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.

 Ratius wrote:
Im not having a pop OP but youre blaming the game for not being fun because you are unfamiliar with new rules like D, GMCs etc and out of touch with recent developments?
A little unfair I feel. Ask your friends can you borrow the latest codicies, rules, formations, get to know what you;re up against and build a list against it.
Alternatively ask them to pick less "optimised" lists and have more friendly games.
What you are missing is a learning curve. Of course things will be frustrating and unfun if you play once a year with unoptimised CSM VS a top tier steam roller army.

40k has some poor rules and other bonkers rules but its still damn fun imho.

PS CSM is general considered so sub par as to be comical Im afraid :(

As a guy in a similar boat to the OP, it really feels like someone is playing a joke on you when you see some of this crazier stuff. You know what a person's reaction would be if you told them you had a strength D flamer back in 5th? They kick you out for cheating while laughing about how only an idiot would think that would be in standard 40k. Not to mention the formations that throw out free rules or models. Or things like the GMCs or knights (I can't believe how stupid they were to allow those in normal games) 40k is basically apocalypse now, there's nothing separating the two now, when back in the day they were VERY seperate.

You feel like you showed up to play a 1,000pt game and the other guy brought an 1850 list. It's not so much adapt as it is "looks like its time to buy a new army".

Yeah, everything has gotten bigger and more powerful.

Personally it's not an issue for me, as once again, things change. 40K today is more "apocalyptic" than it used to be before. I'm fine with that.

The presumption of the game remaining the same forever was never present to beginwith for me, and the change doesn't surprise me in any way, nor does it make any difference. It's a game that is different from how it was 10 years ago.

I guess it's only a problem if for some reason a person wants it to be how it used to be. Stuff was broken all the same, in some cases more badly than currently, the scale of battles and power is different. But it's the same for everyone.

I can imagine for someone who plays a few matches per edition the change happens in a blunt way. But personally I call someone like that more of a collector, since only 3 days out of the 365 days available are spent actually playing the game. I just clocked 100 games of 7th, so it feels like I'm more than ready for a new edition already.

My friend and I feel the same way. We don't use super heavies or gargantuan creatures without prior agreement and even then only in massive games. We have a max of one flier per game if that and rarely use formations. We're both poor so can't afford an arms race.

Ask your friends to bring just a CAD and no LoW. That'll help a LOT since you won't have to deal with all the formation shenanigans - and it will tone down their armies a bit so you have a chance at winning.

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Everything in Warhammer has gotten so over the top!

Really. That's your complaint about Warhammer 40.000. Maybe you should switch to a different universe that isn't, like, the most over-the-top universe I know?

Titans have been part of the universe for ages and he's complaining that a Space Marine sitting in a Chimera is over the top.

When people speak of problems with allied transports, the point is generally not Marines in Chimeras... It's more the Wraithguard in deepstriking/WWP raiders that are causing a stir.

 Ashiraya wrote:
When people speak of problems with allied transports, the point is generally not Marines in Chimeras... It's more the Wraithguard in deepstriking/WWP raiders that are causing a stir.

Yeah, I was going for one of the really boring variants to make a point.

I can completely agree that Super Heavies, D-weapons, GCs, and the like are annoying in small games. And I am totally against it. But, people still complain about Flyers? I think they were a cool addition to the game, and every army has them. So I don't see the big deal. The big, bad Flyers all have a drawback that can be exploited.

nekooni wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
When people speak of problems with allied transports, the point is generally not Marines in Chimeras... It's more the Wraithguard in deepstriking/WWP raiders that are causing a stir.

Yeah, I was going for one of the really boring variants to make a point.

Don't Raiders hold 10 models? Wraithguard are Bulky and a min. size of 5. Where does the WWP toting model fit? If you are experiencing this as an issue, you may want to ask your opponent to show you the rules.

Now, that combo does fit inside a Wave Serpent, but the Wraithguard need to disembark...

How does one even play this game anymore?

You don't.

