Dudeface wrote: whilst justified, it's almost as justified to get rid of everyone's as well which is the tact they've taken.
Whenever everyone's super, no-one is and all that.
Yeah, that's what I've come around to myself- I still prefer strong subfaction identities- always have and always will.
But I've also always been able to see the other point of view, which is why I've decided to actually give 10th an honest try with the free stuff at my disposal.
The issue with kroot was a mixture of lack of damage and their awful save.
Their lack of power weapons (this is back prior to melee weapons having AP) meant that a shocking amount of their attacks were ineffective. 6+ meant that if they got to melee they suffered serious casualties on the counter swing. They were basically guardsmen damage output but in melee with worse armor.
Sure you could make them a bit better with shapers and krootox, but that was about as useful as pouring points into guard squads to up their damage.
This reminds of a post on Tau Online (RIP) from back in the day where a player couldn't understand how his 20-man pack of Kroot only managed to kill one marine in melee. He reasoned that 40 attacks should do something more than that. Others tried to explain the math to him.
Which is a problem with having to play marines so often as much as anything? WS 4 S 4 A 2 stats would do decent damage against most troops infantry in the game but you just relatively rarely got to see it.
It's always been a bit of a problem. Something can be pretty good but if it isn't against marine stats and armour it'll often as not be useless.
Dai wrote: Which is a problem with having to play marines so often as much as anything? WS 4 S 4 A 2 stats would do decent damage against most troops infantry in the game but you just relatively rarely got to see it.
Maybe if the small, elite, super-rare, barely-seen, practically-a-myth faction didn't make up about 80% of armies, we wouldn't have this problem.
Dai wrote: Which is a problem with having to play marines so often as much as anything? WS 4 S 4 A 2 stats would do decent damage against most troops infantry in the game but you just relatively rarely got to see it.
Maybe if the small, elite, super-rare, barely-seen, practically-a-myth faction didn't make up about 80% of armies, we wouldn't have this problem.
The whole reason game launches are messy is because what is the game average doesn't end up being the on table average creating what we like to call the meta. When everyone has ways to deal with average models, the first response is to find above average statlines that are harder to deal with. When everyone is taking above average.... that's the new average and what was designed as average is sub par.
I have seen several people mention 7th now favorably. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 7th was one of the worst editions, both from player satisfaction, and GW sales? Everything I read was that 7th was this totally off the rails edition that ruined a lot of people's idea of 40k, and basically tanked stocks.
That’s the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia mixed with the marmite nature of 7th Edition. It rocked if you liked certain powerful things. It sucked if you didn’t like those things.
7th had some decent ideas that were all horribly executed. In concept, formationis are interesting, in execution, they were awful with some piling on more and more special bonuses on units you were already going to take or just giving free wargear/transports. The edition fixed some of the problems 6th had from what I understand (cannot fully comment as I never actually played 6th), and playing the lower tier codexes against each other was actually fairly fun. Orks vs Guard? That could be a fun battle still. It was also when GW started launching and relaunching factions like Admech and Genestealer Cults, so there is that going for it at least.
The problem was unfun mechanics like Challenges, scatbikes just zooming across the entire map and being able to take out most anything, vehicles being made of cardboard thanks to hull points, and unkillable riptides that were somehow monstrous creatures and not walkers. Then you'd get giant monstrous creatures that can just stomp units to death and so on.
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying. I forget if they originated in 6th or 7th, but using the opponents armor save as your to wound, having ap2, and wargear that let you reroll wounds, combined with the fact that the marine's baseline weapon was ap5, meant that you could just ignore the armor game a lot. Plus you could just destroy vehicles with them by stripping hull points.
On the whole, it was worse than what came before and what came after.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I have seen several people mention 7th now favorably. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 7th was one of the worst editions, both from player satisfaction, and GW sales? Everything I read was that 7th was this totally off the rails edition that ruined a lot of people's idea of 40k, and basically tanked stocks.
alextroy wrote:That’s the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia mixed with the marmite nature of 7th Edition. It rocked if you liked certain powerful things. It sucked if you didn’t like those things.
kurhanik wrote:7th had some decent ideas that were all horribly executed.The edition fixed some of the problems 6th had from what I understand (cannot fully comment as I never actually played 6th)
The problem was unfun mechanics like Challenges, scatbikes just zooming across the entire map and being able to take out most anything, vehicles being made of cardboard thanks to hull points, and unkillable riptides that were somehow monstrous creatures and not walkers. Then you'd get giant monstrous creatures that can just stomp units to death and so on.
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.
Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.
6th also heavily nerfed CC by removing charging from vehicles and adding Overwatch while also allowing certain armies (Tau) to overwatch with multiple units. This was not fixed in 7th but other problems would over shadow it.
You would get shot running across the table to only make an attempt to charge with maybe 35-40% of your unit to have the Tau player fire over 200 shots during Overwatch. This was possible as all Tau units within 6" could contribute to overwatch. The Tau player made sure all his units in his army where within 6".
Flyers where also a major problem in 6th which was only partially fixed in 7th. Many armies had no Anti-Flyer weapons unless you also took flyers. $$$
GW pretended this was OK because there was something called "Mysterious Terrain" that provided Anti-Flyer weapon upgrades. Only problem was that the community largely refused to use the Mysterious Terrain rules and I never saw tournaments use them either.
7th also introduced an expansion of Psychic Powers which included a power that let you move terrain, including all the miniatures inside it. You could load up your assault troops, and literally throw a building across the table with them in it.
7th also had the newly buffed Invisibilty spell and D weapons......Oh boy the D weapons....
