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.

Karol wrote:
w40k does seem to feel like a game of monopoly, when one dude gets lucky at the start with his tiels, and grind everyone else till end game for hours, and it is fun only for the winner and no one else.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

40k does work best when everyone is on the same page. The game has always been easy to break. Someone brings a fun list, the other a highly competitive one, and you get a couple of hours of puppy kicking. Which nobody enjoys.

But even in games where you know it’s going to end poorly, look for the fun moments. A squad surviving an unreasonable amount of firepower, holding that objective for one more turn. Your captain taking a few of his foe down with him before being overwhelmed. They might be inconsequential in the grand scheme of who wins at the end, but the journey is important.

Or set yourself some alternate victory conditions. Years ago a friend and I were playing in a team tournament. Looking across the table at the high-octane power lists across the table we set our own goal. We’d call it a win in out eyes if we weren’t tabled by the end of turn 3. We won, but they advanced to the next round.

 Wolflord Patrick wrote:

So, going back to 2004 we’ve had 4 editions of 40k. I’m at a point where it almost feels like watching Activision release the next Call of Duty game on PlayStation. How many times are we going to buy another Space Marine codex?

Oh I am totally, 100% there with you on this. I just selected on a poll elsewhere on Dakka ''I've quit playing 40K but may return if things change". My biggest gripe is the constant chop-changing of editions and codices - with x5 forces at £25 a pop per codex, I'm looking at £125 for all factions plus £35 for a rulebook, that's £160 just for the rules and data to play. Now, personally I've never had the disposable income or inclination to buy all of them for an edition and so each edition I only play one or two factions - Even then it's around £85.

I called BS when 7th edition within a year or so changed to 7.1 and was re-released and we had these shenanigans with another rulebook for fighting in and using buildings / fortifications, then fliers in a separate book and what was effectively a whole raft of other rules releases that invalidated my 7th edition book that I had only recently purchased which was still technically a new edition and supposedly still had a few more years left in it. Well, anyway, I can't remember the whole incident as it was a while back, but looking at having to spend over £100 on various rulebooks (not codices) just to make my now invalidated big rule book usable came down to this decision... quit 40K OR bend over, part buttocks and take an almighty GW shafting because... SPHESS MEHREEENS!.

Thankfully, I chose to retain rectal integrity.


Now, when GW released those Index books with multiple factions for a reasonable price. I thought... holy mother of.... It was a GREAT idea. If that was going to be the new style of things where all rules are dropped at the beginning of a new edition and they STAYED like that until the next (with perhaps only free errata for balance) then GW had just done a 180' and you know what, I was going to commit to playing again. But then a little paranoid voice in my head told me to hold off... and what happened, back to codices and more money farming. I live in the Scottish Highlands miles away from a GW store and surrounded by Highland coos. I suspect time is a relative thing because it seems like every other month there's a new fugging rule book or codex or index or xanax or tampax or what ever the Grud they want to call these cursed things.

And you know what? I've borrowed some of the new books, placed it on a table beside my older ones and..... I swear this is no joke..... THERE IS NO BLOODY DIFFERENCE.... well apart from a point here or a point there and the complete eradication of anything fun from the Dark Eldar codex (Vect? Malys? oh my Grud, not you too Sliscus?!?!)

I don't think the number of editions is a problem per se.

The bigger issue is that one would reasonably expect a new edition to be an improvement, yet so many editions of 40k have been sidegrades or even downgrades.

Karol wrote:
w40k does seem to feel like a game of monopoly, when one dude gets lucky at the start with his tiels, and grind everyone else till end game for hours, and it is fun only for the winner and no one else.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-to-win-monopoly-reddit-post-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

Actually that isn't the sure fire way to win, the link is...

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
I don't think the number of editions is a problem per se.

The bigger issue is that one would reasonably expect a new edition to be an improvement, yet so many editions of 40k have been sidegrades or even downgrades.

For a while I actually believed this. When 3.0 evolved to 3.5 with the subtle changes from Andy Chambers Chapter Approved articles in the WD, it was clear that GW was making changes to improve the game. 6th and 7th changed all that for me when the Force Org chart got tossed out the window and we started seeing Imperial Knights and Strength D weapons as part of the norm in 1500 point games. At that point, the emphasis tossed out any possible sense of balance and the game basically became Apocalypse all the time.