The problem is you're playing with cheese-eating assmongers

They're bringing competitive lists against your fluff list

The problem is you're playing with cheese-eating assmongers

They're bringing competitive lists against your fluff list

To be fair, it was a league with prizes at the end. I was just completely unprepared for the standard power of armies these days.

Really. That's your complaint about Warhammer 40.000. Maybe you should switch to a different universe that isn't, like, the most over-the-top universe I know?

Titans have been part of the universe for ages and he's complaining that a Space Marine sitting in a Chimera is over the top.

Fluff to table-top has no bearing. Thanks for adding literally nothing other than a criticism to the thread. Also, WG don't need a Spirit Seer to function anymore, so they fit just fine with 5 models.

Cindis wrote:
The problem is you're playing with cheese-eating assmongers

They're bringing competitive lists against your fluff list

This statement is flawed. You're making the assumption that fluff lists aren't powerful and somehow it's the opponents fault that he's "playing the game wrong" because he's not being a "gentleman" and handicapping himself for your list. Mostly though, people that prefer extreme cheese combos play with other similar people, because they get bored just as easily as you do when they table you 20-0 in first turn, every game.

In fact, the game would be awesome if fluff was balanced vs fluff and cheese vs cheese, that way we could easily split the game into a hardcore/softcore section and everyone could play what ever they prefer. That's, however, not the case with 40k. Necron decurion, Eldar decurion, marine-decurion+ sky hammer are all extremely fluffy ways of making an army, yet they will absolutely murder any "fluffy" IG themed list or CSM with a good themed army and the game will be just as boringly one-sided as playing vs what ever TFG in your fantasy that you love to antagonize so much.
Don't blame the player for playing a game that's absurdly flawed, were somehow bringing a perfectly legal list suddenly turns you into a "TFG" because you don't like playing against it. That's a terrible way to excuse an atrocious gamesystem.

 Zewrath wrote:

Cindis wrote:
The problem is you're playing with cheese-eating assmongers

They're bringing competitive lists against your fluff list

This statement is flawed. You're making the assumption that fluff lists aren't powerful and somehow it's the opponents fault that he's "playing the game wrong" because he's not being a "gentleman" and handicapping himself for your list. Mostly though, people that prefer extreme cheese combos play with other similar people, because they get bored just as easily as you do when they table you 20-0 in first turn, every game.

In fact, the game would be awesome if fluff was balanced vs fluff and cheese vs cheese, that way we could easily split the game into a hardcore/softcore section and everyone could play what ever they prefer. That's, however, not the case with 40k. Necron decurion, Eldar decurion, marine-decurion+ sky hammer are all extremely fluffy ways of making an army, yet they will absolutely murder any "fluffy" IG themed list or CSM with a good themed army and the game will be just as boringly one-sided as playing vs what ever TFG in your fantasy that you love to antagonize so much.
Don't blame the player for playing a game that's absurdly flawed, were somehow bringing a perfectly legal list suddenly turns you into a "TFG" because you don't like playing against it. That's a terrible way to excuse an atrocious gamesystem.

You raise a good point. I try hard not to villainize the players with hyper-efficient lists. I know how to build them too, hell, I've won Ard' Boyz qualifiers back when those were still around in 5th ed. The main point of this thread was how far things have escalated in the system, with multiple sources, data slates, formations, and allies all being used in the most basic of lists anymore.

Usually with the rulebook, codices of your choice, the appropriate models, and enough dice. The latter two aren't necessary with Vassal though, but I've never used it.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

Really. That's your complaint about Warhammer 40.000. Maybe you should switch to a different universe that isn't, like, the most over-the-top universe I know?

Titans have been part of the universe for ages and he's complaining that a Space Marine sitting in a Chimera is over the top.

Fluff to table-top has no bearing. Thanks for adding literally nothing other than a criticism to the thread. Also, WG don't need a Spirit Seer to function anymore, so they fit just fine with 5 models.

Sure, cut what I wrote before that and claim I only added criticism to the thread. Nice. And I never said anything about Seers or anything, so what's your problem here, mate?

