Login

Username:


Password:


Remember me



Forgot Password?




 Merchandise




40k, who stuck with it?

Discussion of anything 40K related

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby markb » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:06 pm

I'd argue about the support side of things since GW let Fanatic go and lumped it all in with the Specialist games section, apart from the models they still produce (mainly because they still have the moulds I would suggest), there is virtually no support at all for them. This is a pity as the Specialist games are some of the best they ever made but with them being small scale, i.e. only needing a few models, there just isn't any money to be made and the suits obviously decided to kill it. A prime example of this is Epic, after an initial frenzy of releases for 4th ed it just simply stopped, leaving ranges incomplete and several armies nonexistent. The core games are well supported as this is where the money is.

In general I agree with the quality of the products, most of the stuff GW now produce is well nice (except for that godawful SM gunship thing!) but you do pay a premium for it. I haven't had the "pleasure" of buying any F|inecast things so I can't comment on them. Mantic produce some good stuff as well, admittedly mainly fantasy, and are quite a bit cheaper than GW but I find them a bit inconsistent, while some of the models are very nice like the Elves others just leave me a bit meh, like the Dwarves and Orcs.
"The guns have stopped because we are at last about to attack. Even our generals aren't mad enough to shell their own men, they think its far more sporting to let the Germans do it!"

Capt Edmund Blackadder, the Somme, 1917.

Image
User avatar
markb
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:20 pm
Location: On a high plains desert somewhere near Uzbekistan, lets leave it at that
Medals: 1
Painting Entrant (1)

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby Angelwing » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:53 pm

Finally have a 6th ed mini rulebook in the post to me. Hopefully getting some 'proper' 6th ed games going soon, but in the interim my group has switched to necromunda for the change.
User avatar
Angelwing
Zoanthrope
Zoanthrope
 
Posts: 2310
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Bridgwater, Somerset
Medals: 17
Gold (5) Silver (1) Painting Entrant (11)

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby BANE » Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:58 pm

Having just caught up with this thread I just want to point something out. The main reason I believe there has been an exodus from 40K this edition is what is said about people's lack of desire for change coupled with this the most important factor, they is actually genuine alternatives to this edition, on the last edition WM, malf, infinity, bolt action, DZ commander, MANTIC didn't exsist and FoW was in its infancy at best.

People find it harder to turn away from 40K when there is little alternative, this ain't the case anymore, I see signs that GW recognise this and are trying to improve there products as a result. I can see loads of FoW influences in 6th ed and GW themselves consider that system the biggest threat to there business. The advent of the FW HH series is in my view GW attempt to exploit their strongest IP (which is GW biggest part of their business) and provide things like primarchs to provide alternatives to 3rd parties like kabulia? miniatures.
User avatar
BANE
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:55 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby Stryder » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:02 pm

definately agree mark because some of their designs for the small skirmish games (especially games like inquisitor and my all time favourite gang fight from gorkamorka..the chase..) are amazing and i just wish they would put the same thought into their war games rather than the confusion that appears when different codexes say contradicting things (example being no save of any kind and invunerable saves always allowed and i dont mean perils of the warp i mean other rulings the rulings for the black mace come to mind...chaos codex any model who suffers an unsaved wound must pass a toughness test or die no saves of any kind given then any enemy model within 3 inches of the bearer must take a toughness test or die no saves of any kind allowed)
Stryder
Newbie
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:21 am
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby mattjgilbert » Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:04 pm

I didn't really have any favourite tactics in 5th ed that I've seen disappear with 6th; that's becuase I've played one demo game of 6th and not read the rules. My reasons for not playing it are lack of time because I'm playing so many other things and a general weariness for the bloated and convoluted rules that the core GW games (I'm excluding LotR in that as I've not played it) exhibit. That and the spiralling cost of simply having enough books to play the games in the first place, let alone the models. Then there's the fact that GW need to immediately issue a raft of FAQs in order to make the games playable. It all adds up and chips away at my confidence and desire the play. I'd rather play something cleaner, cheaper and faster. We gave up playing WHFB because it was an enjoyable chore in the end. That's sad because I love fantasy and have been playing WHFB since I started gaming 25 years ago.

