PDA

View Full Version : Old player looking to return and see state of game



mypantsarefree3
27-09-2015, 06:14
Hello!

I played 40K back in 5th ed. and I'm looking to return to the game. I'm looking to play mostly casual and some competitive events every few months or so. I understand much is dependent on my own meta. I've just moved to TX from the east coast and beginning contact with local stores to see game popularity.

I'm looking to start up a space marine army of some sort (original, right?).

However, I'm hearing player populations have dropped and there's a possible AoS target being directed at 40K. I am not a fan of AoS at all. If AoS killed my true love, I don't wish to remarry someone who has beginning stages of AoS and only has a year or two to live. My heart can't take that sort of pain.

What are your thoughts? If you didn't already have an army would you start playing right now?

-mypantsarefree

dashzed
27-09-2015, 06:28
I think that despite some naysayers online, 40k is doing really well right now.

I know locally we have seen a big surge of new players starting up the game, and a lot of old veterans are still very much enjoying both the tournament scene as well as casual games and even 30k.

40k is CERTAINLY not headed for something like AoS at all, it is selling far too well right now for that to be a worry. Give it a shot I say, this edition seems to be leveling out pretty well!

dwarfhold13
27-09-2015, 07:13
What part of TX are you in? I'm a casual gamer, but I've recently picked up 2nd ed again just for kicks.

Dkoz
27-09-2015, 08:07
I'd have to agree with dashzed even though there are a bunch of negative opinions on the Internet, 40K is really in a good place. With all the diversity in army's and the different builds of those army's thing are really interesting and good in 40K right now.

Killgore
27-09-2015, 10:27
Hello!

I played 40K back in 5th ed. and I'm looking to return to the game. I'm looking to play mostly casual and some competitive events every few months or so. I understand much is dependent on my own meta. I've just moved to TX from the east coast and beginning contact with local stores to see game popularity.

I'm looking to start up a space marine army of some sort (original, right?).

However, I'm hearing player populations have dropped and there's a possible AoS target being directed at 40K. I am not a fan of AoS at all. If AoS killed my true love, I don't wish to remarry someone who has beginning stages of AoS and only has a year or two to live. My heart can't take that sort of pain.

What are your thoughts? If you didn't already have an army would you start playing right now?

-mypantsarefree


Each local area is unique. Bitch posts on warseer/ other sites are based on that forum goer's own experiences in his/her local scene.

I would recommend your plan on checking out the local stores and seeing for yourself attendances and what games are being played. Don't forget to ask about affiliated clubs as well, as I find you get a better standard of gaming at a club compared to a store.

Gorsameth
27-09-2015, 12:55
Hello!

I played 40K back in 5th ed. and I'm looking to return to the game. I'm looking to play mostly casual and some competitive events every few months or so. I understand much is dependent on my own meta. I've just moved to TX from the east coast and beginning contact with local stores to see game popularity.

I'm looking to start up a space marine army of some sort (original, right?).

However, I'm hearing player populations have dropped and there's a possible AoS target being directed at 40K. I am not a fan of AoS at all. If AoS killed my true love, I don't wish to remarry someone who has beginning stages of AoS and only has a year or two to live. My heart can't take that sort of pain.

What are your thoughts? If you didn't already have an army would you start playing right now?

-mypantsarefree
AoS'ing of 40k is possible but a big unknown atm. When the Horus Heresy finally gets released from GW we will know more about the direction going forward.

GW's player base has been dropping for years. how many are left in your local area is something you have to figure out yourself

Balance is horrible (its never been great but I would say its certainly worse now then it has been since 3e edition)

GW is as horrible of a company as it has always been, its just even more blatent now. Wonderfull statements like
Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants.
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013-14-Press-statement-final-website.pdf
And the board freezing employee salary while the CEO gave himself a 2million pound paycheck in stock dividends.

If you have an army by all means play with it if you want but I would advise anyone who wants to step into the hobby to look at the other options available
Infinity / Warpath / X-wing and others.

