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.

So, I've come to the conclusion that I don't like 40K anymore. I tried to think why.....Is it the rules or the codexes or a combination of both.

I will preface this by saying my biggest problem with the game is the TLOS rules and the lack of blocking terrain that can't be destroyed in stores. With almost unlimited sightlines, it becomes harder to play a finesse tactical game IMHo.

But what disappoints me the most about the game is this....I think in 3rd and most of 4th edition, any army, and any version of that army, could be successful. Sure, some armies always dominated. Iron Warriors for the easy RTT win! But I played Marines, wolves, both angels, guard and eldar, and I always did well with them.

But now, it seems that beginning towards the end of 4th, and all in 5th, the trend is to go with certain builds...and being able to play the army you want to play the way you want to play it won't cut it, unless you play a person with the same mind set. And of course, a good percentage of armies out there are not tournament viable (cough space marines/Imperials cough).

I've done ok in the few 5th edition tournaments I have been in, and had fun, but I know that I'm not competitive with the armies I have taken.

I dunno, I've seen some people post about the 4th edition mindset vs the 5th edition one....I don't want to make this sound whiny, like a I can't win rant. I just think the game was more fun when the armies were all closer in their power levels.

I miss the old days when a fluffy space wolf army rocked...or a fluffy BA or fluffy DA or fluffy eldar etc.

General Hobbs wrote:it becomes harder to play a finesse tactical game IMHo.

HAHAHAHAHA! Because 40k has always been a game of tactical finesse...

General Hobbs wrote:I miss the old days when a fluffy space wolf army rocked...or a fluffy BA or fluffy DA or fluffy eldar etc.

I don't think those days ever really existed. Maybe for the first week after you got the game for the first time and only could play against yourself on the kitchen table.

General Hobbs wrote:
I will preface this by saying my biggest problem with the game is the TLOS rules and the lack of blocking terrain that can't be destroyed in stores. With almost unlimited sightlines, it becomes harder to play a finesse tactical game IMHo.

So spend a little bit of time and make some terrain. And, if you play at a store, donate it to the store. Terrain doesn't need to be expensive, and I don't know of a gaming store that doesn't accept terrain donations, even GW shops.

I recently made a bunch of 5th-ed terrain. Stuff that blocked line of sight completely. I used such materials as an empty Pringles tube, a wooden birdhouse I got a Jo-Ann for $1, and other bits and pieces that were lying around. Terrain building is can be fun and creative, and the terrain-builder has a lot of influence over whether games will be fair and fun, or boring.

But what disappoints me the most about the game is this....I think in 3rd and most of 4th edition, any army, and any version of that army, could be successful. Sure, some armies always dominated. Iron Warriors for the easy RTT win! But I played Marines, wolves, both angels, guard and eldar, and I always did well with them.

But now, it seems that beginning towards the end of 4th, and all in 5th, the trend is to go with certain builds...and being able to play the army you want to play the way you want to play it won't cut it, unless you play a person with the same mind set. And of course, a good percentage of armies out there are not tournament viable (cough space marines/Imperials cough).

Well, I think that any army can still play a decent game, but certain archetypes have a bit more power than others. But that's no different than 3rd (rhino rushing) or 4th (skimmer rushing). That doesn't mean other armies can't compete, and I'll take a good player with a normal build over a normal player with a power build any day.

As for Marines and Guard not being tournament viable, what are you smoking?

I've done ok in the few 5th edition tournaments I have been in, and had fun, but I know that I'm not competitive with the armies I have taken.

Is that because of the army, or because you haven't changed your approach to the game to adjust for 5th ed nuances?

Redbeard wrote:Well, I think that any army can still play a decent game, but certain archetypes have a bit more power than others. But that's no different than 3rd (rhino rushing) or 4th (skimmer rushing). That doesn't mean other armies can't compete, and I'll take a good player with a normal build over a normal player with a power build any day.

While 5th edition seems to have more popular builds, I think that is more a function of the increase in the internet usage of gamers than anything. I think fifth has resulted in more competitive builds for more armies.

Personally, I like TLoS, and I've had fewer issues about who can see what with TLoS than I ever did in fourth edition with the heights of terrain and whether standing on top of a hill made you lvl 4 so you could see over everything. The problem is that a lot of people are still using ruins and woods and haven't put buildings and other 'solid' objects into their game.

