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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well, we could bring back Apocalypse.....

Hardly anyone played Apocalypse, and for good reasons.

The problem is, oh mighty bird, that said big and expensive toys are heinously broken and incredibly unbalanced in many cases. Some of them are okayish, but for the most part they are just another symbol of the power creep that is slowly taking over 40K and making basic troops less and less relevant.

Like I said, this is a problem with individual unit rules. The solution is to nerf Wraithknights, limit LoW to a 0-1 option (yes, including knights), etc, not to take those units out of the game entirely.

Well, the problem here is the power creep. A 50 man blob of guard costs more than a Wraithknight and will be unable to hurt it, whereas the Wraithknight will walk all over it. The same with an Imperial Knight.

So what? Why does the 50-man IG blob matter? An IG blob (without heavy/special weapons, since if it has those it can hurt LoW) is a tough scoring and meatshield unit with a primary role of taking up space on the table and a secondary role of killing infantry through volume of fire. Of course it's going to be disappointing when you treat it as an anti-tank unit and ask it to deal with tanks and MCs. If anything we'd have a significant balance problem if the 50-man blob could deal with those LoW effectively, as there would be little reason to take any other units.

These units are big and, with a few notable exceptions, really powerful. They can walk all over entire armies, and many have weapons that delete entire platoons in a single shot (looking at you Stormsword) without allowing any cover saves at all. They are extremely poweful and extremely tough and having even one can seriously shift the balance in your favour (taking said Stormsword against non DP/DS Marines for instance) whilst an ill-prepared opponent will struggle to deal with a Baneblade or Knight (hell, even a prepared one can struggle, I have seen Knights shrug off 'D' hits like they where nothing) and this can really ruin the balance of the game.

Sure, of course LoW are going to beat an unprepared opponent. But at this point you have to ask why people are not prepared for LoW. They're part of the game, so you should expect to be able to deal with a single Baneblade or knight.

And a Stormsword isn't going to be deleting a whole platoon with one shot unless you bunch your models up into perfect template formation. Proper use of 2" spacing can significantly reduce the number of hits you take. And yeah, marines are going to feel some pain, but that should be expected when you're talking about a 450+ point unit designed to kill elite infantry.

Furthermore, these large units are just another aspect of the stupid power bloat that has been toxifying 40K. Remember the days when a SH was limited to Apocalypse only, unless your opponent agreed to its use? Remember when even a single one was a massive threat, and seeing one caused the whole store to focus on the battle? When seeing two or more on the same side was the sole preserve of major Apoc games (IE, store organised day+ long ones)? Well, I do. What happened? When did bringing a SH unit become a commonplace thing? How did it happen?
Because it shouldnt have. It should never have happened and it should never have continued.

It happened because "Apocalypse only" sucked. Apocalypse sucks, it's barely a game and almost never fun. So you either put everything into the standard game, or you don't make those things at all. Now that GW has made superheavies/flyers/etc those things are part of the game and they're not going anywhere.

in all fairness peregrine, thats just your opinion, i liked and still like apocalypse, but since i play 30k excusivly now, i cant really comment on how 40k at large is doing, but here is why i stopped playing 40k.

formations: anyone that knows me, knows i hate mechanics where you auto pass a roll of some sort, and i also hate "free" rules handed out for no particular reason aaaaand another thing i dislike is being confined and being forced to take XYZ in order to actually play the game effectivly, Formations add all this to greater and lesser degrees, so im not a fan of the horendibad formations and there ballance.

Power creep: 40k is a bleeding mess, worse than its ever been in my 27 years of playing on and off, 3rd had its issues, so did 4th, 5th and .... 6th... ergh, but its never been as bad as it is now, the difference between say orks and Tau, Eldar... and everyone else really, is so big it makes playing pick up games a real headache, i used to be able to rock up with an all comers army and get a fairly (not perfect) even game, now you almost have to tailor to beat certain armies, this is exacerbated by formations.

