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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
To be fair, GW has provided a number of asymmetric missions in its various supplement books.

But that said, it's telling that these missions are only ever provided in supplement books. It's rather odd that a game designer who champions narrative play requires you to pay extra for the narrative missions.

Indeed.

Especially when the 3rd edition codex used to include a variety of asymmetric missions.

No, I really don't know what the problem is here. The only thing in the game that my Dark Eldar army seems to struggle against is Necron Decurion, though admitedly I don't get to play against Craftworld Eldar often and have never taken on Wraithguard/knights but Marines of varying flavours, Tau, AdMech, IG, Chaos and Nids have all offered up good games. Interestingly one of my toughest games has been against Sisters of Battle.

The really big Forge World superheavies are a different matter, but just like bringing a Knight to a 500pt game that isn't a "who would win", only cheese mongers bring those to a regular match and swiftly need to be told to GTFO or play with an actual army.

I've killed enough Dreadknights and Riptides for them not to worry me.

No. IN fact, I want more mechs for my army!

I was hoping they'd make Stealth Suits a troop choices, or some way to make them troop choices. That way I could have an awesome and diverse mechanized army... So I'm guessing you know where I stand on this.

My issue with having bigger things on the table is it takes away a lot of strategy. Movement, cover, line of sight, small arms don't matter as much when a knight or stormsurge can basically see everything or a wraithknight can fly around the table. the game boils down to kill the i titan via shooting before it blows up my army and i dont find that fun.

 vipoid wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:

Since when is having symmetrical missions mutually exclusive with casual and/or narrative based games?

I don't recall saying they were mutually exclusive with casual games.

But no, you're right. If you're going to do a narrative mission, what you really want is a game where the objectives are utterly generic and have no relevance to either race. Also, both races deploy at basically the same time - like they just happened to stumble onto one another. I guess we're constantly forging the narrative of the two races with malfunctioning radar who just blundered into each other and are now trying to capture random pieces of debris to pretend that there's actually reason they're fighting at all.

I mean, who's want to have one race defending a stronghold until reinforcements arrive, or trying to stop an enemy convey? Nah, better to have something much more generic and devoid of fluff.

Sounds to me like you you need to "Forge the narrative, FORGE IT HARDER!". But seriously, I like the core missions but majority of the time we modify or come up with our own missions. Or look into supplement missions. Or look online for ideas. I mean, I for one do not want a more bloated rulebook filled with stuff you can either create yourself or find for free online. But that's just like, my opinion. Man.

I'd take your opinion a step even further.

Why pay for someone's rules when you need to heavily modify them with your own rules to have a functional game?

If 40K's rules were free, like other rule-sets are, I probably wouldn't feel the need to criticize them too heavily, but as it stands you're expected to pay a not-inconsequential amount of money for the "privilege" of using their rules, thus it's a bit of a slap in the face when the creators of that rule-set basically shrug and say "hey man we have no intention of making good rules, so feel free to modify ours to your heart's content!".

Age of Sigmar's rules are wonky, but it's hard for me to complain too loud considering they're also free. If 40K's rules were free, or like 20 bucks, I probably wouldn't care much then, either.

the Forge world IA books are great for that

my group took the IA 4 missions and adapted them to orks instead of tyranids. Was a lot of fun

 clamclaw wrote:
I mean, I for one do not want a more bloated rulebook filled with stuff you can either create yourself or find for free online.

And I wish someone hadn't thrown up into the rulebook, but it seems we're stuck with Maelstrom.

Backfire wrote:
I totally agree with OP. I began Tau in 5th edition and they were primarily a mixed mechanized infantry force. The army felt futuristic and believable. They did have vaguely mecha-like Battlesuits, but they were only to give the army extra flavour and options. By contrast, nowadays Tau are all about gimmick Mecha monsters. It has been almost 10 years since Tau got a new ground vehicle. Worse, the existing vehicles and infantry did not get any new rules or stuff in the new codex (with exception of Breachers).