Edit ** And yes, I think 7th edition was easily the worst myself having played since 3rd. Our local tournaments during that time dropped from an average of 20-25 players to less than 10 showing up counting 4 different stores .
In addition, you are mistaken or lying about being able to pick two alternate Chapter Tactics instead. The list of Successor Chapter Tactics specifically says "If your Chapter does not have an associated Chapter tactic on Page 175..." - the Raven Guard are neither a successor chapter nor missing from Page 175 - as evidenced by your flawed inclusion of their assigned Chapter tactic
No but my chapter of Overly Verbose Nitpickers who have a choice of 2 traits from the build-a-chapter can opt to be Raven Guard Successors, so please, keep reaching.
They can, but then they're not Ravenwing. Your Chapter of Overly Verbose Liars by Omission are their own entity and also lose out on a ton of Relics - which you didn't point out in a fit of intellectual dishonesty. So they can have the Pick-Two Traits and one Relic with one Strat, or they have a bunch of Chapter Relics
You are also dishonestly portraying psychic powers. Every Subfaction had access to EITHER the armor based Psychic list (Phobos for Obscuration, or Librarius for everyone else) or their Chapter specific (subfaction) Discipline. You are trying to imply that a Ravenguard librarian had simultaneous access to 18 different powers. That is not the case for multiple reasons. They don't get all 18 at once, and even beyond that each individual Librarian only had access to this 6 or that 6 - two optional sets of 6 is only 12 in total. In other words a Phobos Librarian could not choose Librarius, a Librarian in Terminator could not choose Obfuscation and so none of them had "18" or even the more accurate 3 sets of 6 to choose 1 set from.
That was FAQ'd in later because shockingly giving them the option to mix the powers together was too much, as they had.... too many options. But again you're obscuring the fact that as a marine player, I can choose from 18 psychic powers. They're in 3 sets of 6. But again you're nitpicking with the minutae of army building to ignore the fact that 2 sets of 6 base powers, is more than the 1 set of 6 tyranids get. The subfactions adding 1 more set of 6 powers, is more than the 1 power the tyranid subfaction adds.
I don't think so. I have the codex here in front of me, and Armor type allowed all of one or all of the other. I also have two of the printed supplements (UM from 8th, and DA from 9th) and they both say All - Instead Of.
This is a similar tactic to choosing some portion but not even the entirety of Grey Knights for the comparison. Grey Knights are one of the poorer factions that desperately need expansion. They have roughly 10 distinctly different datasheets for "units" - by which I don't mean a Dread vs a Venerable Dread but a Dread vs a Purifier Squad, and not counting the one-off elite character addons like apothecaries and standard bearers. The things you build an army with. Life is even tougher for the Adeptus Custodes but that may have been even more obvious in the cherry picking. The Aeldari at least 9 different Aspect Warrior units alone.
And what has that got to do with anything? Are you postulating marine chapters should get more rules because they have more models? Tell you what, lets wrap it all up with Eldar since you note they have lots of units:
Marine subfaction:
Base book/supplement
- A chapter tactic (fixed or choice of 2 from list)
- *additional* affect on tactical doctrine
- 6(5) additional warlord traits for a choice of 18 (or 3 sets of 6)
- another psychic discipline for a total of 18 powers (or 3 sets of 6)
- another 6 relics
- 8 "special issue" relics for squad leaders
- 2 more pages of strats
Faith and fury:
- an additional litany
Eldar subfaction:
Base codex:
- a chapter tactic equivalent
- 1 warlord trait
- 1 relic
- 1 strat
Phoenix Rising:
- option to build a chapter tactic (exists as a base thing in marines)
Are these equal? Can you still honestly say that subfactions across armies were equally represented?
Maybe subfaction stuff should exist but be categorically worse in every way so if you want to do it for fluff then it's largely meaningless - for all armies and have parity (I say this with a marine army in a cabinet to my left).
No, in fact I have repeatedly pointed out they should have been - as best as is able based on some hard blockages by faction design - but weren't. But you knew that, and decided to imply otherwise. Even in replies directly to you I've pointed out some factions need a drastic/massive update/expansion. Like the Grey Knights when I pointed out why you dishonestly chose them - because they're one of the factions that needs expanding, same with Custodes, Drukhari, Votann and Sort-Of-GSC. The fact that some factions - not just subfactions - got screwed is not proof the game should be made even more vanilla, its just proof some factions got screwed despite your attempt to confuse and conflate the issue.
Maybe later. I think the original hostility came from the distinctly non-grimdark, anime-inspired style.
It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.
Breton wrote: Sure you can. Movement is just one aspect involved here. The threat it provides to a balanced game is not that movement trumps all, its that there are few/no scenarios that "punish" movement. Dense Fog causing dangerous terrain tests for any (non-aircraft etc) move over 4" will really punish anyone who gambled on a 20" move army. Its a problem with battle design that didn't encourage diversity not movement itself.
Missions that punish a particular dynamic are only useful if they appear regularly and actively discourage use of that army. If it truly discourages use of that army then what is the point of allowing that army ( sure, narrative, I suppose )? If it doesn't discourage that army then what is the point of the mission?
They don't have to appear regularly, they have to have a CHANCE to appear regularly Lets say they implement my idea. Mission Rules are changed to alter how the mission is played, and each player gets a random one, and a Stick-it-to-them one. You play knights (And this is where it breaks down because Knights are by nature skew), I give you Dense Fog mission rule and now all your knights have MV4 and 12" guns. So that card probably shouldn't apply to TITANIC as well as AIRCRAFT - but something that does affect AIRCRAFT and TITANIC/TOWERING so Knights don't skew away from their Armigers and Dark Angels don't quintuple Dip on AIRCRAFT. These "Mission Rule" cards should simulate the pre-battle preparations like in the Invasion of Calth
Spoiler:
the Word Bearers brought down the noosphere and just about every comms/technical ability the Ultramarines had on one of their primary planets.
