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.
2016/01/19 13:58:39
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
tyrannosaurus wrote: I had a similar problem to the OP, and was very close to giving up on the whole tabletop wargaming thing.
Step 1 - Ebayed my 40k models.
Step 2 - Re-invested the money in a balanced game with a tight ruleset [my choice was Infinity].
Step 3 - Had lots of fun and re-discovered my passion for this strange little hobby.
Step 4 - Mentally berated myself for all of the time wasted in preparing for and playing a game with a shockingly bad ruleset [including all of the time trying to negotiate how the game was going to be played on each occasion].
It's difficult to appreciate just how outdated and poorly thought out the 40k ruleset is until you try something new.
This is exactly what I did, minus the 1st step. I jumped ship with a buddy when Operation Icestorm got released and almost had a relapse towards playing 40k again, until they made the new Eldar codex, then I quickly decided to burn that bridge forever. Don't think I've spent a single penny at GW products except for some of their paints ever since.
I thought I'd be sad about it but the apathy I've built up towards 40k over a long period simply killed off any affection I used to have for the game.
2016/01/19 14:32:42
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
As an avid board game player and the OP of the thread, the answer I've come to in light of my latest really fun game was kind of simple.
Reduce the game.
Galaxy Truckers was a favorite game of mine before they added the 3rd and 4th expansions. King of Tokyo was good fun for my young daughters, but evolutions confused them. Pokemon cards was something they really enjoyed with their old cards, but they liked less and less and EX Pokes and Mega-Evolutions started creeping in.
The solution for all of these was to reduce the game. We stuck to expansions 1 and 2 for Galaxy Truckers. We played box-only King of Tokyo. We stopped using the more tech savy pokemon cards, and we enjoyed these games again.
To answer my original question, "How does one even play this game anymore?" , the answer is similar but less digestable. Reduce the game.
"Sorry, I really don't like playing with Superheavies, Gargantuan Creatures, or super formations. I'm looking for a smaller, simpler game.'
Is this perfect? No. I might not find anyone to meet those guidelines and be assed out that day, with no game. This is certainly disappointing and might hurt my desire to keep trying to play 40k. It's also not really fair to the guy who bought an army of Knights, because he -is- fielding a legal and legitimate army. It reminds me of how I felt when I bought Grey Knights in 5th because of how cool the Grey Knights from Warhammer: Dawn of War were. They were still Demonhunters when I bought them, but when they gained power, I remember being kind of mad when people were like, "I don't want to play your army.", even though I had no Paladins or Stormravens.
Still, you can't enjoy a game thinking only about your opponents like and dislikes. You have to consider yourself too. And haggling is a thing. And I don't mind allies or flyers or any of the rules therein.
Back on topic though, what I've done is eliminate three pressures.
1. The monetary pressure of feeling like I have to keep buying new stuff until I can field 2500 points.
2. The time pressure of feeling like I can never paint the whole army. If I can play 1250 and have a fun, full 2 hour game, that's enough for me. I can add a little to it as time goes on if I want, but the initial "wall of grey" effect is reduced.
3. The resentment pressure of feeling like my army cannot compete in an environment of superheavies and decurion formations or all the other new crazy in the game. Playing with cultist chaos in unregulated 40ks current meta is like playing chess without a queen or bishops. It's nice to feel like I have a fair shot. I have fun joking about the death of droves of cultists anyways, so I don't mind losing every game as long as I can see where I might have won had something been different.
There's so many 40k players, odds are good I should find one person willing to de-escalate the game. If not, that's why I have board games and other hobbies for game-store night.
Me and my friends often do this in role playing games. It makes everything more special if you're not the superpowered cheese machines later editions inevitably end up offering, as well as skip the min/max of races/classes.
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
Funny story. I recently played in a 2v2 tournament with myeslf going full standard guard (100 grunts, 2 russes, 1 chimera) and my mate going Deep strike storm troopers with a Knight (So 6 or so Deep striking squads and a Knight). He bought fortifications for his remaining points. Anyway we where both completly new to 7th, last time we'd played was in 5th. The first two games where horrible failures, we really got our ass handed to us. Of course we got in a bad mood. We hadn't just lost, we'd been severly outclassed. Then something remarkable happened. We knocked our heads togheter and had a long talk. Then we decided to completly change our tactics. And boom, the remaining two games won. It was tempting to complain about how we'd faced people with far stronger lists than us (which we did) but in the end we realised we had a couple of advantages. Namely we scored the hell out of everything. The Knight was mostly important to soak up fire and the rest just foccused on objectives and damn did it go well. With two platoons of guardsmen marching forward through the death and destruction of overpowered shenanigans and storm troopers dropping all over to hold vital objectives we left our comming opposition in the dust. I'm absolutely certain we'd have performed much, much better in the other two games had we just been slightly more experienced.