Snake Tortoise
27-09-2015, 13:52
I think friendly lists today need to be a bit stronger than they were a few editions ago because of certain superheavies being deathstars in their own right. It's one thing when you have to bring todether a few units and characters from various codexes to create a deathstar, but when everyone has access to a superheavy walker it changes things a bit. Pre-imperial knights you couldn't accidentally field a deathstar without knowing what you were doing, but now you just have to take a liking to the wraithknight model and it's going to be a struggle if you haven't planned to face that unit.

The invisibility power too... all of a sudden a glass cannon doesn't have to be glass any more

Smooth Boy
27-09-2015, 14:11
No one knows what will happen to 40K going forward, there's enough to suggest it could stay as is or become more like AoS so getting involved again does pose a risk. So if you're really worried I'd wait until the Horus Heresy game comes out which should give us some indicators.

So I'd say no just hang on a month or so before you jump back in if you're worried about AoSing.

Wolf Lord Balrog
28-09-2015, 05:29
I would recommend getting into another game as suggested by Gorsameth. Two more specific suggestions: Dropzone Commander and Firestorm Armada/Planetfall.

Hicks
28-09-2015, 08:45
I would recommend getting into another game as suggested by Gorsameth. Two more specific suggestions: Dropzone Commander and Firestorm Armada/Planetfall.

I'm in the same place as the OP, I would love to build a classic Ultramarines army... but things aren't like they were in 5th edition. 40K has changed a lot, not just the rules but the feel of the game. It has sillier units now, well too silly for me anyways (still can't get over SW riding actual wolves) and the scale is much bigger than before. GW has introduced way too many huge models for my taste. I don't hate huge vehicles, but they have no place in a 28mm game! Oh and the rules... it's pretty much AoS, but with points, but not well tought out point values, just points.

Now why did I quote the guy above? Firestorm Armada and Planetfall are my new scifi battle fix. I love huge spaceships and Planetfall is properly scaled to accomodate for huge models. Both games play great and they can even combine to simulate a full on planetary invasion.

murgel2006
28-09-2015, 14:44
Advice is a double bladed sword. As we all know and with 40k it depends so much on personal experiences.
I like 7th and do not really have a problem with the (real existing) lack of balance simply because I try to do very narrative games. This often results in things like 1850 Necrons against 2250 IG etc.
As far as the tournament/competitive gaming is concerned I don't comment due to ignorance of facts and lack of involvement.
40k is still a really wonderful game for narrative play and a great rules set for campaigns.

7th ed has a few flaws but using the 6th ed rules for those works seamless.
The one thing which I suggest though is to really talk and agree on the game you want to have. Even in a pick up game you have to do this if you want to have fun. There simply is so much room for abuse today.
And the players tent to utilise it.

insectum7
28-09-2015, 20:58
Hello!

I played 40K back in 5th ed. and I'm looking to return to the game. I'm looking to play mostly casual and some competitive events every few months or so. I understand much is dependent on my own meta. I've just moved to TX from the east coast and beginning contact with local stores to see game popularity.

I'm looking to start up a space marine army of some sort (original, right?).

However, I'm hearing player populations have dropped and there's a possible AoS target being directed at 40K. I am not a fan of AoS at all. If AoS killed my true love, I don't wish to remarry someone who has beginning stages of AoS and only has a year or two to live. My heart can't take that sort of pain.

What are your thoughts? If you didn't already have an army would you start playing right now?

-mypantsarefree

As a Space Marine player since 2nd Ed., I can say that Space Marines are always a solid investment for 40K. The basic marine armies have been full of options and reasonably competitive for the entire lifespan of 40K, and it's pretty safe to say that they ain't going out of style. Furthermore, if you stick to "traditional" units (no Centurions, Flyers etc.) you'll have a collection that is immediately playable for any version of the game.

Personally, I'm really enjoying 7th Ed. I'm super busy right now and haven't had a game in almost a month, but up until this recent crunch I've gotten a game in once a week-ish for a solid couple of years.