The Mission Rules should do similar things that a player can pick to either boost the army they built, or deboost their opponent's army. If someone rolls the dice on a skew list of 100 Broadside Battle Suits, they rolled the dice on getting hurt even harder than a balanced list. Likewise a Swampy Groung Mission rule might pull the teeth of the 100 Jump Pack Fighty Marine Blood Angels List. And again with the standard disclaimer: These are seat-of-the-pants thematic examples and not finished product ready for implementation.
I wouldn't say its a Primaris thing. Termagant options are pretty meh with little difference between them. At first glance on the Tyrannid Warriors, the Devourer is too close to the Deathspitter - making the Devourer not enough better than the Deathspitter to have a (relatively) significant different threat profile. Carnifex Ranged weapons are terrible, and lack a lascannon equivalent for Nids to handle Land Raiders at range without the big bugs. To some extent a lot of this is the new S/T ranges for the new design not being carefully checked on the S availability for the new T's, but again that's not Primaris specific let alone Marine specific. Its really going to suck when the later Codex releases adjust for that if its not FAQ'ed to the early ones.
I think people worry more about the visible math and the feels bad of wounding on a 5+. Sisters have pulled in tournament wins despite their lack of 'proper' anti-tank. That isn't to say Nids are fine as they are.
Meh, Hitting on 5+ or wounding on 5+ isn't really a/the problem. Good Ork players figure that out quickly. There may be some surface/visceral reaction, but eventually if hitting/wounding/saving on 5+ is really looked at (and its balanced right) people will figure it out. Sisters don't have lousy anti-tank because they don't have 6+A of S12 lascannon that wound on 4's. They have lousy Anti-Tank because they don't have 20+A of S9 Wound on 5's MELTA for a balanced vs that cost. Sisters need less of an expansion as some other factions, but (I like to call them the elements: Grav, Flame, Las, Plas, Melta) they do need to be expanded into all the elemental options through new units or new unit options. Before it was because each edition pretty much always had its Elemental Flavor of the Month. 8th was probably Plas, 9th was probably Melta. Now with each Element being somewhat Rock-Paper-Keyword that's why they need the expansion. Others just need a flat out expansion - one could argue Grey Knights were just meant to be an Allied Faction in a soup army as you theme out a book army Think :
Spoiler:
the Grandmaster of the Novamarines challenging and losing to Tycho so the Grey Knight Captain can rush in and re-challenge for the win from one of the new Guilliman books I can't remember which
Devourer vs Deathspitter is a little more complex as well, but I won't try and dive into that here since it'd bore people to death. Maybe in a future post when I finish my tools.
this time around, almost everything was in the datacards and if someone printed out each set as they released they should have most of the bespoke rules at their finger tips. Next edition, you're back to not knowing who has what unless you buy every codex- so it has been true more often than it hasn't.. On the other hand, as long as we have to pay for each army rule book even if they're just pointers and collectors of USRs you're still going to have to trust the guy who bought the book that Stomping Feet is just a collection of the Big Guns Never Tire and Tank Hunters USRs so making all the faction rules into collections of USRs (which most of them already are in many editions) doesn't really tell everyone what the special rule does unless they own the book - or they release those PDFs and keep them available for everyone in such a way that you have to buy the BRB to know what the USRs are, but you can be told which USRs apply by the free datasheets.
Everything is on the datacard or in the detachment. A player is "supposed" to bring their supporting materials so the opponent can look. I know there's probably people who only use 39k.
And there are people who don't want the conflict of asking "Is that REALLY what your codex says? Plus the "Gotcha" problems of finding out it really is what the codex says afterwards. This is really neither here nor there, any process like this will have some sort of drawback - if all the armies are in one book so you have your own "codex" to look stuff up and prepare, everyone is paying more than they really "need" to. Meh, six of one half a dozen of the other.
Was there an edit here? I'm not following Characters switching squads with searchlights on vehicles? I think in the long run - as far as characters go - the solution is to go back to auras and Look Out Sir but crunch the auras way down and improve sniping.
I think joining units works far better for table dynamics. Characters actually see combat often rather than being behind all the shooty stuff buffing it. Some auras still exist where it makes sense ( Magnus ).
I like the Joining and Leaving Squads best because I like the idea of Calgar and two Invictrix charging out of a squad of BGV who have been ordered to charge a different unit just before Calgar leaves from a story standpoint, but if Aura is crunched down the right way there would be little difference between leading/leaving and Lone Operative within Aura Range.
The missions themselves don't usually have enough variety/adaptation of the mission itself. Because the missions have to be so generic (You can't count on your opponent bring 20 psykers for Abhor the Witch stuff) - which is because competitive and most casaul gamers want to pull out whatever their version of a Take-All-Comers list is instead of building a list under the restrictions of the mission - the missions have to have a square peg rounded enough to go in the round hole. i.e. Kill HQ's, especially psykers if there are any, while siting on more of 6 nickels than the other guy. It could be that the "best" but still not great solution is the expand the "Mission Rules" cards to negatively impact a generic strategy.instead of yet more fiddling with objective tokens. Something like the Dense Fog up above that screws a MV skew army. Change Vox Static such that every strat is +1CP to use. Chilling Rain reduces gives a -1 to all Invulns. Standard "those are just thematic examples not thought out balanced finished products. At that point I'd do a couple of things - if the mission rules affect everyone, give it a double whammy - Dense Fog makes movement faster than X painful, but also provides the benefits of Shrouding (basically Lone Operative + Steatlh) for everyone. The fast assault forces have to go slow, but are much harder to shoot up so those 30 Blood Angels Jump Packers are slow, but the 30 Dark Angels Hellblasters can't see them to shoot them until they're close.
