon.
Combat speed: The game is faster now, with units moving faster and being able to fire and move at the same time. Some people may see this as a positive thing as it makes the game 'flow' more and feels less Napoleonic. However I'm concerned if it's just dumbing down the game- not sure if you should move or shoot? No problem- do both! Not sure if you should pull your tank into that dangerous position? No problem- you've still got 2 hull points after losing one.

i have been playing for a very long time (aka rogue trader) from my own experience this games been losing more players than gaining. Most of them do not like where this game has been going. So they have been leaving sens 6th but 7th seems to really chase many more off. The ones i see left have been the ones who power game and some of the hobby gamers. My self i treating it like i treated 2ed with this game feels like to me. I will now play with select friends and maybe go to a tournament if i deem it worth my time. The big part here is my time. This game now takes to long to play for me. This is coming from a ork player that could play full 5 to 7 rounds in 30 minutes in 3erd and 4th. 5th took me hour to two hours. 6th started to take me realy long times( wood just make tournament time rounds.. then 7th just got out of hand very rarely i could get 4 rounds in 2 1/2 hours if i was lucky just like it did in 2ed. I also see so many tournaments no longer running which is sad in it self. for the ones who are positive keep playing and for those who are not be patient for the game will change like it has in the past .

I've been enjoying 7th edition. Yeah there are some balance issues, but instead of complaining my group has learned the new game meta and we have just as much fun. Nothing is unbeatable in the game (except maybe eldar FW stuff) and tournament outcomes show the constant bitching about the cheese flavor of the month isn't founded. If you actually play the game beyond theoryhammer and obsessing on BoLs and Dakka and are frustrated with the current state of the game, then find your enjoyment elsewhere until it changes, or perhaps try narrative campaigns with friends.

A hobby is meant to be enjoyable. If you aren't having fun, make it fun or move on.

 madfjohn wrote:
i have been playing for a very long time (aka rogue trader) from my own experience this games been losing more players than gaining. Most of them do not like where this game has been going. So they have been leaving sens 6th but 7th seems to really chase many more off. The ones i see left have been the ones who power game and some of the hobby gamers. My self i treating it like i treated 2ed with this game feels like to me. I will now play with select friends and maybe go to a tournament if i deem it worth my time. The big part here is my time. This game now takes to long to play for me. This is coming from a ork player that could play full 5 to 7 rounds in 30 minutes in 3erd and 4th. 5th took me hour to two hours. 6th started to take me realy long times( wood just make tournament time rounds.. then 7th just got out of hand very rarely i could get 4 rounds in 2 1/2 hours if i was lucky just like it did in 2ed. I also see so many tournaments no longer running which is sad in it self. for the ones who are positive keep playing and for those who are not be patient for the game will change like it has in the past .

Sounds like you have issues, I finish 2k battles it 2 hours or less easy. If its taking you longer than 2 hours to finish a regular game, then you need to learn the rules and stop pausing the game even 10 mins to look something up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tankman131 wrote:
I've been enjoying 7th edition. Yeah there are some balance issues, but instead of complaining my group has learned the new game meta and we have just as much fun. Nothing is unbeatable in the game (except maybe eldar FW stuff) and tournament outcomes show the constant bitching about the cheese flavor of the month isn't founded. If you actually play the game beyond theoryhammer and obsessing on BoLs and Dakka and are frustrated with the current state of the game, then find your enjoyment elsewhere until it changes, or perhaps try narrative campaigns with friends.

A hobby is meant to be enjoyable. If you aren't having fun, make it fun or move on.

Good post, but unfortunately the flavor of the month is to hate on 40k.