GW make some fantastic (if expensive) models but they cannot write rules to save their lives. The core games carry too much baggage and they should start them from scratch again. The excellent and detailed background and imagery is what makes the GW games, not the rules themselves. They are pretty mangled.
User avatar
mattjgilbert
BladeDancer
Daemon Prince
 
Posts: 5847
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Worthing, UK

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby paulmc » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:26 pm

I have to take exception to the last post, i think GW write or have written some of the best rules for games i have ever played. Rogue Trader in the 80's was the best futuristic system on the market for its generation and the fact that it is still going now is testament to that, original blood bowl and space hulk are two of the best games i have ever played, where GW go wrong is with the constant tinkering with existing rules to make a re-sale at a later date
i played WHFB extensively through the 80's/90's but gave it up after one re-write to many for my liking making magic too powerfull IMO, and i was in danger of going back to it up to the latest release. I got back into 40k at 5th edition and i loved the rules. if there was ambiguity i found that for the most part it was because of 'percieved wisdom' of in-house rules where people get used to playing a system for so long that wrong things creep into gameplay simply because they have allways been played this way. As a new gamer coming into the system i found 40k to be easy to pick up and within a month i was holding my own winning games against far more experienced players. what i loved about 40k was the difference of armies meant that you got some cracking matchups but still had occaisons where you got blow outs because some army types and builds are made just to win. My main criticism about 6th is that like WHFB psychic power has become powerful, theres no bloody chance of assault armies working and instead of working tactics to combat your armies weaknesses you can now buy allies, it has moved from a learning game to where now anyone can look at message board, get told what works, buy some models and win loads of games and in 3 months do it all again when something else is flavour of the month.
thats a criticism i hear a lot at gaming club and i think its turning players off from 40k. i will continue to play 40k because i stil find it enjoyable with the people i play against and im still waiting for a game with BANE but i am getting into different systems so i wont be playing it as much and i certainly wont be spending the amounts of money on 40k as i have in the past. i suppose i wil be playing 40k until another sci-fi game comes out that is better, and after trying a few out GW is still the best there is IMO
User avatar
paulmc
Slugga Boy
Slugga Boy
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:19 pm
Location: The Boro

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby BANE » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:09 pm

Paul if I get to club on Thursday ill give you a game, ill keep you informed on here.

I do have to disagree about you assessment of 6th tho, you could always get internet lists and power builds in 5th, you still can in 6th but allies and fortifications go towards solving this not making it worse. If everyone can take the best units from other lists it stops the power base settling in 1 over powered codex, think vendettas are broken take them as allies.

The problem GW have is there playtesting, they clearly do not try to break the game or come up with some of the power combos that we as players do. But that's not what they are selling anyway, its not a hardcore tournie ruleset, its a vehicle for 2 friends to play a game and tell a story during a evening they both want to enjoy. The problem it has as a ruleset is that its not robust enough for one of these players to be Waac or a power gamer as this then imbalances the game and turns it into an un-enjoyable rules fest or one-sided beating for 1 player.
User avatar
BANE
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:55 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby mattjgilbert » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:07 am

None of us (in our group) are really waac players at all. We don't play tournaments. That doesn't change our opinion of the game and the rules at all. Even trying "normal" and "balanced" armies gives the same result.

@paulmc - I never said GW hadn't made very good games in the past - they've made excellent ones. I find their current incarnations of the core games horribly bloated though and they are too afraid to do anything radical with them and start again. The core games are a confusing mess of special rules, exceptions which over-ride each other, needing the latest FAQs and multiple books just to play the game. That's not the sign of a well thought out and baggage-free game.
User avatar
mattjgilbert
BladeDancer
Daemon Prince
 
Posts: 5847
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Worthing, UK

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby paulmc » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:09 am

using allies to me breaks the whole ethos of choosing an army, there should be enough redundancy in any codex to cover the eventualities you want to, i think GW have made a mistake in so radically altering a popular ruleset. If what i see at redcar is happening at other clubs then 40k is dropping off, i havnt seen a game of WHFB for months and ive never seen anyone play LOTR. When the cost of everything GW does is going up (including White Dwarf) and GW stores are now closing on selected days (to cut costs???) it must be worrying them in the current economic climate.
Al dont worry about rushing the 40k game, im getting into Bolt Action for the time being and concentrating on that, after playing the first game last week im finding the rules very intuitive to my style of play and really enjoying it. Despite having another go at FOW its not really for me as i just cant get excited about 15mm.
User avatar
paulmc
Slugga Boy
Slugga Boy
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:19 pm
Location: The Boro

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby markb » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:29 am

