Mid-41st Millenium Crisis (and Some Culture)

[Mr.MoreTanks]

It's been hard lately seeing so many great friends and (in my opinion) good players who are losing interest with this game. While I can appreciate their frustration with some aspects of the game, I can't help but be a little discouraged too.

 

I mean, is this what happens every edition at a power peak and people jump ship? I don't remember everyone leaving during 5ths parking lot days, but I may have missed it.

 

Now Tyranids have bug players who waited patiently and only used 4 different types of models up in arms at their lack of a Tau or Eldar codex, and to be honest I can't blame them.

 

Even my IG have been feeling pretty weak lately. Now I know I am far from a top general, but I am starting to feel the Guard's age for sure.

 

I mean, at the TSHFT Invitational I was the only IG player; and there certainly weren't droves of IG at Guardian Cup. The days of 5th are long gone.

 

But I'm okay with that, the game needs some fresh ideas now and then. Beyond GW's money grab with new $50 codexes, new rules can be good. I think we all can agree that like the bags, the Tau and Eldar codexes were a good idea. The problem is that instead of the holes being cut too small and not being able to see when we ride, we can just shoot our guns and our magic bullets will find Django. The rest of us normal bag guys will just get shot and blown up.

 

So where am I going with this? I have no [big bad swear word]ing idea. I'm bored in a coffee shop ranting my thoughts on the game because I've thinking about it a lot lately and am very excited for TSHFT. I've been looking for a new army and I think TSHFT will determine if I really do get one. I'd like to revisit Orks; they were really fun. Maybe I just need an event to get my fired up about my IG again, we will see.

 

So what do you think 40k needs? How do you handle it when you get the table top blues? How do you feel about the state of the game? Does it need anything? Why is the sky blue? Or how do magnets work? Nobody knows. Nobody.

 

 

If you're lost on the bag comments, here you go you uncultured bastard you. If you are cultured, watch it anyways, it's still funny.

 

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

Errattas... an faq would be nice too, but some rules need to be revisited and rewritten. Example is rerolls. I don't think 2+ rerollable invul is fun, you can't just taget that, I like the idea of a reroll be pentalized with a minus 1. Exception being twinlinked guns.

 

A willingness to reevaluate units and make adjustments, sometimes major adjustments without a new codex.

 

I like this edition more than 5th, I like the massive amount of new fluff.

[pretre]

Every edition has its ups and downs. It seems like this down swing may have come sooner but I can't prove that. There will be an up swing again and everyone will play again.

[scottshoemaker]

Honestly, I feel we are all responsable for this climate.  Too many times when we get a new codex our first thought is "how can I crush my opponent" rather than "how can I have fun with my friends"  Yup, there is codex creep, but it's on us to make the game actually fun for each other.  If you keep bringing the wave-knight-rip-formation of doom against me, I'll tell you it sucks.

 

It reinforces to me that GW isn't in tourny business.  They are in the answering to shareholder business.  Of course they are milking it for everything it's worth.  So do camera companies, so do auto part accessory companies. 

[KAPcom]

As someone who hasn't played for but 2 years, I can say that my mindset has gone from "how can I not suck" to "how can I win a lot" to "how can I have a fun game with my opponents?" in my list writing. Obviously, there are different levels of competition for tournament v. friendly play, but the key is balancing your list writing for these different play styles. The nice part about 40k is its easy to write a fun, non-competative list, and most people are willing to play friendly games if you ask.  

[WestRider]

OK, this is kind of a disorganized mess, but here goes:

 

My personal feeling is that the power level in general has gotten to the point where it's causing balance issues. I'm seeing more Games than ever before that are basically over by the end of the first turn at the latest. Sometimes it's obvious just from comparing Army Lists, but even in Games that have been more or less Mirror Matches, it's often the case that whoever goes first can do enough damage that the Game is basically done after that first Turn. The removal of Full Reserves and reduction in practical value of Cover contribute to this as well.

 

I've also seen far more tablings in the year and a half that 6th has been out than in the 14 years that I played 40K before that. It used to be a rare occurrence, a sign that someone had seriously screwed up or been badly outmatched. Now it's just a thing that happens.