Salous wrote:

 madfjohn wrote:
i have been playing for a very long time (aka rogue trader) from my own experience this games been losing more players than gaining. Most of them do not like where this game has been going. So they have been leaving sens 6th but 7th seems to really chase many more off. The ones i see left have been the ones who power game and some of the hobby gamers. My self i treating it like i treated 2ed with this game feels like to me. I will now play with select friends and maybe go to a tournament if i deem it worth my time. The big part here is my time. This game now takes to long to play for me. This is coming from a ork player that could play full 5 to 7 rounds in 30 minutes in 3erd and 4th. 5th took me hour to two hours. 6th started to take me realy long times( wood just make tournament time rounds.. then 7th just got out of hand very rarely i could get 4 rounds in 2 1/2 hours if i was lucky just like it did in 2ed. I also see so many tournaments no longer running which is sad in it self. for the ones who are positive keep playing and for those who are not be patient for the game will change like it has in the past .

Sounds like you have issues, I finish 2k battles it 2 hours or less easy. If its taking you longer than 2 hours to finish a regular game, then you need to learn the rules and stop pausing the game even 10 mins to look something up.

Hrm, probably not. I cannot recall a tournament that does not allocate at least 2 hours and 15 minutes to 1850pt games, and at least 2 hour and 30 minutes to 2000pt games, and that's with time between rounds for setup and moving tables and lunch. Even with those time limits, it's not uncommon to see games run out of time, and these are ostensibly experienced tournament players.

Time depends very much on the precision of play, the mission being played, and the armies involved. Saying that everyone should always be able to finish a 2000pt game in under 2 hours or they're simply lacking knowledge of the rules is absurd.

Tankman131 wrote:
I've been enjoying 7th edition. Yeah there are some balance issues, but instead of complaining my group has learned the new game meta and we have just as much fun. Nothing is unbeatable in the game (except maybe eldar FW stuff)

while nothing is literally unbeatable, there are lots of things that are just beyond the reasonable ability (assuming the dice don't roll lottery-odds stilted) of many armies to defeat, particularly if not hardcore tailoring, and no amount of "adapting" or "learning" is going to change that when it's just the simple fact of the statistical odds.

There's a reason if you look at top ten/top tewnty placings in tournaments you see largely the same four or five kinds of armies, and there's many armies that consistently don't break the top 25 or even 33% (without being hamfisted in as an allied contingent to a stronger army). Take a look at the BAO or Adepticon results and see how high Imperial Guard placed for example in their Championships.

and tournament outcomes show the constant bitching about the cheese flavor of the month isn't founded.

Big tournaments have geneally borne out exactly what people thought was going to place well. There hasn't been a tremendous amount of surprise really. Have you looked at the BAO/Adepticon/NOVA/etc results?

7th edition killed my gaming group. Just too much stuff to disagree on and it felt like games were already won or lost depending on the approach to list building. Switched to Infinity and having a great time.

LVO: goes to tyranids
BAO: goes to a daemon/CSM army
Adepticon: goes to daemons
Nova: goes to space puppies

I doubt you can say daemons Or nids are the best codex with a straight face and the furries just got their classic wuffstar.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/7287/nova-2015-recap
http://www.torrentoffire.com/6866/adepticon-army-breakdown-stats-stats-stats
Armies that are considered gimped at times succeeded while armies that are considered overpowered are beaten or aren't as successful as the "sky is falling" predictions seen on forums so often said. Yes, eldar did well in tournaments, they are popular right now and have some pretty hard to beat armies. Yet tof shows Orks were successful at adepticon, one of the weakest army lists. The tournaments show that a codex may make it possible for a weaker player to do a little better, but more than that it shows that skill in playing the game is a greater determiner.

If this was TLR, the main gist is Get gud and stop complaining. Take it as a challenge worth facing and have fun with it.

I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.

These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.

The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.

But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.

When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think you may be over simplifying the data present by saying that a bad codex can do well.

These are tournaments that have done significant work to balance the game outside of the books alone.

The "get gud" approach is just getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me. When you tell people they need to get good you're saying that they are bad or just can't adapt.

But guess what, there have been many threads where CSM and Ork players have flat out asked how to handle Eldar lists that aren't bound by tournament rules. There are rarely answers to those questions, and even then most of them sorely lacking in actual content.

When you say "get good" you may as well tell them they need to find the Holy Grail. Because that's all the advice you're really giving them.

your "sky is falling" my codex can't win approach is getting annoying and practically offensive at this point to me.