So the moral of the story is that in the 7th edition, with sufficient boots on the ground and objective foccused tactical thinking you can pull some nice victories away from scary opposition.
His pattern of returning alive after being declared dead occurred often enough during Cain's career that the Munitorum made a special ruling that Ciaphas Cain is to never be considered dead, despite evidence to the contrary.
2016/01/19 16:07:03
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
I play 40k since it exists and enjoyed it in all editions.
Some editions have more broken stuff then others, but i can always adapt and enjoy both the game and above all the models and the setting.
Funny to sell 40k to buy Infinity...
You can play Infinity with any models.
And yes, many (but not all) Infinity models are beautifull, but they are quite expensive too.
And the Infinity rules have a huge hole too (buying cheap models just to get more activations for others) that nobody seems to want to fix, because the big models have to be sold.
Sounds familiar somehow... ;-)
I play lots of different games and sometimes one gets better or worse, but i am in it for the hobby, which is painting and modelling too. Every miniature producing company that is big enough has to sell miniatures. And to keep on selling, the game and units and models have to change.
That's just the way it in the miniature wargaming world.
2016/01/19 18:33:09
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
ORicK wrote: I play 40k since it exists and enjoyed it in all editions.
Some editions have more broken stuff then others, but i can always adapt and enjoy both the game and above all the models and the setting.
Funny to sell 40k to buy Infinity...
You can play Infinity with any models.
And yes, many (but not all) Infinity models are beautifull, but they are quite expensive too.
And the Infinity rules have a huge hole too (buying cheap models just to get more activations for others) that nobody seems to want to fix, because the big models have to be sold.
Sounds familiar somehow... ;-)
I play lots of different games and sometimes one gets better or worse, but i am in it for the hobby, which is painting and modelling too. Every miniature producing company that is big enough has to sell miniatures. And to keep on selling, the game and units and models have to change.
That's just the way it in the miniature wargaming world.
What big hole are you referring to?
Cheap models get used all the time, especially with fireteams, some armies spam them because a large part of their army consists of cheap infantry (like Ariadna) and many armies (almost all) have very cheap war band units that gets moved for either distraction, mine clearing or smoke launching.
2016/01/20 03:45:49
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
ORicK wrote: I play 40k since it exists and enjoyed it in all editions.
Some editions have more broken stuff then others, but i can always adapt and enjoy both the game and above all the models and the setting.
Funny to sell 40k to buy Infinity...
You can play Infinity with any models.
And yes, many (but not all) Infinity models are beautifull, but they are quite expensive too.
And the Infinity rules have a huge hole too (buying cheap models just to get more activations for others) that nobody seems to want to fix, because the big models have to be sold.
Sounds familiar somehow... ;-)
I play lots of different games and sometimes one gets better or worse, but i am in it for the hobby, which is painting and modelling too. Every miniature producing company that is big enough has to sell miniatures. And to keep on selling, the game and units and models have to change.
That's just the way it in the miniature wargaming world.
What big hole are you referring to?
Cheap models get used all the time, especially with fireteams, some armies spam them because a large part of their army consists of cheap infantry (like Ariadna) and many armies (almost all) have very cheap war band units that gets moved for either distraction, mine clearing or smoke launching.
I've not yet got the the point with Infinity where I am playing competitively, but I was under the impression order efficiency with 5 man fireteams packing a HMG made them every bit as viable as a single TAG. I certainly wouldn't call it a hole either way though, in my limited experience I've never encountered a scenario when the single 'big' model dominated the game unopposed.
I also have to laugh at the idea it is expensive, an Infinity character is $10-20 locally and metal, GWs Aus prices put a plastic chatacter at $22 for the oldest ones, $53 for the newest small based ones.I can get TAGs for less than the new assassins.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2016/01/20 04:03:20
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
The hole in Infinity i refer to is the fact that a big model can use the actions of cheaper ones. A hole that was, for some reason, not fixed in the current new edition.
In some, but indeed not all scenario's, that can totaly break the game.I don't like that in any game system.
But beside this, it completely takes the realism out of a game that IMO feels VERY realistic in general, which is why i like it.
A comparison: if i am in a group of 5 people, i cannot run 5 times as fast if the others stand still. That is complete nonsense.
Personally,I don't like this at all...
I recently discussed this at a gaming convention where the game developer was (Crisis in Antwerp). This "problem" is known, but gameplay and fun is deemed more important than realism or balance in regard to this issue.
