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.
adamsouza wrote: In my area, there are more LGS carrying 40K than there were during any previous edition. In my city alone, two shops in my city have opened and have active communities of 40K players, since 7th edition.
Personally, I find people who complain about army composition unfun to play with, and avoid doing so.
Not limited to 40K, but there is also a subset of players who insist that a previous edition of a game was better, often while playing the current edition. When asked why they are not playing the previous edition, the answer, almost always, ironically is they can't get anyone else to play the "better" edition with them. I find those people unfun, and avoid playing with them.
theres a lot of reasons for that aside from the implication that the older edition is not better. Other players may not have the rules for older editions or run units/armies that didnt exist and that have mechanics that only function in the current edition. Some places will not allow anything but the newest edition to be played (particularly GW stores) there. If people want something other than the rare game against those willing to play the older edition, say they want to play in the weekly league games or find pickup games, thats going to have to be with the current edition. Getting people to play an older edition is an exercise in pulling teeth even when everyone agrees the ruleset is superior for a number of practical reasons.
Even when D&D moved to 4E and a huge chunk of the playerbase quit, people didnt go back to playing 3.5E with all their old books, by and large they went to Pathfinder which, while very similar, was an in-print and currently supported ruleset that was carried in stores, they didnt go back to the dead ruleset by and large.
My own store and playgroup has largely died out thanks to 7E. But trying to get 5E games organized is difficult, especially when half the playes never played 5E and most of the rest dont still have 5E rules laying around.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/30 15:28:35
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
theres a lot of reasons for that aside from the implication that the older edition is not better. Other players may not have the rules for older editions or run units/armies that didnt exist and that have mechanics that only function in the current edition. Some places will not allow anything but the newest edition to be played (particularly GW stores) there. If people want something other than the rare game against those willing to play the older edition, say they want to play in the weekly league games or find pickup games, thats going to have to be with the current edition. Getting people to play an older edition is an exercise in pulling teeth even when everyone agrees the ruleset is superior for a number of practical reasons.
This is all very true. It becomes even more difficult when the thing that draws in a potential new player is some shiny new model that just got released and isn't available for an older edition.
Amusingly, my own LGS now has a thriving group of players who come in twice a week to play 2nd ed. since they don't like the current edition. I find no end to the irony of this when you consider that almost all of the complaints about 7th can also be leveled at 2nd ed ...
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
Getting people to play an older edition is an exercise in pulling teeth even when everyone agrees the ruleset is superior for a number of practical reasons.
Please don't let the Echo chamber of threads of like minded individuals confuse you into believing every agrees with you, about 5th edition being superior.
Also people went back to 3.5 in droves after 4E. Many of those same people did eventually jump ship to Pathfider, not because it was in print, but because is was simply considered and upgrade in many respects. Pathfinder made an effort to improve many of the percieved issues of 3.5 (dead levels, no incentive to hit level cap, grappling, broken feat combinations)
Please don't let the Echo chamber of threads of like minded individuals confuse you into believing every agrees with you, about 5th edition being superior.
Is it only an echo chamber if its an opinion someone dislikes?
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Please don't let the Echo chamber of threads of like minded individuals confuse you into believing every agrees with you, about 5th edition being superior.
Is it only an echo chamber if its an opinion someone dislikes?
Google confirmation bias and why no one wins an argument on the interenet.
You literally know that not everyone agrees 5th edition is the best, but your first instinct was to attempt to discredit my statement.
Even though, logically you know my statement is factual, you couldn't help youself to attempt to discredit it.
It's a human failing, and most people are unaware they are doing it.
Getting people to play an older edition is an exercise in pulling teeth even when everyone agrees the ruleset is superior for a number of practical reasons.
Please don't let the Echo chamber of threads of like minded individuals confuse you into believing every agrees with you, about 5th edition being superior.