This is precisely the problem. Following up on something one of the posters mentioned in the first page is the problem that the big units, be they Riptides of Wraithknights of Knights are among the most maneuverable elements on the board. Now in the context of the 4e Tau army, the Riptide's maneuverability might be unremarkable save the nova charge ability, as the whole Tau army was pretty nimble. All Tau vehicles are skimmers that can disregard terrain, mutli-trackers enabled every vehicle to fire a full BS after moving 12", and the old transport rules enabled passengers to disembark after a 12" move. So a Riptide averaging 13" of movement in a army where most things moved 12" or 13" a turn was not particularly remarkable. But it wasn't enough to make an incredibly mobile MC, GW hamstrung most of the smaller models mobility by removing the multi-tracker and A.S.S. from the codex. Now Hammerheads, Skyrays and Devilfish were largely limited to 6" movement, and even piranha needed to slow down if attached gundrones wanted to fire at full BS. Changes is transport rules from 5e to 6e similar restricted Devilfish movement when disembarking passengers. So it wasn't enough for GW to make the big stuff fast, than also crippled most of the smaller units without any real justification, ensuring the new big toys would be one of the few mobile elements on the board. And while at least one could have argued that superheavy walkers and MCs could outpace infantry due to their long strides, it makes far less that they can outmaneuver or outrun sleek jet powered hovertanks.

As many have mentioned, the real problem isn't that superheavies and MC exist, it is that they often have no real weaknesses. They are faster, tougher and possess greater firepower than vehicles and infantry with no apparent drawbacks and often no rationale for many of these strengths. A wraithknight, basically a oversized wraithlord, really ought be as ponderous as its smaller cousin, yet in the game it moves faster than a Tau Hammerhead, when really it is the Hammerhead that should have the advantage of superior maneuverability. Regular vehicles really ought be able to outmaneuver these giants, as they would be far less ponderous in fluff terms and it would actually provide a reason to take them over superheavies and MC given all the additional weaknesses vehicles are subject to. If not just Tau vehicles, but most vehicles including most MBT could move 12" and shoot effectively while MC and superheavy were relegated to 6" moves, you could start talking about groups of vehicles and infantry actually outmaneuvering these giants and bringing them down, which from a fluff perspective would be both plausible and cinematic, and from a game play perspective would increase play balance. But instead we have these large models that are simply better than most vehicles and infantry in ever conceivable way.

Did some one say Mechwarrior?
I'll just leave my army here;

Yes my guard are a mech based army

I started playing Warhammer 40k way back because I was a fan of Starcraft and Command & Conquer. I was looking for a game that was similar to playing an RTS on tabletop, that made me feel like I was directing troops around and picking priority targets. Now with Fortifications, you can even build a base.

Games like those don't generally have super huge units. Usually if they do, your army can afford ONE of them. They're your Ultimate unit, your big kahuna, your Lord of War. Yet most of these giant mechs and big stompy creatures and super tanks are actually Heavy Supports or HQs or otherwise playable in greater quantities.

Personally? I dislike it. If I could, I'd play a version of 40k where troops were important again, Tanks were once again the SUPPORT part of Heavy Support, and anything big and stompy (Bloodthirster, Hive Tyrant, Riptide, Dreadknight, Wraithknight, Imperial Knight, etc) was left to the Lord of War slot only and you could only bring a single one per CAD or Decurion (with further caveat that you can't take a second unless you run 2000 pts). All the Forgeworld stuff would be allowed still, but a lot of it would also become Lords of War and some of the Heavy Support stuff would have to be toned down to fit the role better.

In this way, you only see one big stompy ultimate badass on the table at a time and most of the game is about Troops supported by tanks. Like it once was and should again be. But I'm just dreaming, no one wants that.

I stopped playing 40K when it became apparent that it was not longer 40K but Appoc all the time. Appoc was fun, but it was a special event, not the norm. Its just not fun as the norm.