Matt, GW have always needed a few books to play the game ever since they started but to say you need a raft of books is perhaps overstating it as all you really need is the BRB and your relevant Codex. Second ed required you to have the BRB, the wargear book, Dark Millennium (and all the cards that went with it) as well as your Codex, the same was true of 4th/5th ed WFB. I know you are a Mantic fan but having read the rules for Warpath I am seriously unimpressed by it, its just too abstract, mechanics that work for a fantasy game don't necessarily work in a sci-fi game, 2nd ed 40K followed 4th ed WFB rules very closely and as a result was quite clunky hence the radical overhaul in 3rd ed. This abstract method is what helped kill Epic.

Al, there have always been alternatives to GW, VOR the Maelstrom and Battletech (which was a lot bigger than 40K for a long time) spring immediately to mind and GW outlived them all, so to say that now there are more is again perhaps overstating it. I would say that Malifaux and Infinity aren't direct competitors in the true sense as they aren't mass combat games and more of a skirmish game along the lines of Necromunda. By the same token FoW, Bolt Action and DZC aren't either, the former due to the time period and the latter due to the scale. I would say that FoW and Bolt Action would turn some people off as they are WW2 and they might not like historical settings. DZC I would say is more of a competitor to Epic and again people might be turned off due to the scale.

I agree with you about the internet lists, again this isn't a new thing. I used to go to the GT regularly from 99 to 2005 and you would always see the top tables dominated by the flavour of the month army, the Eldar Starcannon of Doom army was an early favourite, then the Iron Warriors Pie Plate of Death army, and on and on it went. This will never change. I think part of the fun, and test of your own skill, is coming up with an army that works for you without trawling the tinterweb for what is currently the uberlist. As I have said repeatedly my SM list has gone, largely unchanged except for tweaks to legalise it for new editions and codexes, from 3rd ed to now and three SM Codexes. It was designed from the outset to be fairly, but not overly, powerful but not focused to fight one particular type of enemy but be balanced and take on all comers. I never panicked and radically changed the list, even when the big furor started about everyone needs 2 million melta guns and Rhinos to win. It was developed through careful playtesting from what I initially thought would work, finding out in practice what did and didn't and then finalising the list. Eight or so years on from its initial construction it still manages to hold its own and was done without consulting anything on the web.

Finally Paul, the allies, I suspect, where brought in to boost sales! I think the big problem with allies, and also the biggest bonus, is that it allows people to cover the defficiencies in their own Codex. Depending on your point of view this is either a good or bad thing. I am largely ambivalent on it. I think that every Codex should have inherent strengths and weaknesses and allies largely takes this away as you can take allies to cover your weakness and again I think it takes away some of the skill needed to build a list. I have a Tau army and Fire Warriors are, lets be honest here, poo. However with the new allies rules I can make up for them by taking SM or IG troops choices. This is a bit of a no brainer really and takes a way some of the challenge of having to fight a battle with troops who can't shoot very well due to low BS with a relatively high cost and get chopped to pieces in CC. On the other hand I can see that now my Tau may not be as bad as I thought and the allies have turned them into an efficient army. Like I said I am ambivalent on it and would have to see how it works in practice. Also you should give WFB a go, I have played it for twenty years and this version is one of the best.
"The guns have stopped because we are at last about to attack. Even our generals aren't mad enough to shell their own men, they think its far more sporting to let the Germans do it!"

Capt Edmund Blackadder, the Somme, 1917.

Image
User avatar
markb
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:20 pm
Location: On a high plains desert somewhere near Uzbekistan, lets leave it at that
Medals: 1
Painting Entrant (1)

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby BANE » Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:09 am

@ matt, I agree you group aren't waac players but I see that you have left 40K when like I say there is a wealth of alternatives, one that you have found you like for your reasons (simpler, more complex, tactical, cheaper, whatever it is to the individual) 40K can't be everything to everyone, some people where complaining when it got dumbed down for 3rd now others are complaining its too complex.

@ paul, that in my view is the 2nd reason why GW introduced allies, it combats codex creep if you can cover the weakness of your list with better units from another dex, and let's be honest if GW read the net the no.1 complaint is creep.

