General interest in 40K lost?

[Chimera]

I think it's important to find a group of like-minded players. I think about it like roleplaying: My play style isn't compatible with a lot of gaming groups (story and gameplay come before rules and rolls) so I'm very careful who I play with. The same just now applies to 40k. It's a shame we need to operate this way but, given the balance and interpretive issues, that's the reality with which we need to deal.

When I play against people I know aren't douchebags who use decent lists (not garbage but not crazy overpowered) I know I'm going to have a good time. I like going to events like GS because I'm prepared for crazy lists and possibly some douchebaggery but might meet a new person to add to my regular group of opponents. If you have a really good game at a tournament you know the person is quality (or is compatible with your style of play).

[Desc440]

I would terribly like to play 40k more, but having a young kid makes it very hard to play at all.

I personnaly think that 5th ed is the best edition of the game so far. I started in 3rd, back when it was Rhino Rush or bust, then skipped 4th almost entirely, which is good since I like tanks and tanks were garbage back in 4th. Hopefully 6th will nudge transports back a tiny bit (i.e. have to disembark to capture objectives, for example. Perhaps also you could have to take a Ld test not to disembark after a penetrating hit) but nothing too drastic.

I think GW certainly has made some booboos in the past few years; I certainly hope they realise what they are doing before it's too late. It seems to me that GW is on the verge of failure cascade. Constant price hikes and shady practices ("Here! Have some cheap resin, and pay more for the privilege of having your models break/melt!") have driven a lot of people away. GW needs to understand that if too few people play the game, no one will play at all; when its too hard to find opponents, you tend to stop looking.

As far as the "people play too competively now!" tirade goes, really, its not that hard to avoid having to deal with this: play with people you know and that like to play the same way. Failing that, its entirely possible to arrange pleasant games against new opponents if you talk it over with them beforehand; I personnaly prefer to go with competitive lists against competitive lists, but if my opponent prefers to play softer lists, I have no problem with toning it down so that we both enjoy a good game.

[Crantor]

Not really. I started in 1989 with RT. I still game with some of the same people from that time. I think it boils down to power gamers and fluff players. They've always been there but GW started making the game "competitive" with tourneys and so on for some time now. Back in the RT and 2nd edition days there was not too many competions or tournaments so people played for fun. Once they introduced those things more widely, people started making power lists. Compare it to competitive hockey and recreational. One is about winning and being the best, the other is for fun. It isn't the game or which edition, it's the players. i enjoy my weekly games with my buddies. Beer, socialising. occasionally someone brings the cheesy list but it's all in good fun.

The key for vet players is to play the fluffy lists and win against the power gamers. It presents an awesome challenge. Last GS I played a fluffy blood angel list. A Flesh Tearer army. I love that chpater's background. There are many ways to play that codex to power game. I feel I played a list that reflected fluff but still was competitive enough. I won 2 and tied two. Heck there were some Eldar players that finished in the top 10. What does that tell you?

Anyway, that's my 2cents.

[darnott]

I played 1st edition 40K using the Compendium and Compilation booklets. I played 2nd edition. I stopped with the release of 3rd edition as I saw it as an abomination. I started again with 5th edition when I couldn't find any other similiar game, and after trying unsuccessfully to develop my own ruleset. The rulebook for 5th edition has minor flaws in play which I hope will be corrected in 6th edition. However, I suspect that 6th edition will focus on a game change rather than corrections, but nowhere as radical as the game change from 2nd edition to 3rd edition.

Why do I continue with 40K now? I have a glimmer of hope that I can find other players that are of the same attitude towards the game as myself. I want the competition in a 40K game, but I do not want the domination in a 40K game. Regrettably, for product sales, GW rigs the game for domination.

As one plays 40K, one may have an enthusiasm crash because 40K, and/or its community, is not providing what one wants in a game. What to do? Stop? Sell? Hibernate? Myself, I have decided to build non-domination armies on a theme. Of course, it's tricky at times to determine if a model/unit from a codex provides competition or provides domination, as sometimes it depends on the other components in the army.