As noted above - I used to think these were good ideas. I don't anymore. It just simply punishes in a way that is not conducive to a fair competitive environment. Especially when some just kick Daemons in the nuts. They're fine for more casual games, but not when people want a contest of skill instead of a contest of list building. Note that competent list building is still required so that you have the tools to fight and to score.
And that's a problem with Daemon/Knight/etc armies that are forced into skew. I think it makes a better game if skew is a gamble not the Meta. The problem with that again is GW needs to get off their duffs and finish armies with generalist-able datasheets.
I'd add because people THINK that's the only way for them to be fast - because flanderisation (probably assisted by vehicles being the red headed stepchild of 40K for a while) makes people forget about mechanized infantry i.e.5 guys in an Impulsor Outflanking onto your opponent's back table edge.
To be fair it's really GW's fault for setting up White Scars for failure. It's part of why people were incredulous that Kor'sarro wasn't on a bike.
Its GW's game, its almost always their fault. I don't mind Khan not on a bike, he was always available before as either or, and Outriders weren't really out yet. The fact that they haven't since released a Khan on bike option since Outrider release is the problem. Another problem was the way GW treated vehicles so poorly for so long Mechanized Infantry has ceased somewhat being a thing so White Scars lost both of their iconic looks. But those are both trees in the Forest of GW failure as it relates to the Underway Replacement they're trying to do with Space Marines. I've mentioned my idea before, but whatever plan they use, there should be basic (i.e. not Ravenwing only bikers, or BA only Jumpers) HQ choices (Cap/Chap/Lib/Lieutenant + "Company Command" stuff for every basic "armor" (Bike, Terminator, Gravis, Jump, Phobos) That's the main failure for the Primaris Replacement Project, but there have been scattered failures elsewhere - the new Jump Fighting Intercessors are lacking the Eviscerator/Auxiliary Grenade Launcher parallel they should have - probably a 1 per 5 Thunderhammer or power fist. The 10th Dark Angels Supplement - being new and as yet un-FAQ'ed is loaded down with issues:
Librarians are no longer DEATHWING - So only the Terminator Librarian can get an Enhancement - and they're the best option after Azrael to join and lead one of the new bespoke units the Inner Circle Companions.
Captains and Lieutenants with Shields (the BGV Load out) - also don't get Deathwing, and can't get enhancements.
Lion El'Johnson does not have the DEATHWING keyword either - and while he can't get Enhancements, does anyone doubt he'd be surrounded by a large number of Deathwing in an Inner Circle Task Force?
This pretty much boils down to ripping the guts out of a Primaris (Power Armor) based Dark Angel first company and making the Lion even dumber.
Core book Storm Speeders and Outriders from the Ravenwing don't get the same 5++ the bespoke Ravenwing bikes and speeders get - maybe its on purpose, but I wouldn't say it's wise.
"Troop-ish" Terminators and Stern/Blade/Van- -guard Veterans don't get +1 OC in an Inner Circle Task Force.
Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.
As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.
It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.
Something like that could work. I've pitched getting rid of strats and marking some rules as "command" abilities that are susceptible to command disruption rules before. That said, I'm not sure whether it would make sense for JSJ to be one of them. Shooting on the move seems to be the default for crisis suits. It would feel a bit weird for someone scrambling your coms or sabotaging your battle plans to suddenly make your suits incapable of moving to new cover while they shoot.
Absolutely. So should Sticky Capping for Intercessors, etc.
I'd say the problem with JSJ isn't forcing opponent maneuver. Its the way it unilaterally invalidated IGO-UGO. There are a bunch of units out there that have something similar to Captain Sicariu's Knight of Macragge thing.. Yadda yadda enemy unit ends movement phase within 9". this unit can move 6" yadda yadda. Its a far more toned down JSJ. I cant unilaterally do it. You have to move within 9, but not within engagement. Now there are absolutely units that would be "mean" to do it to - say someone with a gun range of 6", but its far less so than JSJ of the past.
I don't know. That seems situationally *more* powerful if the enemy gets close enough to trigger it because you'd have more information about where the enemy units will be positioned when you get to make your move. And on the flip side, it would make JSJ useless for avoiding long-ranged attacks which seem like the attacks evasive actions should be most effective against.
In a lot of threads, people talk about wanting maneuvering to be more important. Needing to position units to line up shots against enemies that have JSJ'd back behind cover seems like a good example of that. You could probably impose a -1 to-hit penalty on units using JSJ to represent the relative difficulty of shooting on the move and to create a trade-off (other than points) to using JSJ, but I think the basic mechanics of ye olde jetpackers were pretty sound.
There are upsides and downsides to both, the important part was the unilaterally part. All the other "out of phase" things I can think of - Heroic Intervention, Overwatch, Knights of Macragge, and so on require a trigger of some sort from the opponent. That's why they don't induce the Rage Quit like JSJ. JSJ isn't really a problem as long as every faction has some realistic facet of counterplay - the less you feel like a spectator on the other guy's turn, the better.
Where the assertion was made that other armies had parity in 8th/9th and that has now been lost. Very simply they didn't, as the sheer breadth of options given over to the marines dwarfed the other armies, led to rules hopping and made internal balance impossible - hence why we now have "generic force type 1-6" that in theory all chapters benefit from regardless of build.
