PDA

View Full Version : Boycott Epic coming to 40K!



Dynamo
04-05-2015, 21:12
So having played this game since before it's inception as Rouge Trader, I've always seen it as more of a skirmish or small battle game. Seems to me it's practically becoming epic, on an epic scale!

I've found the introduction of Gargantuan creatures such as Wraithkights and and the like a little out of kilter with this ethos.

Even more so I've become especially miffed with the introduction of flyers.The fact that only very few units have the skyfire ability means air superiority is forcing me to buy into a game concept that I feel is out of place.

Furthermore, if it wasn't difficult enough taking out regular flyers, flying monstrous creatures (FMC), OMG! And it's not that I don't have a good flyer option, in fact, being Eldar I possibly have the best flyer in the form of the Crimson Hunter.

I imagine this is another BS means for GW to screw us over with marketing and squeeze more money out. Whatever, my rants will never change the money whore board that don't care about the game.

So I've decided to boycott stupid big units and flyers, but how can I do this whilst retaining a relatively fluffy army that isn't totally going to get pawned by flyers or FMC's?

I've tried the Guardian Host with three missile launchers, innumerable scatter lasers (SL) and shuriken cannon (SC). Even with these a FMC such as a Hive Tyrant having a 3+ save is nigh on impossible to even wound the bloody thing, let alone down it for a chance to put the beast down.

Your thoughts and suggestions welcome.

Navar
04-05-2015, 21:21
I love the big units and flyers. I think that are a TON of fun and really enjoy knight on wraithknight combat.
I have a few flyers from forge world, and I really enjoy dropping a fire raptor gunship into a hot zone.
I also really like the big robots from forge world. The Thatatur with its helix mortar can be a great time, and a small tag ohm force backs up my Iron Hands nicely.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Malixian
04-05-2015, 21:27
Honestly I'd just try to get a no flyers/super heavy homerule/league going at your FLGS. Barring that many terrain pieces come with icarus lascannons (well, the bastion does at least and my FLGS has like 4 or 5 of them) and the like and there are no hard rules on setting up terrain.

Hendarion
04-05-2015, 21:27
I also love the big stuff. If you don't, boycott it as much as you want. I will keep my lovely Nightwing, Phoenixes, Vampires and all the other stuff ;)

Dynamo
04-05-2015, 21:27
Hell, I don't even know what half of those units are! I thin you may be missing the point. GW has made it so that you don't have the choice but to buy into an ethos whether you agree with it or not. I don't think that's the best marketing policy, nor best for maintaining a positive fan base or enjoyable game.

Hendarion
04-05-2015, 21:29
Really, since when does 40k force you to buy stuff in order to play or compete? Oh right, ever since. Hmm. So what.

Theocracity
04-05-2015, 21:29
Preferences are preferences, so while I don't agree that big units and flyers are bad I'm not going to bother arguing about it. I suggest house rules to limit flyers and lords of war if they're a problem for you.

But specifically about your flyer problem - you could try out Swooping Hawks, as they're fantastic against flyers and fit your preferred infantry-based games. They're not as great against FMCs, but I'm not sure why you're having a problem grounding them - if I remember correctly, their 3+ save doesn't protect them from grounding tests, as they test based on hits not wounds. I would think you should be able to chuck enough hits their way to force grounding tears even without Skyfire, though I haven't done the math.

Hendarion
04-05-2015, 21:31
IIRC FMCs test for grounding based on wounds in 7th, not on hits like in 6th.

Theocracity
04-05-2015, 21:33
IIRC FMCs test for grounding based on wounds in 7th, not on hits like in 6th.

Really? I knew it switched from one to the other, but I had it in my head it was the other way. It's been a while since I faced them and I usually ignore them when I do, as I purposefully build with no Skyfire (except for my bomma).

Adyger
04-05-2015, 21:51
To be honest, I really think it makes more sense that they test on wounds and not just on hits. If I was a giant flying monster and got hit by a pellet gun, I don't see why I would crash to the ground.

Felwether
04-05-2015, 21:53
FMCs only ever have to take one grounding tests test at the end of the phase now if I remember correctly.

Theocracity
04-05-2015, 21:59
To be honest, I really think it makes more sense that they test on wounds and not just on hits. If I was a giant flying monster and got hit by a pellet gun, I don't see why I would crash to the ground.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right - I remember being annoyed at the idea of a markerlight downing an FMC back in 6th. Stupid faulty memory.

Still, though, I'm not sure that a flying Hive Tyrant is exactly what I'd call "Epic coming to 40k." Sure they're good and could be hard to handle, but that's a concept that's been around forever and is never brought up when people talk about 40k's scale getting too big. Regular flyers maybe, but as I said swooping hawks or reapers can handle them without feeling forced to scale up in response.

Scribe of Khorne
04-05-2015, 22:06
I enjoy flyers as they are just one more tank/vehicle on the table, I do not enjoy Lords of War however as the damage to points ratio's in comparison to infantry are just ****ed.

Beppo1234
04-05-2015, 22:27
the game is changing, adapt and overcome!

and lets be fair, GW has been moving the 40k scaled game towards epic sized battles for a long long long time. It was inevitable

I was against flyers (because the marine brand is *****) and superheavies for the most part. But as I finish off my big army project(s), it seems appropriate to add a little bit of flight, LOW, and some D strength to deal out if needed. Adapting to the new reality of 40k was painful, mostly because of new constraints added to weapon/unit/army choices. But I'm over it now

The Black Shield
04-05-2015, 22:36
I haven't actually played per se since 5th. I just collect, paint, and enjoy the fluff.

Spiney Norman
04-05-2015, 22:43
Really, since when does 40k force you to buy stuff in order to play or compete? Oh right, ever since. Hmm. So what.

That kind of depends what you want out of the game, if you're content to shuffle your units around the board knowing full well you don't have the tools required to kill the wraithknight(s) and you have, in fact, lost before you begin, then 40k as it is now is perfect for you. As a game it's utter garbage to have elements like that in it and anyone who wants a strategic, rewarding gaming experience is going to be sadly disappointed.

If you want to contest victory in 40k, yes you have to buy the flavour of the month, because this game is not about strategy or tactics (or knowing the difference between the two), it's about bringing the best stuff because the points system is fundamentally broken and, as such, utterly meaningless.

Warllama
04-05-2015, 23:42
This might be controversial but what I'd do is... Put all the time and energy spent bemoaning, complaining and fretting, into something positive like figuring out how to have a good fun time, and just doing that. As it turns out this can not only apply to our 40k games but life in general!

Dynamo
04-05-2015, 23:46
That kind of depends what you want out of the game, if you're content to shuffle your units around the board knowing full well you don't have the tools required to kill the wraithknight(s) and you have, in fact, lost before you begin, then 40k as it is now is perfect for you. As a game it's utter garbage to have elements like that in it and anyone who wants a strategic, rewarding gaming experience is going to be sadly disappointed.

If you want to contest victory in 40k, yes you have to buy the flavour of the month, because this game is not about strategy or tactics (or knowing the difference between the two), it's about bringing the best stuff because the points system is fundamentally broken and, as such, utterly meaningless.

Sadly I don't really have the time to paint an all that. As much as I'd like a lovely looking army that will be a long time in the making. When I was a poor kid, I'd be fielding huge armies consisting of 2 pence coins with paper labels taped on. I didn't mind too much that I didn't have the right models and neither did my friends.

Hell we used to role play a lot, where it was entirely in your imagination. Seems GW has lost some of that. We even forged a very convincing early version of Necromunda game with gangs from a whole bunch of different White Dwarf mags. Was so awesome.

For me it's all about the potentially awesome strategic/tactical game. As you've said, in this I'm incredibly disappointed from GW. It's all about what new beast can I out gun/squish/move/crush with. It just becomes an arms race that makes the rest of your miniatures redundant and feeling unloved (I actually have miniatures now I'm an adult with a job that can pay for the exorbitant prices).

Disposable Hero
04-05-2015, 23:50
That kind of depends what you want out of the game, if you're content to shuffle your units around the board knowing full well you don't have the tools required to kill the wraithknight(s) and you have, in fact, lost before you begin, then 40k as it is now is perfect for you. As a game it's utter garbage to have elements like that in it and anyone who wants a strategic, rewarding gaming experience is going to be sadly disappointed.

If you want to contest victory in 40k, yes you have to buy the flavour of the month, because this game is not about strategy or tactics (or knowing the difference between the two), it's about bringing the best stuff because the points system is fundamentally broken and, as such, utterly meaningless.

Exactly my sentiments.

I have painted tons and tons of Krieg, Elysians, Renegades and whatnots. Only thing I see are brown Riptides and yellow/Blue Eldar big things across the table.

insectum7
04-05-2015, 23:53
I already boycott the big stuff, and I don't buy obnoxious new units just because they're reasonably effective (like Centurions). What I spend my time doing instead is finding ways to use my older stuff to combat the new stuff.

The easiest solution to combat my current 40K challenge would be to buy one of them FW Typhon tanks. But I ain't gonna. I'll stick it out with my more traditional units.

Theocracity
05-05-2015, 00:21
Sadly I don't really have the time to paint an all that. As much as I'd like a lovely looking army that will be a long time in the making. When I was a poor kid, I'd be fielding huge armies consisting of 2 pence coins with paper labels taped on. I didn't mind too much that I didn't have the right models and neither did my friends.

Hell we used to role play a lot, where it was entirely in your imagination. Seems GW has lost some of that. We even forged a very convincing early version of Necromunda game with gangs from a whole bunch of different White Dwarf mags. Was so awesome.

For me it's all about the potentially awesome strategic/tactical game. As you've said, in this I'm incredibly disappointed from GW. It's all about what new beast can I out gun/squish/move/crush with. It just becomes an arms race that makes the rest of your miniatures redundant and feeling unloved (I actually have miniatures now I'm an adult with a job that can pay for the exorbitant prices).