I took a break myself during late 4th and early 5th for "life things". Sold my armies and all that. But in late 5th I decided to get back in and just started collecting the basics and models that I knew I wanted (Tactical Squads, Devastators and Land Raiders). It took me a little while to get my tabletop mojo back, but I kept building my army and playing the game, and in six months or so I was beginnning win more games than I lost, It's been gravy ever since.

For gaming, 40K has always been at it's best when played in a quality group. I would check out what's going on locally, and gauge the local scene to see how you can get the sorts of games you're looking for.

mypantsarefree3
29-09-2015, 03:04
Yeah, that's kinda what I thought. It seems if you already have an army or 5 it's worth sticking around due to the investment, and if you don't...well, it's probably best to wait and see. I also understand the game quality is dependent on the local groups. That's a bit hard as I don't have any models to playtest the group as a newbie, and if I buy models to playtest then I certainly wouldn't want to sell the models for a fraction of their cost if the group turns out to not be what I want. I also don't want to hang around evaluating games to take in the feel of the group, because if you ask a group if they're laid back everyone wants to think of themselves as laid back, even if they're a hardcore tournament player. It also sucks being new to an area and not having friends there. It's always easier to not worry about the money when you start or join a game with friends vs. a new group who might not think as much along your lines as initially seems...everyone wants to get new players to join so the hobby can grow.

(Sigh)

I think I'm going to try some other games. I feel this is much like bumping into an old girlfriend at a grocery store and wondering if you really could make it work again. I think we're different people now and we've gone in different directions. I'll think on it, but thanks all!

-mypantsarefree

Spleendokta
29-09-2015, 03:29
40k is go big or go home atm. Forgeworlds 30k is where I moved too.

agurus1
29-09-2015, 03:39
If you are interested in marines and want something more glanced and casual look into Forge World Horus Heresy series

Lord Inquisitor
29-09-2015, 06:19
I suspect the AoSisation of 40k will depend on the success of AoS. It is plausible that 40k might already have this in the pipeline. But either way, if AoS does well (or is perceived by GW as a success...) then it is entirely possible. If not, perhaps 40k is safe.

insectum7
29-09-2015, 06:59
Yeah, that's kinda what I thought. It seems if you already have an army or 5 it's worth sticking around due to the investment, and if you don't...well, it's probably best to wait and see. I also understand the game quality is dependent on the local groups. That's a bit hard as I don't have any models to playtest the group as a newbie, and if I buy models to playtest then I certainly wouldn't want to sell the models for a fraction of their cost if the group turns out to not be what I want. I also don't want to hang around evaluating games to take in the feel of the group, because if you ask a group if they're laid back everyone wants to think of themselves as laid back, even if they're a hardcore tournament player. It also sucks being new to an area and not having friends there. It's always easier to not worry about the money when you start or join a game with friends vs. a new group who might not think as much along your lines as initially seems...everyone wants to get new players to join so the hobby can grow.


Here's what you do (and here's what I did), to test the waters. Buy one squad, then show up at the local club to just hang out and assemble/paint. You're not in anyone's way, you're showing some initial dedication by painting some guys, and because painting takes time, you have a couple weeks of being able to comfortably hang out with people who are playing in their "natural environment". You'll be able to ask a bunch of questions, and get a good feel for the crowd (a single trip to the club is rarely a good sample anyways), take a look at the current books without buying them, and at the end of it you'll have a really solid feel for whether or not you want to take the plunge. Even if you don't want to commit, you'll have a finished squad of some of your favorite models as a keepsake. If your into the hobby side of it, that's a minimal investment for many hours of entertainment. (A tac squad for me takes something on the order of 30 hours)

Karhedron
29-09-2015, 10:14
EITHER

40K is looking great at the moment. Most armies now have access to flyers and smaller super-heavies that were restricted to Forgeworld until not long ago. The new codices are more powerful but stand up well against each. The new army selection options (Decurion, War Host, Gladius etc) support more fluffy armies by providing bonuses for specific selections.