I see you're lying about my assertion as easily as you lie about how many options Marines have. I can't assert other armies had parity that was lost while also claiming multiple armies didn't have enough basic datasheets and needed expanding. Well not if I want to be honest. And I didn't. I pointed out there was SOME parity. I pointed out SOME factions suffered under the single template being used for these builds - the Chapter Tactics thing doesn't work for Orks. (again). Likewise trying to claim RG had massive numbers of options because UM, DA, and BA also had some options (that weren't available to RG) by lumping them all into "Marines" isn't all that honest. Ultramarines had something like 7 Relics. Which equated to a whopping zero options for Raven Guard. The core Aeldari book listed 14 relics. This does not mean Space Marines get access to 14 more options because I lump them both into "The Good Guys"
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have seen several people mention 7th now favorably. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 7th was one of the worst editions, both from player satisfaction, and GW sales? Everything I read was that 7th was this totally off the rails edition that ruined a lot of people's idea of 40k, and basically tanked stocks.
Well i can say it was better than 6th at first...but then at the time 6th was the worst thing GW had made at that point. in fact 6th got me into playing warmachine and infinity as well as leaning back heavy into my original TT game-classic battle tech. what really killed 7th was about halfway through they introduced formation bloat that basically broke everything about the game. want to totally ignore the core mechanics of the game rules? just take a free formation of models X and Y and do crazy stuff. they still also kept the bad from 6th even if some of it was toned down. then they really added some stupid mechanics in the form of psyker powers and super D weapons (in normal games instead of apocalypse). 6th was actually worse but it was around for such a short time because GW even realized how bad it was that players tend to forget about it. there were only 3 really great things that came from (or should i say came back in) those editions-snap fire, overwatch and grenade throwing. the flyer rules to a lesser extend but only if you combine them with the original forge world flyer rules like our group has done.
The original HH rules basically tried to fix it and made the best incarnation of 7th ed rules. starting with tossing out the formations. of course GW not to be outdone repeated themselves about halfway through 8th (anybody remember the second SM codex or the later iron hands supplement among others?) and solidified the strat spam in 9th.
Of course i am not one to contend that GW could not screw things up worse with each new edition. they have not proven me wrong yet......the high point/high water mark is still 5th with a little bit of 4th for some mechanics (looking at you wound allocation shenanigans) and that's why i went back to playing and supporting it.
alextroy wrote: That’s the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia mixed with the marmite nature of 7th Edition. It rocked if you liked certain powerful things. It sucked if you didn’t like those things.
I've had way more fun (or at least had potential for fun) getting beat playing Orks vs bloody Eldar in 7th than playing Orks in 8th/9th where it was just SOOO BORING. The 3rd to 7th style of core gameplay mechanics made the game fun to play as it had a lot more mechanical depth to how things worked. The new set of bare bones core rules suck for having an actually interesting game as it now feels very bland and uninteresting. At least for me, it very much isn't rose tinted glasses as the few times I got to play a game of 7th years after a year plus of 8th where still a ton of fun.
I really hate the argument that people only like 7th because of power gaming when completely overlooks all the gameplay potential the edition had at tables where it wasn't cutthroat WAAC games every match. Formations are a good example of how a good flavorful concept gets dumped on because of the 10% of OP formations that dominated the meta while a lot of the "not good" formations did a decent job of letting themed armies play out differently or at the very least plugging some holes in the viability of some underpowered units.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have seen several people mention 7th now favorably. Forgive my ignorance, but I thought 7th was one of the worst editions, both from player satisfaction, and GW sales? Everything I read was that 7th was this totally off the rails edition that ruined a lot of people's idea of 40k, and basically tanked stocks.
I think it's worth mentioning the split between the core rule book and the codexes. 7th mechanically was mostly 6th edition with the fortification and super heavy rules rolls into the base edition. It changed psychic powers (good rough draft of an idea but way to easy to abuse mechanics and terrible spell power balance) as well as doing a few tweaks to the vehicle damage table, jinking, the alliance system, D weapons from Apoc, and a few other things.
The codexes introduced formations and faction specific force orgs into the army building process and things started off toned down with Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels being rather tame (Orks and D Eldar got nerfed essentially) while Space Wolves had a few quite strong things (Thunder cav, Wulfen, Iron Priests on Thunder Wolves, the smaller wolves, etc) that made them a step or two above the rest but it was still somewhat reasonable. Then came Necrons which basically introduced the Decurion super formation that layered powerful bonuses on top of already decent formation bonuses that made the Necrons super powerful. Then almost every faction after that has their own super formation and it seemed like the rules writers completely abandoned balance restraints. Eldar was the most OP faction in 6th and basically their 7th edition codex was buffs across the board with the tiny exception that the OP busted unit of 6th was nerfed a bit. Tau was also incredibly strong in 6th (but struggled in 7th vs the super formation and psychic powers) got only buffs via the powerful formations and added war gear options but all the unit stat lines/point costs basically remained the same from 6th. The icing on the overpowered cake was Ynnari which was basically stacking the brokenly OP Eldar rules (including their OP formations) with a faction ruleset that was basically the strongest win more mechanic in the game. Also this is when Imperial Knights showed up which could field an entire army of super heavy walkers to be the end all be all skew list due to how vehicle rules worked.
7th was peak incompetence from GW as they lost the plot a 3rd of the way through the edition and the end result was a steaming pile of garbage. All that said, the key to making the edition fun was understand some basic concepts of game balance and making sure both players are fielding lists that where relatively on par with each other. If you could do that simple bit of sportsmanship then you could very easily have some fun games. If you expected to just slap down any army list blindly in a pick up game then your very likely to have some bad mismatches irregardless of player skill differences. Tournament play was a dumpster fire due to the horrible top end game balance but to be frank, 40k is a terrible tournament game regardless of the edition being played.