I think it's nice of GW to be doing the bigger stuff as it adds some scale to the battles. Previously, unless you were a scratch builder you would only ever read about said giant mechs etc. I frequently caught myself wishing "god it'd be cool if they made a model for that"

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think it's nice of GW to be doing the bigger stuff as it adds some scale to the battles. Previously, unless you were a scratch builder you would only ever read about said giant mechs etc. I frequently caught myself wishing "god it'd be cool if they made a model for that"

I guess the lesson here is "be careful what you wish for".

Not sure why all the fear of Unbound is still a thing, since Unbound is just an underperforming detachment with no special rules. Look at all those "game breaking" formations and Unbound looks pretty tame. The tax you pay to play something like Skyhammer or a Battle Company is in the form of units you might not ever field in a CAD, yet the the rule you unlock are far superior to any grouping of models to fill an Unbound list. Afraid of an all WraithKnight list? That's a legal formation when you pay the small tax of the minimal required units. At this point in the game, you should be thanking an Unbound player for not net-listing a metacurion hobby-buster list.

As to big model having LoS across the table, you are obviously nit playing with enough tall terrain. Stop playing on planet Bowling Ball! 7th is game that requires tall LoS blocking terrain to balance out most armies. If you are still using 5th Ed style terrain, no wonder the game sucks for!

And on large models in low point games, have you ever tried, you know, talking with your opponent before deciding on a game? That whole communicating your needs thing, so there are less feel-badsies. Not every game is 'Ard Boyz. You don't have to be a Dick to win a game. Speak up, share your thoughts, work out a setup to meets both of your goals. Remember, the majority of people going to tournaments know they aren't going to win, they just want to experience a tournament while maintaining the illusion that might stand a chance if they just play hard enough. People that win tournaments win during list building, and hone their lists through playing hundreds of games versus other players doing the exact same thing. Yet even they are playing because they rnjoy the hobby. So, just enjoy the hobby!

SJ

Backfire wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think it's nice of GW to be doing the bigger stuff as it adds some scale to the battles. Previously, unless you were a scratch builder you would only ever read about said giant mechs etc. I frequently caught myself wishing "god it'd be cool if they made a model for that"

I guess the lesson here is "be careful what you wish for".

Not really. Sure GW has made some questionable/ludicrous decisions rules wise, but I still appreciate the models

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Not sure why all the fear of Unbound is still a thing, since Unbound is just an underperforming detachment with no special rules. Look at all those "game breaking" formations and Unbound looks pretty tame. The tax you pay to play something like Skyhammer or a Battle Company is in the form of units you might not ever field in a CAD, yet the the rule you unlock are far superior to any grouping of models to fill an Unbound list. Afraid of an all WraithKnight list? That's a legal formation when you pay the small tax of the minimal required units. At this point in the game, you should be thanking an Unbound player for not net-listing a metacurion hobby-buster list.

As to big model having LoS across the table, you are obviously nit playing with enough tall terrain. Stop playing on planet Bowling Ball! 7th is game that requires tall LoS blocking terrain to balance out most armies. If you are still using 5th Ed style terrain, no wonder the game sucks for!

And on large models in low point games, have you ever tried, you know, talking with your opponent before deciding on a game? That whole communicating your needs thing, so there are less feel-badsies. Not every game is 'Ard Boyz. You don't have to be a Dick to win a game. Speak up, share your thoughts, work out a setup to meets both of your goals. Remember, the majority of people going to tournaments know they aren't going to win, they just want to experience a tournament while maintaining the illusion that might stand a chance if they just play hard enough. People that win tournaments win during list building, and hone their lists through playing hundreds of games versus other players doing the exact same thing. Yet even they are playing because they rnjoy the hobby. So, just enjoy the hobby!

