40k, who stuck with it?

[Ian]

While I can argue with you reasons I certainly can't agree that FoW is anywhere near balanced! I don't think any game truely is but FoW is in my opinion the least so.

Well we will just have to disagree. I have played Phil a number of times and the results have been about even on both sides. True a few games were quick wins for him but that was mainly because the scenario was against me but we have never had a games where I *knew* I was going to lose just because he was fielding a certain army. Even when those dam Hungarians with their Tigers fought my infantry it was still close.

In fact I will go on record and say that FoW games I have played have been a dam site closer than 95% of the 40K I have played. That's part of th reason I am more interested in it than 40K, any army is competative where as in 40K only some are and only if you have the new models.

[DaBoss]

As Ian has said our games of FoW have seen equal number of wins on both sides.
Ian is limited to Polish Armour or Infantry, whereas I've fielded various Tank/Mechanised/Infantry from the different Nationalities - its the Mission and the choices you make (plus a bit of dice luck).

But remember these are friendly games - FoW Tournaments are a different Beast, where the top players have optimised there forces and capabilities, though looking at results posted top army varies but the same player names hit the top.

Whereas for WH40K and Fantasy, I really see a polarised split between top tier forces and lower tier. But this has been a symptom of GW for a long time.

[BANE]

The reason I see FoW as unbalanced is the opposite of why you see it as balanced, I have never felt like I was beat before I start a game of 40k where I have been told I have already lost before deployment in games of FoW. You have the benefit of playing Phil who I imagine is not trying to bring the most broken lists to the table, as you can probably tell by Phil's post my verdict on FoW is coloured by a tournament experience, one where I played the best game of my life my plan working 100% as imagined, I completely outplayed my opponent and out maneuvered 80% of his army and hit the objective with 80% of mine. His prediction was correct I lost. I know in games (40k FoW and others) when things are going well or bad and can work out my chance of success With no other game have I ever experienced complete dominance to then lose the game because my opponent does nothing. It was the same in game 2 too.

FoW is a decent game, and played at friendly club level is perfectly fine, but so is 40k, play FoW at a tournie and it quickly descents into a broken mess of who has a defensive army and is prepared to do the least to win the game. On the 40k tournie scene its not as bad, there is more powerful builds sure, but at least the have to take part in the game to win.

I am glad you enjoy FoW and hope you continue to do so, but once you play the same power players that you have in 40k you will see, like most systems, It ain't balanced.

[Ljundhammer]

I certainly know I've been beaten in a game of 40k before deployment...

All games have an element of rock-paper-scissors in their extremes.

Almost all games of 4th & 5th ed I could tell the winner after deployment. List building and deployment were such a massive part of those that it was silly.

Whether 6th goes the same way, I'm not sure yet, but armies do seem to be more mobile than before so it may change. But I doubt it.

[BANE]

Maybe I am just an optimist then, or world-class at 40K and rubbish at FoW

[Ljundhammer]

Most of 40k's depth in 4th & 5th was at list building and deployment.

I'm crap at list building, but not bad at deployment - I've had to work hard to get my list building up to scratch, which it still isn't (although I'm getting there...).

Once deployed, most armies run on rails barring an unexpected 'trick' in your opponent's army, but I see few of those. Almost all units are predictable in their movement, ranges, firepower, and destructive potential. They are also predictable in their resiliance. This only changes in small dice pools (such as DeathWing) where there aren't enough dice to average out over a game. It's part of the reason I play Guard - I have enough dice & redundancy to ensure that I can smooth out any lumps & bumps in distribution. It's also why I play DeathWing - you need to play with a certain mindset to ensure that you can do things even when dice fail you.

[killmaimburn]

I certainly know I've been beaten in a game of 40k before deployment...

I concur.. Me and LH had a game a few weeks back, where he had 2 objectives inside his wall of tanks..I had one mid ground and it was bikes running along the full length of the board across the minefield by cover of daylight into a tank wall.
A guy who hasn't played since second ed left to go out to the pub because (even) he knew what was going to happen over the next 2hours..
But as I say the ONLY games that never have that are the ones that start out totally identical.(Scissors vs Scissors) A downside for variety?in tabletop yes.

