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.

The game is fun but the codex balance and the amount of broken (as in overpowered) stuff is getting out of hand. GW may have some of the best miniatures in the industry but they have some of the worst rules writers. Granted I understand players are going to find ways to break the game balance or discover loopholes to exploit but the amount of obviously unbalanced things GW produces makes me wonder how little quality control goes into GW's rules and how disconnected GW is with how their game is played. The fluff, models, and the basic gameplay are what make 40k fun in spite of the game's terrible balance.

I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

Why did you make a yes/no poll with 4 answers and 3 are no?

There's far too much stuff to keep track of, that stuff is far too incoherently organized, it's far more unbalanced than in any previous editions (which is saying something), new concepts are increasingly either absurd or uninteresting (e.g. Taurox, Logan Claus, Chibby flyers, etc), and the game is quite frankly a gigantic mess to organize and play with someone you're not already a close like-minded gaming pal with. I've begun selling off armies and there's precious little gaming to be had.

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

There should be an option which is:

I am satisfied with the current state but would like to see continued evolution in the game.

I voted satisfied.

That said, games workshop should do more rigorous playtesting for the competitive community, and they should publish an errata for free which has updated tournament point costs, or rule changes, which could be constantly evolving. You don't need an entirely new codex to increase the points cost of the Wraithknight, for instance.

 Marmatag wrote:
There should be an option which is:

I am satisfied with the current state but would like to see continued evolution in the game.

I voted satisfied.

That said, games workshop should do more rigorous playtesting for the competitive community, and they should publish an errata for free which has updated tournament point costs, or rule changes, which could be constantly evolving. You don't need an entirely new codex to increase the points cost of the Wraithknight, for instance.

QFT.

But the OP only wants to hear "I'm disatisfied with 40K", so there are three options with that, the fourth being "I'm satisfied and have nothing else to say".

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

I've quit playing, relative to playing nearly every weekend. I haven't played in over 6 months, and am only passing interested in having a game because I miss playing "something" other than video games.

I'm also in the process of making my own, home-brew rules for 40k to see if I can renew my group's interest in playing 40k [like] again.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

But that would mean the poll might not lean in the OP's favor. We can't have that.

The poll, just like all previous polls, are designed specifically for the OP to self-affirm their bias. Everyone agrees, don't you see? Because if you don't, you're wrong.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

I would like to point out that many other games dont have this issue, or at least not to anythimg near the degree 40k does, and that divide is a creation of the rules. You can also have two perfectly fluffy armies played by casual players that are grossly mismatched in ppwer level.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

There is no mindset that makes Eldar fair for BA.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

I would like to point out that many other games dont have this issue, or at least not to anythimg near the degree 40k does, and that divide is a creation of the rules. You can also have two perfectly fluffy armies played by casual players that are grossly mismatched in ppwer level.

I disagree. I find that the casual mindset clashes and doesn't have fun against the competitive in pretty much every game. Those different players just have different goals and objectives when playing games. The only differene for 40k is the massive inbalance makes the casual player very likely to lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

There is no mindset that makes Eldar fair for BA.

A Power Gamer wouldn't be playing Blood Angels

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

I would like to point out that many other games dont have this issue, or at least not to anythimg near the degree 40k does, and that divide is a creation of the rules. You can also have two perfectly fluffy armies played by casual players that are grossly mismatched in ppwer level.

Probably because the vast majority of other games don't have a community so large and old.

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

"Satisfied but want improvement" falls under the fourth option.

Option three is "Dissatisfied, but not so dissatisfied that I'm on the verge of quitting."

Think Blight Town in Dark Souls.

Currently, the poll is roughly 70 percent of respondents saying that they are not happy about the current state of the game.

As someone who plays IG, Skitarii (non war con), and non grav spam space marines I can say Im actually really happy with 40k. But the biggest reason is because I have a small group who all loves playing together, we only bring cheese when we think it could be funny to see what happens and we generally play whatever we want. Plus with all the new content coming out its been the most refreshing in my 10 years playing to be playing right now. Sure some rules aren't great at the moment, but it doesn't have to make it any less fun with good people and good models.

morgoth wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I'm 100% satisfied about the game itself, i'm not satisfied that there are players who only think about winning and they take some lists that are almost unbeatable for many armies. If you organize a game with a friend taking balanced lists or even fluffy ones then 40k is awesome. Having the game end in turn 2-3 because one list is extremely overpowered is not fun for both players.

I share your dissatisfaction with the 40k player base. The 40k player base, in my experience on dakka forums, is about as terrible as the dark souls player base.

That said, I don't understand this:

Why are you satisfied with the game but dissatisfied with the players when it's the game itself that lends itself so easily to that style of play?

If your friends spam wraithknights and scatter bikes, then I'm sure you can guess my opinion of those people.

But isn't it a problem with the game itself that you even CAN do that, that those units have those rulesets?

No. It just makes the game different. It's all about having comparable mindsets

If a power gamer is playing against another power gamer then both players can have fun playing each other as both players have fair armies releative to each other.

It's only a problem when a power gamer plays a casual player because the contrasting ideals create conflict.

I would like to point out that many other games dont have this issue, or at least not to anythimg near the degree 40k does, and that divide is a creation of the rules. You can also have two perfectly fluffy armies played by casual players that are grossly mismatched in ppwer level.

Probably because the vast majority of other games don't have a community so large and old.

The problem has little to do with the age of 40k though, but GW's consistent and awful execution of bad ideas and then doubling down, mostly because they dont consider themselves a game company, they say as much to their shareholders, they are a model company selling a premium hobby sculpture line, not a game studio, despite the name. Rules are not playtested, FAQ comes years into an edition, Errata is not done, its all just a vehicle to push kit sales.