Sounds like you'd have fun playing any of the 40k RPGs from Fantasy Flight Games with GW's miniatures to scratch your 40k itch, and playing any of the more tightly constructed games like Infinity for your tactical itch.

40k can act as a meeting point between those two fields, but if you're having trouble with the balancing act necessary to keep it up it might make sense to go deeper into the RPG or tactical sides instead.

The other option as mentioned is to just play the way you want and not fret about what's happening in the larger field of 40k that might not have any bearing on how you play (depending on your meta).

stroller
05-05-2015, 00:29
I bought my first flyers last year - they haven't seen the table yet.

I bought my first gargantuan monster then too - it too has yet to play.

Both will see play in apocalypse this year.

In 1500 pts or thereabouts few of my regular opponents include either in their lists.

We still manage to have fun!

Dynamo
05-05-2015, 00:37
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right - I remember being annoyed at the idea of a markerlight downing an FMC back in 6th. Stupid faulty memory.

Still, though, I'm not sure that a flying Hive Tyrant is exactly what I'd call "Epic coming to 40k."

Ok so FMC are not Epic come to 40K, but still a huge over powered unit or simply stupidly difficult to deal with.


swooping hawks or reapers can handle them without feeling forced to scale up in response.

I'd like to see how you'd take down a FMC with reapers since only the Exarch can get Skyfire or Swooping Hawks for that matter (good luck catching the brute, and surviving).

Turn one the FMC will obliterate anything it wants with 12 twin-linked S6 shots when it's effectively reach is the whole of a 4'x6' table :wtf:! You can't jsut ignore something that will take out a unit each turn :cheese:

Some dirty math hammer on shots to wound/down (cause 1 wound & have fail grounding test) on MFC;
7/20 flakk/starhawk
7/22 Bright Lance (assuming hasn't jinked)
7/22 Pulse Laser (assuming hasn't jinked)
7/22 Las Cannon (assuming hasn't jinked)
18/54 Reaper Launcher (assuming hasn't jinked)
14/43 Bright Lance (Jink)
14/43 Pulse Laser (Jink)
14/43 Las Cannon (Jink)
36/108 Reaper Launcher (Jink)
22/65 Shuriken Cannon
27/81 Heavy Bolter
36/108 Swooping Hawk
36/108 Scatter Laser
36/194 Shuriken Catapult
108/324 Bolter

I have literally had my whole army shoot everything at a flying hive tyrant or similar and see absolutely nothing happen. Several times! Even if I decided to go in with a flyer that would likely be toast before it could kill the damn thing. Flyers should be flimsy, even if they are monsters. Making grounding on being hit whilst gliding say would be more balanced, limiting their range a little. And I think a jet plane would be moving a little faster than a lumbering monster anyway! Perhaps make it hit on 4+. Still not going to happen in my life I suspect.

Just saying...

Theocracity
05-05-2015, 00:55
I'd like to see how you'd take down a FMC with reapers since only the Exarch can get Skyfire or Swooping Hawks for that matter (good luck catching the brute, and surviving).

I had picked up the impression that Eldar Missile Launchers got flakk upgrades with the last codex, and people were big upping Reapers in some of the threads. I could easily be wrong about that though. Hawks might not solve your FMC problem, but an 18" haywire vector strike coming out from LOS cover is really dangerous for vehicle flyers.


Turn one the FMC will obliterate anything it wants with 12 twin-linked S6 shots when it's effectively reach is the whole of a 4'x6' table :wtf:! You can't jsut ignore something that will take out a unit each turn :cheese:

Well, I play Orks, so in certain cases I can afford that :). What kind of terrain does your table have? Adding some more large sight-blockers that can't be easily dodged around (or places where your troops can bunker) might help alleviate the concern, even with its mobility.

I've always been a big fan of playing around flyers by exploiting their mobility and fire arc limitations instead of trying to shoot them down. FMCs having 360 arcs does kind of hamper that strategy though. I wouldn't discount the effectiveness of rival planes - they're very good at alpha striking if they come on the board after their target, and you could at least have a better shot of grounding them. Though if you don't like planes in the first place and you're not a fan of the other strategies listed then we're back to square one, and I repeat my former advice about different games :p.

R.D.
05-05-2015, 01:52
Play Kill Team. There.

LegioDestructor
05-05-2015, 04:08
So having played this game since before it's inception as Rouge Trader, I've always seen it as more of a skirmish or small battle game. Seems to me it's practically becoming epic, on an epic scale! I've found the introduction of Gargantuan creatures such as Wraithkights and and the like a little out of kilter with this ethos.
Having giant walkers and tanks blast each other and vapourize infantry has always been in the 40k ethos, just rarely represented on the tabletop. Emperor Titan, Capitol Imperialis, Mega Gargant, Tyranid Dominatrix... massive war engines have always been around, just never had any models or rules [and some players even made their own] - but I'm guessing this has more to do with GW's abilities as a company during the early days rather than them wanting it to stay "skirmish-scale". Deodorant hovertanks, cardboard Ork Dreadnoughts, instructions to make your own Wave Serpent... we've come a long way and I think it's only improved.


For me it's all about the potentially awesome strategic/tactical game. As you've said, in this I'm incredibly disappointed from GW. It's all about what new beast can I out gun/squish/move/crush with. It just becomes an arms race that makes the rest of your miniatures redundant and feeling unloved (I actually have miniatures now I'm an adult with a job that can pay for the exorbitant prices).Well, are you disappointed because you want it to stay small-scale, or because you find it hard to deal with superheavies? For the former, just limit your games to 500pts. The latter is down to tactics.

If you want to bring a knife to a gun fight, then at least you can try and level the playing field. Use terrain to block LoS from heavy artillery. Use sniping towers and firelanes to pick off Close Combat monsters. FMCs are tough bastards, so you need an immoveable object to blunt its unstoppable force. Fire Dragons? D-Cannons? Wraithlord? These guys aren't new to the Eldar roster. Scatter Lasers mounted on Falcons and War Walkers will improve shots with their Laser Lock rule.


I had picked up the impression that Eldar Missile Launchers got flakk upgrades with the last codex, and people were big upping Reapers in some of the threads.
Only War Walkers and the Reaper Exarch has access to Flakk Missiles, but all Reapers deny Jink Saves [Wargear: Rangefinder], and their Starshot missiles hurt as much as a Bright Lance... so those 22 shots required could come from a single, albeit expensive, unit of Dark Reapers shooting for two turns.

I'm all for importing Epic units into 40k Apocalypse, and the more there are the more options we have. My opponent is bringing a Titan; do I bring a Titan too? Or a titan-killer superheavy? Or a tank-hunter squadron, or an artillery battery, or an aircraft... Formations are almost always composed of existing units, not new superheavies, and often include rules for being able to compete in such a massive warzone.

Pink Horror
05-05-2015, 04:44
I've tried the Guardian Host with three missile launchers, innumerable scatter lasers (SL) and shuriken cannon (SC). Even with these a FMC such as a Hive Tyrant having a 3+ save is nigh on impossible to even wound the bloody thing, let alone down it for a chance to put the beast down.

The Eldar player is whining because there are other armies that have some powerful toys. :p

You might want to look at the special rules for Dark Reapers again. They re-roll hits against swooping targets and don't allow jink saves.

SuperHappyTime
05-05-2015, 04:46
Well, are you disappointed because you want it to stay small-scale, or because you find it hard to deal with superheavies? For the former, just limit your games to 500pts. The latter is down to tactics.

I'm just disappointed that you bringing a superheavy is justified, but I can't give plasma guns to every member of a tactical squad.

Saunders
05-05-2015, 04:59
Some dirty math hammer on shots to wound/down (cause 1 wound & have fail grounding test) on MFC;
7/20 flakk/starhawk
7/22 Bright Lance (assuming hasn't jinked)
7/22 Pulse Laser (assuming hasn't jinked)
7/22 Las Cannon (assuming hasn't jinked)
18/54 Reaper Launcher (assuming hasn't jinked)
14/43 Bright Lance (Jink)
14/43 Pulse Laser (Jink)
14/43 Las Cannon (Jink)
36/108 Reaper Launcher (Jink)
22/65 Shuriken Cannon
27/81 Heavy Bolter
36/108 Swooping Hawk
36/108 Scatter Laser
36/194 Shuriken Catapult
108/324 Bolter

You brushed aside one of the better means Eldar have to deal with flying monstrous creatures: Dark Reapers. They actually ignore jink saves and reroll misses against zooming/flying/flat out stuff. You can plink away from 48" out with reaper launchers, and with 3+ armor saves they stand a decent chance of holding strong against any counterattacks.

Alternatively, a crimson hunter exarch w/starcannons can give them hell. Since you're starting with it in reserve, the crimson hunter will get the first shot off.

Not sure what that has to do with Epic, at any rate.

Losing Command
05-05-2015, 05:02
I don't have any of the big models, and almost never field flyers (too often have I been screwed by failed reserve rolls) My marines seem to do fine, I wouldn't say you need to jump on the bandwagon and buy flyers and big models just to stay competative.

Hendarion
05-05-2015, 05:48
It just becomes an arms race that makes the rest of your miniatures redundant and feeling unloved (I actually have miniatures now I'm an adult with a job that can pay for the exorbitant prices).40k always has been an arms race. You always needed unit X to counter unit Y and with each Codex more were added. Even worse, with each Codex a useful unit often got totally screwed and became unusable. That has nothing to do in particular with flyers or super heavies. There are some quite mediocre flyers and super heavies in the game actually.