@ mark, I agree there will have been other games out last ed change, but I didn't say competitors, I said alternatives. This is the only edition in my view where there has been such an wealth of well. written games with good models and most importantly well known about. All the games I mentioned are well respected readily available systems which have spent a few years gaining fanbase and ironing out creases, are stocked by the wealth of stores that are now selling more than GW, I can't remember been this been the situation between 4th and 5th.
User avatar
BANE
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:55 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby mattjgilbert » Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:08 am

@markb - I and most people agree with you that Warpath v1 was a cheap and lazy port of KoW. I never played the game - I thought it was terrible and told them that.

WP2.0 is a lot better although still not brilliant. A lot of organised playtesting from the public will go in to wp 3.0 for its harback book next year. Of course, it's stil not going to be for everyone - just like 40K or any other game system.
User avatar
mattjgilbert
BladeDancer
Daemon Prince
 
Posts: 5847
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Worthing, UK

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby Darklighter » Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:47 pm

@Paul GW in Boro isn't shut on Mondays and Tuesday to save money! It's shut to allow more staff to be on the shop floor to one, better help customers and two, make it possible to run campaigns and events. It has also allowed them to re-open the gaming room at the back of the shop.

Allies are not a must! I'm still doing very well with my army as is without adding my Tau into the mix. I love the idea of adding guard to both my Marines and Tau armies for pure background reasons. I think it's funny that people jump all over allies as a power gamer only device without even thinking of the themed lists you could make.

I also don't think a themed or fluffy list means it can't be competitive, after all who honestly writes a list with a lets see how badly/quickly I can lose attitude?
What, no image sigs!
Darklighter
Shas'el
Shas'el
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:47 pm
Location: Redcar
Medals: 19
Gold (3) Silver (2) Bronze (1) Painting Entrant (13)

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby markb » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:25 pm

Darklighter wrote:I also don't think a themed or fluffy list means it can't be competitive, after all who honestly writes a list with a lets see how badly/quickly I can lose attitude?


Ian and Simon? :) Seriously though I agree with your point about fluffy allies, which is why I can't see how SM are Blood Brothers for Tau whereas as IG are only Grudging, I would have had it the other way around. Of course, like anything else and any other system that uses army lists it is open to abuse by the Beards.

The gaming room out the back in GW Boro wasn't shut down due to lack of staff but because there had been a spate of shop lifting when it was open on games nights.

Al, I see your point and maybe I misread it but my point was that throughout the life of RT, 2nd, 3rd and maybe into 4th (not sure when FASA went under) there was a huge alternative in Battletech which for a long time outsold 40K, especially in America. Maybe from the end of 4th and into 5th there wasn't and this maybe what led GW into their thinking on 6th with the rise of those systems you mentioned, maybe they realised they have had to up their game a bit.

Matt, maybe the final version of Warpath will be good, I don't know, but I really don't like its abstract mechanics at the moment. The depth of 40K and its complexity is what attracts me, that's the reason I, and just about everyone else, hated 3rd ed Epic as it removed the detail and replaced it with an abstract system. Also the models leave me a bit cold. I realise that Mantic are essentially doing GW lite and cheap but honestly the Warpath models just don't do anything for me. The new Enforcers look like a cross between terminators and Necrons, the Corporation Marines look like the old RT era IG, the Veer-min - hmmm, the Squats, sorry Forgefathers, are ok but again very reminiscent of the old GW Squats (probably the point I suspect) and the Marauders, well if that isn't a rip off of the older GW style then I don't know what is. Perhaps if they had tried something other than taking the GW route of KoW in Space then I might have had more interest.
"The guns have stopped because we are at last about to attack. Even our generals aren't mad enough to shell their own men, they think its far more sporting to let the Germans do it!"

Capt Edmund Blackadder, the Somme, 1917.

Image
User avatar
markb
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:20 pm
Location: On a high plains desert somewhere near Uzbekistan, lets leave it at that
Medals: 1
Painting Entrant (1)

Re: 40k, who stuck with it?

Postby Darklighter » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:01 pm

Mark it's Niki, lol. The allies matrix is that way for balance issues or at least an attempt at.

As for GW boro yes it was closed because of stealing (I even know who it was), but it was deemed that it was because of the lack of staff they had to police the area. Most days only having one staff member on at a time. Now they have a min of two on at all times unless ill or on a break.
What, no image sigs!
Darklighter
Shas'el
Shas'el
 
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:47 pm
Location: Redcar
Medals: 19
Gold (3) Silver (2) Bronze (1) Painting Entrant (13)

PreviousNext

Return to 40K Discussion




 Social Links