SSSSSSOOOOO MMMAAAANNNNNNYYY BOOOOOKKKSSS!!: jesus, back when 3rd had chapter approved, it still wasnt as bad as this, my mate the other day raised a good point, buy Blood angels codex, then all the supplements, formations etc. its gets stupid, add to this the much needed, in some cases DESPERATELY needed books that actually need updating (chaos, Orks, Tau, Eldar, SISTERS and more) to either fix the stupid ballance or just bring them in line, all the wasted time on supplements like traitors hate, for gods sake GW, stop wasting time, fix chaos, release sisters, nerf eldar, fix orks, nerf tau (slightly), nerf necrons (slightly) buff guard (slightly) i could go on.

Lords of war: this is plain slowed, how can a warhound be in the same catagory as Azrael, why are some armies allowed to take nothing but lords of war (eldar, Knights), its horrible for ballance and the game in general, add to that the utter stupidity of the points costs of these things, 30k at least did it kind of right, allow lords of war, but at 25% allowance of total points, this needs to be put into 40k if lords of war are staying.

i could go on, but the point is this, 40k is such a total mess right now i just dont want to play it, i get my GW fix from 30k, which may not be perfect, but its a damn sight better than the nonsense that is current 40k.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Pretty much all of which apply now to the normal game, and we're seeing players dropping off as a result. At least I am.

They really don't apply to 7th edition. The problem with Apocalypse wasn't balance or huge models, it was the sheer model count. You have to spend a whole day to play an Apocalypse game and you're lucky if you manage to finish 2-3 turns, each of which involves one team slogging through half an hour or more (and very often a lot more) of doing nothing but rolling saves and removing models before they get to make any meaningful decisions. And because of the extreme model count and time constraints it's almost impossible to coordinate any kind of strategy between players, so the game devolves into "roll dice to see how many models you remove until no models are left or everyone gets bored". 7th edition 40k, for all its flaws, is at least a game that can be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

The issue is that it actually does nothing particularly well except board presence because of the power bloat.

Sure, but that's an issue that has very little to do with LoW. The 50-man blob suffers most from the combination of infantry death stars (which are virtually immune to lasgun fire) displacing "normal" infantry in the metagame, and insanely efficient volume of fire units like scatter laser jetbikes completely taking over the shooting role. If those things weren't a problem the fact that a unit that isn't intended for the anti-tank role isn't very good at killing tanks wouldn't be a problem.

More to the point, when we're talking about 50 man blobs and superheavies, and the fact that the superheavy and blob are only a fraction of either army generally, we're getting beyond what a 28mm game on a 6'x4' table with model centric rules is really capable of portraying with acceptable functionality, and things break down massively when we're not playing scenarios and tables designed specifically around such a thing (which GW doesn't do squat to provide).

And here's where I disagree. The game functions just fine at ~2000 points on a 6x4 table with a Baneblade or similar unit on each side. In fact, I think it functions better in that case because the LoW puts a lot of points into a very small footprint (both physically and in how long it takes to execute its actions), making a 2000 point game feel more like a 1500 point game and significantly helping 40k's problem with table space at high point levels.

The issue then is on GW to support and market these adequately, not just one and leave the rest to rot as they've done in the past.

I don't think it's possible to support both. 40k is already a really expensive game at normal point totals, if you separate all of the LoW/flyers/etc into a new "not Apocaypse" game you're going to be limited to the handful of players who have the time and money to build appropriate armies. And that almost guarantees that the game will fail.

 Peregrine wrote:


They really don't apply to 7th edition. The problem with Apocalypse wasn't balance or huge models, it was the sheer model count. You have to spend a whole day to play an Apocalypse game and you're lucky if you manage to finish 2-3 turns, each of which involves one team slogging through half an hour or more (and very often a lot more) of doing nothing but rolling saves and removing models before they get to make any meaningful decisions. And because of the extreme model count and time constraints it's almost impossible to coordinate any kind of strategy between players, so the game devolves into "roll dice to see how many models you remove until no models are left or everyone gets bored". 7th edition 40k, for all its flaws, is at least a game that can be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

7E 40k takes more time than previous editions in my experience. Between model counts increasing as units are continually made cheaper (or are just given for free), and more rules with more details and more rolling get added, the game takes longer than ever.

Going back to 5E for example, I didn't have to worry about armies with a dozen extra free transports, or 600pts of free wargear and special rules, and I didn't have to roll for warlord traits, mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, psychic powers, maelstrom objectives, values of maelstrom objectives, recording and recordkeeping maelstrom objectives, etc. I didn't have to worry about formations (another Apoc import which kinda worked in the shitshow of Apoc but were even less well handled when imported to the main rules) or multiple detachments or allies or any of that nonsense that complicates and lengthens games.