Saunders
05-05-2015, 06:05
Ah, to be back in simpler times. When a death star meant an entire army of farseers and warlocks in one unit, and invisibility meant your Keeper of Secrets was untargettable.

Back then, wraithcannons always wounded on a 4+ and wraithguard were T5 at 35 points a pop. They also had a tendency of doing nothing for a turn on a D6 roll of 1, unless a psyker was escorting them.

My capacity for pity is limited, it seems.

Scribe of Khorne
05-05-2015, 06:18
Play Kill Team. There.

There's something to this as well. Kill Team can be a lot of fun.

skorczeny
05-05-2015, 12:25
Play 2nd edition 40k.

ObiWayneKenobi
05-05-2015, 12:35
The problem I have with the current direction, as an ex player constantly thinking of returning, is that the rules are still for company level games. The rules seem to haven't changed much since 3rd edition, but the game has expanded to be larger and larger and it's all just kind of shoehorned in. Flyers and superheavies IMHO have no place being the way they are in the game - flyers in particular should have been done like in Bolt Action where they basically do a bombing run and that's it and don't directly fight.

It seems like the rules are breaking down due to the increasing size without consolidating and simplifying the rules. If it's meant to be large battles the rules need to be changed to accommodate that, not just have it tacked on.

Haravikk
05-05-2015, 13:43
I don't mind the big stuff for big games, or for narrative campaigns (e.g- protect/repair a damage Baneblade). I think the problem is that the 40k rules are no longer as well suited for really small games, which is annoying as all it would really require is slightly different force organisation (so you don't get someone bringing a Wraithknight to a 500 point game), and maybe some low-level skirmish stuff.

For example, I've been devising a simple Skirmish mini-game, and was thinking that a good one would a battle of Inquisitorial Warbands; i.e- 250 points, 1 Inquisitor + war band models, all models function Independent Characters (minus improved Look Out Sir!), but can still form regular units whenever they like. With the right mission objectives it could be a great way to play quick games with very few models.

That's exactly the kind of thing that 40k needs, and is what I was hoping the new Assassin game might introduce, but nope. A decent set of missions and altered force organisation for small games would make it much easier to play quick, small games, ideal for getting players into the hobby. There will always be an appeal to play bigger games for those that want to, so by all means, give them super-heavies to play with, but to me 40k should be about the heroism of the individuals fighting in bloody urban clashes.


I don't want to place blame, but I do feel that the Imperial Guard are a part of the problem; they keep getting more access to cheaper tanks, but a tank heavy army was never going to be a good thing to have in a game that should really be infantry focused. I liked in 2nd edition when tanks felt powerful, but weren't very common; there was drama in dealing with them as you tried to focus on taking out the weaker turrets and sponsons before bringing it down for good. But as tanks became more common, so did anti-tank, and it kind of spiralled out of control, though it was a while ago so maybe I'm just look back nostalgically :)

Malixian
05-05-2015, 14:12
So having played this game since before it's inception as Rouge Trader, I've always seen it as more of a skirmish or small battle game. Seems to me it's practically becoming epic, on an epic scale!

I've found the introduction of Gargantuan creatures such as Wraithkights and and the like a little out of kilter with this ethos.

Even more so I've become especially miffed with the introduction of flyers.The fact that only very few units have the skyfire ability means air superiority is forcing me to buy into a game concept that I feel is out of place.

Furthermore, if it wasn't difficult enough taking out regular flyers, flying monstrous creatures (FMC), OMG! And it's not that I don't have a good flyer option, in fact, being Eldar I possibly have the best flyer in the form of the Crimson Hunter.

I imagine this is another BS means for GW to screw us over with marketing and squeeze more money out. Whatever, my rants will never change the money whore board that don't care about the game.

So I've decided to boycott stupid big units and flyers, but how can I do this whilst retaining a relatively fluffy army that isn't totally going to get pawned by flyers or FMC's?

I've tried the Guardian Host with three missile launchers, innumerable scatter lasers (SL) and shuriken cannon (SC). Even with these a FMC such as a Hive Tyrant having a 3+ save is nigh on impossible to even wound the bloody thing, let alone down it for a chance to put the beast down.

Your thoughts and suggestions welcome.

I haven't read the new codex yet but according to battlescribe every eldar missle launcher comes with the skyfire option. I would think it would be very easy to make an Eldar list bristling with anti-air options. Also what people said about Dark Reapers (the Exarch can shoot twice too).

Edit: I'm actually liking the Eldar codex the more I read it. It seems to be able to deal with superheavies/gargantuans/flyers with fluffy all comers lists that wouldn't be completely unfair against armies that don't include them (assuming you leave the Wraithknight home, that thing is crazy op).

gwarsh41
05-05-2015, 14:14
So you enjoy a tactical game, but you are miffed and boycotting because you don't want to change your tactics?

ObiWayneKenobi
05-05-2015, 14:21
So you enjoy a tactical game, but you are miffed and boycotting because you don't want to change your tactics?

40k is about as far from a tactical game as one can get. Most of the tactics are in what you bring, not how you use it. The game has about as much tactics as a game of Craps.

gwarsh41
05-05-2015, 14:25
Well that hasn't changed since 5th edition, so I don't get what the complaining is about. As far from a tactical game as one can get is flipping a coin 5 times and seeing which side lands up more often. If 40k was such a terrible tactical game, then why are such strange lists winning big tournaments, and the death stars are not?

If you want the game to be tactical, that is up to you. You can also just bring an unbound list with 2 warhound titans.

A.T.
05-05-2015, 14:25
I don't want to place blame, but I do feel that the Imperial Guard are a part of the problem; they keep getting more access to cheaper tanks, but a tank heavy army was never going to be a good thing(peers on old guard books) guard tanks have generally gone up in cost over the editions.

As an extreme example, in 2nd edition you got two full russes (with lascannon and sponsons) for around the same cost as a single tactical squad with flamer, missile launcher, and sarge with a power weapon (rhino not included).

Navar
05-05-2015, 14:52
Hell, I don't even know what half of those units are! I thin you may be missing the point. GW has made it so that you don't have the choice but to buy into an ethos whether you agree with it or not. I don't think that's the best marketing policy, nor best for maintaining a positive fan base or enjoyable game.


That kind of depends what you want out of the game, if you're content to shuffle your units around the board knowing full well you don't have the tools required to kill the wraithknight(s) and you have, in fact, lost before you begin, then 40k as it is now is perfect for you. As a game it's utter garbage to have elements like that in it and anyone who wants a strategic, rewarding gaming experience is going to be sadly disappointed.

If you want to contest victory in 40k, yes you have to buy the flavour of the month, because this game is not about strategy or tactics (or knowing the difference between the two), it's about bringing the best stuff because the points system is fundamentally broken and, as such, utterly meaningless.

I don't think I am missing the point. To me, the point is to have fun and play some great games. I bring about 3,000 points with me when I show up for games to the shop. Then after I see what other people are playing I grab one of 2-3 lists that I made in advance on Army Builder and try to have a fun game. If I am playing versus a mate and we schedule it in advance I usually send over a draft of my list so they can know what to expect. If they don't think they can deal with a Fire Raptor or whatever then they let me know and I change my list. All so we can have an amazing game. I don't know who lives in an environment where every game is a tournament level game where all of the players bring WAAC lists to every game, but I feel sorry for them.


Sadly I don't really have the time to paint an all that. As much as I'd like a lovely looking army that will be a long time in the making. When I was a poor kid, I'd be fielding huge armies consisting of 2 pence coins with paper labels taped on. I didn't mind too much that I didn't have the right models and neither did my friends.

Hell we used to role play a lot, where it was entirely in your imagination. Seems GW has lost some of that. We even forged a very convincing early version of Necromunda game with gangs from a whole bunch of different White Dwarf mags. Was so awesome.

For me it's all about the potentially awesome strategic/tactical game. As you've said, in this I'm incredibly disappointed from GW. It's all about what new beast can I out gun/squish/move/crush with. It just becomes an arms race that makes the rest of your miniatures redundant and feeling unloved (I actually have miniatures now I'm an adult with a job that can pay for the exorbitant prices).

You have to make time to paint. As long as you think the majority of this game is about putting pieces of plastic on the table to see who can outspend their opponent, then I would argue, no matter what the outcome of the individual games is, you have already lost.

Find an army you love and do it to 11. I have spent 3 years on my Iron Hands / Taghmata Omnissiah / (now Skatarri) force, and I still have great hobby/painting/modding/etc. opportunities outside of bringing the boys out for some amazing games.

If you really live in an environment where your last sentence is true then I honestly feel bad for you. You just need to find some mates who just want to have a good time with the miniatures and go from there. The arms race is not a necessary part of the game.

Navar
05-05-2015, 14:59
I'm just disappointed that you bringing a superheavy is justified, but I can't give plasma guns to every member of a tactical squad.

In 30k you can, they just cannot fill a compulsory troop slot.

If you haven't looked into 30k I STRONGLY recommend it; I find it rare that an opponent won't play versus a list made with 30k rules.

Spiney Norman
05-05-2015, 15:16
In 30k you can, they just cannot fill a compulsory troop slot.

If you haven't looked into 30k I STRONGLY recommend it; I find it rare that an opponent won't play versus a list made with 30k rules.

I would echo this, the 30k lists have incredibly good balance, more so that 40k ever has. As with all things it depends on the availability of opponents though, given the high cost of getting into 30k opponents are incredibly rare. I currently have to travel a fair distance to source a 30k game, while 40k games tend to be common and less-pleasant.

Navar
05-05-2015, 15:30
I would echo this, the 30k lists have incredibly good balance, more so that 40k ever has. As with all things it depends on the availability of opponents though, given the high cost of getting into 30k opponents are incredibly rare. I currently have to travel a fair distance to source a 30k game, while 40k games tend to be common and less-pleasant.

