Is it just me...

[blackvigil]

Or has stronghold assault, escalation, dataslates, digital only releases, and imperial knights killed anyone else's interest in 40k? It's just too convoluted to pay attention anymore.

 

I own 40k models, but I don't plan to play in any organized situations anytime soon. Hopefully all of this big model BS will get toned down by another edition. I will pick it up then I guess.

[JamesBeadle]

I say this not to minimize what you said here, becasue you like what you like and you are very entitled to that. My experience with our race is that we do not like change. If we are used to something, and it is acceptable (even if not ideal or optimal) we dislike it when it is changed. Very much in fact. Personally I am not crazy about digital publishing, however I like the bigger models in the game, and I like FW stuff. 

 

/shrug

 

I'm more a garage gamer.

[blackvigil]

I actually love new rules sets. I like rules almost as much as I like playing. I just don't like whats going on right now. It seems like they have done it too fast, and have been pretty blatant about trying to make fast money at the long term expense of the game.

[WestRider]

It's making me somewhat more leery of no holds barred environments, that's for certain. It was the inclusion of Escalation that decided me on not heading over to Ballard for the Tournament a week and a half ago.

 

I'm going up against a Knight this weekend, but my buddy gave me the heads up that he got one, so I can be sure not to bring a casual list that skimps on Anti-Tank. In this context, that stuff all works fine, but without that kind of pre-negotiation, I do feel like it really cuts down on the range of viable Army Builds.

[Munkie]

Yeah the general consensus seems to be that those additions without context or direction, can lead to unbalanced match-ups that neither party can enjoy. But as long as there is a proper discussion beforehand of what both players are looking for, then they can build lists accordingly. Comp went from being a semi-anual debate to a necessity almost overnight and nobody seems to want to admit it.

 

The world is filled with game systems and getting fuller by the day. Competition is fierce. And as I realized how many pregame discussions, house-rules, and general eggshell walking is required to play 40k, I realized it wasn't worth the effort for me. But I'm having a kick-ass time playing Fantasy again which is now a much saner rule set by comparison, so I'm still a happy gamer.

[PourSpelur]

Westie: you nailed it in my opinion. The game itself isn't broken, just broader. A lot of the negatives I see thrown up about this brave new world we're playing in can be solved with a two minute conversation or four text messages. Sure there will be D-bags that see you pull out your rhino riding Black Templars and chuckles as he pulls out 5 Knight Titans. Same guy that crushed with his Psyfleman-Paladin list . Before that it was leafblower, after falcon spam, after rhino rush...

Fun opponents will still act like fun opponents. A-holes will still act like a-holes.

[Chapel]

Personally, I love that they're thumping out tons of new stuff and making more and more options. However at the same time, I'm bummed because it's a TON of rules to have to digest. After the first couple data slates, I stopped paying much attention and only started looking at the ones I was interested in. The biggest problem, which I think was nailed on the head here, is that no one knows what to expect anymore, so it's dang near impossible to build an "All comers" list. This is especially apparent at tournaments when people want to have a good idea of what to bring so that they have a shot at the title. No one wants to travel 4 hrs or more to a tournament, only to have their teeth kicked in because they had no clue what they were up against. As far as this goes, I'm not sure how to deal except try and expect everything.

 

With the inclusion of the new Knights, I was looking over my Tyranids and found that I only have a handful of units that can even deal with an all Imperial Knights list. I doubt I'll ever play against one though, so it's probably not a huge issue. I think flyers were the same way.

 

When flyers were introduced, there were only a few in the game, and people hated them because the armies that had them, abused them. Necron Air, spammed Helldrakes, and Chaos Flying Circus's. it was just a nightmare to deal with. However, as more and more armies gained flying vehicles/creatures, more and more people figured out ways to mitigate the spam, and now you don't see them as often. Even if you do, there's more ways to deal with them. They just aren't as powerful as they were.

 

I think it's just a learning curve, and more importantly, a challenge to boldly play against anything new. I think this is the same reason Forgeworld models are so disapproved of. They used to have quite a few overpowered units back in the day. Now they've been mitigated and toned back, and while there may still be one or two lurking units that are a pain to play against, most of them are fun. People never got the bad taste out of their mouth though

 

Personally, I'm planning on taking this thing head on by the horns and planning to play against whatever comes my way. If I find that I'm not having fun, I'll discuss it with my opponent and let em know, "Hey it's just not that fun playing against 3 Imperial Knights and Tau with 3 Broadsides."

 

Players have a responsibility too, just because you CAN do something (Super Spammed Tau-Eldar), doesn't mean you should. After all it's about having fun playing a game.

