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.

 koooaei wrote:
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?

Play Warmachine? (That's about the scale.)

At 500pts

Tech Marine@65

Scouts@55
Scouts@55

IK Gallant @325

total 500pts...

Eldar

warlock conclave, 2 wind riders @100

wind rider @51
wind rider @ 51

Wraithknight@295

My money is on the Eldar... have fun at 500pts.

It's hard to tell, Knight will have an upper hand in melee but he must make it there first.
My money is on msu stuff though. Knight isall cool and stuff but it's 300 pt in one unit that can only score one flag.

 koooaei wrote:
It's hard to tell, Knight will have an upper hand in melee but he must make it there first.
My money is on msu stuff though. Knight isall cool and stuff but it's 300 pt in one unit that can only score one flag.

Wraithknight strikes first, and would probably take the Sword due to not having lots of targets to shoot D-Cannons at in such a small game.

 koooaei wrote:

 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?

That raises some other issues, I'm sure that if I had a good group of like minded people and an inclination to houserule it would be quite fun. However I would still have a lot of issues with balance, some of the core mechanics, and would want a lot of restrictions of what can actually be taken (like no knights).

 MWHistorian wrote:
Play Warmachine? (That's about the scale.)

Way ahead of you on that one

 jonolikespie wrote:
...if I had a good group of like minded people and an inclination to houserule it would be quite fun...

In all fairness, no game is gona be fun in a group of tfg. Balance is not as awful for such agame though. Warmachine s not much ahead in balance terms. Still has op combinations and garbage units.

 koooaei wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
...if I had a good group of like minded people and an inclination to houserule it would be quite fun...

In all fairness, no game is gona be fun in a groop of tfg. Balance is not as awful for such agame though. Warmachine s not much ahead in balance terms. Still has op combinations and garbage units.

Just from my personal experiences I'd say 5th ed 40k (the last time I played) was a LOT less balanced than Warmachine. There is a difference between buffing assassins to def 19 and making them practically impossible to hit (but can be wiped by blast weapons) and a 2+ invun save :/

If I was playing a 500pt game I'd have maximised my troops choices, had a lesser powerful HQ to lead them and maybe squeezed in one infantry fighting vehicle eg Chimera, or a couple of Sentinels. If I brought 500 points of Guard infantry and Sentinels and my opponent was fielding a Lord of War, I probably wouldn't even start the game, I'd say "Ah, so that's the kind of player you are" and avoid them from then on.

40K is a game designed to be fun. However, power gamers just want to win at all costs. This is why I avoid "competitive players", eg people who play to win instead of enjoy the game or the fluff.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

About once or twice a year I watch a few friends enjoy a game of 40k and think, "That looks like fun."

I dust off my models, buy the current CSM codex, and load up ol' army builder for a game, only to remember it's not that simple anymore.

I show up with my 60 cultists, demon prince of tzeentch, screamers, and dino bots because dammit, dino bots are cool looking.

My opponent has all kinds of new stuff in play. (not in one game)

Str D weapons are a thing now?
Gargantuan creatures and superheavies?
Imperial Knights are their own army?
Getting in other peoples transports?
Skyhammer drop formations?

Everything in Warhammer has gotten so over the top! It's not about just putting your dudes on the table. Now there's extra books, extra rules, books for factions that are just splinters of a faction, taking free transports/weapons/units/non dying necrons... it's just like ..

It reminds me of the last year or two of an MMO, where everyone has tons and tons of over the top stuff. Where it was once cool to do 1,000 damage on a hit, unless you do 10,000 damage, your not keeping up. It feels like my poor little cult of tzeentch things are playing an entirely different game than everyone else.

So here I am, considering re-entering the game again and I don't even know where to start. I don't want to by an army by formation, but that seems the only way to play anymore... maximizing the best formation bonuses for as much free/power spam as you can get.

I remember my first league game coming back, when my opponent was flying around Belakor, 2 Lords of Change, pink horrors, and summoning mountains demons. I realized very quickly against double invis that I wasn't even in the same frame of mind as the rest of 40k anymore.

Well here's a link to The Basics

Check it out.

Things always change.

Tzeentch is also a tougher army to master anyways.

EDIT: Also check this out as far as tzeentch goes.

Msu troops have good chances vs expensive LOW. It'snot gona be a very fun game though. It'd be cat and mouse.

 jonolikespie wrote:

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.