I agree, though, as I said, I have only had 1 opponent who just refused to play versus an Iron Hands list I made with the 30k rule set (and this was a list void of special characters.)

So I used the same models (though I did add a thunderfire cannon) and played the game with 40k rules.

After the game I invited him to look over the two lists and the next time I saw him we played with 30k rules.

I wish I could say that he preferred the 30k army list (because I know I do) but after 2 games he said he would rather just play 40k rules.

He is far and away the minority though, and most opponents don't care if I pull my army list from the 30k rules or the 40k rules, and I will happily play versus whatever 40k list.

One of my regular opponents plays Orks and we have some amazing Iron Hands and Taghmata Omnissiah versus Orks led by Ghazghkull Thraka.

Spiney Norman
05-05-2015, 16:16
I agree, though, as I said, I have only had 1 opponent who just refused to play versus an Iron Hands list I made with the 30k rule set (and this was a list void of special characters.)

So I used the same models (though I did add a thunderfire cannon) and played the game with 40k rules.

After the game I invited him to look over the two lists and the next time I saw him we played with 30k rules.

I wish I could say that he preferred the 30k army list (because I know I do) but after 2 games he said he would rather just play 40k rules.

He is far and away the minority though, and most opponents don't care if I pull my army list from the 30k rules or the 40k rules, and I will happily play versus whatever 40k list.

One of my regular opponents plays Orks and we have some amazing Iron Hands and Taghmata Omnissiah versus Orks led by Ghazghkull Thraka.

You have very understanding opponents, most of them get as far as the tactical support squad, read 'unit full of plasma guns' and politely decline, the general perception here is that 30k is a self contained game that is not designed to be played with 40k thanks very much. On the other hand there are clues that Tempest will have rules for using daemons of chaos in Age of Darkness games so that has the potential to draw a bunch more 40kers into our little 30k enclave.

Navar
05-05-2015, 16:32
You have very understanding opponents, most of them get as far as the tactical support squad, read 'unit full of plasma guns' and politely decline, the general perception here is that 30k is a self contained game that is not designed to be played with 40k thanks very much. On the other hand there are clues that Tempest will have rules for using daemons of chaos in Age of Darkness games so that has the potential to draw a bunch more 40kers into our little 30k enclave.

This is likely very much the case. I live in a college town and they were down with crazy Forge World armies before I even moved here, so they accept new things and move on fairly quickly.

But that is fantastic news about Tempest. Anything that gets them more together is better IMHO.

I have said for a few years now that 30k is the true Warhammer: 40,000. At least as far as some Space Marine Chapters and several Chaos Space Marines legions are concerned.

Dominoris
05-05-2015, 16:57
Grrrr,
You got my hopes up.

It's not EPIC in 40K (which I would love to see). It's Apocalypse in 40K.

gwarsh41
05-05-2015, 17:31
Grrrr,
You got my hopes up.

It's not EPIC in 40K (which I would love to see). It's Apocalypse in 40K.

I've always thought that a campaign that is played with EPIC and 40k at the same time would be awesome. Each little EPIC skirmish is played out with 40k. It would be imbalanced and take forever, but might be enjoyable. Risk might be fun too, my 1000pt of Tau invade your 300Pt of Space marines on a small continent, making the battle a 2x2 square.

Minsc
05-05-2015, 17:37
I enjoy flyers as they are just one more tank/vehicle on the table, I do not enjoy Lords of War however as the damage to points ratio's in comparison to infantry are just ****ed.

Don't generalize. Abaddon is a LoW, the Eldar Avatar is a LoW.

They're hardly comparable to Stompas and Wraithknights. :p

Scribe of Khorne
05-05-2015, 21:32
Don't generalize. Abaddon is a LoW, the Eldar Avatar is a LoW.

They're hardly comparable to Stompas and Wraithknights. :p

Putting Abby to LoW was just so people couldnt say "I'm not playing against a LoW". :p

Should go without saying I mean Super Heavies, and Gargantuan Creatures, but yeah.

Saunders
05-05-2015, 22:03
Draigo and the Avatar of Khaine may as well be tiered with super-heavies for all that they bring to the table as Lords of War.

Abaddon is more a consiquence of all Chapter Master-equivalents becoming Lords of War (Draigo falls under that as well, but nobody is going to argue he isn't a level above other Chapter Master equivalents). Personally, moving all Chapter Masters to LoW by default is one of the most clever things GW has done of late, IMO. It makes the Chapter Master less of a Captain +1, being that it would not fill the obligated HQ slot. The current Space Marines codex has relegated the Captain to somewhat of an unused role, and this would help restore it.

That is to say, I am operating under the assumption that Abaddon *will* become a Lord of War, not that he already is. Also, rather off-topic...

Bergen Beerbelly
05-05-2015, 23:04
This is something GW has wanted to do for years. I have an old White Dwarf from sometime around 4th or 5th edition. In it, Jervis Johnson waffles on about how he is very happy that GW can now make 40k into the game they wanted to because of the advancement of technology. Instead, they were forced to make Epic Space Marine. What they wanted to do was to make Epic Space Marine in 40k scale. Now they are able to as was always their intention.

I am very happy about it as Epic Space Marine is an incredible game and 40k would improve immensely if it ran like that game did. I don't see the rules changing to Epic anytime soon but the big models and the cool rules they have been putting out lately make me very happy.

DomZeqalStigaf
05-05-2015, 23:17
That kind of depends what you want out of the game, if you're content to shuffle your units around the board knowing full well you don't have the tools required to kill the wraithknight(s) and you have, in fact, lost before you begin, then 40k as it is now is perfect for you. As a game it's utter garbage to have elements like that in it and anyone who wants a strategic, rewarding gaming experience is going to be sadly disappointed.

Hasn't this been in the game since the beginning with Land Raiders and Monoliths? There are few weapons that effectively take them on and even in old days you could build Land Raider armies. Certainly the effectiveness of Melta and Lance help here, but so does AP3 or Instant Death on a Wraithknight.

I agree that it's not the best balanced game or even a good game in general, but it's not new. 60 point Carnifexes (or whatever) were certainly not a good place for the game to be awhile back, this is just the newest case of "GW has no idea what they're doing."

Spiney Norman
05-05-2015, 23:44
Hasn't this been in the game since the beginning with Land Raiders and Monoliths? There are few weapons that effectively take them on and even in old days you could build Land Raider armies. Certainly the effectiveness of Melta and Lance help here, but so does AP3 or Instant Death on a Wraithknight.

I agree that it's not the best balanced game or even a good game in general, but it's not new. 60 point Carnifexes (or whatever) were certainly not a good place for the game to be awhile back, this is just the newest case of "GW has no idea what they're doing."

You can't instant death a WK as its a gargantuan (though I guess it would strip off its FNP), plus it is T8 so almost nothing in the game is capable of IDing it (flesh gauntlets and S5+ Force weapons being the only ones I can think of).

Quite beside that, Land raiders are a pretty terrible comparison, firstly they are generally considered pretty poor value for points since lance and melta weapons (which almost all armies have access to in some form) make pretty light work of heavy armour, coupled with all the issues that vehicles have to deal with thanks to the damage chart (which MCs & Gargants don't have to deal with), they are in a far worse position.

Arijharn
06-05-2015, 04:06
In response to the OP: No.

The reason is simple, it's always up to the players themselves to decide what is or isn't within the bounds of their game at the end of the day. Games Workshop shouldn't hand hold us any more than necessary (i.e., points values, force org or what have you).

If you want to be a no-holds barred take-no-prisoners player, otherwise known as "that guy" then more power to you, you may or may not have regular opponents. If you prefer to be more fluffy or whatever, then more power to you as well. Lets face it, this is the internet, and the Warseer community at that whose toxicness is only really surpassed by the WoW and League of Legends communities really. What I'm trying to say is that the sky isn't really falling.

Epic is fun anyway.

Spell_of_Destruction
06-05-2015, 04:33
The OP might want to have a look through this recent thread which was a comprehensive discussion of this very topic (although it did descend into quote tennis towards the end).

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?406156-40k-is-in-the-wrong-scale-worked-in-RT-and-2nd-ed-but-not-in-6th-and-7th

Losing Command
06-05-2015, 07:31
Draigo and the Avatar of Khaine may as well be tiered with super-heavies for all that they bring to the table as Lords of War.

That statement makes me doubt you have seen the latest rules for Draigo. While good, he has nowhere near the same threat level and damage potential of a superheavy - same goes for an Avatar of Khaine. The move to LoW also means that they can no longer be the leader of your army, as you will still need an HQ, and take up a slot of what most people consider heavy support +.

Lord of War does describe what they are in the fluff, but that should NOT mean they have to compete for a slot with things like Warhound Titans.

Saunders
06-05-2015, 07:42
That statement makes me doubt you have seen the latest rules for Draigo. While good, he has nowhere near the same threat level and damage potential of a superheavy - same goes for an Avatar of Khaine. The move to LoW also means that they can no longer be the leader of your army, as you will still need an HQ, and take up a slot of what most people consider heavy support +.

Lord of War does describe what they are in the fluff, but that should NOT mean they have to compete for a slot with things like Warhound Titans.

Draigo has Gate of Infinity stock, and is perhaps the toughest space marine character out there. He can bring a squad anywhere on the board and deal with nearly any threat.

Avatar has a Rage + Furious Charge + Fearless 12" bubble, along with improved Greater Daemon states.

Both of these characters are certainly Lords of War. LoW does not necessarily mean super-heavy, so much as it means a pivotal model within the army list; I'm not sure if you understand that.

Losing Command
06-05-2015, 08:16
Draigo has Gate of Infinity stock, and is perhaps the toughest space marine character out there. He can bring a squad anywhere on the board and deal with nearly any threat.