PenitentJake wrote: Yeah- I'm one of the folks who praised 9th's parity... And you're right, it wasn't 100% parity. No one in edition ever will have parity with marines.
That's mostly because you're lumping them together as "Marines" rather than keeping them seperate as UM/DA/BA/SW/etc
But what I meant was it was the first (and to my knowledge, only) edition where ALL factions had at least the bare minimum to distinguish their subfactions, that being:
Two of those are arguably huge for subfaction differentiation, two of them are pretty minor. The Warlord Trait and the Relic will rarely be involved in that, they're more often than not just super-wargear to give the DIY player a chance to make their "special character". I'm somewhat ambivalent on the Bespoke Strat but I can see it being a thing. Far and away the biggest flavor rule for most if not all was the Chapter Tactic. Sadly they needed at least a couple different ways of generating the "Chapter Tactic" for factions that were just fluffed too differently from Space Marines.
While not parity when looking at subfactions that got supplements, this is still the closest we've come to parity.
In some ways. I'd say the biggest block to parity itself are the red-headed-stepchildren factions. The ones that are either new, re-new, or were not originally expected to be a stand alone faction - especially at current point-per-model levels, and Knights.
Before we even talk about "Chapter Tactic" Parity a number of factions need to be addressed:
Drukhari need a few more datahsheets and more/better synergy/options between the ones they already have.
Grey Knights need a moderate number of Datasheets.
Custodes need a LOT of appreciably different datasheets.
Votann need a LOT of appreciably different datasheets.
Sisters need branches into the other elements - grav, las. etc.
Guard need better rules? Something?
Daemons need datasheets providing generalism for mono-faction lists. Ranges Khorne for example.
GSC need more datasheets or better Brood Brother Guard integration or both.
Orks probably need a little better rules - and to NOT be forced into the Purity template for Chapter Tactics
Nids need better rules/stats especially towards anti-tank without taking the Bigger Than Big Bugs - Gun-ifexs, or Tyranid Warriors with Heavy Weapons... something.
Tau: I dunno enough about em.
That would do far more for parity than worrying about which Chapter Tactic is better than which Craftworld Attribute.
Custodes have something like 18 Data sheets with a quick look/count. 8 are HQ/Leaders including Epic Hero Nameds. 3 are Vehicles (Land Raider, Rhino, Dread) 3 are minor variations on the same girls with guns squad (of dubious value given the Second Class Citizen nature of the Anathema Psykana units) . Leaving 2 fairly similar Power Armor Custodes Squads, 1 Terminator Squad and a Jet Bike Squad. Just off the top of my head I'd:
1) End the Second Class Citizen thing. They've been a team for 10,000 years or whatever. This is forced and something, but I don't know what beyond it makes my brain "itch".
2) Get a lighter armored look for them with a couple of roles, including snipers (The Secret Service does more than stand next to the guy we all wish hadn't won no matter who the guy is). This would have been a great place for Eliminators (with better guns). 3 Custodes in "Discretion" Armor popping off 6-9 infiltrated Sniper/Las Fusil shots would have been well in keeping with their Secret Service Role and the fluff of them sending out little Influencer (or whatever you want to call it) teams that had a mission but wanted to remain anonymous.
3) The other option for that kit box could/should be a Reiver type unit (Sneaky, Terror Troop, infiltrating/scouting etc) that isn't Reivers painted Gold.
4) Characters beyond the Shield Captain in regular armor, Shield Captain in Terminator Armor, Shield Captain on Jet Bike, and the Almost A Shield Captain in regular armor.
Rinse and Repeat for the other factions. The lack of attention to the factions as a whole is much bigger obstacle to parity than Chapter Tactics.
The whole reason game launches are messy is because what is the game average doesn't end up being the on table average creating what we like to call the meta. When everyone has ways to deal with average models, the first response is to find above average statlines that are harder to deal with. When everyone is taking above average.... that's the new average and what was designed as average is sub par.
Not the whole reason, not even the main reason. The main reason is GW doesn't finish - they get to some mid point they think is good enough, and release. For example, they rebuilt the phases in 8th, especially the Fight Phase. But they didn't finish it. They didn't look at the cost of opportunity for fight phase units (Fight Phase Units are much less likelly to participate in a given turn over a shoot phase unit simply because of range), they didn't look at the escalators for that opportunity (+1A for two weapons, +1A for charging etc that were included for edition after edition because they'd figured out in the past that fight phase units need to fight more on the turns they get to but then failed to include again). So they had to turn around and slap a bandaid on it with +1A for chainswords, and Hateful/Shock Assault, etc. And even then, it wasn't finished because it didn't touch on things like hormugaunts, Infantry Squad Sergeants, and so on. I've already detailed it with the Dark Angels book, but even a subfaction launch will have these issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kurhanik wrote: had some decent ideas that were all horribly executed.
7th also had the newly buffed Invisibilty spell and D weapons......Oh boy the D weapons....
Edit ** And yes, I think 7th edition was easily the worst myself having played since 3rd. Our local tournaments during that time dropped from an average of 20-25 players to less than 10 showing up counting 4 different stores .
I disliked third - probably based on how much of a shift it was from 2nd like Terminators going from 3+ on 2D6 to flat 2+ no Invuln. - the other one I hated but I can't remember which one it was the origin of the S=2xT = Instant Death.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.
Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.
As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.
It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.
I liked Grav even though it screwed me as a Marine player. I think it needs to get rolled out to the other factions now that we're tying "element" to Anti-X. I'd even like to see them find a way to immunize Monstrous Characters, and give Flamers Anti-Monster (Which is more cinematic than scientific, but Flamers need to be thrown a bone too), leave Grav as Anti-Vehicle - tweak Plasma, Melta, and Las for generic different threat bands.