Which game are you referring to? I've never played an edition were a Landraider was ever qualified as "unkillable". In 5th edition, a Rhino/Razorback was much more survivable point-by-point than a Land Raider that cost over 7 times as much and was just as weak against melta, haywire and lance as anything else and it was also absurdly prone to being immobilized, making your huge taxi investment largely worthless, the later editions only exacerbated these problems tenfold.

 Zewrath wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

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.

Which game are you referring to? I've never played an edition were a Landraider was ever qualified as "unkillable". In 5th edition, a Rhino/Razorback was much more survivable point-by-point than a Land Raider that cost over 7 times as much and was just as weak against melta, haywire and lance as anything else and it was also absurdly prone to being immobilized, making your huge taxi investment largely worthless, the later editions only exacerbated these problems tenfold.

I just mean that's the scale of things I'd like, with land raiders and monoliths being the biggest, beefiest things in the game.

I just somehow don't plain understand how some seem to struggle in playing the game in a way they want to.

GW has, for a long time now, declared they want nothing to do with the competitive scene, and encourage players ( even in the rulebook ) to adjust the game to have fun. It somehow seems some people are just plain unable to do this, and then become bitter eventhough they themselves played a part in making things more difficult than actually they need to be.

It is in essence paradoxical to want everything to be done by the book, yet ignore this very thing, written in the book. I guess it's possible you just can't find anyone, just seems very unlikely that it simply cannot be done (imo.) Tournaments aside, they have preset rules and you go in knowing what is to come. If a person themselves doesn't want to compromise, and wants this one singular thing and accepts nothing else when there are hundreds of thousands of players around with different tastes then I don't know. Will be a tough road, and a self inflicted one at that.

If the largest events in the world are fine with adjusting the game to make it more sensible, why aren't "you?" It is only as difficult as one makes it. Personally I have always found people who are willing to compromise, or plain agree the way you want to play. Occasionally I play the way they want to play, it's not the end of the world. I have, never, met a person who says "no way, never"" -when leaving the superheavies home or making a rerollable 2++ more sensible has been suggested.

I don't know. Just not an issue whatsoever altogether in my experience. Could be a cultural thing, I'm in the impression it's considered embarrassing to be stubborn about something this trivial where I live. You have to do this with other wargames aswell, just not always to the same extent. TFG's are always bad news, the platform hardly matters. Discuss the lists and details beforehand and if you can't come to a conclusion, just politely decline from playing ( ...or crush them at their own game. )

I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy the game tremendously. Tournaments are alive and well, players are developing their own FAQ and Errata that is mutually agreed upon, and the models are gorgeous.

I don't doubt that other games are potentially cheaper, faster, and or more balanced, but I think this game isn't getting the credit it deserves in this thread.

 Cieged wrote:
I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy the game tremendously. Tournaments are alive and well, players are developing their own FAQ and Errata that is mutually agreed upon, and the models are gorgeous.

I don't doubt that other games are potentially cheaper, faster, and or more balanced, but I think this game isn't getting the credit it deserves in this thread.

Yar sure, there's plenty of things wrong with it, but I could be reading, playing PS4, or meeting a hooker. In the end, it's all about whether or not you're having fun

Over all I think the game works well if you actually read the 7th edition rules and notice that GW very clearly states change what you feel doesn't work, talk to your opponent about what you want to do, and then have fun and through some dice. 40k has never been the best game for WAAC, and GW has outright stated such in the 7th edition rule book how they view the best way to play the game.

 Runic wrote:
I just somehow don't plain understand how some seem to struggle in playing the game in a way they want to.

GW has, for a long time now, declared they want nothing to do with the competitive scene, and encourage players ( even in the rulebook ) to adjust the game to have fun. It somehow seems some people are just plain unable to do this, and then become bitter eventhough they themselves played a part in making things more difficult than actually they need to be.

You call it a 'long time', I call it only the last three or four years. 5th was unbalanced, but the term Forge The Narrative didn't exist yet.

I miss 5th more and more. It wasn't perfect but the power gaps we have today weren't as wide.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Over all I think the game works well if you actually read the 7th edition rules and notice that GW very clearly states change what you feel doesn't work, talk to your opponent about what you want to do, and then have fun and through some dice. 40k has never been the best game for WAAC, and GW has outright stated such in the 7th edition rule book how they view the best way to play the game.

40k is the best game for WAAC, because no other game is as easy to break as it. Now if you meant that 40k was never a COMPETITIVE game (big difference between the two) I'd again point to the pre 6th ed days when GW ran grand tournaments.