And yes, if you complain about over-the-top'ness of a tabletops crunch, you should consider whether or not the fluff is over-the-top. Being over-the-top is what 40k is about - massive firepower, heros wading through the blood of their enemies and so on. Are many of the rules in 40k badly designed? Sure. But that's bad design, not "too much over-the-top". Destroyer weapons and Superheavies are fine as concepts - at least in my opinion. GWs execution - the rules we have - is highly questionable though.

nekooni wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:

Really. That's your complaint about Warhammer 40.000. Maybe you should switch to a different universe that isn't, like, the most over-the-top universe I know?

Titans have been part of the universe for ages and he's complaining that a Space Marine sitting in a Chimera is over the top.

Fluff to table-top has no bearing. Thanks for adding literally nothing other than a criticism to the thread. Also, WG don't need a Spirit Seer to function anymore, so they fit just fine with 5 models.

Sure, cut what I wrote before that and claim I only added criticism to the thread. Nice. And I never said anything about Seers or anything, so what's your problem here, mate?

And yes, if you complain about over-the-top'ness of a tabletops crunch, you should consider whether or not the fluff is over-the-top. Being over-the-top is what 40k is about - massive firepower, heros wading through the blood of their enemies and so on. Are many of the rules in 40k badly designed? Sure. But that's bad design, not "too much over-the-top". Destroyer weapons and Superheavies are fine as concepts - at least in my opinion. GWs execution - the rules we have - is highly questionable though.

I agree with everything here. If i missed something relevant from your first post, I apologize.

Actually, 40K of today is more like what 40K battles have always been described as, with superheavy vehicles, multiple factions, flyers etc.

One can argue it would work better without said things -but that's just an opinion and nothing more. It can work with them or without them all the same. The most likely reason, admitted or not (by my speculation) is just wanting things to be "the way they used to be" -and having a negative reaction to change by default. A reasonably common way to react to all change... for some.

 Runic wrote:
Actually, 40K of today is more like what 40K battles have always been described as, with superheavy vehicles, multiple factions, flyers etc.

One can argue it would work better without said things -but that's just an opinion and nothing more. It can work with them or without them all the same. The most likely reason, admitted or not (by my speculation) is just wanting things to be "the way they used to be" -and having a negative reaction to change by default. A reasonably common way to react to all change... for some.

I don't quite agree.

I didn't mind 6th, which had a lot of changes from 5th.

The problem comes from how many source books, how many extra rules are added, and how much easier it is to access a very high baseline of power for many of the codexes. It's not the inclusion of superheavies and gargantuans, but how they are implemented. They kept many of the old "seperate game" mechanics of Apoc, and shoehorned them into regular 40k. Formations are their own problem, in how much more rigid they make armies which are basically just formation groiups.

The problem is not super-heavies, d weapons and allies themselves - the problem is with op models. The majority of options are pretty tame. Most superheavies are quite mediocre - like imperial knights and stompas, some are simply bad like hierodule or a number of baneblades, others are op for the points like tau'nar or wraithknights. Same goes with allies. Most options are fluffy and not that over the top. It's the space marine battle bros, draigo-cents and things like that which spoil the fun. Some factions simply need allies to fill the gaps - like orks, harlequins, ig. Others use allies to up the cheeze - sm, eldar.

As far as i'm concerned, it's always been like this. No matter which edition you pick, there are always op things that people abuse. If what, i find that the balance has gone better simply for the fact that there are maelstorm missions and you don't necesserely need to kill the unkillable to actually win games. I've been havinh success with footslogging hordes, a full scout list and csm with mass mutlators. It's telling something.

I find it's difficult to win Maelstrom missions when your models are all dead, but I'm admittedly not a very strong 40k player anymore.

But again, this thread wasn't "Stuffs too op, I can't win.

It was "Holy crap, the scale and shape of the game have changed immensely, as well as the average level of power fielded by armies."

It's since been implied I haven't been running into average armies.