In my humble opinion, 8th edition is GW’ is now attempting to put the lid back on the jar which is no easy task.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
As far as I can tell there have been 3 editions? 1st, 2nd and 8th?

1st, 2nd, 3rd and 8th

The_Real_Chris wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Ah, the clarion call of someone who isn't very good at 40k.

Honestly the games not the best, but it is the most successful and the models are fun.

I'd agree with *both* of those statements. 40k is an abstract wargame, always has been, and that has contributed mightily to its success.

Wolflord Patrick wrote:I started in 1996 with 2nd edition. I played a ton of 3rd and 3.5 which lasted for 6 years. 4th and 5th lasted for just 4 years each. Then we got 2 years with 6th and another 3 years with 7th before 8th edition dropped.

So, going back to 2004 we’ve had 4 editions of 40k. I’m at a point where it almost feels like watching Activision release the next Call of Duty game on PlayStation. How many times are we going to buy another Space Marine codex?

I get it that GW is a company and doing well. In fact, I’m glad they are. However, I look at my shelf full of starter sets and editions wondering why I keep buying them? So, I’ve decided that after all these years, I’m done buying new editions. Instead, I’m going to focus on building, painting, and playing older 40k editions.

Anyone else feel this way?

I've felt that way since 5th Edition, really. That was the start of me realizing that the games' designers were trying their best to cram 2nd Edition back into 3rd, and it showed the more they eviscerated force organization. I'm already in the retro crowd, and I decided with 6th/7th to abandon my plan to have current rules on hand for my Crimson Fists so I could game. I've found other retrogamers in my area, and I roll with that.

blackmage wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
It is GW´s business model. You are not forced to buy the latest edition by any means. Freeze the rules and keep playing your favourite vintage edition.

play alone? against yourself? how many players keep playing old edition when the new one come out? worse if you play at local game store you cant play older rules, cmon i play since 3rd edition and never happened players kept play older edition.

One of the stores in my town has a 2nd Ed. club that has met religiously since 3rd dropped and they didn't like the results. And that's just this town, not to mention any other larger town in other countries where you have older game hold outs. All it takes is a trip to social media to ask around, or, and this one is a stretch, a gaming forum like this.

eh, I get the feeling 8E's lifespan will be to the next fiscal year, and then it'll roll to the next edition - whether that will be 8.5E or 9E, I don't care; this is the last edition of 40K I care to involve myself with.

40K has grown beyond a skirmish game and is now 28mm Epic. Tanks and all are fun to collect, but if there's going to be a lot of infantry models for the game, I want for the rules to reflect that. Right now, they don't - everyone hates "troops" in favor of the special snowflake units.

40k has always been about having vehicles - back in the 90s, GW was the only "skirmish" game to really have tanks.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k has always been about having vehicles - back in the 90s, GW was the only "skirmish" game to really have tanks.

Except every single WWII game...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k has always been about having vehicles - back in the 90s, GW was the only "skirmish" game to really have tanks.

Yes, but back at the dawn of the game, it wasn't common to see more than one or two. I remember people refusing games back in 2E if someone brought a single Leman Russ to the table.

 Wolflord Patrick wrote:
However, I look at my shelf full of starter sets and editions wondering why I keep buying them?

Why did you keep buying them?

I've played every edition and I haven't seen any reason to buy a starter since 2nd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k has always been about having vehicles - back in the 90s, GW was the only "skirmish" game to really have tanks.

Except every single WWII game...

Which skirmish scale WW2 games had tanks?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Why did you keep buying them?

I've played every edition and I haven't seen any reason to buy a starter since 2nd.

Speaking for just myself, starter sets got you a current rulebook and typically a decent start of a 1,000 pt. force. At least it used to. Same for WFB. Even though I wouldn't play 8th WFB unless there is money involved somehow, I'd still plunk down for the set solely to get those gorgeous models. Or adequate models, in the case of the 8th 40K starter set. Hell, if the models had scaled better, I'd pick up the AOS starter just to get some WFB stuff. Alas...

But once you've been playing for a few years you should have an army or two in hand and enough army building knowledge to not want a collection of random models even if they are cheap.