I'm not, I get that people have different opinions on different rulesets, and I continually find myself surprised at my preference for 5E given how many gaping issues it had. However, trying to claim that everyone everywhere agrees that 5E was the best ruleset was not my intended point (though whenever the question arises it seems to be the most popular every time over the last couple years), my point was that even if you can get concensus on an older ruleset, there are practical barriers to playing it more than 4 years after its retirement, and they're even larger for older editions like 2nd or 4th.
Also people went back to 3.5 in droves after 4E. Many of those same people did eventually jump ship to Pathfider, not because it was in print, but because is was simply considered and upgrade in many respects. Pathfinder made an effort to improve many of the percieved issues of 3.5 (dead levels, no incentive to hit level cap, grappling, broken feat combinations)
right, Pathfinder was an actively supported and available ruleset which is why people switched to it, but until then much of the 3.5 crowd just quit playing in general, at least in my experience, the 3.5E ruleset was sustained by Pathfinder picking it up and running with it, not by people playing 3.5 forever.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/30 16:33:43
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
While there are pratical barriers to playing an older rule set, they should be worthwile to overcome if the older ruleset is superior.
My gaming group has in the last couple of years run the way OOP Marvel RPG by TSR and Blood Bowl, using OOP components found on the secondary market and downloaded off the interenet.
5E books are easy and cheap to obtain on ebay. The points system has not radically changed, so importing new units is not a major issue. If the consensus is that 5E is superior to 7E, there should be very little in the way of stopping people from playing it, especially when many of the people making that assertion still likely have their 5E rules.
Nazrak wrote: fine as long as you're not trying to play it with someone who's a total melt.
Sadly, 40k seems to just attract (or possibly make) asshats. Personally, I have seen rather few players who weren't on the side of waac. And even fewer players who didn't just use marines all the time.
Me too. People stopped giving a feth about fun games and just bring 2 Riptides, 3 Knights and a bunch of OP formations, every time it's possible. The game stopped being fun long time ago.
I'm not going to deny these people exist, but why would you waste your time playing with them, if it's not the sort of game you want to play and you're not going to enjoy it? Just play with the few people you can find who want to play it on the same level as you. They do exist; I guess the tricky bit's finding them, but it can be done.
Doing so, for some people, usually means getting a handful of games per year at best. I am currently at 2 this year. Both Kill Team, and both lucky exceptions to the norm for gaming opportunities these last two and a half years.
Please don't let the Echo chamber of threads of like minded individuals confuse you into believing every agrees with you, about 5th edition being superior.
Is it only an echo chamber if its an opinion someone dislikes?
Google confirmation bias and why no one wins an argument on the interenet.
You literally know that not everyone agrees 5th edition is the best, but your first instinct was to attempt to discredit my statement.
Even though, logically you know my statement is factual, you couldn't help youself to attempt to discredit it.
It's a human failing, and most people are unaware they are doing it.
Of course not everyone believes that 5th was the better edition. There are those that do, and those that are wrong.
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
adamsouza wrote: While there are pratical barriers to playing an older rule set, they should be worthwile to overcome if the older ruleset is superior.
If we're talking just a couple close gaming pals playing in the garage, sure, but outside of that those practical issues quickly nix such attempts, especially when issues of play space or armies that didnt exist come up. People usually move on to other things, they rarely go back to older stuff, especially beyond the rare nostalgia bomb visit. Thats just a fundamental facet of our society. The practical difficulties are more than what people see as worth it for a leisure hobby in many cases.
My gaming group has in the last couple of years run the way OOP Marvel RPG by TSR and Blood Bowl, using OOP components found on the secondary market and downloaded off the interenet.
which works great for a tight knit gaming group thats not reliant on commercial space that dictates what can be played. If you dont have a tight gaming group (or want to play more than the same 2 people over and over), or are reliant on playspace where the owners dictate what can be played (such as a GW store), this breaks down. Getting *new* players to play an older ruleset is also very difficult for a myriad of reasons, most importantly they probably just invested in the current edition and jumping into an dead edition isnt going to be a high priority.