[dalmer]

Hello there,

 

Shooter's choice, plain and simple.  Play the game how you wanna play it and you'll be fine.

 

If I play against someone that pulls out a cheesy, uberpowered list then oh well.  I'll hopefully learn something from the experience.  Not too often that you know exactly what's coming anyhow, so what the the heck... the vagaries of war and all.

 

The game, just like the player base, will evolve in ever-expanding paths.  Some folks will go for power playing.  Some folks for narrative.  Some folks... you get the picture.

 

It's YOUR hobby, do it how YOU want.

 

Stay safe,

 

don

[Guest]

Or has stronghold assault, escalation, dataslates, digital only releases, and imperial knights killed anyone else's interest in 40k? It's just too convoluted to pay attention anymore.

 

I own 40k models, but I don't plan to play in any organized situations anytime soon. Hopefully all of this big model BS will get toned down by another edition. I will pick it up then I guess.

Well, they've certainly killed any FAQ attempts. Army builder is really in trouble, too, as they can't update it quick enough. They've also discouraged players from buying all the rules, as with such rapid releases of rules you need to know to have fun, they are just encouraging piracy.

 

As for 40k being too convoluted, it's been that way for a while. I think it started with the GK codex in 5th and now GW seems to favor writing books that break what you knew the game to be.

-Pax

[Lord Hanaur]

Im finding no shortgae of people willing to play normal games without Escalation and Stronghold. Hopefully its like Cities of Death:  its there, you can play it Buuuut....  no ones really pressing the issue.  You know?

[Guest]

The funny bit is that I'm liking the new rules. They make making broken (over powered "broken") lists harder to use because there are more and more ways to counter broken lists.

 

I find it very interesting that the very players that would use "competitive" lists don't seem to be in support of escalation or stronghold assault. Not all of those against it, but many are players that tend to leave a foul taste in my mouth regarding their approach to playing the game. The new supplements make mean lists harder to create and promote more balanced list creation - which means the over specialized, or "Optimized," lists suffer, while the all-comers are doing just fine with the updates.

-Pax

[Munkie]

The funny bit is that I'm liking the new rules. They make making broken (over powered "broken") lists harder to use because there are more and more ways to counter broken lists.

 

I find it very interesting that the very players that would use "competitive" lists don't seem to be in support of escalation or stronghold assault. Not all of those against it, but many are players that tend to leave a foul taste in my mouth regarding their approach to playing the game. The new supplements make mean lists harder to create and promote more balanced list creation - which means the over specialized, or "Optimized," lists suffer, while the all-comers are doing just fine with the updates.

-Pax

 

Creating a counter to a power list only promotes "balanced play" if the counter doesn't also smash the balanced lists. And I just don't see how that's the case. What Lord of War/Fortification/Knight/etc. would destroy a tournament list but struggle against an underpowered list? Also, all comers lists went extinct with the advent of 6th edition. The more recent releases compound that by creating so many different variables to plan for that you can't plan for all of them. It feels less like its about generalship than ever, and more about rock-paper-scissors. That's a fine game and all, but I don't really like sitting down to a 3 hour lesson on how well scissors cut apart paper.

 

It seems we can mostly agree, at any rate, that the game isn't that fun if you take it all in at once. So we have to agree to omit things, clarify things, tweak, alter and subtract to try to make the game fun for everyone again. I just don't know how many hurdles I want to jump over in the quest to like a game, but it's somewhere fewer than what GW has laid out.

[Aventine]

What Lord of War/Fortification/Knight/etc. would destroy a tournament list but struggle against an underpowered list?

 

An all Knight list would wreck most close-combat deathstar based lists (even 2++ ones) but would struggle against a Drop Pod Marine force or any army with a couple flyers. Just as an example, there are plenty of others.

 

I've been playing every week with everything allowed for two months and it really isn't that big of a deal (though no one has broken out a Revenant). The players using super heavies and big forts have lost most of their games actually. I've been loving the pace of rules releases, and not necessarily knowing them all; how long has is been since that was true? It reminds of 3rd ed when you didn't know what random White Dwarf article your opponents list came out of and you had to learn on the wing.

 

[AbusePuppy]

I've been playing every week with everything allowed for two months and it really isn't that big of a deal (though no one has broken out a Revenant). The players using super heavies and big forts have lost most of their games actually. I've been loving the pace of rules releases, and not necessarily knowing them all; how long has is been since that was true? It reminds of 3rd ed when you didn't know what random White Dwarf article your opponents list came out of and you had to learn on the wing.

