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.
People aren't using stuff like dark lances or multi meltas, because of tanks or vehicles in general . they are taken, because they can one shot something like a blade guard. The fact that they can also do damage to tanks is a secondary things, because tanks, the way they are pointed right now, do not see much play. And you actually do see it for weapons that do not kill marines well. No one wants to buy a lascannon and see it do 1W to an intercessor or bounce of, at the cost it has, from a inv save. In 8th the plasma gun was a "anti tank" weapon of choice, and it was again the weapon of choice for most armies, because it also happened to kill marine class targets real well.
You're conflating MEQ with Gravis and Custodian level statlines. A Dark Lance at an Intercessor is a waste. A Dark Lance at a Gravis Marine, Terminator or Custodian is useful because they're quite literally superlight vehicles, and consistent damage is worth its weight in gold against 3 and 4 wound targets. Plus, when you get the inevitable 3++/4++ in play, even that is an absolute gamble.
That is interesting because through out 8th ed, the GK codex and rule set was design the idea, that somehow every target was suppose to be down with str 4 storm bolters. Also slot limitations. Specially if something is in elites, and you have them full or almost full in your army. But yeah, if the army is hyper point optimized, by accident of course , because as we know GW would never do it on purpose, you can run multiple dark lances, liquifires and still have enough point to take other stuff. Even the slots aren't a problem.
This is a flat out lie. Players ran storm bolters over other weapon options because they were the only points viable weapons for most of the edition, not because GW didn't give Grey Knights heavy weapon choices. With the advent of Tides and PA strats at the end of 8th, non-SB weapons made a serious comeback when they suddenly became actually effective and not a waste of points. It's the same reason you never saw Dark Lances over Disintegrators in Drukhari lists, or MultiMeltas in anybody's lists: they simply sucked for their points.
Furthermore, every single 9th edition codex has means at their disposal to bypass Force Organization restrictions. Marines get all of their command squad choices for free with Company Vets in the list. Necron's and Marines can double up on minor characters in the HQ slot. AdMech does the same. Drukhari have patrols and Beastmasters.
And before you start frothing at the mouth about Patrols, keep in mind that that's the exact same number of Elites that another army gets for their free Battalion. Six.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/26 23:41:55
People aren't using stuff like dark lances or multi meltas, because of tanks or vehicles in general . they are taken, because they can one shot something like a blade guard. The fact that they can also do damage to tanks is a secondary things, because tanks, the way they are pointed right now, do not see much play. And you actually do see it for weapons that do not kill marines well. No one wants to buy a lascannon and see it do 1W to an intercessor or bounce of, at the cost it has, from a inv save. In 8th the plasma gun was a "anti tank" weapon of choice, and it was again the weapon of choice for most armies, because it also happened to kill marine class targets real well.
You're conflating MEQ with Gravis and Custodian level statlines. A Dark Lance at an Intercessor is a waste. A Dark Lance at a Gravis Marine, Terminator or Custodian is useful because they're quite literally superlight vehicles, and consistent damage is worth its weight in old against 3 and 4 wound targets. Plus, when you get the inevitable 3++/4++ in play, even that is an absolute gamble.
That is interesting because through out 8th ed, the GK codex and rule set was design the idea, that somehow every target was suppose to be down with str 4 storm bolters. Also slot limitations. Specially if something is in elites, and you have them full or almost full in your army. But yeah, if the army is hyper point optimized, by accident of course , because as we know GW would never do it on purpose, you can run multiple dark lances, liquifires and still have enough point to take other stuff. Even the slots aren't a problem.
This is a flat out lie. Players ran storm bolters over other weapon options because they were the only points viable weapons for most of the edition, not because GW didn't give Grey Knights heavy weapon choices. With the advent of Tides and PA strats at the end of 8th, non-SB weapons made a serious comeback when they suddenly became actually effective and not a waste of points. It's the same reason you never saw Dark Lances over Disintegrators in Drukhari lists, or MultiMeltas in anybody's lists: they simply sucked for their points.