Other games are very old and have tons of material. Battletech for instance probably has even more units than 40k does and at least as much ink. It has issues, but nothing like 40k has.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

But that would mean the poll might not lean in the OP's favor. We can't have that.

The poll, just like all previous polls, are designed specifically for the OP to self-affirm their bias. Everyone agrees, don't you see? Because if you don't, you're wrong.

This is so asinine!

The fact that there are three "no" answers and one "yes" answer is not in and of itself a bias in favor of a no answer. If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game" isn't going to magically make you click on a "no, I am not satisfied" option.

If I put up a poll question asking: "When is the last time you beat your wife," had 9 answers affirming that the respondent had beaten his wife, and only had one answer saying "I've never beaten my wife," what percent of people do you think would select the "no" answer?

Already quit. But it's less because of the rules, and more because of the lack of plastic Sisters of Battle, and not being able to really justify buying minis on the budget I have.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem has little to do with the age of 40k though, but GW's consistent and awful execution of bad ideas and then doubling down, mostly because they dont consider themselves a game company, they say as much to their shareholders, they are a model company selling a premium hobby sculpture line, not a game studio, despite the name. Rules are not playtested, FAQ comes years into an edition, Errata is not done, its all just a vehicle to push kit sales.

Other games are very old and have tons of material. Battletech for instance probably has even more units than 40k does and at least as much ink. It has issues, but nothing like 40k has.

How could you know ?
How could anyone know ?
How many companies do you know of with a history comparable to GW's and a fanbase so wide for so long ?

Maybe some of it comes down to specifics of being a market opener, market leader, market idiot for a while, then turning around.

 Traditio wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Ezra Tyrius wrote:
Looking at the results as they are at the moment, I'd say that the 'satisfied but would like to see improvement'-people mostly went with option 3, as that option can be read as such. Still, it certainly wouldn't hurt to change option 3's wording or add another 'satisfied' option.

But that would mean the poll might not lean in the OP's favor. We can't have that.

The poll, just like all previous polls, are designed specifically for the OP to self-affirm their bias. Everyone agrees, don't you see? Because if you don't, you're wrong.

This is so asinine!

The fact that there are three "no" answers and one "yes" answer is not in and of itself a bias in favor of a no answer. If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game" isn't going to magically make you click on a "no, I am not satisfied" option.

If I put up a poll question asking: "When is the last time you beat your wife," had 9 answers affirming that the respondent had beaten his wife, and only had one answer saying "I've never beaten my wife," what percent of people do you think would select the "no" answer?

You can be satisfied but not totally satisfied.

Have you ever seen a survey like this:

How satisfied are you with (service)?

1 - Not at all satisfied
2 - Unsatisfied
3 - Mostly not satisfied
4 - Totally and completely satisfied

Marmatag wrote:You can be satisfied but not totally satisfied.

Does the poll option say "totally satisfied?" No. It just says "satisfied." IoW: "No complaints serious enough to merit my selecting one of the other options. Good enough."

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eh, i think its in a bad place right now, but its not gonna stop me from playing.

What are the aspects of the game that give you the greatest dissatisfaction?

The fact that the standard game follows the apoc template
formations not being taxed
super heavies and GMC
D in standard games
The crap storm that is the psyker phase

I just wish the price matched the actual value of the material used, I know the use high quality plastic however the total price of making a space marine commander cant be over 5-15 USD yet it costs 34 USD A PIECE!

the rules are hard to manage too, but I just picked out the ones I needed for my personal army and mostly ignore the rest. so in total I made my own mini-codex thats about 30 pages long with every rule needed for my army to play. and thats my problem with the game...

In my opinion the BEST thing that they could do is put the rules required to play the models you bought in the box with the instructions.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eh, i think its in a bad place right now, but its not gonna stop me from playing.

What are the aspects of the game that give you the greatest dissatisfaction?

The fact that the standard game follows the apoc template
formations not being taxed
super heavies and GMC
D in standard games
The crap storm that is the psyker phase

...

...

...Really?

I was under the impression that you had previously disagreed with me about some of those things in the past?

 Traditio wrote:
If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game"...

This is false though. As someone already pointed out there is more to say then just "I'm satisfied" such as "I'm satisfied but I'd like the game to be better" or "I'm satisfied but my gaming group isn't".

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Eh, i think its in a bad place right now, but its not gonna stop me from playing.

What are the aspects of the game that give you the greatest dissatisfaction?

The fact that the standard game follows the apoc template
formations not being taxed
super heavies and GMC
D in standard games
The crap storm that is the psyker phase

...

...

...Really?

I was under the impression that you had previously disagreed with me about some of those things in the past?

Which ones? For some time now i have been a preponderant of removing some of these things, again only in sub 2k, or sub 1.85k game. Once you hit either 1850 or 2k, i think at that point your reaching the point of they become acceptable.

That said, i still favor the idea that no single unit can make up 25% of the total armies value.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:
If you're satisfied with the game, the fact that there's only one way of saying "yes, I'm satisfied with the game"...

This is false though. As someone already pointed out there is more to say then just "I'm satisfied" such as "I'm satisfied but I'd like the game to be better" or "I'm satisfied but my gaming group isn't".

Learn 2 logic.

Logically speaking, "but" just means "and." So if you're saying "I'm satisfied, but I'd like the game to be better," what you are saying is:

1. I am satisfied

AND

2. I would like the game to be better

If you're saying "I'm satisfied, but my gaming group isn't," what you're saying is:

1. I am satisfied

AND

2. My gaming group is not satisfied.

Note that in both of those instances, you are saying that you are, in fact, satisfied. Therefore, the fourth poll option is for you.

This isn't fething rocket science.

Thread derail in 5...4...3...2...1...

Here, we....go.