Big ol' sack of meh.Are there any other reasons why someone would choose to suffer under the yoke that is 6th edition 40k? Other than raw fanboism, no.
Yes I completely agree with you.Poor article is poor. And very biased. For some reason he takes "the fact" that 6th is a crappy edition for granted, instead of pointing out what makes it so and to whom.
I, for instance, is having good fun with 6th edition, even though there are many parts of it's rules I despise. This is not because, as the articles author would have you believe, I can't face reality (which apparently is that 40k is no fun), but because I love the game, or at least it's essentials, and because my gaming group have found a way to make it fun in spite of the game's flaws.
All that article really says is: "I like competitive wargames, and because 40k does not lend itself well to that it sucks, and therefore you people are all fooling yourselves if you think you like it and you should all play something else."
The only interesting thing about that article is how it states it isn't being polemic on purpose, in spite of the author's single-minded view of 40k and it's players. It's almost like he doesn't understand the words the meaning of the words he writes.
This.Personally this is one of the best editions they have made. It is true there are less sneaky tactics that can be used, but a good player can still get the best of his troops unless faced with something they are not designed to face. That's why an army should have a myriad of different unit types to counter different possible threats.
This is exactly the solution, but that being said I can relate to the blogs author on 1 point. It is a feeble excuse for GW to not make balanced rules because they don't care about that. Guess who does? A considerably sized segment of your customer base does. As such, GW should care too. Anything else is just a retarded business strategy IMO.It is upto organizers to make the game competitive not GW who do not appear to be making a tournament fit rule set.