RPG's are also an order of magnitude easier to do this with than a tabletop wargame as all you really need to manage are books, you dont have to worry about armies and models that didnt exist in the older editions or armies that have radically changed character so much that to play them in an older edition might as well require building an entirely new army (Tau are a good example of this, my Tau built for 4E and 5E play have very little that would be included in a 7E Tau army beyond the Fire Warriors)
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Of course not everyone believes that 5th was the better edition. There are those that do, and those that are wrong.
How,about 'no'.
If you ask me, the Best edition was late third ed with the trial assault rules. Fourth was pretty decent as well, especially in its early era. Fifth didn't really add anything if you ask me. A lot of 'what edition was best' boils down to when you started playing, and since most 40kers have a 40k 'career' thst lasts about 2 editions, it's only logical that most people here look to fifth as their initial edition, since the majority of the older players who cut their teeth on third, fourth or even second have since drifted away. The threads that tend to 'prove' the most popular edition are very weighted by the transient nature of the player base.
In other words az, No ones wrong for thinking an edition other than fifth is better than the others.
IMO, the internet fanbase tends to exaggerate army tiers a bit too much. Player skill and luck matter more than one's choice of army in my experience.
Just recently I ran a Marine Sternhammer list against Chaos Marines and Orks, both considered ''Bad'' armies in the game meta, yet I lost both times to them.
Gree wrote: IMO, the internet fanbase tends to exaggerate army tiers a bit too much. Player skill and luck matter more than one's choice of army in my experience.
Just recently I ran a Marine Sternhammer list against Chaos Marines and Orks, both considered ''Bad'' armies in the game meta, yet I lost both times to them.
I've got lots of data points with BA that say this is not the case. There is no luck involved when Eldar are rolling 100 BS 4 shots.
Of course not everyone believes that 5th was the better edition. There are those that do, and those that are wrong.
How,about 'no'.
If you ask me, the Best edition was late third ed with the trial assault rules. Fourth was pretty decent as well, especially in its early era. Fifth didn't really add anything if you ask me. A lot of 'what edition was best' boils down to when you started playing, and since most 40kers have a 40k 'career' thst lasts about 2 editions, it's only logical that most people here look to fifth as their initial edition, since the majority of the older players who cut their teeth on third, fourth or even second have since drifted away. The threads that tend to 'prove' the most popular edition are very weighted by the transient nature of the player base.
In other words az, No ones wrong for thinking an edition other than fifth is better than the others.
The persistent sense of humour failure that pervades Dakka these days makes me sad.
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
adamsouza wrote: While there are pratical barriers to playing an older rule set, they should be worthwile to overcome if the older ruleset is superior.
If we're talking just a couple close gaming pals playing in the garage, sure, but outside of that those practical issues quickly nix such attempts, especially when issues of play space or armies that didnt exist come up. People usually move on to other things, they rarely go back to older stuff, especially beyond the rare nostalgia bomb visit. Thats just a fundamental facet of our society. The practical difficulties are more than what people see as worth it for a leisure hobby in many cases.
40K players frequently invest thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours buying, building, and painting models to play 40K, but using the 5E BRB instead of the 7E rulebook is too much of a hassle ?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that argument.
If 5th Edition is clearly superior to 7th, and this was believed by the majority of the player base, it shouldn't be difficult to find people willing to play it.
Spoiler:
Anecdotal, but relevant. After a disaster of a D&D 4E campaign, one of my friends was going on how D&D 2nd Edition was the best. I actually enjoyed 2nd edition quite a bit, so I told him if he Dungeon Mastered, I'd be all over it. He buys a bunch of 2nd Edition books on Ebay and rereads them. A couple weeks later I ask him about the campaign and he looks at me shaking his head. As much as he loved playing 2nd edition years ago, now that he played 3.5e and 4e, he didn't want to play 2E. The game had evolved, and he couldn't go back to 2e without changing it enough that we might as well be playing 3E.