Spoiler:
Furthermore, every single 9th edition codex has means at their disposal to bypass Force Organization restrictions. Marines get all of their command squad choices for free with Company Vets in the list. Necron's and Marines can double up on minor characters in the HQ slot. AdMech does the same. Drukhari have patrols and Beastmasters.
And before you start frothing at the mouth about Patrols, keep in mind that that's the exact same number of Elites that another army gets for their free Battalion. Six.
“Flat out lie” seems a bit strong here, no? Maybe a misunderstanding, but “lie” seems unnecessarily hostile. As does “foaming at the mouth” which doesn’t seem to fit Karol’s demeanour from what I have seen of him...
jeff white wrote: “Flat out lie” seems a bit strong here, no? Maybe a misunderstanding, but “lie” seems unnecessarily hostile. As does “foaming at the mouth” which doesn’t seem to fit Karol’s demeanour from what I have seen of him...
He's like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh. Most balance issues can be solved with points. First, you make sure the game is thematic, a Chaos Space Marine beats a guardsman in shooting and melee, things that are meant to be tanks are tanky and things that are meant to be glass cannons hit harder than wet noodles. If you don't do this you end up with hordes of Space Marines like in 7th when they brought a free parking lot with them. Psycannons being damage 1 AP-1 does feel a bit like hordes of Space Marines here considering it was basically a twin autocannon with rending and autocannons now have the same AP and higher damage than psycannons. It is actually very fair to have a thematic problem with the psycannon's output.
Even if you make every unit and rule thematic you can still easily make a lot of the interesting choices in a faction moot by creating an internally imbalanced codex and even if you internally balance the codex if it is too strong or weak compared to other codices it will be less than amazing to play. If you compare your psycannons to storm bolters and they suck it becomes less fun to use psycannons. If your psycannon Terminators get blasted by 100 autocannons because army X, Y or Z had a misprint that said their autocannons cost 1 instead of 10 then it becomes less fun to use psycannons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/26 21:00:09
Nurglitch wrote: The exact balance of what you need to bring to remove a range of targets is kind of secondary to the fact that you either remove them or they remove you. It's boring.
oh it 100% makes for boring gameplay. I've laid off 40k since the DG codex in favor of a game that rewards the player's strategic skill much more than the listbuilding and "rolling to get first turn" skill
And what might that be? Genuinely curious, I said that about Warmachine for a long time but I can't play that in person anymore without driving for two hours on either side of the game.
Nurglitch wrote: The exact balance of what you need to bring to remove a range of targets is kind of secondary to the fact that you either remove them or they remove you. It's boring.
oh it 100% makes for boring gameplay. I've laid off 40k since the DG codex in favor of a game that rewards the player's strategic skill much more than the listbuilding and "rolling to get first turn" skill
And what might that be? Genuinely curious, I said that about Warmachine for a long time but I can't play that in person anymore without driving for two hours on either side of the game.
Infinity, mostly played on tabletop simulator due to the pandemic
Nurglitch wrote: I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.
I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.
That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.
....Except that they don't.
All of my Devastators and Tac Squads started carrying Plasma Cannons and Grav Cannons during 8th because their numbers were actually superior against vehicles over Las/Krak, in addition to being better against troops/elites.
Right now a Heavy Bolter averages nearly the same damage against a Raider as a Lascannon, and is cheaper. The Assault Cannon and Autocannon fare better than both. The moment an invuln is placed on the target the Las advantage dwindles considerably.
The standout AT weapon is the Multimelta, obviously. But the other traditional AT stuff pales in comparison, often making the "middle guns" more useful choices because they're either better, or can be used against other targets more effectively. Notably, Guardsmen and CSMs don't get the Multimelta as an option. During 3-7th an Autocannon couldn't even hurt a Leman Russ from the front.
. . .