Or is that just me?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
As far as I can tell there have been 3 editions? 1st, 2nd and 8th?

1st, 2nd, 3rd and 8th

I heard of 3rd - but when I also heard it made my genestealers the same speed as a guardsman I dismissed it as a hoax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k has always been about having vehicles - back in the 90s, GW was the only "skirmish" game to really have tanks.

Except every single WWII game...

Which skirmish scale WW2 games had tanks?

...really? Every 20mm ww2 skirmish game? (Could have trains as well... Something to do with the scale...) Even cross fire had tanks. Want a list of games from the 70's and 80's? A quick search reveals one on wikipedia...

I find it problematic to change the game mechanics every time with a new edition.

Cover 4+, 5+ and whatnot.
Charging out of a moving/stationary Rhino, no charge out of a transport.
Entanglement if transport is destroyed.
Morale ... the list goes on.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

...really? Every 20mm ww2 skirmish game? (Could have trains as well... Something to do with the scale...) Even cross fire had tanks. Want a list of games from the 70's and 80's? A quick search reveals one on wikipedia...

A platoon or more of infantry plus tanks and trains is not typically considered a skirmish game (in the same way that 40K is no longer a skirmish game)

In fact, I can't think of any 20mm game that would be a skirmish game.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
But once you've been playing for a few years you should have an army or two in hand and enough army building knowledge to not want a collection of random models even if they are cheap.

Or is that just me?

Ever since 3rd Ed. 40K I've had a dream of having a playable 1,500 points of every 40K army, with a total available of 3,000 points to be modular. Same with WFB from 6th on, but with 2,000 to 3,000 points. I don't think I'm the only one. It's the thought of having everything you need to basically run your own club, and then maybe foster someone to get their own army once they fall in love with a unit or three that you don't own. I almost hit both goals but 6th 40K and 8th WFB happened and I sold off everything I had except for Crimson Fists, Dark Eldar, and Guard for 40K and High Elves, Dogs of War, Lizardmen, and Beastmen for WFB. Now that we've gone Classichammer, I'm actually working on my budget to chase down each army to fill out. With basically zero interest in current rules, it gives me something to do hobbywise and a goal to look forward to. Plus my games are much more enjoyable.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:

...really? Every 20mm ww2 skirmish game? (Could have trains as well... Something to do with the scale...) Even cross fire had tanks. Want a list of games from the 70's and 80's? A quick search reveals one on wikipedia...

A platoon or more of infantry plus tanks and trains is not typically considered a skirmish game (in the same way that 40K is no longer a skirmish game)

In fact, I can't think of any 20mm game that would be a skirmish game.

I think we have a different definition of skirmish. Platoon level is very much traditional skirmish. You are looking at rifles having an effective range of 100 yards which is 2 foot at 1/76. A rifle platoon had a HQ, which included a 2-inch mortar and an anti tank weapon team, and three rifle sections, each containing seven riflemen and a three-man Bren gun team. If you are of the mind that skirmish is squad level it is indeed unlikely you would get any MBTs, probably just trucks, jeeps or bren carriers instead. Though I don't think squad level 40k had many tanks in it either...

 Wolflord Patrick wrote:

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
I don't think the number of editions is a problem per se.

The bigger issue is that one would reasonably expect a new edition to be an improvement, yet so many editions of 40k have been sidegrades or even downgrades.

For a while I actually believed this. When 3.0 evolved to 3.5 with the subtle changes from Andy Chambers Chapter Approved articles in the WD, it was clear that GW was making changes to improve the game. 6th and 7th changed all that for me when the Force Org chart got tossed out the window and we started seeing Imperial Knights and Strength D weapons as part of the norm in 1500 point games. At that point, the emphasis tossed out any possible sense of balance and the game basically became Apocalypse all the time.

In my humble opinion, 8th edition is GW’ is now attempting to put the lid back on the jar which is no easy task.

I would have said the same about 5th, which was the first attempt to streamline the rules.

GW doesn't write the rules, the current set of people working for GW write the rules. They seek to implement a vision with each new edition and various problems (time, resources, release cycles, sales priorities, company expectations, etc) get in the way. Players are left with what emerges.

While that sounds bleak, it explains the variances we see in editions. 8th edition seems to be a conscious effort to retain players and adjust the game to what people want (instead of what the current batch of designers think is cool.)