FFG currently puts out a well received Star Wars RPG. My gaming group still plays the 20+ year old Star Wars RPG by WEG. We are not alone, there is a Google+ group with hundreds of members that not only still play the WEG version, but they actively produce new content for it. Professional looking stuff, that people have printed on LuLu and then use to game with groups.
Bloodbowl still gets played for years without GW support, with 4 teams that were never officially endorsed, or put in print, by GW.
Gree wrote: IMO, the internet fanbase tends to exaggerate army tiers a bit too much. Player skill and luck matter more than one's choice of army in my experience.
Just recently I ran a Marine Sternhammer list against Chaos Marines and Orks, both considered ''Bad'' armies in the game meta, yet I lost both times to them.
I've got lots of data points with BA that say this is not the case. There is no luck involved when Eldar are rolling 100 BS 4 shots.
As I said, in my experience. It's of course anecdotal, but I find it difficult to think otherwise when I've repeatedly lost against the ''bad'' armies while using the ''power armies".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/30 19:37:16
Power lists is a more appropriate term than power army. It's really easy to build a god-awful list from the marine codex. For a new player, the marine power builds are bizarre and counterintuitive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/30 19:38:14
Please don't let the Echo chamber of threads of like minded individuals confuse you into believing every agrees with you, about 5th edition being superior.
Is it only an echo chamber if its an opinion someone dislikes?
Google confirmation bias and why no one wins an argument on the interenet.
You literally know that not everyone agrees 5th edition is the best, but your first instinct was to attempt to discredit my statement.
Even though, logically you know my statement is factual, you couldn't help youself to attempt to discredit it.
It's a human failing, and most people are unaware they are doing it.
Pump the brakes there big rig. Simply commenting on you using echo chamber to describe an opinion you happen to disagree with. A simple observation that I'd be curious if you'd call the same if it was a popular opinion you happened to agree with.
Please don't let the Echo chamber of threads of like minded individuals confuse you into believing every agrees with you, about 5th edition being superior.
Is it only an echo chamber if its an opinion someone dislikes?
Google confirmation bias and why no one wins an argument on the interenet.
You literally know that not everyone agrees 5th edition is the best, but your first instinct was to attempt to discredit my statement.
Even though, logically you know my statement is factual, you couldn't help youself to attempt to discredit it.
It's a human failing, and most people are unaware they are doing it.
Of course not everyone believes that 5th was the better edition. There are those that do, and those that are wrong.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Warwick, Warwickshire, England, UK, NW Europe, Sol-3, Western Spiral Arm, Milky Way
Well, just last night I was playing a game of 7th Edition (500 points, homebrew campaign, all very weird and strange) and got talking to my opponent about 4th Edition and we have agreed to play a game of 4th - his Tau against my Imperial Guard.
My main and most regular opponent plays 5th Edition.
It's not necessarily hard to find people to play old editions or even unsupported games, but the difficulty definitely comes if you have no nearby clubs, or if you don't have a group of friends who play at each other's houses - then you're limited to the latest edition and PUG at GW stores and similar.
PS Hybrid 3rd/4th Edition is best of the post-2nd Edition variants of 40K.
dkoz wrote: It is funny though that so many of these people complaining about the state of 40K lost their minds when AoS simplified the fantasy rules.
Because GW simplified AoS to the point of no longer being a functioning game. There is a middle ground between "bloated mess of rules that need a 100 page FAQ to even attempt to cover all of the problems" and "so dumbed down that those games on the back of cereal boxes look deep in comparison", and that's what people want.
Well, AoS is a functioning game. We started playing an AoS league. The problem is not the small rule set. The problem are overpowered monsters/units/heros in the game. GW has adapted the warscrolls a bit like that for the Chaos Lord on foot. But its not enough atm.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Pistols at Dawn wrote: Mantic et al don't have a massive massive retail chain to subsidise.