Add to that the fact that there is virtually no difference between firing many of these weapons at a Rhino, vs. Firing them at a Leman Russ. Despite T7 vs. T8, the only practical difference between the two is only two wounds. T7 vs. T8 doesnt matter to S5,6 and 9.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/27 07:53:16
I'm genuinely trying to decide if it's an exaggeration that 40K in its current state is the worst wargame I have ever played.
That statement might be somewhat misleading, because:
A) The list of different tabletop wargames I've physically played in memory isn't incredibly long; Maybe a dozen, some of those decidedly not recently, and depending to some extent on what qualifies as a wargame;
B) I did some googling to see what were widely considered worst - so, no, I didn't play the initial release of Age of Sigmar, nor did I play any of the many awful historical wargames that clearly exist.
C) My memory can be unreliable and I'm sure there's a title drop that'll make me go "Oh yeah, at least 40k isn't Drop Squid Frontline 3rd Edition," or that nostalgia might be tinting other childhood games...
...but without some serious memory jogging I honestly can't think of a more poorly designed and bloated wargame that I personally played, crushed as it is between asinine technological limitations and a need for modern live-service-style churn and content bloat, that I personally have played since Avalon Hill was writing insane rules for pushing cardboard chits around a hex grid.
Certainly, if you stack the various games up against their price tags, 40K is an abysmal cash grab.
"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"
-Tex Talks Battletech on GW
2021/05/27 08:10:07
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
I remember melta being the optimal choice that beat out other weapons back in the day... if it was in range. Plasma had more range or more shots, Las had RANGE. Nowadays the range doesn't seem to matter so much.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I remember melta being the optimal choice that beat out other weapons back in the day... if it was in range. Plasma had more range or more shots, Las had RANGE. Nowadays the range doesn't seem to matter so much.
it's what happens when you artificially decrease board sizes. And in general simplify movement that way.
Same with reliable deepstrike, once a premium ability and rather restricted, becoming the norm.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2021/05/27 08:40:32
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
NinthMusketeer wrote: I remember melta being the optimal choice that beat out other weapons back in the day... if it was in range. Plasma had more range or more shots, Las had RANGE. Nowadays the range doesn't seem to matter so much.
It's gone back and forth over the years. Plasma was generally worse because it was harder to knock out tanks, could kill your guy but rate of fire made it better vs heavy infantry and generally monsters of most types. It was too expensive points wise though for all the draw back so melta was safer and generally considered better if it hit. As well as letting you assault after you shot.
Then plasma became better because cost was less, you could fire it safe or unsafe with higher str and damage. Range and ROF made it better by a good margin while melta was still swingy and rapid fire didn't matter for preventing assaults.
Now of course melta is cheap, effective and safe to fire but for the distance you have to get with it, it melts ( no pun intended ). While plasma stayed around the same but gone up and can't compete with how hard melta hits now and some problem units that can take melta these days. As well as the smaller table defacto sizes because GW gonna GW.
I'm sure it'll swing back around again, maybe next edition in another episode of how GW pointlessly churns the meta butter.
I was there was a "Better than 6th / 7th edition, but still pretty fething bad" option on that chart.
Current 40k is, well, it's better than the absolute worst 40k has been. But I'd say it's significantly farther beyond most of the competently written editions of the past (3rd through 5th).
CEO Kasen wrote: I'm genuinely trying to decide if it's an exaggeration that 40K in its current state is the worst wargame I have ever played.
I have similar thoughts. I can also say that all the wargames 40k is in competition with are also GW games (Killteam and Aeronautica).
I can confidently say that relative to price, 40k is definitely the worst.
2021/05/27 10:25:08
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.
CEO Kasen wrote: I'm genuinely trying to decide if it's an exaggeration that 40K in its current state is the worst wargame I have ever played. .