Sure, but that's an issue that has very little to do with LoW. The 50-man blob suffers most from the combination of infantry death stars (which are virtually immune to lasgun fire) displacing "normal" infantry in the metagame, and insanely efficient volume of fire units like scatter laser jetbikes completely taking over the shooting role. If those things weren't a problem the fact that a unit that isn't intended for the anti-tank role isn't very good at killing tanks wouldn't be a problem.

In some respects sure, but even when kitted for AT work with meltabombs, nearly a dozen anti-tank weapons like lascannons and meltaguns, they're still not very good.

And, as noted, SH/GC units aren't the only sources of power bloat, but they are a big source of it.

And here's where I disagree. The game functions just fine at ~2000 points on a 6x4 table with a Baneblade or similar unit on each side. In fact, I think it functions better in that case because the LoW puts a lot of points into a very small footprint (both physically and in how long it takes to execute its actions), making a 2000 point game feel more like a 1500 point game and significantly helping 40k's problem with table space at high point levels.

Herein lies the problem. The Baneblade type units are an exception to the rule, most SH units do not fit the same power paradigm, and are built with an entirely different array of abilities. A Baneblade works because it's basically 3 Leman Russ tanks in one package. Leman Russ tanks are largely acknowledged as being undercapable units built to a previous edition paradigm, and thus, so is the Baneblade (especially with its inexplicable cost increase in the 2013 Apoc book). An army of Knights is an entirely different thing, they are highly mobile, able to potentially traverse up to 24" of tablespace a turn, sporting invul saves without needing auxiliary units for support the way a BB would to take advantage of such a thing, and are capable at both shooting and close combat, likewise with Wraithknights. Once we start getting into things like Warhounds, the firepower quotient spikes dramatically over equivalent points of something like a Baneblade or Malcador. Two Warhounds are going to utterly obliterate three Baneblades and might not even lose their shields in the process.

Even taking model count out of the equation, when we start having games with these kinds of units, it makes the granularity of the ruleset appear absurd. Why on earth are we bothering with an individual melee challenge between an IG Sergeant and an Eldar Exarch and worrying about what type of blade that Sergeant's powerweapon has in a battle involving superheavy tanks, aircraft, and artillery, with over a hundred models on the table?

I don't think it's possible to support both. 40k is already a really expensive game at normal point totals, if you separate all of the LoW/flyers/etc into a new "not Apocaypse" game you're going to be limited to the handful of players who have the time and money to build appropriate armies. And that almost guarantees that the game will fail.

That might be true, but the game is already failing and one thing that consistently comes up as a cause of frustration for players is the super units.

Problem is that having like ONE baneblade or equivalent is fine, it makes a nice "centerpiece" model to build the rest of your force around. It's when you see like 2 Imperial Knights, or big Forgeworld flyers, or whatnot that it gets imbalanced.

Wayniac wrote:
It's when you see like 2 Imperial Knights, or big Forgeworld flyers, or whatnot that it gets imbalanced.

The "big Forgeworld flyers" are almost universally bad, maybe mediocre at best. Perhaps, given this lack of understanding and your own admission that you haven't played 40k since 3rd edition, you shouldn't comment on 40k balance issues?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
7E 40k takes more time than previous editions in my experience. Between model counts increasing as units are continually made cheaper (or are just given for free), and more rules with more details and more rolling get added, the game takes longer than ever.

I admit that it takes longer (and I'm certainly not going to defend all the "roll dice to see how many dice to roll and FORGE A NARRATIVE" garbage), but it's still roughly the same game. The problems with time and model count in 7th can be fixed without fundamental changes to the idea of what a standard 40k game is. But you can't do that with Apocalypse. Its problems are inherent to the concept of "play a really huge game", and it's never going to be appealing as a regular thing no matter what 8th edition does.

In some respects sure, but even when kitted for AT work with meltabombs, nearly a dozen anti-tank weapons like lascannons and meltaguns, they're still not very good.