In regard to prices: i have thousands of miniatures, metal, plastic and resin and from many producers. I also have Infinity.
It is very typical that people who defend a game always take an extreme of one game system to compare it to another.
Yes, GW has expensive plastic characters, but also much cheaper and just as detailed plastics. Typical that Infinity players only compare to characters and small models, not to other GW plastics and big models.
Infinity is quality, it is not cheap, i don't even think it has to be. It is also metal, not easily to convert.
2016/01/20 09:08:31
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Azreal13 wrote: There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Exactly. A well-made game can not and should not allow you to deliberately create a terrible army and still have just as much of a chance of winning as a player who creates their army with a coherent strategy behind their unit choices and skill in executing that strategy. The fact that a player who deliberately refuses to take any anti-tank units will struggle to deal with armies that contain tanks is a virtue, not a flaw.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/01/20 09:41:55
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
ORicK wrote: The hole in Infinity i refer to is the fact that a big model can use the actions of cheaper ones. A hole that was, for some reason, not fixed in the current new edition.
In some, but indeed not all scenario's, that can totally break the game.I don't like that in any game system.
If that is your experience with the game all I can say is it seems yours was an unusual experience because that is not a hole, it is a feature. It is a highly lethal game, someone running Achilles up the table all on his own risks him turning a corner, taking a shot to the face from one of those cheerleaders, and losing the game.
I also think of it as a much slower game in terms of how long in 'real in game time' a battle is supposed to take. A 40k battle is about about a minute on the battlefield, Infinity not so much. I see 5 people providing orders to 1 not one guy running 5 times faster than the rest, it is 4 men covering firing lanes, radioing in what they see, giving orders and all that while the one guy is the only one advancing under covering fire.
As for comparing Infinity models to GW character models, Infinity models are for all intents and purposes character models, but if you want to go that way I'm still paying $40 for 4 Australian. That is still only $10 a model for metal models. GW can be as cheap as $41 for 10, which is rather nice, but old models. The most recent models (new dwarves) are $70 for 5, more expensive per model than metal.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2016/01/20 10:03:46
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Probably. Should I complain instead about weapon ranges and table space making the game seem like movement really doesn't matter nearly as much as in games like Warmachine, Kings of War, or Infinity?
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2016/01/20 14:07:11
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.
2016/01/20 15:01:13
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
Nor should they, they're an anti infantry unit after all. But those kinds of extremes shouldn't really be a consideration. A 2000 point all comers list for a Khorn army should be able to deal with a 2000 all comers Guard list. If someone fails to take any anti vehicle weapons in their list that is a tactical error on their part, not an inbalance in the game.
Should a 2000 point Khorne all comers list be able to beat an all-Baneblade list?
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
There is a distinct difference between poor balance and poor player decisions.
Part of the skill of list building in any game of this type is constructing a well rounded list which has an answer to most of the common threats it is likely to face.
One could allow the player to build a pure anti-infantry force, but that that list would have no answer to an armour heavy list is no fault of the game.
The balance in the context of Bezerkers isn't making them effective against all types of target, it's making them effective at their designated role, either through stats, USRs or options, and pricing them appropriately so that they're not hopelessly less efficient than other options in the codex for the same role, or when compared to other units fulfilling that role in other armies.
Absolutely true, additionally an army made up entirely of Baneblades needs to have enough downside as to make it impractical for the purpose of winning games reliably, because it might overwhelm balnced amounts of anti-tank weaponry. Part of the problem with 40k stems from the "tabling wins" idea, and lack of good scenario play.
Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/20 15:01:55
2016/01/20 15:44:57
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
Nor should they, they're an anti infantry unit after all. But those kinds of extremes shouldn't really be a consideration. A 2000 point all comers list for a Khorn army should be able to deal with a 2000 all comers Guard list. If someone fails to take any anti vehicle weapons in their list that is a tactical error on their part, not an inbalance in the game.
Should a 2000 point Khorne all comers list be able to beat an all-Baneblade list?
It should have a reasonable chance, and with a bit of luck or a more skilled general, yes.
Alternatively, an all-Baneblade list should not exist.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2016/01/20 15:44:58
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Probably not if you are a superheavy anti-tank company.
However I take your point and I agree. Fortunately, Unbound allows players to make whatever lists they like. The downside is the possible development of a Paper, Scissors, Stone style of play in which extreme armies can easily beat lists that aren't tailored against them, and lose badly to hard counters.
Personally I think games in which the outcome is heavily biased before the start due to the choices of armies, are inherently less interesting that games in which it makes more difference if you use tactics, however people aren't required to play any one way if they don't want to. (Except for the "Official Rules" factor.)