I really like the post pointing out 40k isn't a global scale pickup game anymore. Dialogue is needed before hand expressing the tone and power scale of the upcoming game.

 koooaei wrote:
s far as i'm concerned, it's always been like this. No matter which edition you pick, there are always op things that people abuse.

Exactly. This hasn't changed. The game has had broken units before, and I argue that nothing in the current game has reached the "op level" of 3rd ed Starcannon spam, the 5th ed GK or the like. Even Eldar, which are considered top dogs, can be beaten with other top tier armies and quite well at that. 5th ed GK ruled the edition, and there was nothing that even came close, same with the Starcannon spam of 3rd.

So in essence, the only difference is some changed rules and the new unit types. Everything is more powerful, sure. But a lot of things are powerful, not just one army. Also these days there are only a few builds that don't have an actual hard counter for them.

To the OP, yeah, your solution is open lists and discussion. Or participating in a tournament with set list restrictions.

I concur with the above. 40k to me has always been at it's best when you have an opponent who you can have a clear conversation with about what kind of game your looking for. I do wish at times GW would right a better rule set but as someone whose been here since 5th and the whole break the game to win, smash list has always been here.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I concur with the above. 40k to me has always been at it's best when you have an opponent who you can have a clear conversation with about what kind of game your looking for. I do wish at times GW would right a better rule set but as someone whose been here since 5th and the whole break the game to win, smash list has always been here.

The question remains though: why should there be any further conversation outside of point value and rolling for missions?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I concur with the above. 40k to me has always been at it's best when you have an opponent who you can have a clear conversation with about what kind of game your looking for. I do wish at times GW would right a better rule set but as someone whose been here since 5th and the whole break the game to win, smash list has always been here.

The question remains though: why should there be any further conversation outside of point value and rolling for missions?

That has become a part of the problem though. One guy turns up with a list designed for tournaments, the other guy gets smashed. So to win next time he tries to come up with a more competitive list, and smashes as different guy, who, to win his next game tries to come up with a more competitive list, and smashes a different guy... before long, the majority of the group are trying hard to win and shedding people who are no longer comfortable playing with them. Now although this has always been the case, netlists and super heavies/gargantuan creatures have only recently become so easily accessible to everyone and really exacerbated the issue. Having a like minded group, or a prior conversation saying 'i just want to have fun and playing a pure scatbike army with two wraithknights might not be fun to fight again' is very reasonable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I concur with the above. 40k to me has always been at it's best when you have an opponent who you can have a clear conversation with about what kind of game your looking for. I do wish at times GW would right a better rule set but as someone whose been here since 5th and the whole break the game to win, smash list has always been here.

The question remains though: why should there be any further conversation outside of point value and rolling for missions?

This is common in almost any game or group activity though. For example I show up to play football with some friends expecting a friendly game. Another player on the other team decides to play how he would on a professional field, tackling hard, pushing people to the limit. The game and rules are known to both but we have very different expectations of play style. This doesn't make either game bad, though as I stated 40k could use a tighter rule set but with the literally 100s of options in this game your going to get two very different outcomes depending on why someone is playing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The question remains though: why should there be any further conversation outside of point value and rolling for missions?

I dont think wanting something on principle will get anyone anywhere, as the world is not perfect. It's rare a wargame with many options where the guy expecting a fluffy casual match wont get decimated by someone bringing a top tier competituve list. This is true for Infinity, Bolt Action and WM/H, I've played them all, two in tournaments.

Ones options are, as discussed so many times before; adapt in a way that satisfies you, dont adapt and continue to want something that is not there, or stop completely.

I moved to a state thats not well off economically. I tried various gaming stores in the area, and pretty much nothing but the GW corporate store had any sort of community. The problem was, the community wanted to play with nothing but knights and forgeworld monstrosities.

The last game I watched before I walked out of the store and never came back was 5 knights (3 were forgeworld lancers etc) vs. 3 knights and some forgeworld space marine tanks. I looked down at my lovingly painted dark eldar wych army and realized this wasn't the game for me anymore.

