I Have more or Less given up on 40k, because it has become 'he who goes first wins', people build armies simply based on that logic...the Guard army mention in the beginning is probably one of these armies.
I do agree a 40k regular, and an advanced system would be nice.
I remember Warzone (flame on) had a neat system of Action points for a unit, so they could shoot, run, shoot, or run, shoot, shoot, ...etc...etc....unfortunately the rules had some serious flaws...as did some of the minis
But it was based around a chess game, you move a piece i move a piece....and Damn it...I like chess....probably why i love EA
Admittedly a system like that would never work in a tournament situation...unless the tournament was a week in length, but why can there be the igoyougo system for the tournies and a grownup version for people (like myself) who don't mind playing for more than 2 hours and want tactics, and want to think, and plot and utilize all aspects of their given army...not just the ones that will win it in the first round.
Codex creep is a big problem though, it always is, you have codex's written by different people, all wanting theirs to be top dog, and honestly, I don't think the boys in GW would know how to product test something if their lives depended on it.

40k is acceptable if played with people who are not obsessed with min-maxing and winning. But Void and Warzone were definitely better. The 3rd edition of warzone (as well as 2nd edition of Chronopia) showed great promise; it's a pity Excelsior did not get going.

_________________
I don't know and I let who care. -J.S.

Um, I actually quite like 40k. The models, background and conversion potential are all good. The background especially so. One of the reasons I fell out of love with Warmachine was something to do with the storyline.

On the table
The complicated rules satisfy my compulsive side and allow me to indulge in the same theory and max min work as does Magic the Gathering. Since my gaming group were never able to get hold of a decent size gaming table, the kind of play that EPIC rewards simply wasn't possible, so small scale 40k was the way to go.

(Necromunda and Inquisitor were also mooted, but too many of us had 40k armies. The only one who didn't bought shedloads of 25mm scale army men and wrote some fluff about desert planets.)

I like 40K too. Not that there isn't problems with the game. I feel the bigger problems are with GW as a whole. They have a problem with dumbing down the game to appeal more to kids then the actual people playing the game. I have been playing for about 11 years now and have loved every minute of it. I wish the prices would go down and they are in some respects but in others they are getting way to high with the prices. I have not once really said I am quiting the game. I have quite playing warmachine/hordes. But that is for another topic. The one problem I have is they are slow at getting things out. But that is a sales thing so I guess I understand it. I do feel there is a power creep from one codex to another, but that falls on how they have the codexes written. They put the people that play the armies on there own codex, of course there is going to be power creeping. I know if I was to write a codex I would make things good for my army as well. I think GW needs to have better play testing and get some people that will try to break the codex not just build a list of all the new models that GW is making. I guess things will stay the same for now, but we can hope right. By the way GW where is all your support for the Specialist Games?

As regards "Codex Creep", it is an intentional part of GW's marketing methods that they always try and make the latest Codex the most powerful one.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I don't think it is that. I can't recall it exactly, but a friend who has a Imperial guard army could create a group of Hardened veterans that could deploy deploy in cover, outside of the deployment zone, with Lascannons or some such nonsense. The Chaos codex was the same when compared to the new Wolf codex, you can build a kitted wolf squad for 30 pts cheaper than a comparable chaos space marine squad, and the Wolfs come with ablities, you gotta pay for the chaos ones. The Blood angel honor guard winged dudes, awesome model, but they will never actually be used in a competitive army (not my words, as told by a hardcore BA player)and on and on.
There is no...standard, no checks and balances when a new codex is created. It is because each codex is written by someone different and IMHO not play tested correctly, sure they may sit down and play and see if it works, knock out a few quick games for fun and say...good enough. It clearly isn't, what they need to do is give it to the most evil cunning ruthless playtesters to do one thing and one thing only. break it, show how it can be totally misused...then fix those mistakes, try again, and when the evil players can't manipulate the rules and can only build a balanced and fair army (or as balanced and fair army as their twisted minds will allow them to create), then release the codex.
I don't believe they should be releasing the latest army and making it the ultimate army just to sell 40k. And the logic of doing it to get new players involved is crazy, I have seen new players come into a game store, with a gleam in their eye, only to run into the afore mentioned evil players and be wiped from the board in turn 2.
That is not conducive to enticing new players, it is however very successful in creating a new low cost way to buy half painted armies off ebay.

And why can't there be 2 versions of 40k, a quick easy version to get people playing based off the current system, and a more adult, tactical version. Almost like in Racing games, a 'arcade' version and a 'simulation' version...this would allow for the most financial gain for GW, new players can get into it and have fun, then as they mature graduate to a more adult version, but still go back to the arcade version to get a friend or new kid to the game hooked.
lets be honest we still give GW money, maybe not as much but who hasn't seen looked at one of their 40k armies and gone...."huh...those new dark reapers look so much better than my old conehead dark reapers." and bought a new squad? hands up who can honestly say they have NEVER done this...not many hands up I am betting

@ bmans5 : I pretty much agree with you there. the funny thing is there demagraphic is 12 to 15 yr olds. All well and good really, but they don't know how to tweek a list like most of us do. Its more HeroHammer then anything anymore. Have you ever looked at a White Dwarf battle report army list and wonder why are you taken that or that doesn't make sense or what were they thinking? I have, most of the battle reports I do that. I am not really sure they are in it for the game anymore. I think its all numbers now to them, and its sad really. And yes I have honestly bought a model/squad because the old one is ugly and the new one is so much cooler, but I also have done the opposite. Kept the old model because the new one is ugly.

If you're stuck playing 'Ard Boyz style tournaments (which are the worst way to play 40K in my view), then I understand this perspective, but if you play regular games with the right amount of terrain and sensible points values, then this isn't at all the case in my experience.



While it's clear to see from the Space Wolf and Blood Angel codices that there was definitely an attempt to do this, the Dark Eldar codex rather holes that theory below the water line in my opinion, as it's definitely not as powerful as some of the fifth edition codices which have preceded it.

_________________

Having interviewed to work in the Studio, my impression was definitely that being new, cool, and powerful, was more important than balance.


Because GW cannot afford to admit that their standard Codexes are designed for children. Introducing a "40k advanced" would be an admission of that fact.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter