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.

for me personally from a competitive stand point. there is a lot less player driven argument and less grey area. terrain is far better laid out and hopefully there is a bit more precision to that in this CA pack they are releasing.

Rules are more clear and concise and generally the games aren't taking as long.

for more casual play I love bigger battles and I've been given a format for that and its not apocalypse. 9th for most is an improvement on 8th the gamey aspects of the game are being cleaned out. yeah its not perfect but its never going to be, everyone will always have parts they disliked.

I wasn't exactly thrilled with the board size change but you embrace change and take the positives and negatives as they come.

for me personally from a competitive stand point. there is a lot less player driven argument and less grey area. terrain is far better laid out and hopefully there is a bit more precision to that in this CA pack they are releasing.

Ah, I see where you're coming from. That makes sense.

40k has become MTG inspired by a wargame. Not much debating that.

 Irbis wrote:

Piano Man wrote:
Reroll auras abound, multiple kinds of saves; what are we really trying to do here - what are we trying to model? There really is no modelling of real life issues, just excuses to create what they think are cool combos.

Seeing they are mostly outputted by HQ units, they are supposed to model units working better under the direct supervision of competent leader. Is command bonus not a thing in other wargames you play? Of all the 40K simulation issues, HQ buffing units is one of the smallest, I'd say.

Bubbles and Command points are basically a way to add complexity to the game where basic mechanics are not challenging enough. In fact lots of the stuff in 8th/9th edition seem like it was glued on after early playtesting when they realized that the basic game had become too simple and straightforward.

Personally I think that is a backwards way to design a wargame, but different brains, different strokes.

 Irbis wrote:

Piano Man wrote:
Reroll auras abound, multiple kinds of saves; what are we really trying to do here - what are we trying to model? There really is no modelling of real life issues, just excuses to create what they think are cool combos.

Seeing they are mostly outputted by HQ units, they are supposed to model units working better under the direct supervision of competent leader. Is command bonus not a thing in other wargames you play? Of all the 40K simulation issues, HQ buffing units is one of the smallest, I'd say...

Sort of? Command bonuses tend to be command-and-control/morale/initiative things in most wargames I play (Ld bubble/extra orders in Bolt Action, army control in Black Powder, that sort of thing). Commander as flat-bonus-to-everything-nearby is mostly a GW thing; even in Warmachine (the most commander-centric game I've ever played) commanders tend to have targeted buffs and a large-scale aura buff that works for one turn only rather than having an always-on bubble of make-everyone-better. (There are exceptions, like Vlad1 in Warmachine and Howlrunner in Xwing, but Warhammer feels like it's stretched the idea a lot further.)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

40k is a unique social experience, even if the rules are crap. It is possible to want the social experience and also want better rules. "Try another game and don't let the door hit you on the way out" isn't the solution some of us are looking for.

That's true.

Speaking personally, I've had mostly good experiences playing with a group of friends, but mostly bad experiences playing competitively in gaming stores--over multiple editions. Making a competitive game fun for both players is a difficult thing, and I don't think 40K has ever really succeeded at it. It's just not balanced for two people to bring their own armies and play a fair and fun game without the chance of one person getting obliterated, which isn't fun. This happens in other bring-your-own-warriors games like MtG, but in MtG, a full deck doesn't cost $400 and take months to put together, and it doesn't take 3 hours to play a game, so it's not such a big deal. In 40k, you can look at your opponent's army and know you have no chance of beating it, but it will take the whole afternoon to get to that point, like in Monopoly. Negative fun.

Pointed Stick wrote:
but in MtG, a full deck doesn't cost $400

Someone doesn't play competitive MTG, clearly.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:
but in MtG, a full deck doesn't cost $400

Someone doesn't play competitive MTG, clearly.

How common are those levels of decks in most store games? Seems to me the rarity, quality of the cards and tournament success of the decks using them drives the costs up. Does your average Friday night crowd all shell out for the bleeding edge decks?

Whereas the terrible armies cost just as much if not more than the meta crushers in 40k so I'd expect the average expense of typical 40k circles to be greater than that of Magic.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Pointed Stick wrote:
but in MtG, a full deck doesn't cost $400

Someone doesn't play competitive MTG, clearly.

How common are those levels of decks in most store games? Seems to me the rarity, quality of the cards and tournament success of the decks using them drives the costs up. Does your average Friday night crowd all shell out for the bleeding edge decks?