Generally, I see Unique and Special Characters as domination units. Knight Commander Pask from the IG codex is an example to me of an Unique upgrade character that is not a domination unit. Inquisitor Coteaz from the GK codex is an example to me of a Special Character that is not a domination unit depending on the composition of the Inquisitional Henchmen units which were made Troop choices by the inclusion of Inquisitor Coteaz.

Vehicles? Monstrous Creatures? One, maybe two. In my view, 40K has become kithammer with the vehicle kits and the monster kits as the other units of domination. Whereas not including Unique and Special Characters is a simplistic means to define a non-domination game involving these units, Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures require a different solution, that is, limiting them through self-restraint. I see this limitation through self-restraint as an art, and not a science. I would have to be knowledgeable with a codex to provide a good assessment about whether an army list is for domination or non-domination play when including Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures.

Once one discards Unique and Special Characters, and limits Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures through self-restraint, one has an abundance of points to spend on Troops, and the pressure to play high-point games subsides.

I have no problem with a 40Ker liking and wanting to play using domination and/or high-point games (and with little terrain), but that's not for me.

Doug

[Crantor]

I disagree with some of that since some characters provide the rules to customise and add character to your army. Take teh space marien codex. If you want chapter variant you need to use the special character associated to that chapter. i don't find them overly powerful. Remember Tigurius and Invictus from 2nd edition? Those guys were gods compared to what's out there now.

In my Flesh Tearer list, i use Gabriel Seth. I think he is well balanced and makes my list that much more fluffy.

[Feor]

I disagree with some of that since some characters provide the rules to customise and add character to your army. Take teh space marien codex. If you want chapter variant you need to use the special character associated to that chapter. i don't find them overly powerful. Remember Tigurius and Invictus from 2nd edition? Those guys were gods compared to what's out there now.

In my Flesh Tearer list, i use Gabriel Seth. I think he is well balanced and makes my list that much more fluffy.

I disagree that you NEED the special character to make the list match to a given chapter. I havew well over 2000 points of White Scars, and Refuse to use Kosarro Khan. Why? Because the background of the White Scars is that they're the masters of hit and run warfare. Swooping in to cut a swath through their enemies, then falling back before their foe can mount a proper defense.

Khan takes away Combat Tactics (which is close enough to hit & run) and gives them outflank (so a roughly 1 in 3 chance of a chunk of my army being useless). And I don't get the option, he just does it.

[Crantor]

True you don't need to but...

Khan makes your bikes troops, meaning you can have an all bike army and make them scoring. He also gives hit and run to a unit he joins. Again, he makes it a bit fluffy and isn't that overpowered.

[Feor]

True you don't need to but...

Khan makes your bikes troops, meaning you can have an all bike army and make them scoring. He also gives hit and run to a unit he joins. Again, he makes it a bit fluffy and isn't that overpowered.

Any captain on a bike (but not chapter masters *grumble grumble*) makes your bikes troops, and he takes away the closest thing to Hit and Run the rest of the army has. I would gladly have paid another 50 points for him if he'd replaced Combat Tactics with hit and run, but as is he feels more like a Master of the Ravenwing than a White Scar.

[Crantor]

It's a matter of how you see your fluff. I have a 1st company Ultramarine army that uses Cantor as Agemmon. It alows me to make my sternguard scoring. Or alternatively i use Lysander. Those characters add flavour. i use shrike in my all scout army becaus he fits more or less.

i could easily use Mephiston or dante with my Flesh Tearers but I don't for fluff reason. My point is that most of the characters are not uber-powerful.

[Orbital]

I like 5th edition 40k just fine,

I actually really like the core rules. I dislike the codices.

it's all about finding good people to play against.

That is absolutely, positively true. Good friends and good sportsmanship can make a so-so game awesome, but so-so friends and so-so sportsmanship make a great game lousy.