Sure, but that's because you're trying to make an anti-tank unit out of a unit that isn't meant to be one. Yeah, it might be worth throwing in those weapon upgrades in case you get an opportunity to use them, but you're never going to consider an infantry blob a primary anti-tank unit. And when you compare things like melta vets/CCS to LoW it gets a lot less one-sided.

The Baneblade type units are an exception to the rule, most SH units do not fit the same power paradigm, and are built with an entirely different array of abilities. A Baneblade works because it's basically 3 Leman Russ tanks in one package. Leman Russ tanks are largely acknowledged as being undercapable units built to a previous edition paradigm, and thus, so is the Baneblade (especially with its inexplicable cost increase in the 2013 Apoc book). An army of Knights is an entirely different thing, they are highly mobile, able to potentially traverse up to 24" of tablespace a turn, sporting invul saves without needing auxiliary units for support the way a BB would to take advantage of such a thing, and are capable at both shooting and close combat, likewise with Wraithknights. Once we start getting into things like Warhounds, the firepower quotient spikes dramatically over equivalent points of something like a Baneblade or Malcador. Two Warhounds are going to utterly obliterate three Baneblades and might not even lose their shields in the process.

I don't think this is really true. By the numbers most superheavies are around Baneblade level or less. And even with things like the Warhound the problem is less the Warhound itself and more the D-spam, two Warhounds without turbolasers vs. three Baneblade-class tanks is a much closer match. The issue is that in competitive games people only take the most powerful options, so the handful of Wraithknight-level stuff gets spammed everywhere and the majority of reasonable stuff is ignored.

Even taking model count out of the equation, when we start having games with these kinds of units, it makes the granularity of the ruleset appear absurd. Why on earth are we bothering with an individual melee challenge between an IG Sergeant and an Eldar Exarch and worrying about what type of blade that Sergeant's powerweapon has in a battle involving superheavy tanks, aircraft, and artillery, with over a hundred models on the table?

Sure, but that's a problem for 40k regardless of LoW. And, while it's not ideal that the scaling problem exists in the current game, the game can still function with LoW. It's a problem that exists because of specific poorly designed rules, not the general concept of "have big tanks in a 28mm game".

That might be true, but the game is already failing and one thing that consistently comes up as a cause of frustration for players is the super units.

And the primary reason for that is specific "super units" that are blatantly overpowered and not fun to play against. Nerf Wraithknights/D-spam titans/knight spam/etc and I suspect that most of those complaints will go away.

At least it's still fun to collect the armies.

My little Black Templars force is really nice. It's never seen play, and perhaps never will, but when it's got its transports done it'll be all self-contained and warm and fuzzy. For example.

I play 40K now to laugh at the complete stupidity of it all.

Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.

 Nazrak wrote:
Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.

Because those size games are not the community accepted standard. People will build armies for 1500/1750/1850/2000pt armies as those are what the majority of people play. You'll get the occasional person coming in wanting to play 500pts or something but this is not the norm. If you want to get regular games (especially PUGs) you'll need to build your army to those scales.

 Nazrak wrote:
Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.

your 10000000000000000000% correct, but these people seem to think they MUST play at 1850 +

I started playing 30k at 1250pts, where a rhino actually MATTERS, a pred is a solid choice, a bleeding tactical squad actually has a use, so yes, I agree, I like smaller point games now, as its harder to spam.

 Gen.Steiner wrote:
At least it's still fun to collect the armies.

My little Black Templars force is really nice. It's never seen play, and perhaps never will, but when it's got its transports done it'll be all self-contained and warm and fuzzy. For example.

I play 40K now to laugh at the complete stupidity of it all.

The 40K hobby is buying citadel miniatures.

Ruin wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.

Because those size games are not the community accepted standard. People will build armies for 1500/1750/1850/2000pt armies as those are what the majority of people play. You'll get the occasional person coming in wanting to play 500pts or something but this is not the norm. If you want to get regular games (especially PUGs) you'll need to build your army to those scales.

Well sure, but the "accepted standard" is hardly set in stone. The only way it changes is if people say, for example, "hey, I'm finding 1500+ a bit of a chore these days; how about we bump it down to 1000 and bunk off to the pub like an hour earlier to mull over what we made of it?" Given what a common complaint it seems to be that the "standard" points values make for an unwieldy game these days, it shouldn't be that hard to find people who are going to agree to this.