Honestly i don't think 40k has ever been as balanced as it currently is, sure there are a few powerbuilds and some of the older armies need to be updated but i cant think of a single army that cannot produce a competitive list (ok maybe necrons right now).

it sounds like your more fed up with your local gaming group and and the local meta game than the actual game itself. i would suggest trying to get a few people interested in some narrative campaign games. in my experience people that tend to be interested in that kind of play are not your typical powergamer and the games become more than just about who wins or who looses.

in regards to the armies you listed as not being viable in a tournament setting, i disagree. DA are very competitive and very fluffy, they have pure deathwing, pure ravenwing and the doublewing, all 3 of these options can be very hard hitting. The Guard's new codex gives them a lot of options and i would put them on par with eldar and marines.

When someone feels like this, I think the best answer is, "play something different for a few months or years." 40k is not the -best game ever-, but I've taken a few breaks and still come back. Play Bloodbowl, or Warmachine, or FOW, or WotR, etc.

dietrich wrote:When someone feels like this, I think the best answer is, "play something different for a few months or years." 40k is not the -best game ever-, but I've taken a few breaks and still come back. Play Bloodbowl, or Warmachine, or FOW, or WotR, etc.

Trust me, just dont sell your army. I have been playing off and on for 15 years now and the game has always had it's power builds but back in the day people just were not able to colaborate and share thier experiences to refine them. Now you have the collective wisdom of the entire world put forth to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a book and share its sucesses and failures in torunaments world wide.

I have been fed up with the game from time to time, but after a year or three off I always come back even more hungry for plastic carnage than ever before.

Take a break, spend some time with the wife, then when she gets sick of you your hobby will still be waiting. Probably with a whole new edition that you might like better. Thats what happened to me with 4th, I really hated the changes from 3rd to 4th, but the changes to 5th brought me back.

Curious that it is the ability to play a much more tactical game that attracted me back for 5th. The game is so much more fluid and mobile than it has ever been before.

I think that I played 4 games of 40k between the spring of 2007 and the release of Fifth edition.

One thing to keep in mind was that when fluffy BA, DA, and wolves were all competitive, fluffy Orks, Nids, Tau, and IG were all pretty weak. In addition, basic Ultramarines were really gimped throughout 3rd, since every sublist did what they did, only better. I'd also really challenge the notion that fluffy DA were all that good.

Any game with a point cost mechanic will never be balanced.

I agree with the OP in the belief that the game is more of a list game than tactics game and relatively boring. I've also found out that standing around for 3 or 4 turns equals a tie...not the best edition IMHO.

Bat Manuel wrote:I agree with the OP in the belief that the game is more of a list game than tactics game and relatively boring. I've also found out that standing around for 3 or 4 turns equals a tie...not the best edition IMHO.

I've actually found my 5th ed. games to be very engaging and not totally list based. For example, I played a friend's orks the other day and I can credit the win to the fact that I pulled my whole right flank in just as he was getting close, giving me enough time to shoot up his units. No single unit in my army did a whole lot of killing on its own (except the defiler. MVP).

To further prove this, I've played multiple games against an opponent (both using the same lists) and the results have varied wildly. It's still a game of tactics. The only exception I can think of would be a full fluff build versus a full power build.

I agree with the OP but it's hard to express discontent without harsh critism from loyalist factions. I have whole heartedly dived into Warmachine and will occasionally play a pickup 5th. In the meantime I have played for to long and enjoy the fluff for so many years that I have a hard time just dumping all of my armies. The following quote by Augustus really sums it up for me and a lot in my gaming group:

5th rules are broken, it's ok to be irritated and upset by this. I suggest it is because 5th edition is a poor game by a variety of standards. Largely because of codex imbalance, and immaturity of the 5th edition rule set. Clearly all the codices published so far are getting band-aid rules for 5th edition rule mistakes (combat squad, squad up, orders). Playing 5th ed codices against legacy codices (with none of the band aid rules) makes for handicapped 5th ed games, that are quite frankly, generally slanted.

Slanted is not fun.

Also, a word on army invalidation, having an army invalidated, by either being outright discontinued, (LATD, Iron Warriors, Swordwind, Black Guardians, etc) is just as bad if not worse than having an effective army nullified by the current rules (Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Tau). This relates heavily to the last publication of a codex, and that issue is where I think 60% of the blame lies, the remainder lying in very poor 5th ed mechanics, specificly, mission problems: Scoring units, Dawn of War & Kill Points, also Fantasy Battle style Melee and Morale rules, and contesting unit rules.

Having your army invalidated is not fun.

Perhaps winning is not important, but always playing for a tie, or getting tabled regularly isn't any fun either. There needs to be a better medium and until the rules are fixed, only player discretion can address this (FAQ from EU? Really?).