Avatar has a Rage + Furious Charge + Fearless 12" bubble, along with improved Greater Daemon states.

Both of these characters are certainly Lords of War. LoW does not necessarily mean super-heavy, so much as it means a pivotal model within the army list; I'm not sure if you understand that.

I do, I just don't think those models are pivotal enough compared to the other options of that slot. My Librarian with ML 3 and relic that allows another roll on the sanctic table has been a whole lot more pivotal than Draigo could ever be in my opinion, regularly teleporting squads around the table and nuking units with soulblaze and vortex of doom. Should that mean he should also become a LoW ? His utility seems to be as high (if not higher) than Draigo, who does always have the teleport but no ranged damage potential beyond a stormbolter in an edition where assault is hard to pull off without transport or fancy rules.

Saunders
06-05-2015, 08:27
I do, I just don't think those models are pivotal enough compared to the other options of that slot. My Librarian with ML 3 and relic that allows another roll on the sanctic table has been a whole lot more pivotal than Draigo could ever be in my opinion, regularly teleporting squads around the table and nuking units with soulblaze and vortex of doom. Should that mean he should also become a LoW ? His utility seems to be as high (if not higher) than Draigo, who does always have the teleport but no ranged damage potential beyond a stormbolter in an edition where assault is hard to pull off without transport or fancy rules.

I suppose the question is, at the end of the day, what do you think are important qualifications to fit in to the Lord of War entry?

Spiney Norman
06-05-2015, 08:38
I suppose the question is, at the end of the day, what do you think are important qualifications to fit in to the Lord of War entry?

I think Gw have backed themelves into a hole with this one, the fairly obviously invented the LoW slot to encourage use of their big kits like the Lord of Skulls, Baneblade, T. Vault etc in normal games because not as many people are playing apoc and the kits just weren't moving. The problem is not every army has those big kits, and it seems they weremt in a position to throw out multiple new large-scale kits for the armies that don't have them. So they looked at what FW were doing with the HH game, saw that primarchs were LoW and thought 'aha, important special characters, they could be LoWs' and so we get characters like Imotek and Dante becoming token 'stand-ins' to give their armies something to go in that FOC slot.

Arijharn
06-05-2015, 09:48
along with improved Greater Daemon states.

You know, I'm still waiting for them to put back the 'Greater' into Greater Daemons. Personally I think they're only marginally more powerful than a Daemon Prince. If I had my way they would all be Gargantuan Creatures LoW's but be a ) Rather expensive, and b) Rather super. They're supposed to be the most terrifying monstrosities in the entire Galaxy afterall, yet... they aren't.

Dominoris
06-05-2015, 09:57
The move to LoW also means that they can no longer be the leader of your army, as you will still need an HQ,
Any character can be the Warlord. They do not need to be HQ. A troop squad's sergeant can be the Warlord if you want.

Losing Command
06-05-2015, 10:37
Any character can be the Warlord. They do not need to be HQ. A troop squad's sergeant can be the Warlord if you want.

I know, but I'm a bit old school and still think that anything that is not an HQ isn't the guy leading the army.

Beppo1234
06-05-2015, 12:16
I know, but I'm a bit old school and still think that anything that is not an HQ isn't the guy leading the army.

guess what, even the HQ isn't leading the army.

Tyberos
06-05-2015, 21:20
Just buy more miniatures is the company line I expect.

Saunders
06-05-2015, 21:31
I hate to be 'that guy,' but the notion fits for Eldar Exarchs.

dangerboyjim
06-05-2015, 23:10
I too remember when 40K was a squad game, with a few vehicles, and before that infantrymen with an occasional bike.

Flyers and the way they have been implemented are just stupid.
As are super heavies in the regular game and Gargantuan creatures.

It's all going the way Fantasy went with ever increasing armies and oversized models.

And that worked out fine...

sephiroth87
07-05-2015, 04:35
If they redesigned 40k to be more like epic instead of shoehorning in epic models into current 40k, the whole process and the game would be way better. I think they have introduced these units piecemeal and it's a cobbled together mess. I like all the big stuff, but I do not like the ruleset and their approach to putting them into the game.

Beppo1234
07-05-2015, 13:27
If they redesigned 40k to be more like epic instead of shoehorning in epic models into current 40k, the whole process and the game would be way better. I think they have introduced these units piecemeal and it's a cobbled together mess. I like all the big stuff, but I do not like the ruleset and their approach to putting them into the game.

IMO, GDUB could release proper 40k movement trays, and simply scale up the distances and re-sell the old epic rules at a highly inflated price!

7788
07-05-2015, 14:24
Back when I was playing, I always thought that 40K and Epic were geared to different player preferences. If you wanted to play basically a skirmish game, you'd go for 40K. If you wanted something with a bigger scope, you would spend a similar amount of money to get Epic models & rules. And it is true that GW people have in the past mentioned the design/fabrication technology and yield constraints of their model lines/sprues to explain the general direction of the system.
But things evolve. You can hardly expect them not to take advantage of new technology, new processes, and/or new market conditions. And as has been pointed out here by others, whatever they do (unless it's official tournament play) it doesn't mean you won't be able to get a game going the way you like it.

Sir Didymus
07-05-2015, 18:24
I like 40K. I like big battles with huge robots duking it out, airplanes zooming by and awesome models everywhere. To me the game is a living diorama, where you display your models, and then roll the dice to see which models you need to pack away first. Its fun, entertaining and great for drinking beer, making pew pew noises and just not giving a hoot.

As a game system 40K is a joke. Its a mishmash of game design philosophy, transparent marketing, rehashed art and stories, and its lack of balance and the fact that most games are decided before the first die has touched the table, really just makes me laugh. Its just not a game designed with a challenging game experience in mind.

So I've given up on 40K, as a competitive game, where I can prove myself and show off my tactical mastermind genius. I can do that in better games – preferably skirmish games. In 40K I then have the chance to go overboard on display pieces, making the rule of cool #1. Fielding a variety of models, as the game has plenty of room for both modelling assault termies and regulars etc.. Who cares that some choices are suboptimal, when the optimal lists are about repeating the same models again and again - and buying a new model collection, when another build takes the throne.

ObiWayneKenobi
07-05-2015, 18:46
Back when I was playing, I always thought that 40K and Epic were geared to different player preferences. If you wanted to play basically a skirmish game, you'd go for 40K. If you wanted something with a bigger scope, you would spend a similar amount of money to get Epic models & rules. And it is true that GW people have in the past mentioned the design/fabrication technology and yield constraints of their model lines/sprues to explain the general direction of the system.
But things evolve. You can hardly expect them not to take advantage of new technology, new processes, and/or new market conditions. And as has been pointed out here by others, whatever they do (unless it's official tournament play) it doesn't mean you won't be able to get a game going the way you like it.

That was what they were. Epic was for large scale fights, basically an entire battle. 40k was for a particular portion of a larger battle (think the difference between fighting the entirety of the Invasion of France as opposed to just taking Fort Eben Emael). The problem is that while the scale of 40k has increased, the rules have stayed a company-level game, just prices and the figures required have gone up. So you have a set of rules for large skirmish/company level games that has been shoehorned into being for all size games, and as such fails completely at all of those things.

DYoung
08-05-2015, 10:37
That was what they were. Epic was for large scale fights, basically an entire battle. 40k was for a particular portion of a larger battle (think the difference between fighting the entirety of the Invasion of France as opposed to just taking Fort Eben Emael). The problem is that while the scale of 40k has increased, the rules have stayed a company-level game, just prices and the figures required have gone up. So you have a set of rules for large skirmish/company level games that has been shoehorned into being for all size games, and as such fails completely at all of those things.

People keep saying this and maybe this is because I don't play but I don't understand; can't you just play a smaller points level and hence a smaller game and hence a skirmish-level game. How exactly does GW force you to play large battles? I genuinely would like to know.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-05-2015, 12:19
People keep saying this and maybe this is because I don't play but I don't understand; can't you just play a smaller points level and hence a smaller game and hence a skirmish-level game. How exactly does GW force you to play large battles? I genuinely would like to know.

The game doesn't work at low points, because there are too many imbalanced things you can take that you have to hard skew for at low points e.g. Imperial Knight, lots of flyers, etc. So you can't just play like small points without a lot of homebrew restrictions (which are a problem at every level). There's also the fact that with the game being pushed as larger, people don't always want to play smaller. The people I know who play 40k for example only ever want to play 1850 points; I'm sure if I only had 1k points they'd accommodate, but the norm is they want bigger games to use all the big cool stuff that GW is putting out (i.e. the stuff that doesn't belong in 40k and was for Epic).

It would be fine if they weren't put forth as being in the core game, for example back when I played they had a smattering of units from Epic available in resin from Armorcast (dating myself here, this was like mid 90s) that required permission to be fielded and were more for special scenarios than common things you could just take. So if you had a Baneblade tank, for example, it was like the centerpiece (maybe the only thing you had!) for a specific mission such as a strike team being sent to destroy this tank, it wasn't like the IKs are now where it's just "Oh I have two Imperial Knights in my army, deal with it".

Beppo1234
08-05-2015, 13:39
The game doesn't work at low points, because there are too many imbalanced things you can take that you have to hard skew for at low points e.g. Imperial Knight, lots of flyers, etc. So you can't just play like small points without a lot of homebrew restrictions (which are a problem at every level).

deciding with your opponent what kind of game you both want to play has always been a factor in 40k. Nothing has changed there. One has always had to negotiate gaming terms before a game. So it takes 2 more minutes of discussion before arranging a game, that's not a big deal.

it's better now that everything is official and allowable... it allows the players to decide what kind of battles, what size battles they want to play without having to worry about rules.

quantumcollider
08-05-2015, 13:55
Can't you just ask your opponent: "Hey, that 10 hitpoint, armour 14, 3++ invulnerable save, D-weapon carrying super-heavy vehicle you have? Would you mind not using it for this battle? I have nothing to counter it with and it would make for a boringly one-sided game."