It used to be that the standard game size was 1500 and that was what the official tournaments were, so people built armies to that size because it was the most common denominator.

And that was fine.

But then they allowed Super Heavy units and ridiculous death walkers and gigantic creatures and the like in standard normal 40K.

That's where it all went wrong, I think.

 Nazrak wrote:

Ruin wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Something that seems to come up a lot in these sorts of threads is people complaining that "points creep" or whatever means you need more models to play the same game. But, forgive me if I'm missing something, but why not just play a smaller-points game? (For example, the 1,000 points of Orks I just finished painting has roughly the same model count as the sample 2,000-point army from the 1st ed. army book.) I don't really understand what people's problem is with playin to smaller points limits, if they have an objection to the numbers of models required to meet a (entirely arbitrary, and in no way dictated by the rules) points limit.

Because those size games are not the community accepted standard. People will build armies for 1500/1750/1850/2000pt armies as those are what the majority of people play. You'll get the occasional person coming in wanting to play 500pts or something but this is not the norm. If you want to get regular games (especially PUGs) you'll need to build your army to those scales.

Well sure, but the "accepted standard" is hardly set in stone. The only way it changes is if people say, for example, "hey, I'm finding 1500+ a bit of a chore these days; how about we bump it down to 1000 and bunk off to the pub like an hour earlier to mull over what we made of it?" Given what a common complaint it seems to be that the "standard" points values make for an unwieldy game these days, it shouldn't be that hard to find people who are going to agree to this.

I think points are coming down now as games take longer to play due to additional rules and more models on the table. Tournaments seem to heading towards 1500 for example, and my small gaming group is dropping to 1000pts

I do think lower points helps a great deal (also for AOS). Sure it's cool once in a while to bring out all the big stuff, but a lot of IMHO much more exciting games can be had at like 1000-1250 points, with 1500 being the "upper limit". The issue would be that a lot of the grossly OP things are even worse at lower levels, so you need to (shock! horror!) have a "soft ban" agreement not to use them because at those points, something like a Knight or even flyers can be extra deadly simply because you may not invest points into a "just in case" situation to handle them.

 Peregrine wrote:
Snip.

Look, the point is Peregrine, that this power creep has gotten out of hand. Right now we have armies that would once have gotten you laughed out of the store being used in standard games. Entire armies of SH units where once a dark joke, but have now become a reality and quite frankly it is horrific.
Now, please do not try and justify your points with the Baneblade and other IG Sh's, as they are all generally acknowledged as heavily under performing units. Look at things like the Knight, which can be taken en mass and has enough firepower and protection to do extremely well. Or the Eldar Wraith Knight which can shred whole armies. Or the Tau Stormsurge which is pretty much a walking bunker.
And then we have the titans - I mean, sweat feth, but there is nothing that can compete with these units. Warhounds alone are not too bad, but they can be deadly as as pointed out will shred a platoon of Baneblades with ease, whilst the Reavers are walking nightmares. And then there is the Warlord, something so horrifically powerful that it is almost impossible to defeat it without either having twice as many points as it of dedicated AT, or having ANOTHER Warlord, and at that point the battle really comes down to whose Warlord wins, as whomever loses their titan will lose the game.
And i the meantime, amid these huge super units slugging away at each other with there massive weapons, and wiping out whole regular units in the process, we have the absurdity of small, individual figures counting on a 1 for 1 scale, and what is more, we are expected to care about the loadout of each individual figure. As someone else said, does it really matter if my IG sergeant has a power weapon, let alone what type it is, or not when we have these super units running rampant around the board? No, it does not.
50 Guardsmen should count for something. All that they do these days is act as chaff and extra targets for my opponent to delete in a turn in order to make some Mary Sue special character or overpowered super unit look even better. This game has gotten out of control, and has now reached a level whereby the failings are tearing it apart.

Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.

Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"

A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."

A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"

 Nazrak wrote:
Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.

Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"

A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."

A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"

Pick up games are a very common thing in many places.

 Nazrak wrote:
Still don't really get why people seem to think that just cos the option's there to use, say, a Warlord Titan, it's somehow compulsory.

Q. "Hey, mind if I use my Warlord for our next game?"

A1. "Sure, sounds bonkers."