There has never been a better time to get into 40K

OR

40K is looking dreadful at the moment. Most armies can now spam flyers and super-heavies that have no place in 1500-2000 point games and should be restricted to Forgeworld/Apocalypse games. The new codices are so powerful compared the existing ones that they verge on broken. The new army selection option like Decurions provide OTT bonuses for spamming units and are a transparent ploy by GW to push more sales.

There has never been a worse time to get into 40K.


Perception plays a big role in everything. Personally I lean more towards the current developments of 7th edition being good for 40K. I can see why some players do not like all the new stuff that has come out. For me, this is easily resolved by a simple gentleman's agreement not to use super-heavies and/or just stick with traditional Combined Arms Detachment for army building.

I am fortunate in having a decent games club nearby so I can usually find an opponent who is happy to play at whatever level is cool, rather than just winning at all costs.

Abaraxas
29-09-2015, 12:18
I've never played 5th, but my advice is go back to 5th.

ehlijen
29-09-2015, 12:52
Compared to 5th ed, 7th is already about halfway to AoS. While actual, full on destruction of the setting is unlikely, the rules will undoubtedly continue down that path with future 40k editions.

Expect formations to fully replace FO charts, points to become more and more meaningless and the game to be special rule and random table driven.

If you like that, that's good news. If you prefer 5th ed over 7th, it is unlikely you will have an enjoyable future with GW gaming.

AFnord
29-09-2015, 15:09
In its current form, if you're after a functioning and balanced game, where both sides have a ballpark equal chance of winning, then 40k is not the game for you. Super heavies and flyers make low-ish (sub 2000 points, which was not really low a few years ago, but considered standard) games work quite poorly. It's not as bad as WHFB/AoS right now, but it's moving in that direction.

insectum7
29-09-2015, 16:02
Compared to 5th ed, 7th is already about halfway to AoS. While actual, full on destruction of the setting is unlikely, the rules will undoubtedly continue down that path with future 40k editions.

Expect formations to fully replace FO charts, points to become more and more meaningless and the game to be special rule and random table driven.

If you like that, that's good news. If you prefer 5th ed over 7th, it is unlikely you will have an enjoyable future with GW gaming.



In its current form, if you're after a functioning and balanced game, where both sides have a ballpark equal chance of winning, then 40k is not the game for you. Super heavies and flyers make low-ish (sub 2000 points, which was not really low a few years ago, but considered standard) games work quite poorly. It's not as bad as WHFB/AoS right now, but it's moving in that direction.

So... negative perception then?

Jape
29-09-2015, 17:57
In a similar situation to the OP. I've been a bit put off by the upscaling to include super-heavies and I'm ambivalent about aircraft in the game. In fact on paper I'm put off in many ways but I just love the setting so much I've never truly shaken it. All this talk of AoS'ing 40k (and it is of course only talk) however is totally different, all I can say is I'm greatful my puppy-like devotion wasn't attached to WHFB.

I like playing and I like painting but I've never had much interest in any other tabletop gaming universe. If 40k suddenly became 41k: Dawn of the Starchild I think I'd just slink away from the hobby completely.

ehlijen
30-09-2015, 04:28
So... negative perception then?

That's not negative perception, that's analysing the rules for what they are. Of course 7th 40k can be enjoyed (even AoS can be), but when most people see a wargame with symmetric scenarios for two players without a GM using points values to determine force sizes, the natural expectation is for far more balance then 7th ed delivers.

7th only offers a certain kind of gaming experience (freeform narrative) but it camouflages itself as an entirely different kind of wargame (balanced competitive). Warning people that it is not balanced isn't negative, it's just helpful in case balance is what they want.

insectum7
30-09-2015, 06:18
That's not negative perception, that's analysing the rules for what they are.

That's just mistaking perception for objectivity. I've "percieved" the current run of codexes to be quite balanced when played among our local competitive guys. But at least I know it's my perception.