 

And there are so many variables now that horrible mismatches can happen even without trying. Even when actively trying to avoid them. My regular Opponent and I have been moving more and more toward powerful and Competitive builds, because the mismatches are often far, far worse when we try to keep things casual. Even when two Armies are on nominally about the same power level, it gets really easy for things to get all rock/paper/scissors, because there are so many things that you absolutely have to have dedicated counters for, and so many Armies can't get all those counters without highly refined lists that ignore huge swathes of the Dex.

 

Part of the problem is that most of the power increase has been focused on new Models and Units, while the old stuff stays pretty much where it was. So a terrible Army is at about the same power level that it was in 3rd Ed, but the best Armies in 3rd weren't that much more powerful, while today the difference is great enough that it's not even worth putting the Models on the board to play the Game.

 

Even at higher levels, these kinds of mismatches happen far too often. Over at 3++, one of the things SirBiscuit mentioned when talking about restrictions for the Feast of Blades was that they had Players coming up and handing in results sheets 20 minutes after pairings were called, because it just wasn't worth actually playing out the foregone conclusion. What's the point of paying to travel to major tournament if the Games aren't even worth playing?

 

And all that is without including Escalation, which introduces a whole new level of alpha strike power and need for hard counters.

[fluger]

Every edition has its ups and downs. It seems like this down swing may have come sooner but I can't prove that. There will be an up swing again and everyone will play again.

I think the reason it seems that way is the quick release cycle of codexes.  How long were we into 5th edition before we were at the 7th full codex (not even counting Inq or Adeptus Sororitas)?  This has been slightly over a year, maybe a year and a half?  

[dashneeb]

I like sixth edition a lot.  Is it perfect?  No.  However, it's pretty awesome.  I find that outside of the Demon's codex, the big problem codexes I have any issue are holdovers from fifth.  

[Brother Glacius]

My problem with 40K is that what is good is too good, and what is bad is too bad. There are clearly the "best" and the "worst" stuff to take in every codex. There is no room for diversity (competitive environment). How do people define a good codex? If there are multiple "best" builds.

 

Unless you are playing with a garage group, there is no more narrative in the armies. "Well X can kill 5 MEQs a round, so I'll take as much X as I can fit." Repeat ad nauseam. People don't build armies, they build spreadsheets. Where is the fun in that?

 

There are too many players out there that want to play that way. They want to build the best spreadsheet they can and match it up against other spreadsheets. Army builders aren't going to find fun games against those types of lists.

 

So how do you fix it? Do you try to fix the army books so that the units aren't very diverse? or do you try to fix the mindset of the player to build an army instead of a spreadsheet?

[Guest]

I very much like this edition.

 

I do think GW implied at the start of 6th that we'd be getting more FAQ updates than we are now. Then again, GW has never been known for it's FAQ ability.

 

For balance issues, I will note that most players don't use mysterious objectives or mysterious terrain, both of which, I think, are very key to the 40k balance.

 

As for the more expensive books, I'd argue that some of that is them recouping losses at the now cheaper to collect 40k. Yeah, I said it, cheaper. No, the models aren't cheaper, but with the ally rules, I can field two armies of 1k each together and never increase the size of either army. In general, I think 6th favors smaller collections of multiple armies more than larger ones of a single army. Fortifications also add a unit that can be included with any combination of armies.

 

In example, if I own the aquilla strongpoint, and a Dark Vengeance starter box with the DA converted to CSM, I should have 1500-2000pts. I'd need the stronghold assault book and the CSM codex. Cost is $296.50. I can bring it down to $214 if I get "free" PDFs from the internet. If I bought this during league at GG (perhaps while testing a friend's army), I can save a further 20% to make my costs $171.20. That's pretty low for 40k, or even the start up for console gaming.

 

Now, If I want to expand my collection, rather than getting more CSM, I can get a battle force of "allies" and have enough models. I no longer need the hugely expensive start up costs that 40k used to have, assuming I don't have a huge desire to play a specific army or specific units. I just need to baby step in a small force to ally to my existing one.

-Pax

[Last_Bullet]

There are too many players out there that want to play that way. They want to build the best spreadsheet they can and match it up against other spreadsheets. Army builders aren't going to find fun games against those types of lists.

 

So how do you fix it? Do you try to fix the army books so that the units aren't very diverse? or do you try to fix the mindset of the player to build an army instead of a spreadsheet?

 

+1.  Its far "easier" to fix your gaming group than to fix GW.