A2. "Eh, don't really fancy it this time, I was thinking of using my infantry-heavy Guard today. Maybe something that'll make for a closer game?"

Right? Literally just had a version of this conversation last night.

1: How about a game?

2: Sure

1: Point's level?

2: 2000

1: Friendly list or competetive?

2: Mine's pretty friendly, only two Riptides.

1: Sweet. I'm gonna grab a burrito and put something together. (assembled CAD list without Grav-Cannons)

And a tight, challenging game was had.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Pick up games are a very common thing in many places.

And it was a pick up game. Magic!

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Snip.

Look, the point is Peregrine, that this power creep has gotten out of hand. Right now we have armies that would once have gotten you laughed out of the store being used in standard games. Entire armies of SH units where once a dark joke, but have now become a reality and quite frankly it is horrific.
Now, please do not try and justify your points with the Baneblade and other IG Sh's, as they are all generally acknowledged as heavily under performing units. Look at things like the Knight, which can be taken en mass and has enough firepower and protection to do extremely well. Or the Eldar Wraith Knight which can shred whole armies. Or the Tau Stormsurge which is pretty much a walking bunker.
And then we have the titans - I mean, sweat feth, but there is nothing that can compete with these units. Warhounds alone are not too bad, but they can be deadly as as pointed out will shred a platoon of Baneblades with ease, whilst the Reavers are walking nightmares. And then there is the Warlord, something so horrifically powerful that it is almost impossible to defeat it without either having twice as many points as it of dedicated AT, or having ANOTHER Warlord, and at that point the battle really comes down to whose Warlord wins, as whomever loses their titan will lose the game.
And i the meantime, amid these huge super units slugging away at each other with there massive weapons, and wiping out whole regular units in the process, we have the absurdity of small, individual figures counting on a 1 for 1 scale, and what is more, we are expected to care about the loadout of each individual figure. As someone else said, does it really matter if my IG sergeant has a power weapon, let alone what type it is, or not when we have these super units running rampant around the board? No, it does not.
50 Guardsmen should count for something. All that they do these days is act as chaff and extra targets for my opponent to delete in a turn in order to make some Mary Sue special character or overpowered super unit look even better. This game has gotten out of control, and has now reached a level whereby the failings are tearing it apart.

On a side note who in their right mind will start infantry heavy armies like Guard when after spending a couple of hundred Euro and painting for months they see their investment nuked off the table in minutes? The effort and expense that goes into such models is a near complete waste depending on the meta you play in.

How many new 40K players just give up after their money and work burns on the table to no effect after the first few games?

If things continue as they are all but the most powerful infantry will become a complete waste and 40K will become a 28mm system where people only use 6-10mm scale super units. Maybe in many metas we are there already. The effect this has on new player capture must be extreme. It's like an arms race that most simply can't afford to keep up with even if they like the idea - which many simply don't.

Yeah-talking to your opponent is pretty easy to do. Now, that doesn't always work, but if you have a friendly meta and not a toxic one, you should be able to have plenty of fun.

niall78 wrote:

On a side note who in their right mind will start infantry heavy armies like Guard when after spending a couple of hundred Euro and painting for months they see their investment nuked off the table in minutes? The effort and expense that goes into such models is a near complete waste depending on the meta you play in.

How many new 40K players just give up after their money and work burns on the table to no effect after the first few games?

If things continue as they are all but the most powerful infantry will become a complete waste and 40K will become a 28mm system where people only use 6-10mm scale super units. Maybe in many metas we are there already. The effect this has on new player capture must be extreme. It's like an arms race that most simply can't afford to keep up with even if they like the idea - which many simply don't.

That experience sucks, it's true. But part of that is on the responsibility of the opponent as well. I would relish the opportunity to play against a Guard infantry army, and I certainly wouldn't then just pack my list with Whirlwinds.

If established players want a good gaming community, they should be putting in some extra effort to make sure people are going to have a decent time. It's just good manners for any social group.

 Insectum7 wrote:

niall78 wrote:

On a side note who in their right mind will start infantry heavy armies like Guard when after spending a couple of hundred Euro and painting for months they see their investment nuked off the table in minutes? The effort and expense that goes into such models is a near complete waste depending on the meta you play in.