You're right though, that GW expect you to change things and houserule with your opponent to make the game what you want. Except that can be a large investment of time and at the end of it you're still playing a tactically shallow game. If I showed up at a game store and the options were discuss fixing 40k with someone and get a game in or knock out 3 games of x wing I'd be setting up x wing in a heartbeat.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

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.

Which game are you referring to? I've never played an edition were a Landraider was ever qualified as "unkillable". In 5th edition, a Rhino/Razorback was much more survivable point-by-point than a Land Raider that cost over 7 times as much and was just as weak against melta, haywire and lance as anything else and it was also absurdly prone to being immobilized, making your huge taxi investment largely worthless, the later editions only exacerbated these problems tenfold.

I just mean that's the scale of things I'd like, with land raiders and monoliths being the biggest, beefiest things in the game.

That sums up what I want in the game as well. 30 models and a few vehicles. Perfect amount to paint to a good standard without getting overwhelmed and a great scale to make the more "mundane" vehicles more appreciable. Fortunately I have a buddy who enjoys smaller games as well, so we are always trying a house rule set du jour for our old 40k and Fantasy models.

Part of what keeps me here is the modelling and fluff though. No other game system has ever caught my eye the way 40k has even if i recognize that they are better games.

The problem I have with the "40k isn't meant to be competitive" mindset is, why not? Narrative play is still possible using a tournament-balanced ruleset.

I don't like the 40k isn't competitive mindset because it's relatively recent and hasn't been around that long. Many of us bought models when 40k was moving towards a competitive mindset, and seemed to be developing tighter and better rules.

The sudden switch, leaving many of us with thousands of dollars in models that we are not inclined to use, is upsetting.

I would think everyone can understand that, but I'd apparently be wrong.

I think the terms used lead to different outcomes for this discussion.

When I say the game system doesn't handle competitive play well, I don't mean 40k doesn't work in a tournament setting or that I don't try to win once the game starts.

What 40k doesn't handle well is a player whose only goal is to take a combination of units for the sole purpose of winning with no regards to background or story logic. When you get someone who only ever takes the best most smash build, it starts off an arms race and I don't think that is good for maintaining a healthy community long term. GW building and making rules for larger and more expensive models and making them overly strong compared to 28 mm infantry is another decision that I think long term will hurt this game because it lovers impulse buys and scares off new players.

 Runic wrote:
I just somehow don't plain understand how some seem to struggle in playing the game in a way they want to.

GW has, for a long time now, declared they want nothing to do with the competitive scene, and encourage players ( even in the rulebook ) to adjust the game to have fun. It somehow seems some people are just plain unable to do this, and then become bitter eventhough they themselves played a part in making things more difficult than actually they need to be.

It is in essence paradoxical to want everything to be done by the book, yet ignore this very thing, written in the book. I guess it's possible you just can't find anyone, just seems very unlikely that it simply cannot be done (imo.) Tournaments aside, they have preset rules and you go in knowing what is to come. If a person themselves doesn't want to compromise, and wants this one singular thing and accepts nothing else when there are hundreds of thousands of players around with different tastes then I don't know. Will be a tough road, and a self inflicted one at that.

If the largest events in the world are fine with adjusting the game to make it more sensible, why aren't "you?" It is only as difficult as one makes it. Personally I have always found people who are willing to compromise, or plain agree the way you want to play. Occasionally I play the way they want to play, it's not the end of the world. I have, never, met a person who says "no way, never"" -when leaving the superheavies home or making a rerollable 2++ more sensible has been suggested.

I don't know. Just not an issue whatsoever altogether in my experience. Could be a cultural thing, I'm in the impression it's considered embarrassing to be stubborn about something this trivial where I live. You have to do this with other wargames aswell, just not always to the same extent. TFG's are always bad news, the platform hardly matters. Discuss the lists and details beforehand and if you can't come to a conclusion, just politely decline from playing ( ...or crush them at their own game. )

I said this somewhere else, so I'm just gonna cliff note it

1. I travel a lot

2. Every area I go to seems to have its own house rules and "acceptable" playstyles

3. I shouldn't have to drop $300 and buy minis that mostly look terrible (if we're talking about most of the new stuff IG got) fortifications, or to ally with a whole extra army just to play the one I want. I signed up to play guard, not a token platoon hiding behind a forcefield with inquisitorial and space marine allies.

4. The game is rapidly spiralling out of control on an arms race for the biggest and baddest thing. This is bad for the health of the game and is essentially sending 40k down the route fantasy went, where the game was so ludicrously expensive to start it died out.