Without new editions/update to the rules there simply wouldn't be a game. Even boardgame companies retire a line after an x amount of years as they see no reason to continue supporting something that isn't generating enough revenue, and no, just adding a new unit isn't enough.

A new edition is also a chance to bring something new to the game as well as fix issues. That may or may not go as planned, but again, wargames follow the same rules of every boardgame around: sometimes new ideas work, and sometimes they don't. That's why they get dumped when the next rule set/expansion comes around.

Regarding people complaining about new editions or being tired of it I believe it follows the same rule as Star Wars. Even if GW would suddenly make the best rule system ever made, fans would still be unhappy, because you can't make lifelong fans happy because they have a very specific, and extremely subjective view of what is the "best" edition/way to play. Hell, they don't even themselves know what they want. Give them vehicle facing and they would find something to gripe about. Give them templates and they would still say that how they are applied isn't perfect. In other words: You can't design a system around the rose-tinted memories of old fans. It's their own personal lightning in a bottle that will never be recaptured.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Without new editions/update to the rules there simply wouldn't be a game. Even boardgame companies retire a line after an x amount of years as they see no reason to continue supporting something that isn't generating enough revenue, and no, just adding a new unit isn't enough.

I think to be fair you are being influenced by a company that wishes to drive new sales. There are plenty of historical wargames that have a stable set of rules and by definition can't invent new units. Check out this list for familiar names. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miniature_wargames

But then I guess they don't have the large market GW does and the curn in customers business model (plus if you think GW fans spend a lot of money there are some massive whales in historical wargaming...).

 Strg Alt wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
It is GW´s business model. You are not forced to buy the latest edition by any means. Freeze the rules and keep playing your favourite vintage edition.

play alone? against yourself? how many players keep playing old edition when the new one come out? worse if you play at local game store you cant play older rules, cmon i play since 3rd edition and never happened players kept play older edition.

You can´t expect from your experiences alone that everybody on the globe acts like your environment to my proposal. I had several 2nd 40K games in the last years and no I haven´t played against myself. You just have to find people with the right mindset and maybe this is the problem with your area. Stuff that is new is not automatically superior to old school. People just have been brainwashed by GW to invest in the latest edition of 40K because of dubious reasons.

I don't know. Where I am, what happens at the FLGS drives what happens elsewhere and the tournaments drive the FLGS, so everyone switches to a new edition when it comes out (not to mention that I don't personally know anyone that liked 7th edition better than 8th edition). Believe me, I would have loved to stick with 5th edition through all of 6th and 7th, but that was not feasible. If I tried I would have had maybe one other opponent and that would have gotten boring in a hurry. I guess it comes down to having a club and then having that club prefer to stick with one edition; that's just not how the areas somewhat close to here work.....

 Battlesong wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 blackmage wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
It is GW´s business model. You are not forced to buy the latest edition by any means. Freeze the rules and keep playing your favourite vintage edition.

play alone? against yourself? how many players keep playing old edition when the new one come out? worse if you play at local game store you cant play older rules, cmon i play since 3rd edition and never happened players kept play older edition.

You can´t expect from your experiences alone that everybody on the globe acts like your environment to my proposal. I had several 2nd 40K games in the last years and no I haven´t played against myself. You just have to find people with the right mindset and maybe this is the problem with your area. Stuff that is new is not automatically superior to old school. People just have been brainwashed by GW to invest in the latest edition of 40K because of dubious reasons.

I don't know. Where I am, what happens at the FLGS drives what happens elsewhere and the tournaments drive the FLGS, so everyone switches to a new edition when it comes out (not to mention that I don't personally know anyone that liked 7th edition better than 8th edition). Believe me, I would have loved to stick with 5th edition through all of 6th and 7th, but that was not feasible. If I tried I would have had maybe one other opponent and that would have gotten boring in a hurry. I guess it comes down to having a club and then having that club prefer to stick with one edition; that's just not how the areas somewhat close to here work.....

I had only three people to play 2nd 40K but that was enough for me. It also depends how your relation to other hobbyists are. Buddies are easier to convince to play vintage a couple of times per year than FLGS acquaintances who relentlessly chase the meta.