HelloKitty
08-05-2015, 13:57
If you play kill team games, you don't have to worry about knights etc because there is an armor restriction.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-05-2015, 14:04
If you play kill team games, you don't have to worry about knights etc because there is an armor restriction.

Kill Team games don't fix any of the issues with 40k from what I've seen, and it's hard pressed to find people who constantly want to play at that level. It goes back to 40k being an unbalanced mess of a game with poor rules that requires a social contract to get a game in, when virtually every other game out there that competes with it has rules that need a minimum of pre-game arrangements.

Beppo1234
08-05-2015, 14:11
If you play kill team games, you don't have to worry about knights etc because there is an armor restriction.

GDUB just needs to come up with some game classifications like 'kill team' for different levels of battle (and none of them should include the word standard) ie. Kill team < Company Conflict < Battalion Battle < apocalypse etc etc, each level with more options than the last. That would help those people who don't seem to want to talk to their opponents before a game about a game.

T10
08-05-2015, 14:12
... that requires a social contract to get a game in, when virtually every other game out there that competes with it has rules that need a minimum of pre-game arrangements.

About that, I don't think I would much enjoy a game with a person that thinks social interaction is a chore.

I can go on-line for games where I will be fixed up with "ersatz AIs" as represented by other players I will never meet and with whom I need speak to or listen to.

-T10

Beppo1234
08-05-2015, 14:15
... when virtually every other game out there that competes with it has rules that need a minimum of pre-game arrangements.

I don't think there are any other games out there with such an expansive range of choice and product, which makes it much easier for those.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-05-2015, 14:18
I don't think there are any other games out there with such an expansive range of choice and product, which makes it much easier for those.

That has been proven to be a myth, most games are just as varied as 40k just not in the same ways. There's often more combinations in Warmachine, for example, than 40k just 40k has the depth in minutiae.

Like I said, I want to play 40k again (I just got paid, it's VERY tempting to pick up a Khorne Daemonkin Warband box), but I don't want to have to negotiate with my opponent what's fair or allowed beforehand, I want to just ask how many points (like I can do in basically any other points-based game). Especially seeing as fluffy armies seem to get crushed because there's no balancing factor and people here don't seem to play all that fluffy so honestly I'm afraid of wasting money on a force that always loses because I'm not going overboard with OP choices.

Beppo1234
08-05-2015, 14:40
but I don't want to have to negotiate with my opponent

it's not about fairness, it's about what kind of game YOU want to play. If you don't want to have a pre-discussion with your opponent about what kind of game you both want to play, or what kind of scenario you want to play, then I think you just have to deal with the consequences. Otherwise, talk to your opponent. It's that negotiation that allows for an infinite number of gaming combinations. A defined rule set like I outlined above won't allow for as much variation as both players deciding what is best for them and their own game.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-05-2015, 15:16
it's not about fairness, it's about what kind of game YOU want to play. If you don't want to have a pre-discussion with your opponent about what kind of game you both want to play, or what kind of scenario you want to play, then I think you just have to deal with the consequences. Otherwise, talk to your opponent. It's that negotiation that allows for an infinite number of gaming combinations. A defined rule set like I outlined above won't allow for as much variation as both players deciding what is best for them and their own game.

The thing is this appears to be only a 40k thing. I don't have to negotiate with an opponent in Warmachine (the game I currently play): It's just "Hey want a game? How many points? Okay, cool" and we set up the board, pick our armies and get to playing. Deciding what game you want to play is basically a 40k-only concept because of the way the rules are and the intrinsic imbalance where if I want to bring a fluffy Space Marine army and my opponent wants to bring 3 Imperial Knights I'm going to have a bad time unless he decides to take something else, which could hurt his enjoyment if he really thinks IKs are super cool.

I'm not getting why this isn't seen as a major problem and flaw of the game. My enjoyment shouldn't hinge on my opponent being told not to play what he wants, play something else instead because it's not crazy overpowered and I didn't want to play a cutthroat game. That seems to me like a huge problem with the rules and arguably one of the major points on not playing the game again.

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

Malixian
08-05-2015, 17:13
The thing is this appears to be only a 40k thing. I don't have to negotiate with an opponent in Warmachine (the game I currently play): It's just "Hey want a game? How many points? Okay, cool" and we set up the board, pick our armies and get to playing. Deciding what game you want to play is basically a 40k-only concept because of the way the rules are and the intrinsic imbalance where if I want to bring a fluffy Space Marine army and my opponent wants to bring 3 Imperial Knights I'm going to have a bad time unless he decides to take something else, which could hurt his enjoyment if he really thinks IKs are super cool.

I'm not getting why this isn't seen as a major problem and flaw of the game. My enjoyment shouldn't hinge on my opponent being told not to play what he wants, play something else instead because it's not crazy overpowered and I didn't want to play a cutthroat game. That seems to me like a huge problem with the rules and arguably one of the major points on not playing the game again.

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

This is the biggest problem I have with 40k. The solution I'm working on is to have Dark Eldar army and a seperate Eldar army. Opponent brings a fluffy ork list? Break out the Dark Eldar and see if my Wyches manage to kill something. Opponent brings a Decurion detachment? Break out the Eldar and see if those D-sycthes are as good as everyone says. Granted the cynical part of me suspects I fell into GW's trap to suck up all my money.

Casper Hawser
08-05-2015, 17:30
I think Gw have backed themelves into a hole with this one, the fairly obviously invented the LoW slot to encourage use of their big kits like the Lord of Skulls, Baneblade, T. Vault etc in normal games because not as many people are playing apoc and the kits just weren't moving. The problem is not every army has those big kits, and it seems they weremt in a position to throw out multiple new large-scale kits for the armies that don't have them. So they looked at what FW were doing with the HH game, saw that primarchs were LoW and thought 'aha, important special characters, they could be LoWs' and so we get characters like Imotek and Dante becoming token 'stand-ins' to give their armies something to go in that FOC slot.

I don't think Imotekh is a token LoW as the Necrons have the Obelisk and Vault I'd argue he's a cheap LoW.
I use Dante on a regular basis and have to say he deserves the title of LoW he's a monster in close combat and really useful in Maelstrom missions with 2 warlord traits.
The Primarchs are good in HH but compared to a Warhound or Reaver Titan there not that good.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Endobai
08-05-2015, 17:31
Sorry, but no.

Simply we do not field super-heavies unless in large battles. Aircrafts are acceptable above certain points.

When it comes to skirmish there are always 600 pts level games where obviously many of those things are not permited and EVERY soldier counts, really every single one. Such games are pretty cool and help newbies and veterans who can develop new tactics and enjoy playing with each, small unit.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-05-2015, 18:03
Sorry, but no.

Simply we do not field super-heavies unless in large battles. Aircrafts are acceptable above certain points.

When it comes to skirmish there are always 600 pts level games where obviously many of those things are not permited and EVERY soldier counts, really every single one. Such games are pretty cool and help newbies and veterans who can develop new tactics and enjoy playing with each, small unit.

And also 100% reliant on the group. If they don't want to play low point games you're SOL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brotheroracle
08-05-2015, 18:20
I have a lot of fun at the 1000 point level personally. In a league type setting where you get only one list per week, as long as you have a diverse set of armies to face it works pretty well. I mean Grav-Centurions are less effective verses Orks then say Deathwing.

stopcallingmechief
08-05-2015, 18:21
Hell, I don't even know what half of those units are! I thin you may be missing the point. GW has made it so that you don't have the choice but to buy into an ethos whether you agree with it or not. I don't think that's the best marketing policy, nor best for maintaining a positive fan base or enjoyable game.


everybody can play the game the way they want to play, but if you dont know what half of those units are, i know we play the game in two different ways. You clearly are more a friendly game type of guy as anybody who plays warhammer in a competative fashion, should know what they are. And while i play 40k for fun, i would rather play a competative game than a forge the style game which you seem to want to play.

Spiney Norman
08-05-2015, 18:40
I have a lot of fun at the 1000 point level personally. In a league type setting where you get only one list per week, as long as you have a diverse set of armies to face it works pretty well. I mean Grav-Centurions are less effective verses Orks then say Deathwing.

I disagree that the game is immune to cheese at 1k, I present a list from the new Eldar codex posted on the AL forum containing two D-cannon wraith knights, AND it is battle forged.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?408632-1-000pts-Eldar

Saunders
08-05-2015, 18:44
1000 points can be worse, really. All-in armies (such as the one linked above) can make it a pretty crummy experience.

ObiWayneKenobi
08-05-2015, 19:13
My problem is specifically the fact that GW does nothing but pay lip service to the idea of fluffy, balanced, narrative armies that are in tune with the "spirit of the game" while doing everything to castrate those lists by having bigger, badder and better things without a care for balance. You can't have it both ways. Virtually any fluffy/narrative army would get steamrolled by anyone trying unless they specifically held off on using the good stuff to make the game fair, which is in and of itself a problem because who wants to feel that your opponent "went easy on you" to give you a fighting chance?

I posted elsewhere some IMHO balanced and fluffy armies from GW's own Crusade of Fire campaign. CSM armies with CSM squads (one of which had no daemon engines at all as the player felt as a recent renegade chapter they wouldn't have access to them). Space Marine armies with mostly Tactical squads. I can go find the list again. These are fluffy armies, and have virtually nothing going for them in the game as it currently is, and that's a big problem.