5. I have met a lot of people who balked the moment I even hinted I didn't want a game with superheavies, GMC's, ridiculous combos like the invisibility deathstars, or even a game at just 1500pts or less. It's even harder to find a good group since I travel a lot.

If 40k was fixed, I would be able to do what I do with X Wing and Flames of war. Aka I have a couple different lists that work fine no matter where I go, and I only tweak them if I'm playing a newbie or a guy who clearly plays tournaments a lot, but even then they're minor tweaks. Not to mention the lists are always at a pretty consistent level pointswise so I know what to expect before I even get there. Makes pickup games so much easier, you have no idea.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
I think the terms used lead to different outcomes for this discussion.

When I say the game system doesn't handle competitive play well, I don't mean 40k doesn't work in a tournament setting or that I don't try to win once the game starts.

What 40k doesn't handle well is a player whose only goal is to take a combination of units for the sole purpose of winning with no regards to background or story logic. When you get someone who only ever takes the best most smash build, it starts off an arms race and I don't think that is good for maintaining a healthy community long term. GW building and making rules for larger and more expensive models and making them overly strong compared to 28 mm infantry is another decision that I think long term will hurt this game because it lovers impulse buys and scares off new players.

Just for reference, a WAAC player or a That Guy will try to break the game at the expense of the fun of their opponents, and are universally hated for it.

If you say 'competitive' player people who are not WAAC players or That Guy will consider themselves part of this group, and hate being smeared with the same brush as those other two groups.

Competitive players, for the most part, are just the types who are less interested in the story, and more in the tactical elements of the game itself. I consider myself a 'competitive' player, and the most fun games to me are those that come right down to the wire in the final turn were, win or lose, the deciding factor being a choice I or my opponent made that snatches victory from the jaws of defeat.

I actually had a really good game today, I was surprised.

I took my cultists and Tzeentch cult again, against a GK Strike Squad formation at 1250 points. Both she and I were taking lists that were representative of what we liked about our armies.

Mine.

1250 Pts - Codex: Chaos Space Marines Roster

1 Allied Detachment
. . 1 Allied Detachment

57 Chaos Cultists
. . 51 Chaos Cultists - Autopistol; Close Combat Weapon
. . 6 Chaos Cultists - Flamer; Close Combat Weapon

3 Cultist Champion
. . 3 Cultist Champion - Autopistol; Close Combat Weapon

2 Dark Apostle
. . 2 Dark Apostle - Plasma Pistol; Krak Grenades; Power Maul

2 Forgefiend
. . 2 Forgefiend - Daemonic Possession; 2x Ectoplasma Cannons

2 Herald of Tzeentch
. . 2 Herald of Tzeentch - S: Daemonic Instability

21 Pink Horrors of Tzeentch
. . 21 Pink Horrors of Tzeentch - S: Blue Horrors; S: Daemonic Instability; S: Magic Made Manifest
Total Roster Cost: 1249




Hers.

1 GK Librarian with staff and mastery 2
1 GK SS in Rhino
1 GK Interceptor Squad
1 GK GK Terminator Squad w/ 7? Termies
1 GK Papoose Knight

We had a lot of fun, and just laughed and played, and even though she had a formation and I had a lot of psyker dice (but not summoning), there were no Super heavines, GC, or anything that added a lot of stress to the game.

I think it's about finding the right opponents, like a few people have said. One post, which I exalted, had the phrase..

"Warhammer 40k is no longer fit for a globally accepted pick up game. You must find the parameters to make the game enjoyable for both people."

That's pretty true.

The days of just bein' like..

"Hey bud, do you want to play a game? Great. How many points?"

.. is out the window, unless you are willing to gamble on the experience.

There you have it. Just communicate and be ready to compromise and you'll be fine. The end.

AKA exactly what the rulebook tells players to do.

 Runic wrote:
There you have it. Just communicate and be ready to compromise and you'll be fine. The end.

AKA exactly what the rulebook tells players to do.

Yeah but given the choice between doing that and not having to do that, all else equal I think I'll play the game that doesn't make me do that.

It's a legitimate fix certainly, but it's still a fix, meaning something is broken.

 Runic wrote:
There you have it. Just communicate and be ready to compromise and you'll be fine. The end.

AKA exactly what the rulebook tells players to do.

When I'm forced to pay £50 to buy the rulebook I expect clear, concise rules, not having to spend the money and then my time to fix what I bought.