If we were honest about it, right now there's a mismatch between codexes published since last January or so, and the codexes that came before that. Pre and post-Decurion style Formation codexes are currently functioning under different paradigms, sure. But "Omg imbalance" is disingenuous and omitting the whole picture.

ehlijen
30-09-2015, 11:32
That's just mistaking perception for objectivity. I've "percieved" the current run of codexes to be quite balanced when played among our local competitive guys. But at least I know it's my perception.

If we were honest about it, right now there's a mismatch between codexes published since last January or so, and the codexes that came before that. Pre and post-Decurion style Formation codexes are currently functioning under different paradigms, sure. But "Omg imbalance" is disingenuous and omitting the whole picture.

The composition system fails at ensuring fun games because it does not prevent pointless matchups (ie it allows unbound and several units are immune to large numbers of other units). That's not perception, that's a thing the rules do.
The points cost system is undermined by formation rewards increasing the potency of a unit without costing points. This limits the ability of points values to balance the game, which is the only point of having a points system. Again, this isn't perception.

I did in fact allow for the possibility of enjoyable games of 7th 40k, but that doesn't change that balance and interesting (as in not of predetermined outcome) match ups are not provided or encouraged by the rules, only by player social contract. This is a drawback when most competing wargames do provide effective rules in those areas.

Okuto
30-09-2015, 14:37
I say hop back in but keep your eye open on other games just in case the worst should happen. I didn't think 40k was going to go the way of AoS but after their shareholder meeting I think anything is possible at this point. Thus I've ceased building new armies and eyeing alternatives just in case my plastic crack becomes redundant. So yeah check out games like warpath, deadzone just in case.

However, just check with your local area, if lots of people are playing 40k and you want in then go in.

insectum7
30-09-2015, 17:20
The composition system fails at ensuring fun games because it does not prevent pointless matchups (ie it allows unbound and several units are immune to large numbers of other units). That's not perception, that's a thing the rules do.
The points cost system is undermined by formation rewards increasing the potency of a unit without costing points. This limits the ability of points values to balance the game, which is the only point of having a points system. Again, this isn't perception.

I did in fact allow for the possibility of enjoyable games of 7th 40k, but that doesn't change that balance and interesting (as in not of predetermined outcome) match ups are not provided or encouraged by the rules, only by player social contract. This is a drawback when most competing wargames do provide effective rules in those areas.

And yet somehow without prior discussion the more competitive folks at my club come together at a points value and get good games. Most games I play start at a points value, then a mission type, and that's it.

Point values have never been a guarantee for balance. FOC and point values provide a framework and limitations, but I know a lousy list when I see it.

Fromations and even unbound (which I STILL have not seen manifested) provide frameworks (with bonuses) and limitations (unbound remains limited by points). Army building has changed, but the people who know how to get the most out of their lists still wind up being on par with each other. That's why I believe that your interpretation is just your interpretation.

Malakai
30-09-2015, 21:39
I like the direction 40K is going and I haven't in a long time. I played Epic though so I don't mind formations and things like that.

ehlijen
01-10-2015, 06:50
And yet somehow without prior discussion the more competitive folks at my club come together at a points value and get good games. Most games I play start at a points value, then a mission type, and that's it.

Point values have never been a guarantee for balance. FOC and point values provide a framework and limitations, but I know a lousy list when I see it.

Fromations and even unbound (which I STILL have not seen manifested) provide frameworks (with bonuses) and limitations (unbound remains limited by points). Army building has changed, but the people who know how to get the most out of their lists still wind up being on par with each other. That's why I believe that your interpretation is just your interpretation.

I'm deliberately not talking about my experiences, I am talking about what the rules allow or prevent.

You have positive experiences? That's great! Kudos to your group. That doesn't mean the rules are good, just your group. You are the one speaking in personal perceptions.

There are several potential issues with the game that should require FOC rules to sort out (eg high AV spam, flyer spam, deathstars, MSU swamping), but there are effectively no FOC rules, given that unbound does exist. Even if you houserule unbound away, several formations revel in the problems (eg all flyers, all knights) rather than help avoid them.

If the points never provided perfect balance, that's a bad thing. Providing balance is all points are for. At least earlier editions had a stricter FOC system to assist the points system.