ORicK wrote: The hole in Infinity i refer to is the fact that a big model can use the actions of cheaper ones. A hole that was, for some reason, not fixed in the current new edition.
In some, but indeed not all scenario's, that can totally break the game.I don't like that in any game system.
If that is your experience with the game all I can say is it seems yours was an unusual experience because that is not a hole, it is a feature. It is a highly lethal game, someone running Achilles up the table all on his own risks him turning a corner, taking a shot to the face from one of those cheerleaders, and losing the game.
That was exactly my experience too. Three Scotsmen take a smoke break on one side of the table, while a werewolf with a shotgun runs and super-jumps down the other at twice the speed of sound, intuitively avoiding the facings of everything in my army, and none of my soldiers could react to him climbing up the building or gunning down their buddies until he actually shoots them in the back. But if those random dudes sitting around doing nothing were to die, then the werewolf would run slower because, erm....
I love the models and background, but between people insisting "no, that's a feature, and it promotes tactics!" and endlessly craning over the table to try and make sure I wouldn't get reaction shot in the sliver of visibility through a building and two windows, I realised Infinity wasn't my game.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
2016/01/20 16:02:09
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
jonolikespie wrote:
It should have a reasonable chance, and with a bit of luck or a more skilled general, yes.
Alternatively, an all-Baneblade list should not exist.
So my options are: Make the Baneblade about the same toughness as every other tank (so that an 'adequate' amount of antitank firepower is sufficient to down a entire army of Baneblades), or not play a superheavy tank company at all.
That's what bugs me about 'balance'. It's all well and good until you start making things samey (e.g. the toughness of the Baneblade and a Russ, for example), or removing options entirely.
Kilkrazy wrote:Probably not if you are a superheavy anti-tank company.
However I take your point and I agree. Fortunately, Unbound allows players to make whatever lists they like. The downside is the possible development of a Paper, Scissors, Stone style of play in which extreme armies can easily beat lists that aren't tailored against them, and lose badly to hard counters.
Personally I think games in which the outcome is heavily biased before the start due to the choices of armies, are inherently less interesting that games in which it makes more difference if you use tactics, however people aren't required to play any one way if they don't want to. (Except for the "Official Rules" factor.)
I understand your point, but I don't play 40k in some quest for tactical depth, I play it because I enjoy the lore, and removing options from gameplay that are decidedly in the lore (and comparatively common, at that, its likely there are more Baneblades than there are Space Marines in the galaxy), then you're taking out a big chunk of my motivation to play.
It'd be like removing King Tigers from Flames of War.
2016/01/20 16:06:41
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
You can never balance an all-Zerker army against an all Baneblade army for example. Even if the Zerker were 1 pt and the baneblade 3500 they still would never be able to stop it or even hurt it.
Nor should they, they're an anti infantry unit after all. But those kinds of extremes shouldn't really be a consideration. A 2000 point all comers list for a Khorn army should be able to deal with a 2000 all comers Guard list. If someone fails to take any anti vehicle weapons in their list that is a tactical error on their part, not an inbalance in the game.
Should a 2000 point Khorne all comers list be able to beat an all-Baneblade list?
It should have a reasonable chance, and with a bit of luck or a more skilled general, yes.
Alternatively, an all-Baneblade list should not exist.
a bunch of foot slogging infantry whom exist for close combat should not be able to take on a Super Heavy tank company and win easily. It should be a tough and close battle at best for them.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
2016/01/20 16:08:53
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
I never played 40K in search of tactical depth, it's always been a relatively shallow game, but making it a Paper,Scissors, Stone kind of game reduced my motivation to bother with the effort and expense of maintaining an army.
The optional Apocalypse rules made it completely possible to have a superheavy tank versus superheavy anti-tank battle, for people who wanted to.
Kilkrazy wrote: I never played 40K in search of tactical depth, it's always been a relatively shallow game, but making it a Paper,Scissors, Stone kind of game reduced my motivation to bother with the effort and expense of maintaining an army.
The optional Apocalypse rules made it completely possible to have a superheavy tank versus superheavy anti-tank battle, for people who wanted to.
I agree with this. Whilst a SH company should be strong it should also be apoc only.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
2016/01/20 16:30:38
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
I'm always blown away by certain posters and what they choose to say in regards to 40k. Here we are on a miniatures forum, explicitly in the 40k subdirectory, explicitly in a 40k post. Yet, somehow, some who claim to have "burnt all bridges" or "quit years ago" or "eBayed their beloved Kharn conversion for the god-send of Infinity whilst burning the Games Workshop emblem" are apparently still on the active 40k forums and - more importantly - feel the need to post.
