You are not win at all Costs player you just want flex your competitive juices against like minded and skilled opponents. If so this may be your story…

Ever since the introduction of 40k 5th edition there has been a steady, but growing stream of criticism directed at certain elements of its game design. Many vocal players have made a concerted effort to try and change the way in which 5th edition plays in attempt  a more “balance” system. An agenda unbeknownst to them which could be a simple product of their own personalities, than anything to do with what makes a good or bad rule in Warhammer 40k. Which in turn makes these arm-chair game designers failure to see some of elegance of the entire rules structure for a game as inherently complex/convoluted as Warhammer 40k.

The main gripes with 5th edition in no particular order follow these general criticisms.

  • Random Turn Length
  • Kill Points
  • True Line of Sight
  • Seizing the Initiative

If their was a four stages of 5th edition grief this list would be it (now if only we could fit in acceptance somewhere). The criticism of these facets of the current game are either implied and stated. The reason for this is simple: some players attempt to exert control over their game environment. This is not control in the Machiavelli sense– they are not trying to dominate the 40k culture. They might not admit it, but in simple terms (deep down) they want to build armies knowing before any die is ever rolled that they already won. Creating a sick need for personal predestination within 40k.

It all started with TLoS, suddenly one day the terrain was completely protecting your tank and now suddenly at you were subject to the dice gods. Many players have grown out of hating TLoS because units and tanks became generally more survivable in 5th edition as well terrain and tactics changed over time to develop around this seemingly cumbersome change. Still may players that have not logged into enough game hours or updated their terrain continue to hate this aspect of the game. What about random turn length? Here is an example, you lost one time to Eldar skimmers objective grabbing on the bottom of 5th turn. You could not stand the idea of one die roll determine the outcome of game. Instead of looking at the tactics you employed your decided that the rule and not your generalship was at fault. On the flip side the Eldar player wants certainty if that they went last that they would be able to swoop in for the win. Then came KPs you been taught that Mech is king and the idea that your 35 point transport was equal in KPs to your Terminator Squad seemed appalling. At first players just got rid of the whole idea and only played objective missions. Players want control over value. Some players want each units value to be true so they turn to the closest way to determine a units value by using Victory Points. Then there is seizing the initiative this 1 in 6 chance you could lose a game because you didn’t create a list that could deal with any outcome.

All these elements of the game have a random aspect to them. All of them though oddly enough put the ownership on the skill of the player not on the die rolls. If you cannot handle KPs missions don’t make a list that has millions of units. Cannot handle true line of slight use things to cover and block units you want protected. Hate seize the initiative don’t deploy like an inbred. Cannot stand Random Turn Length well don’t ever play like you will get a 6th turn. Most of us don’t have the luxury of play testing for a living like the GW design team, instead we often fall back on our interpretation of rules based mostly on our subjective analysis of the situations. You don’t like them because you think because dice are involved because chance is the enemy of control.

Why do you think some spend all day thinking of army lists and math hammering units? It is about finding how to control the game before ever playing it.

It is easy to find fault with any element of a game, but once you start taking parts out you soon realize you have to make changes that creates even more changes. The same people who hate the list above often deride Soft Scores in Tournaments. That is because more than anything they take control out of the hands of you as the player, all of sudden you are subject to the whims of your opponents or the organizers. By changing the elements of the game to feed your need for control makes you just as bad as those organizers that put comp into their events. The same way they got beat by Lysander and will forever ding anyone that runs him, is the same way you felt cheated by Eldar vehicles swooping in on turn 5. This does not make your feelings invalid it just makes them just as subjective as those that think soft scores are necessary.

If you feel that you need this much control over the game of 40k you might want to take a look inside and understand that what happens on the table is the best part not what you do before the play on the table.