I'm not saying fun games of 7th 40k are impossible. But the rules as written are not suited to ensure balanced play and that is something some players want.

R.D.
02-10-2015, 03:44
As of right now, 40k is what you want it to be. If you're friends with the people you play with, you can make it as balanced, competitive fluffy, or not, as you wish. That's really all it amounts to. If you go in with a positive outlook, there will be plenty of options, that can be fun, or sometimes not. So...I say it depends on your scene.

Right now, whether 40k will go similar to AoS or not is kind of moot as far as I'm concerned; even if they do, it'll probably still be a while before any such thing is implemented. And there will be always those who use the same rulebooks. So I say have a look around, see if you have anyone you know playing, and go from there.

ehlijen
02-10-2015, 04:09
As of right now, 40k is what you want it to be. If you're friends with the people you play with, you can make it as balanced, competitive fluffy, or not, as you wish. That's really all it amounts to. If you go in with a positive outlook, there will be plenty of options, that can be fun, or sometimes not. So...I say it depends on your scene.


Yes and no. All you say can be true, but for someone who doesn't have any of the books, just finding out what units or factions might be fun is expensive or illegal.

To the OP, if you give us a more specific picture of what kind of units or gameplay you're after, advice on units will be easier to give.

forbin
04-10-2015, 13:23
Think of that old girlfreind

she's put 20 lb, cut her hair short, and has a serious coke habit

some people like that but hey ho , if you build an army and get disolutioned at least you can ebay it later .....

it no secret sauce but GW has alway contended it builds models and the rules support the selling of them .

As for the state of the game? over here in Woking the GW shop staff were looking bored , down the road in IbuyWargames there we people playing Xwing or some other Starwars type of game ( ok thats not my cup of tea ) and busy .

your milage may vary

ttfn

WarsmithGarathor94
04-10-2015, 13:37
40k can be a decent game. In 7th I've had far more fun than I've had in any edition since I started in 5th with my csm. Unbound and maelstrom are both to do with why I have been having such fun :)

Mack
04-10-2015, 13:38
Xwing is popular because it's Star Wars. Having the models pre painted helps. How does that compare to 40k though? It's different and it doesn't quite scratch the gaming itch 40k does.

Overall 40k has pretty solid rules in 7th, the biggest complaint is GW. They seem to be focused on selling models rather than any real direction on the state of the game which is great for the hobbyists who loves awesome models... no doubt the models are the best they have ever been.

I think you should give it a try and see for yourself. Building the models is a blast, the finished product is amazing, throwing dice is always fun, but if you truly don't like the game mechanics, you can ebay them and get a big chunk of your money back.

murgel2006
04-10-2015, 15:39
Overall 40k has pretty solid rules in 7th, the biggest complaint is GW. They seem to be focused on selling models rather than any real direction on the state of the game which is great for the hobbyists who loves awesome models... no doubt the models are the best they have ever been.


?? seem to be focused on selling models?
Have you ever read a single statement by GW? They do not seem to focus on that. It is their ONLY concern. They sell the rules but, according to them selves "don't playtest" etc.
It is a testament to the quality of their designers to make rules working that well without testing them... :cool:
Would we love some consistent easy rule? Yes, we would. Maybe we will get them someday when GW outsources the game design and concentrates on fluff and models only...

All that said, 40k is a fun game for casual/narrative play and I enjoy it very much.
Personally I suffer however from a sickness. I have never soled a single model I bought. Thus my collection is, ehm, growing and demanding a bigger house now...

WarsmithGarathor94
04-10-2015, 15:42
Also on the bigger models thing. The biggest model my csm use is a defiler.... you definitely don't need big models

Gorsameth
04-10-2015, 16:16
Also on the bigger models thing. The biggest model my csm use is a defiler.... you definitely don't need big models
CSM is also a garbage codex in the tournament meta.

Fangschrecken
04-10-2015, 17:21
When you get down to it 40K is a horrifically unbalanced pick up game. It's a very well balanced club game. When you know the people, and how they play then you all sort of build lists that are around the same power level and fun to play against.