I have seriously been considering picking up the Khorne Daemonkin Warband box to start 40k again. However I can't for the life of me think of a good, compelling reason to do it given the current game's state and the focus that GW seems to be pushing. I have no intention of cheesing out by spamming Gorepacks or Bloodthirsters, I had planned to do a fairly fluffy army with a bulk of CSM and Berzerker squads backed up by maybe the Bloodstorm formation with the Raptors because they look awesome, maybe a Helbrute or two and a Maulerfiend or two because I like how those look. At the investment it would take, I can't think of a good reason to even consider playing 40k again since fluffy armies seem to get cursory lip service and then get given the finger afterwards.

HelloKitty
08-05-2015, 19:16
Thats because they expect players to not bust the game. They design their game with the ivory tower mentality.

Which works fine if you have a group that can police itself.

Not so well in tournament environments where breaking the game is as much part of the game as the game itself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ObiWayneKenobi
08-05-2015, 19:18
Thats because they expect players to not bust the game. They design their game with the ivory tower mentality.

Which works fine if you have a group that can police itself.

Not so well in tournament environments where breaking the game is as much part of the game as the game itself


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not even tournament environments. Not every group feels that they should police themselves (although if they don't why they'd bother with 40k is beyond me). Some just aren't capable of doing it. Others will pretend that they like the look of XYZ to justify spamming it (e.g. "Oh I always liked Jetbikes").

That's another point against 40k though. If I don't have a group that can/wants to police itself, 40k isn't worth getting back into. Hell I don't even know how to approach that with the people around here that play 40k without getting into a rant about how policing oneself shouldn't be a factor.

HelloKitty
08-05-2015, 19:27
Yes i agree if you dont have the right group, 40k is miserable unless one enjoys op builds baby seal clubbing the opposition (those types do exist)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beppo1234
08-05-2015, 19:54
I'm not getting why this isn't seen as a major problem and flaw of the game. My enjoyment shouldn't hinge on my opponent being told not to play what he wants, play something else instead because it's not crazy overpowered and I didn't want to play a cutthroat game. That seems to me like a huge problem with the rules and arguably one of the major points on not playing the game again.

Maybe I'm just not getting it.

1)I think what you're not getting is the game is clever way to sell plastic and redundant wads of paper...not balanced competition between two equal forces to determine who the better general or tactician is.
2)the availability of units and models and various levels of power is greater than any other 'game' in this genre.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you, I think 1 point from a given faction = 1 point from another faction. But that would take another 40k 3rd edition style reboot, which might not be a bad thing.

the thing that is frustrating, I found at least, was I had my army built how I liked it... but then I had to adapt the force to be able to take all comers. Flyers and superheavies are additional constraints on your unit choices. It's slightly annoying, but after a year of resistance, I gave in and it doesn't bother me anymore.... essentially just more melta and more missile launchers for my troops, and over the last 6 months or so, since my armies are pretty much done, adding a couple of those super heavies for fun. And for me, I'm more of a hobby guy than a game guy, so I've got no problem picking up and messing about with some of the bigger models.

But I still find discussing a game before hand is pretty simple and not a legal battle that requires a Lawyer. It only adds about 30 seconds to the discussion: LOW yay or nay? Flyers yay or nay? if the opponent disagrees with you, then find someone else to play.

NemoSD
09-05-2015, 18:40
Honestly, I was having fun until about three or four months into 7th. I think it was the Knights that ended it for me. Suddenly, my infantry, which I had lovingly crafted and built, were now just fodder. I stopped having fun. Before, when I lost, I still often had fun because I was playing the game, and just got out witted or out maneuvered. Now, I lose in the list building because I have the gall to like infantry, and Imperial Guard infantry at that.

I am selling my Eldar and Dark Angels right now, keeping my Guard around because I love the way I painted it, and I have a couple of friends who still occasionally like to play a game sans the Knights, LoW, etc...

I have instead started to dabble with Flames of War, and Bolt Action and Russians to get my infantry kick back, but it isn't quite the same. Of course, for everyone that seems to be driven out of the hobby, two or three more jump in. The Baby Seal Clubbing armies, at least in my area, are very popular with the younger crowd, and the tactical armies that I, and many of my peers, enjoyed are not so popular with us older folks, and we tend to have less free time.

Honestly, I am beginning to understand why the elderly always hated me, because I came along, and adapted the things they loved, and changed them, alienating them out of that hobby. It happens in music, movies, arts, literature, everything... I understand it now :-p

Spiney Norman
10-05-2015, 00:19
I have instead started to dabble with Flames of War, and Bolt Action and Russians to get my infantry kick back, but it isn't quite the same. Of course, for everyone that seems to be driven out of the hobby, two or three more jump in. The Baby Seal Clubbing armies, at least in my area, are very popular with the younger crowd, and the tactical armies that I, and many of my peers, enjoyed are not so popular with us older folks, and we tend to have less free time.

Honestly, I am beginning to understand why the elderly always hated me, because I came along, and adapted the things they loved, and changed them, alienating them out of that hobby. It happens in music, movies, arts, literature, everything... I understand it now :-p

That's actually a pretty depressing thought, maybe I've just been playing 40k too long, it certainly feels like the style of gameplay I fell in love with back in 3rd just doesn't exist any more, at least not outside of the Horus Heresy fraternity.

OneEyedAlice
10-05-2015, 05:19
Why not to just playing kill team and sometimes regular game? I love both of them almost equally.

WarsmithGarathor94
10-05-2015, 16:17
no tactics in this game? Try telling that to my on foot slaanesh dp lol. Now il admit the only flier i have fielded that i actually own the model for is my prince but while baledrakes were too powerful in 6th now that they are about right for the cost im thinking about picking up maybe 1 or 2 in the future. Same for the hell blade hell talon storm eagle and fire raptor.

Just Tony
10-05-2015, 16:41
It's too late to boycott Epic in 40K, period. The game has essentially become Apocalype already, and you have to adapt that thinking if you want to stay competitive in this game.



OR you could go Oldhammer and go back to an older edition.

Kijamon
10-05-2015, 17:03
The problem with the game is that it works on cool concepts and ideas.

I want to do a battle where I have an Imperial Guard army, say... 2,000 points in a base.

There's a Xenos army closing in on them that has 10,000 points.

I bring 2,500 of Space Wolves, have to get to the base first, reinforce it and escort the important VIP back to my lines.

A fast paced, exciting, important game, with a storyline, cool concepts and what better way to play 40k?

Turns 1 and 2 could go so horribly either way that it becomes pointless to continue.

Cool ideas don't always translate to the table and that goes for titans, wraithknights and even normal infantry rules.

The dice can just be too cruel sometimes.

Aluinn
10-05-2015, 19:21
I'm okay with big stuff as long as the rules don't essentially "force" you to take, i.e. that armies without it can handle it well enough. Unfortunately, this is only the case with some armies right now. The large vehicles aren't an enormous problem for forces that can, for example, bring a ton of Haywire weapons/grenades/psychic powers to the table, or otherwise just have excellent and relatively cheap and plentiful anti-tank, but unfortunately that's not all (unless you go Unbound and employ allies with no consideration at all for theme or fluff). Ditto for flyers and so on.

I also don't want the larger stuff to make people feel like they need to play larger games, because my preferred game size is still 1,500 points, but it does sometimes seem like those units have the effect of making people feel obliged to use larger and larger armies.

So those are the real problems to me, but the solutions don't require eliminating huge models or flyers: Just balance them (and not only against one another), and keep small-medium sized games fun, varied and competitive -- in the sense that they should tend to be close run things between players of roughly equal skill, barring dice oddities, even if one has flyers or huge, powerful models and the other has a more conventional "old school" army.

7788
11-05-2015, 19:22
Honestly, I was having fun until about three or four months into 7th. I think it was the Knights that ended it for me. Suddenly, my infantry, which I had lovingly crafted and built, were now just fodder. I stopped having fun. Before, when I lost, I still often had fun because I was playing the game, and just got out witted or out maneuvered. Now, I lose in the list building because I have the gall to like infantry, and Imperial Guard infantry at that.

I am selling my Eldar and Dark Angels right now, keeping my Guard around because I love the way I painted it, and I have a couple of friends who still occasionally like to play a game sans the Knights, LoW, etc...

I have instead started to dabble with Flames of War, and Bolt Action and Russians to get my infantry kick back, but it isn't quite the same. Of course, for everyone that seems to be driven out of the hobby, two or three more jump in. The Baby Seal Clubbing armies, at least in my area, are very popular with the younger crowd, and the tactical armies that I, and many of my peers, enjoyed are not so popular with us older folks, and we tend to have less free time.

Honestly, I am beginning to understand why the elderly always hated me, because I came along, and adapted the things they loved, and changed them, alienating them out of that hobby. It happens in music, movies, arts, literature, everything... I understand it now :-p

If it makes you feel any better, in my experience GW always loved to prod you into bringing a high-powered rifle to a knife fight... I don't think a perfectly balanced game is what they're shooting for (pun intended). I haven't played 40K in years. I now concentrate on 30K on the hobby side kind of randomly, not having any plans to actually build a proper list at the moment. However, based on many comments here I doubt if I would ever go in for a 7th ed game.

NemoSD
11-05-2015, 19:45
If it makes you feel any better, in my experience GW always loved to prod you into bringing a high-powered rifle to a knife fight... I don't think a perfectly balanced game is what they're shooting for (pun intended). I haven't played 40K in years. I now concentrate on 30K on the hobby side kind of randomly, not having any plans to actually build a proper list at the moment. However, based on many comments here I doubt if I would ever go in for a 7th ed game.