I started playing as a kid late in Second edition (when the Dark Millennium box came out IIRC). There were older players talking about how much better Rogue Trader was. I dropped out for 6 or 8 years and came back mid-3rd edition (around the time that the VDR came out maybe?) and I myself reminisced about how much better 2nd was versus 3rd. I dropped out again and pretty much gave 4th a miss (more-or-less). Now I'm back for 5th.

I have to say, 'twas ever thus. The people talking about how much better 4th was are the people who were derided as "the kids GW is luring in and ruining the game with" by old 3rd edition players, and so on and so on back into the mists of history. If you go back far enough you'll probably find play testers for Rogue Trader whining about how the release of RT "totally sold out".

This sounds snotty and dismissive and it isn't meant to. It's perfectly natural, every player idolizes the edition they started with and is utterly convinced that GW is ruining the hobby by dumbing down the rules. I think it's imprinting, like those geese that think some old Danish dude is their mother.

[/]

I have to say that after playing since just before Dark Millenium came out that I have actually never been happier w/a 40k rule set. For once my favorite game with guns and tanks and aliens is actually more balanced than Fantasy!

Personally I stopped playing 4th due to it being so much about list building and less about tactics (to me, i rarely lost in 4th, maybe 10% of my games). I could build a solid list in my head and smash face. 5th edition changed a lot of that. It's a lot more tactical with things like run, tlos, and the new combat rules (god i love the new morale rules for combat).

Now I will admit that it was a lot harder before groups and tournies around here geared up and got some los blocking terrain but since then i've never been happier with a rules set.

Just my two cents.

Doctor Optimal wrote:I started playing as a kid late in Second edition (when the Dark Millennium box came out IIRC). There were older players talking about how much better Rogue Trader was. I dropped out for 6 or 8 years and came back mid-3rd edition (around the time that the VDR came out maybe?) and I myself reminisced about how much better 2nd was versus 3rd. I dropped out again and pretty much gave 4th a miss (more-or-less). Now I'm back for 5th.

I have to say, 'twas ever thus. The people talking about how much better 4th was are the people who were derided as "the kids GW is luring in and ruining the game with" by old 3rd edition players, and so on and so on back into the mists of history. If you go back far enough you'll probably find play testers for Rogue Trader whining about how the release of RT "totally sold out".

This sounds snotty and dismissive and it isn't meant to. It's perfectly natural, every player idolizes the edition they started with and is utterly convinced that GW is ruining the hobby by dumbing down the rules. I think it's imprinting, like those geese that think some old Danish dude is their mother.

[/]

I have nothing to add. Well said, sir.

Mad Rabbit wrote:
I have nothing to add. Well said, sir.

That having been said, it's my opinion that GW really went the wrong way when they GRIMDARK-ed their fluff between Second and Third, especially for the Orks. I LIKE my boyz as anarchist chaotic-happy green fungoid space bears, thank you very much!

But that's just my opinion, and it's just fluff (and I still play them that way). The rules for RT were beyond complex, they were almost as byzantine as Departmento Munitorum ammunition requisition policy!

General Hobbs wrote:

I will preface this by saying my biggest problem with the game is the TLOS rules and the lack of blocking terrain that can't be destroyed in stores. With almost unlimited sightlines, it becomes harder to play a finesse tactical game IMHo.

I dunno. Ive played 40k since just before 3rd Ed... and I dont really remember the older versions of the game having any real tactical finesse. Like any Dice based Wargame the key to winning is getting the maximum number of dice possible down the other guys throat until he chokes to death on them.

If anything 5th Ed gives you much more flexibility with useful cover saves and lots of refinements that also helps keep the game running smoothly (And a slew of new loopholes, but eh)

Think about the game 15 some odd years ago.. god Im suprised they didnt make you roll the scatter dice for each individual Bolter round.

i played the heck out of 3rd and took 4th off (along with 90% of the people i used to play with, lol!). coming back to TLOS was especially jarring. we just had a terrain day at the store i'm now playing in and i directed the construction (the near sighted leading the blind). since i just recently came back to 40k, we made 3rd edition terrain with no LOS blocked. i'll have to think about that the next time we have a day like that...

The major problem with 5th is that you have armies still playing with books made in 3rd edition and 4th. pretty much the 5th edition codexes are close to eachother viability.

Several posters have stated that 40k does not require "tactics."

Of course, what they mean is strategy. List building has more to do with tactics than strategy (E.G.: take lots of meltas 'cause they're best for busting tanks).

If you say that 40k does not require strategic play to win... then you probably don't play very well, and have never faced truly skilled opponents.