 

My experience has been very much the opposite- a well-constructed list with a superheavy in it will roll over most comparable lists without. Not every time, but more often than not. The Warhound, Revenant, and Transcendent C'tan in particular can basically only be dealt with by armies specialized for fighting them- and even these often fall short of the mark, if the Escalation player knows what they're doing.

[Aventine]

My experience has been very much the opposite- a well-constructed list with a superheavy in it will roll over most comparable lists without. Not every time, but more often than not. The Warhound, Revenant, and Transcendent C'tan in particular can basically only be dealt with by armies specialized for fighting them- and even these often fall short of the mark, if the Escalation player knows what they're doing.

 

That's probably true, we haven't had anyone super competitive bust out a LoW. I think, as best as I can figure, the least limiting, most beneficial tournament rules go something like this:

2+ re-roll nerf ala LVO (4+ on 2nd roll)

2 Codex limit ala LVO (No Primary+Ally+Inquisition+Formation+Knight+LoW)

Allow Escalation and Stronghold Assault, but no ranged weapons with D allowed (even SM can have Knights then, and everyone else has non-D options).

No defense networks (multi forts) or void shields.

No non-Escalation FW LoW.

Allow Formations (Unique) and Inquisition, but they count to two Codex limit.

 

I think that really limits some of the most unpleasant matchups, and allows for super heavies, which seem to be very much part of the game now, considering the all superheavy Codex coming out.

[Torg]

Or has stronghold assault, escalation, dataslates, digital only releases, and imperial knights killed anyone else's interest in 40k? It's just too convoluted to pay attention anymore.

 

I own 40k models, but I don't plan to play in any organized situations anytime soon. Hopefully all of this big model BS will get toned down by another edition. I will pick it up then I guess.

 

I have been out of playing 40k for some time… but I did try the most recent version about 6 months ago and really liked it.  But since then its been a landslide of stuff … sourcebooks … rulebooks …etc.  It really seems daunting to try and get back into a game that keeps dumping all this stuff.  Not that it is bad for the game … it just really seems convoluted and hard to keep up with.  I have started to dust off my specialist game stuff - with thoughts of selling off the 40k stuff and moving on.  I love the stuff I have - I just don't feel like I have the stomach to get back into something that to me… is starting to resemble a CCG in my mind.  

 

-d

[dashneeb]

I'd echo the point above.

 

City fight has been out for a long time.  I've only ever played that rules set once or twice.  There has been the cry in some of our less formal games of "Forge world is now legal so you can suck it!" but no one has shown up with an Imperator yet.  

 

If you don't like Escalation and Stronghold assault, don't use them.

[scottshoemaker]

They're just toys folks, and GW is a business that sells toys, and it behooves them to facilitate creating the means to sell more toys.

 

This is how Rogue Trader was, no holds barred face punch play, or a friendly game between people that communicate about their game the hope to play.

 

I am loving the amount a variety in the game right now.  As you now have to trust your opponent that that aren't cheating you it should help us develop relationships with our friends. 

 

Dear Lord, it means we have to be nice to each other, and if someone comes off as a jackhole word will spread.

[intrizic]

  As you now have to trust your opponent that that aren't cheating you it should help us develop relationships with our friends. 

 

Dear Lord, it means we have to be nice to each other, and if someone comes off as a jackhole word will spread.

This

[pretre]

We still don't have as many codexes/books/WD articles/options as there were in 3rd. Just saying...

[pretre]

And, to be honest, a lot of the negativity from the online community turns me off to 40k more than GW's actual actions. I think if people just up and played instead of complaining about it, we'd be a lot happier.

 

(Not directed at anyone here, but more the internet in general.)

[andozane]

40K has always been, and will always be, a fun casual game for me.  I'm not a competitive player.

I enjoy playing with my friends.

I will definitely echo, it is the talk before the game that is important.

I love the fact that we have more options, new books, new toys, new stuff constantly coming in.  The collector in me hates it, but the enthusiast in me loves it.

 

But in the end, as someone else put it, vote with your wallet.  I do ask, if you have voted with your wallet, quit bitching on the internet :)  You don't see me ranting about WarmaHordes or Malifaux or whatever else constantly.

[Guest]

Creating a counter to a power list only promotes "balanced play" if the counter doesn't also smash the balanced lists. And I just don't see how that's the case. What Lord of War/Fortification/Knight/etc. would destroy a tournament list but struggle against an underpowered list? Also, all comers lists went extinct with the advent of 6th edition. The more recent releases compound that by creating so many different variables to plan for that you can't plan for all of them. It feels less like its about generalship than ever, and more about rock-paper-scissors. That's a fine game and all, but I don't really like sitting down to a 3 hour lesson on how well scissors cut apart paper.