On one hand, its great they've made a game with so many ways to play. But they've also destroyed 40k's greatest strength, the fact you could always find a game.

I think what people are missing is just how scaled up things have become in 7th. Back in 5th, I could actually win games with nothing but guardsmen and Leman Russ tanks. Not vets, infantry platoons. And we didn't have aegis lines or anything like that either (old man mode activated)

I could actually do a bayonet charge across the board with a wall of tanks behind them, and have a halfway decent chance. No, it was not the most competitive list in the world, but I always felt like I had a chance. At the very least i could bloody a n optimized list a bit before i went down. In 7th, I could have them completely fortified behind aegis lines and whatnot and lose 2/3rds of them by the end of turn 2. There's so much ignore cover, gmc's, special rules, and absolutely horribly bizarre combos that bringing normal infantry is literally pointless. I would spend more time getting my guardsmen out of the case than I would to put them back.

The game has scaled to the point where basic infantry are pointless. Who takes infantry platoons anymore? How about boyz mobs? Tactical squads? Fire warriors? Etc. Etc. It's all MC's and GMC's and invisible deathstars and jetbikes and knight titans. It's to the point where people will literally call it a "troop tax" because they don't want to use troop units.

We didn't need that in 40k, that's what APOCALYPSE was for. So you could go nuts with the crazy stuff and not completely destroy the normal game. Why GW thought it was an even remotely smart idea to introduce that stuff to a normal game is beyond me from a balance perspective. You'd have to be insane to think a Knight titan or the eldar titan thing belongs in a standard game. They're perfect for apocalypse, and if that's what they'd been advertised as, apocalypse only, I would have been fine with it. But it destroys the average game and makes the core troop units of many factions pointless. Not to mention for newbies starting out, or old vets coming back after an edition, they have very little to fight this kind of stuff.

It's just an all around bad idea and should never have happened

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
I think what people are missing is just how scaled up things have become in 7th. Back in 5th, I could actually win games with nothing but guardsmen and Leman Russ tanks. Not vets, infantry platoons. And we didn't have aegis lines or anything like that either (old man mode activated)

I could actually do a bayonet charge across the board with a wall of tanks behind them, and have a halfway decent chance. No, it was not the most competitive list in the world, but I always felt like I had a chance. At the very least i could bloody a n optimized list a bit before i went down. In 7th, I could have them completely fortified behind aegis lines and whatnot and lose 2/3rds of them by the end of turn 2. There's so much ignore cover, gmc's, special rules, and absolutely horribly bizarre combos that bringing normal infantry is literally pointless. I would spend more time getting my guardsmen out of the case than I would to put them back.

The game has scaled to the point where basic infantry are pointless. Who takes infantry platoons anymore? How about boyz mobs? Tactical squads? Fire warriors? Etc. Etc. It's all MC's and GMC's and invisible deathstars and jetbikes and knight titans. It's to the point where people will literally call it a "troop tax" because they don't want to use troop units.

We didn't need that in 40k, that's what APOCALYPSE was for. So you could go nuts with the crazy stuff and not completely destroy the normal game. Why GW thought it was an even remotely smart idea to introduce that stuff to a normal game is beyond me from a balance perspective. You'd have to be insane to think a Knight titan or the eldar titan thing belongs in a standard game. They're perfect for apocalypse, and if that's what they'd been advertised as, apocalypse only, I would have been fine with it. But it destroys the average game and makes the core troop units of many factions pointless. Not to mention for newbies starting out, or old vets coming back after an edition, they have very little to fight this kind of stuff.

It's just an all around bad idea and should never have happened

Basically sums up my thoughts on the topic. I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.

Platoon ig is quite powerful with allies and VSG. It's like a cheaper shootier greentide. I tend to do decent with them. Dudes are very choppy when you incorporate inquisitor with his crazy nades and priests in there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'd love to play the game again at a scale where 50 guardsmen is an infantry spam list, a single land raider is an almost unkillable juggernaut, and an average list is 1 HQ, 20 or so infantry, and a vehicle or two.

Play 500-750 pt?