For example, at my club we've got a couple guys that play tournaments but they don't bring that to the club because they know it isn't fun to play against. Basically you all need to have the same expectations of what is and is no acceptable for your group.

WarsmithGarathor94
04-10-2015, 18:12
CSM is also a garbage codex in the tournament meta.

Er I don't believe that to be true I remember back in 5th I was told a foot slogging dark Eldar army could never work yet I managed to make it work and beat grey knights with it

Okuto
04-10-2015, 19:08
CSM codex is a garbage codex from a competitive point of view....no amount of love and compensation can dull our fall from glory:p

While your undying loyalty pleases the dark gods, do not delude yourself into thinking we have a "good" codex, GW fully intends to make us play for the Sins of 3.5:p We just have to make due and try not to embarrass ourselves too much.;)

And what does footslogging dark eldar have to do with it:confused: You beat a fashionable army with a novelty list, doesn't prove anything unless it dominated a tournament and becomes a netlist ala leaf blower guard.

Gorsameth
04-10-2015, 19:13
Er I don't believe that to be true I remember back in 5th I was told a foot slogging dark Eldar army could never work yet I managed to make it work and beat grey knights with it

Entirely possible but individual anecdotes do not counter large trends.

Davidian
05-10-2015, 00:17
stability of the games future and even putting the games function/composition. It's in a really expesive place right now.

The latest few kits have been taking the peas. BT at 70... okay. Skarbrand at 80.... whoa! Tau suit 90...WTF? Oh it's okay, you can buy 3 for the price of 3 in one click? oh the convienience!

If you're returning with minis it aint so bad. If you want to start a new.... best remorgage that condo XD

Rogue
10-10-2015, 21:56
As a lot of folks are mentioning 5th edition as one of their go to editions for 40K, I wanted to let everyone know that my website for playing 40K in previous editions does support the 5th edition. Check the website linked to my sig if interested.

AngryAngel
14-10-2015, 01:40
And yet somehow without prior discussion the more competitive folks at my club come together at a points value and get good games. Most games I play start at a points value, then a mission type, and that's it.

Point values have never been a guarantee for balance. FOC and point values provide a framework and limitations, but I know a lousy list when I see it.

Fromations and even unbound (which I STILL have not seen manifested) provide frameworks (with bonuses) and limitations (unbound remains limited by points). Army building has changed, but the people who know how to get the most out of their lists still wind up being on par with each other. That's why I believe that your interpretation is just your interpretation.

I look forward to hearing how you justify when they remove points and FoC near completely from 40k in the not too distant future. It'll be interesting to hear how that helps and guides balance in new and interesting ways.


Er I don't believe that to be true I remember back in 5th I was told a foot slogging dark Eldar army could never work yet I managed to make it work and beat grey knights with it

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

insectum7
14-10-2015, 04:44
I look forward to hearing how you justify when they remove points and FoC near completely from 40k in the not too distant future. It'll be interesting to hear how that helps and guides balance in new and interesting ways.


I wouldn't.

williamsond
14-10-2015, 08:28
If I'm honest if I was starting again from scratch I probably wouldn't pick 40k as the game to play. Like some folk have mentioned above the scale and feel of the game have changed alot over the last 6 years or so. What you remember an army looking like in the editions you played, bears little resemblance to what gets put on the tables these days and rules wise there are some gaping holes people exploit.

As some one who has played 40k for 26 years now I think I hang around because its a game I've always played not because its a great ruleset. Don't get me wrong it can still be a very fun and rewarding experience playing 40k and some of the models are fantastic. The back groud is also great it's had all this time to develope so its bound to be.

but if i had to start fresh I would probably be looking to greener fields, I know i play alot of other games these days and if you had asked me if a played none GW games 10 years ago I would have looked at you blankley and asked "whats a none GW game".

There's so great systems out there today and almost all are cheaper and better written than GW's offerings. They tend to not have as great fluff but much better mechanics.