Why do you do this? Are you so angry that you lurk in the digital shadows waiting to inform others of how crappy the game you *used* to play is? Or ... are you lying, because you do still play the game but your point is better made if you claim to have done more aggressive quitting strategies to properly demonstrate your hatred?
Playing the game or building the hobby is about fun. Somewhere between the story, the sculpts, the rules, the dice, or the players you find something fun and apparently wish to share in that discussion or fun with others online. You should pursue this dream of entertainment, spend your money and time on what you believe is worth doing. something that makes you happy.
If you're posting only to convince strangers on the internet, you should let it go. One, because it most certainly can't be fun. Unless it is and you should have that professionally addressed. Two, because of the game is as bad as you claim it is, it'll die a natural death without your 'end is neigh!' billboard. Meaning it's a waste of time, if you're right your voice won't be needed, if you're wrong your voice definitely isn't needed and could prevent others from having the fun they're pursuing.
This makes a simple and plain sense to me, which makes me wonder if those criticizing here are being fictitious.
Or, just maybe, you're looking for someone to convince you that you're wrong about 40k and it actually is a fun and interesting game. Hm. A thought.
"We are all connected. To the Earth, Chemically. To each other, Biologically. And to the rest of the Universe, Atomically."
2016/01/20 16:53:43
Subject: Re:How does one even play this game anymore?
If someone wants to play all baneblades awesome, just don't be surprised if the other side never plays you again, or tailer lists to kill that army. I have a impguard player that brings nothing but 2 baneblades and Lemun russes. He won't play me again against my Nurgle daemons (lulz soul grinder BS with summon spam) or against my Renegade guard ("you have HOW MANY artillary emplacements?")
It's very easy to tell between who wants a fun game, and who just wants to make a dumb list to stroke their own ego
2016/01/20 16:54:31
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Martel732 wrote: All BA lists are dumb lists that stroke my opponent's ego...
If that BA list includes multiple LoWs in a Low-Mid point game? Sure. The Lemun Russes weren't OP in there, its simply that jamming two baneblades into a 1600(maybe 1800, I forget) list is obnoxious. Further into the game its easy to tell the point of balance when a player says their list is fair, but when they start losing they say the opponents list isn't fair. Was told taking two Flying Nurgle Princes was cheese, since his wall of blast weapons couldn't hit them
2016/01/20 17:18:09
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
Do they? Honestly don't know. But don't they have the same choices as SM? Including all those FW Relic vehicles? Or warhound titans, which are annoying at low points even if they are overcosted
2016/01/20 17:21:55
Subject: Re:How does one even play this game anymore?
So my options are: Make the Baneblade about the same toughness as every other tank (so that an 'adequate' amount of antitank firepower is sufficient to down a entire army of Baneblades), or not play a superheavy tank company at all.
That's what bugs me about 'balance'. It's all well and good until you start making things samey (e.g. the toughness of the Baneblade and a Russ, for example), or removing options entirely.
Why should superheavy tank companies be deliberately nerfed? They exist in the lore, and in the lore are frightening and powerful opponents to face.
It doesn't all need to be the same, but in an average game both armies should ahve a reasonable chance to win the engagement. To me that is the crux of it, this is a game, and it is only so much fun for me if I bring a balance army with some anti-infantry, some anti-MC, Anti-tank etc, and end up facing an extreme list of say nothing but heavy tanks where most of my army is useless. That is not a fun game. Now if we go into the game with you saying hey I want to try out this super heavy things (AKA playing apoc) that is cool because I'll prepare for it. But in an average game it should not be a thing. Superheavys should either a.) Not be in games below a certain point level (pick one), b.) Be prohibitively expensive as to make them difficult to use at low points, c.) toned down to make them more like standard units.
I don't really understand where the fun in the game is for you when you show up with your say 6 baneblades gainst your opponents 6 melta guns or whatever. Where a good deal of their units just duck and cover etc. That kind of game can be cool as a one off story scenario where the defender tries to survive against said units etc.
That said I feel like balancing through scenarios is the best way to go, remove tabling as an auto win, make it neccessary to field varried units to achieve different objectives etc. This allows for more units to be useful.
As for the "exists in the lore" argument it is a hollow argument because the game poorly reflects the lore (space marines don't murder things singlehandedly etc).
In the end the problem with the game is scale, there are units in this game that are designed around smaller squad based combat, and then there are superheavies etc that are for large war like battles, the game is not good at supporting both of these at the same time.
2016/01/20 17:22:20
Subject: How does one even play this game anymore?