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

I agree your gaming group determines the fun. A lot of fun can be had in this edition. I find I tailor my list to who I play. I go x player likes story let me build a story list first competitive second. player y likes min max, so I play harder lists. If I go to an event I I play to win the last few games not first, that way I am playing with hopefully like minded folks.

 

I liked gg cup tiers it makes for a more engaging experience. I was happy to be in the bottom tier.

[pretre]

Tiered events are definitely a great idea. I can't wait to get to the next GC.

[Aventine]

My personal theory is we have the exact same butthurt: new Codex ratio we have always had, but the rapid release schedule has concentrated what we see. If there is one thing 40K players are good at, it is bitching.

 

Furthermore, Escalation rubbed a lot of tournament players the wrong way, and people who had been [big bad swear word]ting on 40K since 6th ed came out joined their voices to the noise (internet rabble) and made it snowball a bit. "See, I told you 40K sucked!"

 

I think with all the new stuff, and some disparate power levels, it is more important than ever to play with like-minded individuals, or figure out what kind of game you want to have, so everyone knows what to expect. I almost never see tablings, maybe 2 or 3 since 6th started (got tabled by Tau once right when they were released before I figured them out). But I play in a consistently competitive environment, where that is what is expected.

 

I have been playing since 3rd, consistently (2+ games a month since 1998) and the game is the same as it ever was...

[pretre]

My personal theory is we have the exact same butthurt: new Codex ratio we have always had, but the rapid release schedule has concentrated what we see. If there is one thing 40K players are good at, it is bitching.

 

Furthermore, Escalation rubbed a lot of tournament players the wrong way, and people who had been [big bad swear word]ting on 40K since 6th ed came out joined their voices to the noise (internet rabble) and made it snowball a bit. "See, I told you 40K sucked!"

 

I think with all the new stuff, and some disparate power levels, it is more important than ever to play with like-minded individuals, or figure out what kind of game you want to have, so everyone knows what to expect. I almost never see tablings, maybe 2 or 3 since 6th started (got tabled by Tau once right when they were released before I figured them out). But I play in a consistently competitive environment, where that is what is expected.

 

I have been playing since 3rd, consistently (2+ games a month since 1998) and the game is the same as it ever was...

I'm pretre and I endorse this post!

[Mr.MoreTanks]

Yeah, I think you nailed it too Chris.

 

I probably am a bit butthurt over codex creep. I especially agree with your point on people freaking out about 40k on the internet and using Escalation as an excuse.

[scottshoemaker]

How many of us here build an army totally based on models we want on the table so they look cool, rather than their effectiveness?  I'm finding that it's totally fun to do this with orks. 

 

I have Sicaran Battle Tanks in my Irons hands for cause they are efing cool lookin, not for effectiveness.

[pretre]

I choose models for effectiveness and looks. Sorry. :)

[Guest]

I've fielded the Deathstrike many times just because it makes me giggle..

-Pax

[MauzDeadalive]

I think the real problem is that 40K is a game. Which means you will have winners and losers. Everyone likes winning and nobody likes losing. GW is a business and knows coming up with more ways you can win will equal more sales.

 

I do agree with Aventine that all of this has been going on for some time....the difference now is how many people are playing. I also want to say social media and the internet have a part in this but that part equates to people having a bigger audience to complain about losing to and having others back us up. It used to be my opponent and I had to work out our rules differences...maybe with the help of a TO at a tournament or league....and that was typically that or you discussed it with your friends....where as now I feel too many people run to the internet or some board or another and pick and choose which arguments help them to win their case. I have yet to play any malicious intent opponents even if things were played wrong in a game...and I know I am just as guilty so I am not pointing fingers.

 

 

I feel the solutions really boil down to what is already happening around here in the tournament scene. I think the tiered tournament approach at the last Guardian Cup was spot on to help broaden people's enjoyment and fun. I think raffling off the prizes to the participants as opposed to the winners helps lighten the spirit of things (I may have lost all my games but I won the big prize anyway) and I love the idea of trophies or awards going to winners instead.

 

Or ultimately figure out a way to make a game with no winners and no losers.....just geeks, nerds, and dorks having fun.