Let's be honest, 40k has been the worst wargame around for like 15 years now. Maybe 20. That isn't to say it can't be fun or it doesn't have merits. I had Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 installed on my PC up until about 2 years ago because multiplayer is still fun every now and then even though the game is objectively pretty rubbish. Or when Jeremy in Peep Show spends £45 on wine and compares it to something REALLY delicious like hot chocolate or coke. Sometimes whats fun isn't always what is objectively the best.
Disclaimer: I still think 9th edition is NOT fun to play. But for a long time 40k WAS fun, despite not being the best game around.
CEO Kasen wrote:I'm genuinely trying to decide if it's an exaggeration that 40K in its current state is the worst wargame I have ever played.
That statement might be somewhat misleading, because:
A) The list of different tabletop wargames I've physically played in memory isn't incredibly long; Maybe a dozen, some of those decidedly not recently, and depending to some extent on what qualifies as a wargame;
B) I did some googling to see what were widely considered worst - so, no, I didn't play the initial release of Age of Sigmar, nor did I play any of the many awful historical wargames that clearly exist.
C) My memory can be unreliable and I'm sure there's a title drop that'll make me go "Oh yeah, at least 40k isn't Drop Squid Frontline 3rd Edition," or that nostalgia might be tinting other childhood games...
...but without some serious memory jogging I honestly can't think of a more poorly designed and bloated wargame that I personally played, crushed as it is between asinine technological limitations and a need for modern live-service-style churn and content bloat, that I personally have played since Avalon Hill was writing insane rules for pushing cardboard chits around a hex grid.
Certainly, if you stack the various games up against their price tags, 40K is an abysmal cash grab.
It is a toss up for me when it comes to 40K between 6th and 9th. i mean 6th was so bad even GW killed it after 14 months. It did help me put my 40K aside and dive into games like infinity and warmachine.
I have had the opportunity to play many different wargames, some of them regularly (see my sig) and some really niche games. i mean how many posters here have played say spectre ops or the large scale WWII skirmish game- battle tactics- from forces of valor/unimax(the toy company)?
The fact i have experience with so many different games that play so differently from 40K it really helps expand ones understanding as each one gives the variety of experience that keeps the hobby fresh.
With the level of 40K being both played as a skirmish system in kill teams up to an army battle game as standard, for the scale when it comes to rules writing Andy Chambers work on DUST 1947 has one of the best current rule sets when compared to what is available. It is like a middle point between early 8th edition 40K and infinity.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear
Andy Chambers is like a magician of wargames rules, I love everything I've seen that he's put out.
I think Dust's attack system is a really good way of handling it in a game with as broad a scope as dieselpunk sci-fi, similar to 40k.
2021/05/27 11:03:54
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
Sunny Side Up wrote: Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.
Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.
The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.
2021/05/27 11:16:03
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
Sunny Side Up wrote: Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.
Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.
The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.
The glaring problem with WM/H isn't the game itself, aside from some bad restrictions on current theme lists the main thing it suffers from is the same thing GW games currently suffer from-the core of competitive players who are toxic to the community. the MKIII rules are the best the game has ever been as long as you approach it with the right attitude. we play what we enjoy model wise and avoid steamroller games at all costs.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear
2021/05/27 12:23:54
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
The glaring problem with WM/H isn't the game itself, aside from some bad restrictions on current theme lists the main thing it suffers from is the same thing GW games currently suffer from-the core of competitive players who are toxic to the community. the MKIII rules are the best the game has ever been as long as you approach it with the right attitude. we play what we enjoy model wise and avoid steamroller games at all costs.
I don't agree. Here in Poland we have a lovely, friendly, open and welcoming WM&H community (I may have told the story of a WTC veteran who helped a newbie assassinate his own warcaster during a master-class tournament game. The newbie didn't see the opening, the veteran did, so he lost on purpose to teach the new player how to best use the options available to him). We lend models/armies, run demo games etc.
Still, very few players play the game. It is inaccessible, extremely expensive, bloated. But really satisfying once you get how it works
2021/05/27 12:29:10
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
Cyel 798472 11133776 wrote:
Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.