SJ

I suppose this is true, but it still doesn't float my boat - So just because I can do a lot of work before I get to the meat of the game, everything is fine? That only shows that the game doesn't work unless heavily modified and adapted, which just shows that the game can't stand on it's own. When I've payed I-don't-know-how-much on miniatures and rules, I don't want to have to get a major in game balance as well - I assume the game can do that for me. But apparently not, and now I have to take in the reins and guide the mess instead. That's not fun, that's a chore.

Also, most of the stuff you just mentioned is stuff I already do. Last game, I played a tournement match against someone I've already beaten once (My Orks against his Space Wolves - A combination of bad placement and rolls gave me the win), and we agreed to a rematch. He asked me if I was still playing Orks, to which I answered yes. "Then I'll pick my Imperial Guard instead", he said, which I was cool with - I had seen his models, and they looked like good fun. I didn't wanna ask for the specifics, since it was a competition.

So, time comes to place models on the table, and what does he place? One Wyvern as his Imperial Guard, and the Obsidian Knight. Just under 500, our chosen point niveau. I have an Ork Warboss with 'Ard Armour, Bosspole and Headwoppa's Killchoppa, an ten-Ork 'Ard Armour mob, another with Shootas instead, a Trukk, ending with eight Lootas. Ask me if I had fun, I fukken dare you.

So I not only lost the game, I lost my good demeanour that night. Afterwards, he came over to ask if I was okay despite it all, which I gave him gak for, since he would've known that I wouldn't like a fight against gak like that... And then he gives it to me: He just wanted to use the Knight. I thought he just wanted to win, but really, he just wanted to use the model in a game. So, he just wanted to use the model that the company tries to push, simply because it's new and cool. He bought it because it was awesome, ad because he wanted to have fun, and what he got was a game that wasn't at all geared towards using it. Unless, of course, you modify it like you say.

I don't really care if this means something to you are not, but I know this was enough for me to simply not play against Knights anymore, and to solidify my pessimism towards them.

Having played 40K since Rogue Trader, and my first army being a Dark Angels army when they were still black color, I can say that 40K has never been better, overall, as now.

Why? Because it's so diverse. It's always been a broken game system from a competitive stand point, but there's never been this many models and rule- and campaign books available.

40K is whatever you and the guys you play with want it to be. I have always been a big proponent of the 'something for everyone' approach.

Back in the day it was obvious that us players decided together. Like, we would make silly stuff like, hey let's play 40K with just one unit vs one unit outside on the terrace. We even played 40K in small kids sand boxes when I was like 10 years old. Sure I've also played in about a hundred tournaments, but there really is no one way to play this game. If you like the skirmish stuff, go for it. If you like mech warrior, go for it. If you like narratives, go for it. If you like composition restrictions and a tournament rule set, go for it.

40k peaked in 5th and has only been declining since then.

Should have had a slightly longer conversation, The Wise Dane.

SJ

It's a bit sad to have to hold negotiations about what to exclude from the game rules, because they are so gakky, before you even get to the stage of picking an army.

A good game ought to work fine from its standard rules.

That's where GW went wrong. Things like forts, fliers and Knights basically don't fit into the structure of 40K as a large skirmish involving a weak company of infantry supported by a couple of vehicles.

However GW in their desperation to sell more models without the trouble of inventing a new game, produced all these extras. It would have been all right if they were optional, like in the days of Apocalypse, but GW had to try and force everyone to accept them as standard game units.

It didn't work, and 40K started a serious decline of popularity from 6th edition.

That there is the root of the problem.

The main difficulties to my mind are all linked:

1) power creep. In second edition a space marine was 30 points. Now he's 14 points. So you need twice as many models (yay for GW revenue) to play.
2) however games with twice as many models take forever so you need bigger weapons that can remove more models quickly.
3) people then complain the basic models just die easily and so need some strategic value - thus bigger, stronger formations (skyhammer wtf?).
4) the armies are based on fluff not balance. Which is fine. But combined with the natural variations in formation balance this can just knock things over.