I'd jump onto the 30k wagon, but I am not a power armor fan.. I like my Soviet Guard in Space... I mean Imperial Guard... and they just don't seem to have a place in 30k... which makes sense, they were not around yet.

gwarsh41
11-05-2015, 20:25
Honestly I am surprised no one has made a 6.5 edition. I think 6.5 would have been the best edition of 40k. We had rules for multi lever ruins (that needed a wee bit of tweaking) good wound allocation, and generally a vast improvement over 5th. Then 7th came and introduced some crazy stuff like summoning, more super heavies and even removed some rules (like moving up in ruins and stuff) 7th added a good bundle (mixed reviews on new psychic phase though). If we had 7th, with escalation right after maelstrom (another nice thing about 7th) and some of the old rules from 6th, I think things would be pretty nice.
Then when you go to the shop, you could bring along a few lists, one for maelstrom, escalation, or eternal war. Or you could go all out and try to TAC against everyone!

On the topic of oldhammer, have people tried the 7th ed books in 6th ed rules?

Spiney Norman
11-05-2015, 22:49
Honestly I am surprised no one has made a 6.5 edition. I think 6.5 would have been the best edition of 40k. We had rules for multi lever ruins (that needed a wee bit of tweaking) good wound allocation, and generally a vast improvement over 5th. Then 7th came and introduced some crazy stuff like summoning, more super heavies and even removed some rules (like moving up in ruins and stuff) 7th added a good bundle (mixed reviews on new psychic phase though). If we had 7th, with escalation right after maelstrom (another nice thing about 7th) and some of the old rules from 6th, I think things would be pretty nice.
Then when you go to the shop, you could bring along a few lists, one for maelstrom, escalation, or eternal war. Or you could go all out and try to TAC against everyone!

On the topic of oldhammer, have people tried the 7th ed books in 6th ed rules?

Wouldnt that just make things worse? With all the formations/detachments that are printed in the 7th edition codexes it would make them even moe must-take than the CAD because the standard 6th Ed FOC didn't have the command benefits it does in 7th (which aren't really enough to bring it up to the level of the Eldar warhost or necron decurion anyway). The Decurion would have been absolutely heinous in 6th.

gwarsh41
11-05-2015, 22:52
So you put it in. I can't last everything the editions have going for them off the to of my head.

Dynamo
13-05-2015, 00:58
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I'm sad to say it has only helped convince me that 40k has finally become too ridiculous to be played as a worthy tactical and strategic game, if indeed it ever was. If the game can't be played without serious concessions being made by one or both players, there's likely to be some resentment or at the least a feeling of being cheated somewhere by someone, even if that's themselves. I know there are games with solid rules that would satisfy my need for intellectual stimulation (chess for instance) but they are just not the same as having the cool back story and gravitas that the fluff of 40k has. I'm severely disappointed that this potentially awesome game has come down to who can field the most stupendous forces, rather than who can best synergy their particular army style and embrace their strengths whilst hiding their weaknesses. I personally loved the idea of a varied multi unit force that had weakness and strengths fortified and enhanced wcombined. I'd be ashamed to put my name to it were I one of the architects. It's as if spoilt children had made an overcame sundae with free rein of an ice cream pallor creating a huge sickening melting mess where the flavours are ill conceived and ville. I'd rather something sculpted with the care and attention of a master Swiss chocolatier, with artful beautiful nuance and gifted insight. Alas, the world of the craftsman is gone. I'd only half the attention given to making some of the beautiful miniatures, and half the imagination of the storytelling was devoted to devising an elegant games system. This could be one game to rule then all! Hell a system could be made that would work for any genre imaginable. I remember as a kid a role play system called G.U.R.P.S. (generic, universal, role playing system). We used it to play ancient fantasy characters with bows and axes, cowboys with sawn of shotguns, vampires, mutants from tmnt, even cyborgs from rifts! It was balanced across all. Imagine taking a bretonian cavalry against a horde of genestealers, or Grey Knights fighting off dragons!?
Just a thought....

Spiney Norman
13-05-2015, 07:29
I know there are games with solid rules that would satisfy my need for intellectual stimulation (chess for instance) but they are just not the same as having the cool back story and gravitas that the fluff of 40k has. I'm severely disappointed that this potentially awesome game has come down to who can field the most stupendous forces, rather than who can best synergy their particular army style and embrace their strengths whilst hiding their weaknesses. I personally loved the idea of a varied multi unit force that had weakness and strengths fortified and enhanced wcombined. I'd be ashamed to put my name to it were I one of the architects.

If I may, the game you are looking for is a variant of 40k based on the Horus Heresy era, it is made by Forgeworld, which means prices are high, but the balance between armies is very good and the breadth of options each army has to choose from is massive and it has the most awesome sci-fi story ever told serving as its setting.


It's as if spoilt children had made an overcame sundae with free rein of an ice cream pallor creating a huge sickening melting mess where the flavours are ill conceived and ville. I'd rather something sculpted with the care and attention of a master Swiss chocolatier, with artful beautiful nuance and gifted insight. Alas, the world of the craftsman is gone. I'd only half the attention given to making some of the beautiful miniatures, and half the imagination of the storytelling was devoted to devising an elegant games system.

That is a pretty spot-on description of the Eldar and Necrons codexes, greedy child making an ice cream sundae, that reminds me of the ice-cream factory machines at Pizza Hut...


This could be one game to rule then all! Hell a system could be made that would work for any genre imaginable. I remember as a kid a role play system called G.U.R.P.S. (generic, universal, role playing system). We used it to play ancient fantasy characters with bows and axes, cowboys with sawn of shotguns, vampires, mutants from tmnt, even cyborgs from rifts! It was balanced across all. Imagine taking a bretonian cavalry against a horde of genestealers, or Grey Knights fighting off dragons!?
Just a thought....

I'm not clear how that relates to a 'rich backstory', but I get the point, 40k isn't really fit for purpose (unless you consider its sole purpose to be making money for GW), I'd like to think that part of its purpose is to present a fun balanced game.

Starchild
14-05-2015, 01:44
(peers on old guard books) guard tanks have generally gone up in cost over the editions.

As an extreme example, in 2nd edition you got two full russes (with lascannon and sponsons) for around the same cost as a single tactical squad with flamer, missile launcher, and sarge with a power weapon (rhino not included).

That's because almost any heavy weapon in the game back then could destroy any vehicle. I remember melting a Land Raider at extreme range with one shot from a heavy plasma gun.

Starchild
14-05-2015, 01:46
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I'm sad to say it has only helped convince me that 40k has finally become too ridiculous to be played as a worthy tactical and strategic game, if indeed it ever was. If the game can't be played without serious concessions being made by one or both players, there's likely to be some resentment or at the least a feeling of being cheated somewhere by someone, even if that's themselves. I know there are games with solid rules that would satisfy my need for intellectual stimulation (chess for instance) but they are just not the same as having the cool back story and gravitas that the fluff of 40k has. I'm severely disappointed that this potentially awesome game has come down to who can field the most stupendous forces, rather than who can best synergy their particular army style and embrace their strengths whilst hiding their weaknesses. I personally loved the idea of a varied multi unit force that had weakness and strengths fortified and enhanced wcombined. I'd be ashamed to put my name to it were I one of the architects. It's as if spoilt children had made an overcame sundae with free rein of an ice cream pallor creating a huge sickening melting mess where the flavours are ill conceived and ville. I'd rather something sculpted with the care and attention of a master Swiss chocolatier, with artful beautiful nuance and gifted insight. Alas, the world of the craftsman is gone. I'd only half the attention given to making some of the beautiful miniatures, and half the imagination of the storytelling was devoted to devising an elegant games system. This could be one game to rule then all! Hell a system could be made that would work for any genre imaginable. I remember as a kid a role play system called G.U.R.P.S. (generic, universal, role playing system). We used it to play ancient fantasy characters with bows and axes, cowboys with sawn of shotguns, vampires, mutants from tmnt, even cyborgs from rifts! It was balanced across all. Imagine taking a bretonian cavalry against a horde of genestealers, or Grey Knights fighting off dragons!?
Just a thought....

Ironically, the game you are looking for is the 2nd edition of Epic Space Marine and Titan Legions.

Aluinn
14-05-2015, 07:26
To add to what I said before, I think the problem is most succinctly summed up by saying that 40K has too much "rock-paper-scissors" going on, and not in the sense of advantage, but of requiring hard counters.

If the average special weapon had a more reasonable chance of doing something to a heavy tank, and the average squad a more reasonable chance of doing something to a flyer (and by "something" I don't mean destroying it outright; just being worth the turn of action), it seems that'd pretty much solve our issues.

But now you need to think: "Oh, I need to bring X super-specialized thing [and lots of it] because I might face Wraithknights/Knights/etc." and "I need to bring Y just in case I face flyers ... if my army/armies of choice even have access to something adequate". This should not be happening. Knights and Wraithknights should have to fear a few lascannons, and flyers should have to fear a few autocannons/plasma guns. I'm not quite ready to propose details on how to make that happen and keep it all balanced, but I do think it could be done.

Well, one thing is that any weapon should wound anything with a T value on a 6. My gut feeling is that any weapon glancing any vehicle on a 6 might be too much, but that's also a possible solution. Flyers being hit on 5s rather than 6s would also be nice but would make existing Skyfire weapons even more overpriced than they tend to be (and be a cruel joke on Orks). All this is complicated by the addition of Hull Points; it would have been, IMO, a no-brainer decision before, but now that glancing things to death is the main way to kill vehicles, I don't know. (And I should say that I'm happy HP exist given the current state of the rules, as a qualifier.)

And another problem is that there are a lot of flyers, skimmers, MCs and even super-heavies that are fairly well-balanced for their points under the current ruleset (cf the many AV10-11, HP2 flyers) -- it's just that people tend to cheese out on the several that are not.

So another way to look at it is that the problem is with the players -- though I'm hesitant to condemn the "competitive scene", since it tends to be composed of like-minded individuals, and do believe GW should be taken to task for their mistakes, because even if the problematic units aren't the norm, they do have the potential to twist the whole metagame.