Whereas for WH40K and Fantasy, I really see a polarised split between top tier forces and lower tier. But this has been a symptom of GW for a long time.

this is an odd one all of its own.. Chaos are still up there in tourney terms (its just they have the 1 build and that is it)..Grey knights ,despite all the moaning and gnashing of teeth, didn't peak out in tourney terms(and 6th ed has tarnished a bit of their shine).. and then you have odd upsets like 3rd ed wraithwing did ridiculosuly well a few times ayear or so back, as did a fast playing green tide. Whilst I agree some codex provide more options, more internal balance, more variety worthy of bringing to a table.. its amazing what epic tier players can do with camel dung codexs on the tourney scene.. and that (plus a few other reasons) are why they are win.

I've stopped wowing and amazing LH now, he's learnt that I can seperate an IC from a squad to provide cover to a scoring unit ,get out multiple doors..lure into explosions and all the other slight of hands. So now his raw processing commanding beats me more often than I can pull rabbits from the hat he's not expecting.

[BANE]

See this is why I think we see different results, I am a all or nothing player, I take the biggest risks to achieve the biggest rewards, when this works it really works, but when it goes wrong it goes really wrong. This allows me to win games against better builds and lose against inferior ones. This clouds my opinion on codex creep I guess because I feel tactics trump creep.

I agree on the guard army tho, they have so much redundancy that a well written guard list is currently my hardest game, especially if they take fortifications. However I never deploy thinking I have already lost as I can take a risk on a all or nothing tactic.

On list building, its quite simply an impossible mission, I am currently tweaking mine to deal with a guard hybrid armour list, but as I take units out I can see how I am weaking my list against other armies.

[berger15]

I'll be honest - I think these are the worst rules I have played in the last 20 years. Wound "allocation" is a joke, as your characters have to hide in the unit, as do all the weapons that need to be at the front (flamers anyone?), the Warlord traits make the IC rules little pointless, Hull points mean that a few glancing hits and your tank falls apart, the "look out, Sir" roll - really? Managing to see the bullet / laser bolt (traveling at the speed of light presumably) / monomolecular disc etc, and then throwing yourself in front of it in time to save your IC?! Add to this, the additional 3" movement during combat at each initiative step for relevant models, the "stand and shoot" reaction, the issuing of challenges - There are just too many poor changes in this edition. Personally, I think 4th ed is my favourite, and 5th was probably almost as good.

Since 6th ed arrived, I have actually stopped playing 40K. The rules just leave me wondering if GW actually do playtest before deciding to publish.

I even considered selling my armies, but I have spent too long painting them to give them up. Maybe I'll be convinced to play the odd game, but I'm going back to fantasy in the main. The rules are near enough identical, but in a fantasy environment some of the daft 40K the rules make a bit more sense.

[Ogregut]

Sorry to hear you feel that way mate but happy to see your sticking with fantasy, we need more square base players!

[berger15]

Yeah. I don't like the fact that I don't like the new rules. I really enjoyed 40K. Still, at least i have a reason to start painting my beastmen again - might even finish them soon!

[mattjgilbert]

One of our guys wondered if we should just stick to 5th Ed.

I want to play some games of 6th before making any decision though.

[Baragash]

IMO a hybrid ruleset would be ideal, just need to find time to write it.....

[RotweillerofJustice]

Surely it's down to each individual to decide where they go? If you want 6th then play it.
If you prefer 5th then find like minded people and play with them.
I haven't tried 6th yet. But some friends of mine are raving about it. So will give it a go.

[paulmc]

ive noticed the last few weeks at redcar raiders a significant drop off in 40k games, last thursday there was none, the first time ive seen that on a 'general play' night.
I will admit I was one of the 6th ed haters, but after a few games its not too bad. I have had to change the whole ethos of my army to make it competative and im not overly impressed by that but im not at the stage where im selling my armies in disgust
I think I will keep playing 40k but would much rather play 5th ed if the players were available locally
im just starting to play a new system ,Bolt Action, 28mm WWII and this looks like it plays like early versions of 40k with IMO better wound allocation and hopefully no codex creep