As well as the natural competitive path which tends towards min-maxing units so that armies become very good at one thing, this just leads to an arms race and further in balance.

I think what could help, actually is more decurion style formations, but more restrictions. Bigger core choices (50% of army price, say) and then a maximum of one each aux choice. So no tiny core choice with spam of mech warrior formations or units bolted on...?

Titans worked in Epic, because the entire game was built around them. Infantry were added so there would be more than just the robots, but really, titans were the draw, and they had some pretty in depth rules.

40k is the opposite. The rules are still essentially an update of 3rd edition (with some 2nd ed mechanics thrown in). Fact is, 40k wasn't exactly the most solid foundation to use in the first place, but it worked well enough, because it was simple enough. Now, so much stuff has been piled on to a flimsy base, it starting to collapse, and its weaknesses are starting to show through. More often than not, these super-heavies are just Walkers +1 (or +2, or+3...). Same goes for the tanks.

There's nothing wrong with having these large models. I mean, 40k incorporates just about every other sci-fi trope out there, why not giant robots? But in order to make these things work, you need to build a game for them, instead of trying to shoehorn these very square pegs into a very round hole.

I think, in order to have a game that is tactical, balanced and incorporates a large range of units, from infantry to flyers to super heavies, you need at least three things:

1. An activation system. In Epic, Titan armies aren't OP because they don't get as many activations. An made primarily of infantry/tanks can, quite realistically, outmaneuver and shred an army of all titans.

2 .Abstraction. 40k has way to many unique weapons and special rules, not even considering artifacts and formations and psychic powers...

3. Fire-grouping. Why does no one use this mechanic? Let units combine fire the achieve an effect more than the sum of its parts. Simple. Now, I'm not saying infantry should be able to fire-group and destroy titans, but tank formations and artillery on the other hand, should. Of course, super-heavies themselves should be barred from using formations and thus, fire-grouping.

But I guess that would all be too hard, so hey, lets just rely on gimmicks to drive sales instead!

You are absolutely right.

Back in the good old days, before Allies, Unbound and formations, the codexes and Force Chart provided limits on army composition. Before 6th edition, in other words.

I completely understand that a Knight Titan or a Tidal Barrage is a cool model that lots of people want to buy. And having paid £90 for it, they are going to want to use it in as many games as possible. However if it spoils the game for too many people, it was a bad idea.

Sales are down 25% since the introduction of all these super new rules and expensive giant kits. Doesn't that show how popular and successful they really are with the wider player base?

It was cool for a little while, now it's just kind of meh. Game needs more infantry focus.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Sales are down 25% since the introduction of all these super new rules and expensive giant kits. Doesn't that show how popular and successful they really are with the wider player base?

No. It really doesn't. In fact those two things might have no correlation whatsoever.

They need to let jump MCs/Gargantuans do death from above.

Then the game would be perfect

You shouldn't be having a conversation on what to exclude. Rather, you should be talking about what to expect. Bad experiences are rooted in failed expectations. If your opponent let you know that they really really wanted to field a Knight, and you let them know it was ok, then both of you will have a better experience from just a simple conversation. Your opponent letting you know that they would be taking a Knight while you quietly drop a Skyhammer Annahilation force on them is just you being a Dick.

Tournaments are a different setting, but then you already know what to expect.

SJ

 Therion wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Sales are down 25% since the introduction of all these super new rules and expensive giant kits. Doesn't that show how popular and successful they really are with the wider player base?

No. It really doesn't. In fact those two things might have no correlation whatsoever.

But we'll never know because GW does no research to find out why their sales are sliding. Could be the move to 1-man stores, could be the change in rules, could be a number of things or even all of them contributing, collectively, towards the decline. GW's strategy of late is to throw gack at the wall and see what sticks, in the past year, loads of gack.

I'm starting to believe in the theory that there's a core of 10-20% of GW customers keeping the company afloat by buying literally everything that they produce.