They also sell less kits=individual kit is pricier.
GW prices are high because GW thinks they can get away with it. Not because they have to. Economics of scale is funny thing. The more you sell the cheaper you can sell. GW could own market for cheap high quality plastics. But they want to be the deluxe model collector company. Cheap models doesn't fit with that image.
Warwick, Warwickshire, England, UK, NW Europe, Sol-3, Western Spiral Arm, Milky Way
tneva82 wrote: GW prices are high because GW thinks they can get away with it.
And they can get away with, and do.
They charge what the market will bear; it's a luxury good. They have hiked prices continually for years, and although they seem to be trying to make the initial buy-in cost cheaper nowadays I don't think they will bring the cost down to Mantic or Perry levels. They know that their target market - tweenagers and young teens with parents and families - can and do buy the kits, so the prices will stay fairly static or go up.
tneva82 wrote: GW prices are high because GW thinks they can get away with it.
And they can get away with, and do.
Their declining revenue and loss of market share would appear to show that may not be working terribly well however.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, AoS is a functioning game. We started playing an AoS league. The problem is not the small rule set. The problem are overpowered monsters/units/heros in the game. GW has adapted the warscrolls a bit like that for the Chaos Lord on foot. But its not enough atm.
AoS as it was first printed is not a functioning game. AoS only functions at all once you buy the extra "here's a point system and at least a token attempt to support pickup games" book, which is pretty clearly GW's concession that the default version of AoS is unplayable.
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.
tneva82 wrote: GW prices are high because GW thinks they can get away with it.
And they can get away with, and do.
Their declining revenue and loss of market share would appear to show that may not be working terribly well however.
True, absolutely true, but the point is that although they may have reached the point where their prices are not borne by the market, that has only really recently happened. So it'll be a while before they react (I hope they do) and bring prices down.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, AoS is a functioning game. We started playing an AoS league. The problem is not the small rule set. The problem are overpowered monsters/units/heros in the game. GW has adapted the warscrolls a bit like that for the Chaos Lord on foot. But its not enough atm.
AoS as it was first printed is not a functioning game. AoS only functions at all once you buy the extra "here's a point system and at least a token attempt to support pickup games" book, which is pretty clearly GW's concession that the default version of AoS is unplayable.
I disagree with this, in the sense AoS as it was first printed was functional IF you talked. But for people who don't want to do that/feel you don't have to an want to just be like "X points, right then?" and start setting up, no it was not playable. But for anyone who had no plans to powergame or just field nothing but elites, or field everything they had against someone who had a fraction of that "because I can", or do nonsense like spam special characters or abuse summoning rules "because I can", it was perfectly playable and I think it's more a testament to the fact people want to have the rules spell out what they can and cannot do instead of apply even a modicum of common sense and logic and fairness to it nowadays than to "shoddy" rules.
How on earth someone like you would play a historical game is beyond me, you'd field a unrealistic army in a battle just because the rules didn't restrict you from not doing it.
Seriously, the issue here is that the 40k rules are loose and (arguably) flexible enough to do what you want at the cost of gross power imbalances that are easily abused because you have no reason not to abuse them, as the good bird here demonstrates. The other problem is that GW focuses on a small subset to give the lion's share of new things, while ignoring others to the point where they just can't compete on equal footing because they aren't treated equally. That's a design problem for sure.
I've got lots of data points with BA that say this is not the case. There is no luck involved when Eldar are rolling 100 BS 4 shots.
De jure, luck is still involved, but in practice when you are rolling that many dice you are all but gauranteed to get reasonably close to the average. So I agree.
Martel732 wrote: Power lists is a more appropriate term than power army. It's really easy to build a god-awful list from the marine codex. For a new player, the marine power builds are bizarre and counterintuitive.
Also agreed. The tournament winning lists are often built from multiple codices.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