How many new 40K players just give up after their money and work burns on the table to no effect after the first few games?

If things continue as they are all but the most powerful infantry will become a complete waste and 40K will become a 28mm system where people only use 6-10mm scale super units. Maybe in many metas we are there already. The effect this has on new player capture must be extreme. It's like an arms race that most simply can't afford to keep up with even if they like the idea - which many simply don't.

That experience sucks, it's true. But part of that is on the responsibility of the opponent as well. I would relish the opportunity to play against a Guard infantry army, and I certainly wouldn't then just pack my list with Whirlwinds.

If established players want a good gaming community, they should be putting in some extra effort to make sure people are going to have a decent time. It's just good manners for any social group.

I'd agree to a point but many players just don't care or - more importantly - only have a certain amount of models. Even collecting a standard points army is eye wateringly expensive - add in a few supers and the expense rockets again. Not everyone can afford 5K points in miniatures so they can chop and change depending on their opponent.

Frankly it's up to GW to balance their game. Every other company manages to do a much better job. Leaving it to the player-base is as lame and lazy as it gets.

niall78 wrote:

I'd agree to a point but many players just don't care or - more importantly - only have a certain amount of models. Even collecting a standard points army is eye wateringly expensive - add in a few supers and the expense rockets again. Not everyone can afford 5K points in miniatures so they can chop and change depending on their opponent.

Frankly it's up to GW to balance their game. Every other company manages to do a much better job. Leaving it to the player-base is as lame and lazy as it gets.

I have played every edition from 2nd-7th and there has always been a real possibility that equal pointed armies can be mismatched.

Can the game be better balanced? Yes.

Can players be more responsible about how they play? Totally.

Every successful gaming community I have been a part in has had at least a couple individuals who put in an effort to make sure that nubs aren't just getting repeatedly butchered. There are so many accusations against GW for being lazy. But players themselves can be just as lazy. Netlists, lack of communication and poor terrain are sure-fire (and easy to solve) ways of providing a lousy experience.

Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?

Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?

The interesting thing about armies like that is that they tend not to last long. Remember the Wave Serpent spam? It's gone now.

Players who are in it for the long haul tend to have more well-rounded collections, at least in my experience. The other "fix" is if you have someone in the meta who can hard-counter the "fad" army. Then the player with the offending spam usually winds up adjusting.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?

The interesting thing about armies like that is that they tend not to last long. Remember the Wave Serpent spam? It's gone now.

Players who are in it for the long haul tend to have more well-rounded collections, at least in my experience. The other "fix" is if you have someone in the meta who can hard-counter the "fad" army. Then the player with the offending spam usually winds up adjusting.

I would take on that role, but I can't hard counter it lol.

Martel732 wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of Eldar players in my group only own the scatbike army, because why own anything else?

When you think about it a new player that's clued in will only be buying the 'best' units for their chosen faction. Why buy a 50 unit blob of waste when you can pick up a super for cheaper and have it on the table for a tenth of the effort.

Like I said above eventually 40K will be a game of 28mm super units instead of a recognisable table-top battle system with standard troops.

Martel732 wrote:

I would take on that role, but I can't hard counter it lol.

The SM hard counter option seems to always be "Drop Pod with unit X". Amusingly, in this case I think just standard bolters (in Drop Pods) are a reasonable place to start. Naturally it all depends on what else is going on, but threatening units into reserve is at least a foothold.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I would take on that role, but I can't hard counter it lol.

The SM hard counter option seems to always be "Drop Pod with unit X". Amusingly, in this case I think just standard bolters (in Drop Pods) are a reasonable place to start. Naturally it all depends on what else is going on, but threatening units into reserve is at least a foothold.

Until the bikes go into reserve and you get to alpha strike two WK with bolters.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I would take on that role, but I can't hard counter it lol.

The SM hard counter option seems to always be "Drop Pod with unit X". Amusingly, in this case I think just standard bolters (in Drop Pods) are a reasonable place to start. Naturally it all depends on what else is going on, but threatening units into reserve is at least a foothold.

Until the bikes go into reserve and you get to alpha strike two WK with bolters.

Uh huh, that's why I said it depends on what else is going on. In that case you get more Drop Pods and give em some Grav.