Breton wrote:They can, but then they're not Ravenwing. Your Chapter of Overly Verbose Liars by Omission are their own entity and also lose out on a ton of Relics - which you didn't point out in a fit of intellectual dishonesty. So they can have the Pick-Two Traits and one Relic with one Strat, or they have a bunch of Chapter Relics
I am not lying Breton, my successors on a Thursday if I choose to be ultras got a enhanced doctrine, psychic powers, strats, and access to the relics, even if by a strat. I still have access to all of their stuff bar characters, irrelevant of how I get to it.
You are also dishonestly portraying psychic powers. Every Subfaction had access to EITHER the armor based Psychic list (Phobos for Obscuration, or Librarius for everyone else) or their Chapter specific (subfaction) Discipline. You are trying to imply that a Ravenguard librarian had simultaneous access to 18 different powers. That is not the case for multiple reasons. They don't get all 18 at once, and even beyond that each individual Librarian only had access to this 6 or that 6 - two optional sets of 6 is only 12 in total. In other words a Phobos Librarian could not choose Librarius, a Librarian in Terminator could not choose Obfuscation and so none of them had "18" or even the more accurate 3 sets of 6 to choose 1 set from.
I haven't contradicted that fact at all, but when I build my army, there are 18 powers I can opt to include then pick the relevant minis to include them. How is that dishonest?
I don't think so. I have the codex here in front of me, and Armor type allowed all of one or all of the other. I also have two of the printed supplements (UM from 8th, and DA from 9th) and they both say All - Instead Of.
I think there's some quantum tunnelling going on, there was a FAQ about it but it might have been 8th, never the less, nice to have so many to pick from you need a limitation right?
No, in fact I have repeatedly pointed out they should have been - as best as is able based on some hard blockages by faction design - but weren't. But you knew that, and decided to imply otherwise. Even in replies directly to you I've pointed out some factions need a drastic/massive update/expansion. Like the Grey Knights when I pointed out why you dishonestly chose them - because they're one of the factions that needs expanding, same with Custodes, Drukhari, Votann and Sort-Of-GSC. The fact that some factions - not just subfactions - got screwed is not proof the game should be made even more vanilla, its just proof some factions got screwed despite your attempt to confuse and conflate the issue.
Need I remind you that you're in here arguing for more rules to make things "your guys" such as IF bolter discipline? You're actively saying that doesn't matter for some armies based on range size? Yu do know that adding 20 types of custodes units doesn't suddenly allow the player to feel like they're representing shadowkeepers right? They need some rules for that, such as a detachment or a chapter tactic.
Where the assertion was made that other armies had parity in 8th/9th and that has now been lost. Very simply they didn't, as the sheer breadth of options given over to the marines dwarfed the other armies, led to rules hopping and made internal balance impossible - hence why we now have "generic force type 1-6" that in theory all chapters benefit from regardless of build.
I see you're lying about my assertion as easily as you lie about how many options Marines have. I can't assert other armies had parity that was lost while also claiming multiple armies didn't have enough basic datasheets and needed expanding. Well not if I want to be honest. And I didn't. I pointed out there was SOME parity. I pointed out SOME factions suffered under the single template being used for these builds - the Chapter Tactics thing doesn't work for Orks. (again). Likewise trying to claim RG had massive numbers of options because UM, DA, and BA also had some options (that weren't available to RG) by lumping them all into "Marines" isn't all that honest. Ultramarines had something like 7 Relics. Which equated to a whopping zero options for Raven Guard. The core Aeldari book listed 14 relics. This does not mean Space Marines get access to 14 more options because I lump them both into "The Good Guys"
Sorry cupcake but they are all "codex: space marines", don't care what chapter you are, you're not a unique faction now.
This whole thing came around because I pointed out why chapter tactics going away is a good idea, apparently you've lost that and seemingly almost 180'd at tis point, but you are blind to the amount of balance issues that came from Marines in 9th:
An intercessor had to be balanced around 12 variations of doctrines, several dozen combinations of chapter tactic, access to being affected by an army with access to a total of 72 psychic powers, dozens of litanies, dozens of auras, hundreds of strats and relics.
No other army had this problem, becuase Marines had too much stuff.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.
Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.
As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.
It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.
Misquote, I never wrote that. I also never played before 7th, so I have no idea what grav was like....
Breton wrote:They can, but then they're not Ravenwing. Your Chapter of Overly Verbose Liars by Omission are their own entity and also lose out on a ton of Relics - which you didn't point out in a fit of intellectual dishonesty. So they can have the Pick-Two Traits and one Relic with one Strat, or they have a bunch of Chapter Relics
I am not lying Breton, my successors on a Thursday if I choose to be ultras got a enhanced doctrine, psychic powers, strats, and access to the relics, even if by a strat. I still have access to all of their stuff bar characters, irrelevant of how I get to it.
You had access to ONE relic by a One-Use Strat. They're not Ultramarines.They're XYZ Successor Chapter. GSC can take a Leman Russ, that doesn't make them Cadians. If you want to sit there and say your Yellow Marines counts as Ultramarines, sure. If you want to say your successor Chapter that picked two and had two spend 2 pregame CP (1 for the relic, 1 for the Chapter access) to give one guy a Chapter relic is Ultramarines, you're lying. Ultramarines have a discrete set of rules. Successor Chapter XYZ has a different discrete set of rules. That's what makes one Ultramarines, and one Successor Chapter XYZ.