 

(sorry if this is all over the place....it is hard to write something long winded and work at the same time)

[Guest]

Never been a fan of tournaments. I field a balanced list, one that tends to lose after a very close game. The loss isn't entirely intentional, but I've found this style of list makes for a much more enjoyable game. My gaming ability is probably lower tier, though I suspect most of that is my unwillingness to re-start a fresh army with each new codex release - it certainly seems like players that start a fresh army more often are also players that do better at this game.

 

As for 40k and competitive events, I don't really think 40k is very suited for this. Having a 40k event where they serve alcohol and a bunch of nerds enjoy their board game of sci-fi Tolkien wars, that is something 40k can do very well.

 

Anyway we could get a tournament going where the event's cost was covered by food/alcohol consumption? Could do away with physical prizes, and just do it like prom with a spotlight and an announcement on who is best for that event. Heck, if we weren't so anal about table sizes, 40k could be played at any restaurant.

 

Oh, and if you look at the BRB, there are no longer any issues with playing on a smaller table, as none of the deployment types require exactly 6'x4' tables, they just need space to start the armies 24" apart.

 

-Pax

[scottshoemaker]

Before social media we didn't realize there even was a problem.

[WestRider]

See, here's the thing. I've played most of my Games over the past couple of years against the same guy. That was a big chunk at the end of 5th, and most of my play in 6th. During 5th, we usually had very close games, regardless of what we brought, fooled around with goofy lists, whatever. We approach the game in much the same way.

 

Even before the new Dexes started dropping, that went away in 6th. Something like 3/4 of our games are blowouts, with semi-regular tabling, and it's far worse when we try to play casually or at a lower power level. Armies just seem to disintegrate when we do that, but when we go all out, it seems to balance reasonably well.

 

I'm playing with as tight a gaming group as you can get. We're both in agreement about what we want from the Game, and we don't seem to be able to get it without actually re-writing the Rules.

[Munkie]

I'm feeling pretty disenchanted with 40k right now too. I think a huge part of it is the variables as people mentioned above. It simply isn't possible to fit in enough answers to all of the threats out there, which means something out there is going to stomp you flat, and there's often little you can do about it. And this is a dangerous problem to have for 3 reasons:

 

1. Competitive gamers can't build TAC lists. It can be frustrating to be knocked out because you faced the wrong list. Match-up luck can be just as important as in-game luck.

2. Non-competitive gamers have a hard time having those close games that are so fun. They do happen in 6th, and they're a blast, but they just aren't that common. It's hard to keep a smile on your face when you're being forced to eat gravel.

3. Now, more than ever, competitive and non-competitive gamers have a hard time mixing. If you're competitive and playing with non-competitive folk, nobody has fun and you look like an ass. If you're non-competitive and figure you'll try out a tourney, you're reminded really quickly why you shouldn't play at that level.

 

So yeah, playing with ONLY like-minded individuals is the best answer, and to an extent, always has been. But that's still a [big bad swear word]ty answer, because it doesn't encourage anyone to meet anyone new. Play with only who you know, and plays like you.

[Aventine]

So yeah, playing with ONLY like-minded individuals is the best answer, and to an extent, always has been. But that's still a [big bad swear word]ty answer, because it doesn't encourage anyone to meet anyone new. Play with only who you know, and plays like you.

 

I don't think playing with like-minded individuals equals only playing those you know. It just means you have to communicate with your opponent before the game starts, or even during the game ("I know you can just keep moving back and shooting at me, but I am not really feeling very  engaged in this game right now because of it.") I know wargamers, as a group, are not great about expressing themselves in person; so that is a hurdle, but one that can be overtaken.

 

And Pax, I think an event at Guardian where they gave out no prizes, but ordered pizza and everybody got a few drink tickets would be amazing, but I think it would hurt their bottom line (since most people would spend less overall in that scheme).

 

How many of us here build an army totally based on models we want on the table so they look cool, rather than their effectiveness?  I'm finding that it's totally fun to do this with orks. 

 

I have Sicaran Battle Tanks in my Irons hands for cause they are efing cool lookin, not for effectiveness.

 

I prefer a complete fusion and balance of the two. Example: I have an idea for a model/unit ( I want AdMech Thallax with my Heresy Marines), then think of rules that could apply that would also be effective (Hmmm, Broadsides are good), then modify the models to make them better fit the rules (missle fists on you, Thallax!).

The thing is, from a visual and coolness factor, there are conversions; you can make a model look any way you want. There is no equivalent to this for rules.