 

It seems we can mostly agree, at any rate, that the game isn't that fun if you take it all in at once. So we have to agree to omit things, clarify things, tweak, alter and subtract to try to make the game fun for everyone again. I just don't know how many hurdles I want to jump over in the quest to like a game, but it's somewhere fewer than what GW has laid out.

Aventine pretty much covers it.

 

I will also note that the so called "compeditive" lists are really just a bunch of lists designed to specifically counter each other. They are not about list strength, just about countering common and expected counters from only other "competitive" lists - same reason that the next new release will make them obsolete (until they tweak their army to be competitive against competitive again...). Many of these lists also function around the glass hammer concept, a list where either they win significantly or they quickly lose, or rather, you usually crush your opponent or let them crush you.

 

All-comers lists aren't extinct, they just don't appear in the tournament setting much because the kind of player that plays games with the intention of a balanced and fun against all opponents, isn't welcome amongst the tournament players. You might not realize it, but many are rather rude about, even if they doubtfully intend to be rude.

 

The noteworthy list types which are extinct are the ones that can't be used in a tourney setting. In example, knew a guy in 3rd or 4th that had a 2k list of mostly grots. Tournaments don't like this sort of list because it doesn't fit in the time constraints very well, even if it's often a perfectly viable list concept and actually exploits many of the tourney limitations. At 2k with the double FOC, I can put 360 grots on the table and still have points for other things. How many can your list actually kill? Even TAU is going to have some troubles there. The problem with the list, is time. If the ork player decides to move all his models, even if very fast about it, the time constraint in most events will result in less than an entire game.

 

Anyway, you want LoWs that will ruin a tourny list, but struggle against an all-comers or just a non-compeditive list?

 

For argument, we'll assume that the definition of all-comers is a list that functions pretty equally against all opponents.

 

Let's see, Jeremy has that all-bike list he's been running at GG, that one count as tourny? A list themed around massive numbers of T5 models with 3+ armor, and often, 3+ cover. That Khorne Lord of Skulls would likely ruin his day with 2x hellstorm templates at S8+ AP3 and the D melee weapon with an upwards of 10 attacks on the charge. The thing counts as a daemon too, so 5++ and potential 3++ with grimore. No shortage of things that Daemons or CSM could do to bolster the thing too.

 

Grey Knights fielding a fluffy anti-daemon list would go to town against a lord of skulls and his CSM/Daemon henchmen, but probably struggle miserably against the bike army.

 

 

I've been playing every week with everything allowed for two months and it really isn't that big of a deal (though no one has broken out a Revenant). The players using super heavies and big forts have lost most of their games actually. I've been loving the pace of rules releases, and not necessarily knowing them all; how long has is been since that was true? It reminds of 3rd ed when you didn't know what random White Dwarf article your opponents list came out of and you had to learn on the wing.

 

 

I will admit, I've been deliberately playing my army soft lately. I keep getting paired with new players and I feel that I'd rather play a fun learning game, than crush them so bad that they don't want to play again. The empathy is strong with me... Many of the super heavies can get really, really mean once you start combining abilities.

-Pax

[Torg]

I only play for fun… I enjoy collecting and painting the figs… but I tend to want to have all the rules to things I may play… and getting back is hard enough… without the flood of stuff lol.  It's all me I get it.  And I remember Rogue Trader days…and the massive rules changes every book coming out like 3-4 months apart.  It's when 95% of everyone I knew quit the game LOL.  For me… that which will not fit into my Eldar warhost (for apoc mostly) will be sold.  When I play it is only for the fun - and I won't be keeping up with the many rules additions ..etc.  

 

-d

[ChaosGerbil]

All comers lists are in trouble. Let's say I tried to get ready for the new environment:

 

1/4 of your points to anti-air

1/4 to anti superheavies / strongholds

1/4 of your points to stop death stars

1/4 of your points for scoring troops

 

I know there is some overlap (FW lascannon Sabre defense platforms for example), but let's just look at broad strokes. An opponent with an extreme army can focus fire on the 1/4 designed to counter that area, and if successful is very likely to win. Maybe I am over-simplifying, but it seems like I can't build a good list any more to deal with all these different kinds of threats. Maybe when you try to build in so many counters for everything it gets to the point where your army has little focus and a regular 5th edition style MSU or horde list from 5th takes you out.

 

As for keeping up with rules, I've given up. $50 hardbacks are way too much, especially when I have about 8 different armies to update... let alone getting opponent army rules.