The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.
I think the problem with it was that the company that makes it run in to production problems, and all of the sudden some parts of the world ended up without models. Hard to get in to a game when you can't get the models to play an opitmal list.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2021/05/27 12:44:38
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
I think the problem with it was that the company that makes it run in to production problems, and all of the sudden some parts of the world ended up without models. Hard to get in to a game when you can't get the models to play an opitmal list.
but this is not reason for why the worst version of 40k is still better than WM/H or Infinity because to know that you would have need to play it (so model supply cannot be the issue)
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it. A game could have the best cost to fun ratio, with great set of rules, but if you don't have opponents to play it against, or the store doesn't want you to play it, because they don't sell the game, then it is not a good game.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Karol wrote: It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it. A game could have the best cost to fun ratio, with great set of rules, but if you don't have opponents to play it against, or the store doesn't want you to play it, because they don't sell the game, then it is not a good game.
Infinity has been played mostly on TTS over the course of the pandemic and people keep playing it precisely because it's a good game. Not perfect, not without several glaring issues, but very much enjoyable. The manufacturer also has had significant production delays but people pooled 3D scans of their existing miniatures online, so you can pretty much pick up any faction right now and experiment with it. Transitioning into digital space is a trivial thing to do nowadays, so those real life constraints you mentioned earlier are not as pertinent anymore (if the game is good enough to warrant the effort, that is).
Karol wrote: It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it.
but you cannot tell if a game is better or worse if you never played
so if there is no one to play the game, you just don't know if it is better or not
just because you have people to play with for one game and not the other, makes it easier to get games with but not a better game
this can be reason why you play a bad game instead of a good one, but it does not makes a bad game better
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
Karol wrote: It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it. A game could have the best cost to fun ratio, with great set of rules, but if you don't have opponents to play it against, or the store doesn't want you to play it, because they don't sell the game, then it is not a good game.
Depends how you define "good game" I guess.
Personally I don't the size of the community reflects the quality of the game at all. But it is an important factor in whether or not you play the game. I only play 40k because it has the community and the other games I (greatly) prefer don't.
Karol wrote: but people pooled 3D scans of their existing miniatures online.
Where did they do that, my good friend my buddy my old pal?
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Not Online!!! wrote: i like how gw once again paywalls the pts for the factions in what ammounts to a balance patch in literally every other game, which should be free but alas...
But considering that i should supposedly be willing to pay 58 CHF for 5 slightly larger intercessors if i were to ever collect marines....
I am not surprised. Just disapointed how people can defend that gak company.
What's there to defend? Not a single person buys this pair of books for the points, whether you use their app or battlescribe, you don't need it.
The only value is having updated tournament missions in with a small rulebook attached to it.
And if one only cares about points we all know battlescribe will have them like a day or two later let alone easily accessible videos with all the points usually easily readable.
positive, though still disapointed that we finally have living rules on the app and instead of using game data to update and balance points more effectively its just.. we will address next time we do a points adjustment".
I also really hope that GW movs into a alternating unit activation format for 10th
10000 points 7000 6000 5000 5000 2000
2021/05/27 18:16:01
Subject: Re:How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?
Cyel 798472 11133776 wrote:
Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.
The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.
I think the problem with it was that the company that makes it run in to production problems, and all of the sudden some parts of the world ended up without models. Hard to get in to a game when you can't get the models to play an opitmal list.
I do not discount that, i mean you guys are in poland, my FLGS is about an hour drive away by car from the PP main office, so getting models for the game has never been a problem.
GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear
Karol wrote: It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it.
but you cannot tell if a game is better or worse if you never played
Yes you can. Maybe this was true 20-25 years ago when the internet wasn't as prevalent as it is now, but now any given game has loads of reviews, entire communities to advise, battle reports etc for you to judge whether or not you'll like a game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/27 19:17:36
7000 