Most people that attend FNM tend to buy 1 or more boxes at $120-150 a pop when each new set comes out because Standard rotates out a set with every release so people are constantly revamping. The vast majority of players are NOT just buying a couple boosters and then being done with it. Even the casual Standard and EDH players I know have spent at least $200-300 to build their "perfect"decks, even more when those decks contain multiples of extremely rare and good cards that trend $50-100 for a SINGLE(not full play sets). People regularly drop several hundred to stay at the top of local play with just a hope of earning enough points to go to higher levels of tournaments.

There's a reason Magic keeps game stores open in the US.

That's wild.

I would suggest to the op just playing casual games, with a local group, with whatever agreed-upon restrictions you need to enjoy the game. That’s what my group is doing. I’ve been pretty much out since 6th and was a heavy traveling tourney player then.

My experience is very similar to yours, OP.

GWS is offering us Horus Heresy and possibly Old War, which dwell in the simulation / war game.

The problem is that they heavily promote their main games over specialist ones and that they are very unreliable in terms of continuing to support their smaller games. I still have a box of gorkamorka. They also love to have incompatibilities between games set in very similar settings, I guess to increase miniature sales. For example, while land raiders exist in HH, custodies can’t use the model from 40k.

It is quite clear that support for systems the drives sales, to some extent. However, GWS seems to be unable to handle more than 2 games. I imagine them juggling (balls are games), then specialist games are always the ball they drop.

A case I have experienced recently: HH has slowed down releases, removed miniatures from the range, has glaring issues in older armies (solar militia?), refuses to mix better with the cheaper plastic range, is incredibly expensive, and has the worst collection of rules ever (spread across OOP books). HH seems to appeal to the older player that wants a premium experience (compare a codex to a black book), yet with a dying player base (in my opinion due to lack of support), I’d have a hard time justifying paying for their prices. Second hand, PDFs, don’t ask the source minis, and similar tricks seem the default.

GWS is now doing better than ever, but I do not think their products are necessarily better than ever (overall, sculpts are better, aesthetic preferences aside), and I believe it is a worse deal for the consumer.

I totally feel the same way about tactics. Like, what is the point of flanking? It's better to just stay and shoot from the front if that's where all the auras are

For me it's the balance. It's god-awful and seemingly driven by business decisions. The models are cool, but... tactics seem to have been removed because they are an obstacle to power levels dictating buying decisions, which is what GW wants. You can't make HQs with unique abilities anymore.

Anyway, you should try Infinity, it's probably something you will enjoy if you can play a game that has 10-15 sudes per side on a 4x4 table.

Pointed Stick wrote:


Speaking personally, I've had mostly good experiences playing with a group of friends, but mostly bad experiences playing competitively in gaming stores--over multiple editions. Making a competitive game fun for both players is a difficult thing, and I don't think 40K has ever really succeeded at it. It's just not balanced for two people to bring their own armies and play a fair and fun game without the chance of one person getting obliterated, which isn't fun. This happens in other bring-your-own-warriors games like MtG, but in MtG, a full deck doesn't cost $400 and take months to put together, and it doesn't take 3 hours to play a game, so it's not such a big deal. In 40k, you can look at your opponent's army and know you have no chance of beating it, but it will take the whole afternoon to get to that point, like in Monopoly. Negative fun.

GW's prices include the hobby part. Many people will just pay for the models, paints, etc... without playing a single game with their models. Of course if someone is only (or even just mostly) interested in gaming then 40k is very expensive from their perspective.

In a card game there's no time spent for the hobby part, as cards don't need to get assembled and painted, let alone kitbashed or converted. Price should reflect that.

Xenomancers wrote:40k has become MTG inspired by a wargame. Not much debating that.

Yep, and that's why i stopped playing it.

Eldarain wrote:That's wild.

You would not believe the amount of money our regular magic players constantly spend on new decks, and they don't even play the tourney scene where all decks/cards more than 2 releases old are banned

Sadly I'm in a similar boat with OP, although I'm a newer player and started at the tail end of 6th. I've since found that Epic Armageddon has a great ruleset and have recreated my guard army in 6mm. I'm currently working on an ork army to give them an opponent.