For me some of the standout games for me are:Boltaction(here I'll accept the back ground is very good), Saga, Kings of war and x-wing. there always seems to be more great stuff coming out soon too. We seem live in a golden age of game and model companies where there's lots more choice than when I started out and there's always the next great game on the horizon.

All that being said if you really want to play space marines there's probably always going to be some one to play 40k against, just try not to freak out when you see how much GW models cost these days.

Lord Damocles
14-10-2015, 09:04
What you remember an army looking like in the editions you played, bears little resemblance to what gets put on the tables these days and rules wise there are some gaping holes people exploit.
These two points have pretty much always been the case, though - they're in no way unique to this (or any other) edition of the game.

murgel2006
14-10-2015, 10:26
If I'm honest if I was starting again from scratch I probably wouldn't pick 40k as the game to play. Like some folk have mentioned above the scale and feel of the game have changed alot over the last 6 years or so. What you remember an army looking like in the editions you played, bears little resemblance to what gets put on the tables these days and rules wise there are some gaping holes people exploit.

As some one who has played 40k for 26 years now I think I hang around because its a game I've always played not because its a great ruleset. Don't get me wrong it can still be a very fun and rewarding experience playing 40k and some of the models are fantastic. The back groud is also great it's had all this time to develope so its bound to be.

but if i had to start fresh I would probably be looking to greener fields, I know i play alot of other games these days and if you had asked me if a played none GW games 10 years ago I would have looked at you blankley and asked "whats a none GW game".

There's so great systems out there today and almost all are cheaper and better written than GW's offerings. They tend to not have as great fluff but much better mechanics.
...

All that being said if you really want to play space marines there's probably always going to be some one to play 40k against, just try not to freak out when you see how much GW models cost these days.

Often I do feel the same. Back in the 80' when I started there were great games and today there are great games.
Back then I liked the background and I still do today. But the rulesset was lacking at all times.
Personally I would like to see a generic game system for TT like there was GURPS for RPGs. Especially as GW is not really interested in their rules, why not outsource them?

The question which should however be asked is: "Which rules system do you like?" And suddenly we will have more opinions then people discussion the problem.

For me, I would like 40k to simplify many things.

R.D.
14-10-2015, 20:51
Maybe it's because I stick to more casual circles, but for me personally, the sorts of games I play haven't massively changed since 5th--oh sure, sometimes I see quite a few Knights and giant Eldar robots, but to me a lot of the new things make it more interesting. I tended to be friends with the people I play, so simply asking that things be not too cheesy isn't too hard, but I can see why that may not be an option for others.

So yeah. If it's a competitive meta, I can see why others may be more frustrated, but find a few friendly enough people can the games can be what you want them to be.

Sladuuch
19-10-2015, 00:54
I've been playing since the very beginning of 3rd edition and mostly dropped out when 6th came out, periodically checking in with friends to see the state of the GW universe. People are right: 7th edition is basically a create-your-own-game. If you want a game where the rules intermediate a fun but competitive match, it's not the game for you. YOU need to do that mediation to ensure that you have fun and don't waste hours. If you have a take-all-comers list and opponent brings half a dozen superheavy tanks, just say, "No thanks, let's not play that," because you'll lose 99% of the time. I have friends who regularly play and never stop complaining about how unbalanced the game is. They're right. The game is unbalanced; YOU need to bring that balance. Is that how a game without a GM is supposed to work? Maybe not, but that's where it's at, and if you like it, that's how you need to play it.

The rules are now ridiculously long and convoluted, too, having been building on themselves edition after edition. The rulebook is like a dictionary at this point. Learning the rules takes forever. GW's inability to write simple, elegant rules is frustrating, but not a surprise. Know what you're in for and jump back in if you have good friends to play with and it seems like it'll be fun.

Big Guns
23-10-2015, 21:50
I'm in a similar position, having not played much since sixth edition. I've been catching up on the rules, and I've got to say the game looks pretty good at the moment.The new psychic phase is cool, and the whole experience seems more polished than previous editions. Whether this holds up when I get back to a table is another matter, of course!