What sucks is that it's always going to be hard to find someone that actually wants to play a "dead game". Chances are that i'll only ever really play with my brother or one or two other people who would be willing to use my ork army. People tell others to play another edition, or another rule set, but it's just not always possible.

Grey40k wrote:
It is quite clear that support for systems the drives sales, to some extent. However, GWS seems to be unable to handle more than 2 games. I imagine them juggling (balls are games), then specialist games are always the ball they drop.

Err, what? As a company in a niche hobby, GW's offering of games (with extensive, dedicated miniature ranges) is rather staggering. Even putting AoS, 40k and Middle-Earth aside, the miniature ranges of Titanicus, Aeronautica, Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Warcry, Underworlds etc. alone make smaller firms blush and after the Rountree revolution the support received for the Specialist department has been pretty good (what, half a decade or so now? It's looking good on the Specialist front for the foreseeable future, too.). Most companies that could boast anything approaching such variety often don't make dedicated miniatures for their rulesets (Fat Lardies and Osprey spring to mind, as well as many historicals where you can use whatever). Heck, some companies can barely juggle their one shining star

Sledgehammer wrote:Sadly I'm in a similar boat with OP, although I'm a newer player and started at the tail end of 6th. I've since found that Epic Armageddon has a great ruleset and have recreated my guard army in 6mm. I'm currently working on an ork army to give them an opponent.

What sucks is that it's always going to be hard to find someone that actually wants to play a "dead game". Chances are that i'll only ever really play with my brother or one or two other people who would be willing to use my ork army. People tell others to play another edition, or another rule set, but it's just not always possible.

Not always, but it's very much helped by the fact you've got multiple armies for them to try out before forcing them to read any rulebooks or get an army. Finding a gaming club or going to conventions to demo games could also help, I've done a fair bit of that and shared my enthusiasm with older games like BFG or Blood Bowl (before it was supported by GW again) and been positively surprised when folks pick it up afterwards. Regarding Epic in particular, it's also got a nice and active online community that's helped along by the recent advancements in 3d printing technology so that getting pretty armies is getting easier and easier. Cross compatibility with Titanicus models doesn't hurt either.

I've played since 3rd came out but when 5th dropped my group turned sideways and developed our own rules based upon what we liked best.

We could see the nature of the beast - GW was and still is more interested in making changes for change's sake than making a solid set of rules. As soon as something is fixed something else gets broken, rinse and repeat.

I don't blame GW at all, but we wanted a more tactical experience with the GW lore that we grew so fond of. I too grew up on Avalon Hill games, so I expect things even in a crazy sci-fi setting to remain at least somewhat intuitive. PM me if you want and I can send you our rules, but with any home rules you'll need willing accomplices! Good luck!

I like Infinity, and have a large Bakunin force, but lately I want less charts and things to remember. This would have been great when I was younger!!

Right now, I am happy with Hail Caesar for ancients, Kings of War for fantasy, and trying Carnevale for both my skirmish and terrain fix. The one thing I am missing is a way to get my Sisters of Battle on the table for a game and community I enjoy. It looks like my best options are prior editions, Grimdark Future, or something else you guys suggest.

"PM me if you want and I can send you our rules, but with any home rules you'll need willing accomplices! Good luck!"

I will!

You mentioned Grimdark Future, so I'll also had my +1 to those rules. I've only played the previous version, but they've got an active and engaged community that offers plenty of feedback.

If I were to get back into buying current GW models (and not working Classichammer projects with OOP stuff), I'd use OPR's rulesets.

Piano Man wrote:
But - as one thread said; anymore its just NOT a wargame.

Well I guess we were all fooled, lets all pack it up guys, 40k is not a wargame, lets sell our models on ebay and stop playing. Guess 40k is not a wargame anymore!

 Crusaderobr wrote:

Piano Man wrote:
But - as one thread said; anymore its just NOT a wargame.

Well I guess we were all fooled, lets all pack it up guys, 40k is not a wargame, lets sell our models on ebay and stop playing. Guess 40k is not a wargame anymore!

Your sarcasm is noted and also disingenuous, 40K was a TT strategic wargame. it may have started out as more of an RPG in rogue trader and 2nd ed, but at its best from 3rd-7th (before formation spam killed it) it was a wargame that required a level of tactical play on the table with pros and cons for every unit and actions taken. Because GW has turned it into magic the gathering with gameplay reduced to combo buffs and de-buffs to damage through cp/stratagems spam does not mean we cannot still play it in a previous version. exactly as a large number of us have obviously been doing.

The same as WHFB players have done by either switching to kings of war or going back to 6th or 8th edition fantasy rules.

My personal feeling is, 40k is just become too big for what it wants too be

hence why the game feels more "gamy" and not like a Wargame any more

The problem is now to play a game but use the Minis you like
the One Page Rules are a thing and there is a community, if the local community plays it it is a good way to go
I am more a fan of Deadzone and Warpath, yet it is hard to use all the 40k stuff and easier to start with the dedicated models (yet starting Deadzone with Mantic models is easier than going Kill Team with an existing army if you don't have a big collection)

but the community for Warpath is small and there is no real interest to use GW models except for some Guard and Edlar stuff or even have rules for them


The one game that is growing at the moment and I might get into to overcome 40k is Star Wars Legion

but because it is Star Wars most people play it for the theme and there is nor real "use other models for the game" acceptance, even with WYSIWYG is not a thing as this is done with the cards

yet it would be a good game and doing Sisters of Battle VS Necrons as Clones VS Droids should not be the big problem

PS: a funny thing, some people who I played 5th Edition, started to play 5th Edi again 2-3 years ago in their local group to overcome the current state of the game

Multiple people share OPs view, this is not the first thread of its kind.

To summarize my lengthy posts from unit's last thread, ever since I started in 5th WH40k never has been anything to me but a strategic board game that was somewhat of a mix of Risk, StarCraft and MtG. This is exactly what has made it so interesting to me.
All the things that differentiate a wargame from a complex board game or even the RT era RPG elements have been gone for at least a decade now.

And yeah, MtG might be cheaper to start, but has a rather high upkeep costs. Even after I stopped playing competitively I'd still drop ~200€ per year to update all my casual decks regularly. It is possible to play MtG for a lot less than that, but keeping up with constructed formats tends to be at least as expensive as 40k.

I am looking to try Deadzone for small scale battles meself, and K'47 for bigger stuff. IndexHammer seemed to be fine, alittle more colour needed, but here we are.

In the end, it's only rules to tell stories and go "pew pew!"

SamusDrake wrote:
If larger armies and simpiler rules are what you are after, then Apocalypse is probably what you are after.

Sadly, I believe its been discontinued...

na mate, they just revamped it last year with all new gak. https://warhammer40000.com/apocalypse/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Piano Man wrote:
what are we really trying to do here - what are we trying to model?

Its trying to be a table top game that is a reflection of the lore. To "bring the universe to life" - For better or worse depending on your opinion. It was never meant or tried to be a pure wargame like some other tabletop games.

June of 2019 I found I couldn't bring myself to play 40k again, and it's super-annoying because I feel like 40k should be so much more fun to play than it is, and I don't understand why it isn't. It's like there's the 40k I imagine, and there's the 40k I can play, and somehow they're exclusive of each other.

Nurglitch wrote:
June of 2019 I found I couldn't bring myself to play 40k again, and it's super-annoying because I feel like 40k should be so much more fun to play than it is, and I don't understand why it isn't. It's like there's the 40k I imagine, and there's the 40k I can play, and somehow they're exclusive of each other.

I think it is because the verisimilitude is gone. It is difficult to imagine a Predator Destructor tank dying more quickly to small arms fire than a Tactical Squad, yet that is exactly what happens on the tabletop (99 boltgun hits vs 120 with the 2 wound tacmarine). So your brain desynchronizes its picture of how things should work from how things went in the game and your suspension of disbelief dissolves.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
June of 2019 I found I couldn't bring myself to play 40k again, and it's super-annoying because I feel like 40k should be so much more fun to play than it is, and I don't understand why it isn't. It's like there's the 40k I imagine, and there's the 40k I can play, and somehow they're exclusive of each other.

I think it is because the verisimilitude is gone. It is difficult to imagine a Predator Destructor tank dying more quickly to small arms fire than a Tactical Squad, yet that is exactly what happens on the tabletop (99 boltgun hits vs 120 with the 2 wound tacmarine). So your brain desynchronizes its picture of how things should work from how things went in the game and your suspension of disbelief dissolves.

Maybe. I think it's moreso that the game takes so long, and requires so much work for so little happening on the board; I quit back in 8th edition while a Tactical Squad only had 10 wounds.