You are also dishonestly portraying psychic powers. Every Subfaction had access to EITHER the armor based Psychic list (Phobos for Obscuration, or Librarius for everyone else) or their Chapter specific (subfaction) Discipline. You are trying to imply that a Ravenguard librarian had simultaneous access to 18 different powers. That is not the case for multiple reasons. They don't get all 18 at once, and even beyond that each individual Librarian only had access to this 6 or that 6 - two optional sets of 6 is only 12 in total. In other words a Phobos Librarian could not choose Librarius, a Librarian in Terminator could not choose Obfuscation and so none of them had "18" or even the more accurate 3 sets of 6 to choose 1 set from.
I haven't contradicted that fact at all, but when I build my army, there are 18 powers I can opt to include then pick the relevant minis to include them. How is that dishonest?
Its in the way you presented it. My librarians have access to 18 powers is not the same as my librarians have access to 3 powers which may come from either of two lists of 6. Its "figures don't lie but liars can figure".
I don't think so. I have the codex here in front of me, and Armor type allowed all of one or all of the other. I also have two of the printed supplements (UM from 8th, and DA from 9th) and they both say All - Instead Of.
I think there's some quantum tunnelling going on, there was a FAQ about it but it might have been 8th, never the less, nice to have so many to pick from you need a limitation right?
"I was wrong, but look at how it proves I was right!". As an extension of figures don't lie, but liars can figure let me again point out the limitation was generally Smite+2. I wouldn't say my farseer has access to 30 powers. But we've been over that difference already.
No, in fact I have repeatedly pointed out they should have been - as best as is able based on some hard blockages by faction design - but weren't. But you knew that, and decided to imply otherwise. Even in replies directly to you I've pointed out some factions need a drastic/massive update/expansion. Like the Grey Knights when I pointed out why you dishonestly chose them - because they're one of the factions that needs expanding, same with Custodes, Drukhari, Votann and Sort-Of-GSC. The fact that some factions - not just subfactions - got screwed is not proof the game should be made even more vanilla, its just proof some factions got screwed despite your attempt to confuse and conflate the issue.
Need I remind you that you're in here arguing for more rules to make things "your guys" such as IF bolter discipline? You're actively saying that doesn't matter for some armies based on range size? Yu do know that adding 20 types of custodes units doesn't suddenly allow the player to feel like they're representing shadowkeepers right? They need some rules for that, such as a detachment or a chapter tactic.
You can't remind me of something you're making up. My guys are not IF with Bolter Discipline. I'm not making a case for "my guys" at all. I'm making a case for EVERYBODY's guys.
And Holy Jesus you lie a lot. The fact that I counted out the datasheets strongly suggests that when adding units it would also add datasheets. Are you really stupid enough to lie about someone suggesting we add more units to a faction, but not the datasheets so they can paint the pretty models, but not actually use them? Especially in a discussion about game rules?
Where the assertion was made that other armies had parity in 8th/9th and that has now been lost. Very simply they didn't, as the sheer breadth of options given over to the marines dwarfed the other armies, led to rules hopping and made internal balance impossible - hence why we now have "generic force type 1-6" that in theory all chapters benefit from regardless of build.
I see you're lying about my assertion as easily as you lie about how many options Marines have. I can't assert other armies had parity that was lost while also claiming multiple armies didn't have enough basic datasheets and needed expanding. Well not if I want to be honest. And I didn't. I pointed out there was SOME parity. I pointed out SOME factions suffered under the single template being used for these builds - the Chapter Tactics thing doesn't work for Orks. (again). Likewise trying to claim RG had massive numbers of options because UM, DA, and BA also had some options (that weren't available to RG) by lumping them all into "Marines" isn't all that honest. Ultramarines had something like 7 Relics. Which equated to a whopping zero options for Raven Guard. The core Aeldari book listed 14 relics. This does not mean Space Marines get access to 14 more options because I lump them both into "The Good Guys"
Sorry cupcake but they are all "codex: space marines", don't care what chapter you are, you're not a unique faction now.
I'm not sure who wrote this but I'd like to point out a couple things: Calling someone "cupcake" in some sort of homophobic or sexually harassing insult isn't cool.
Second, yeah Marines still are a unique faction. Some of them are even a unique Subfaction. I'm arguing they (all subfactions of all factions) should be.
This whole thing came around because I pointed out why chapter tactics going away is a good idea, apparently you've lost that and seemingly almost 180'd at tis point, but you are blind to the amount of balance issues that came from Marines in 9th:
I'm not even sure who "you" are - I assume Dudeface based on the dishonesty and inaccuracy. I haven't 180'ed anything. I believe Chapter Tactics are a good thing. Variety is better than uniformity. Always have. Trying to lie about that is fairly transparent. We could just divide the tabletop in a 10 by 10 grid, with half the grid spaces unpassable terrain, get rid of all shooting and dice turning close combat into a victory for the winner, but only possible if the target model isn't directly supported by a model behind it with a forced consolidation one diagonal grid space behind the target model, but that's a little too uniform and "un-bloated" for my taste in 40K.
An intercessor had to be balanced around 12 variations of doctrines, several dozen combinations of chapter tactic, access to being affected by an army with access to a total of 72 psychic powers, dozens of litanies, dozens of auras, hundreds of strats and relics.
No other army had this problem, becuase Marines had too much stuff.
No it doesn't. The Chapter Tactics have to be balanced against themselves. If every RG model gets -1 to be hit, and every Imperial Fist gets -1 to be wounded, and every Iron Hand gets +1 to their Save - those are roughly balanced. There's a minor twitch here and there but they're all roughly equivalent. There is no need or purpose in caring if it's an Intercessor, or an Aggressor, or a Dire Avenger that's been subverted by a Genestealer Cult.. They make no difference to the balance. This Whatchamacallit is (roughly) 16% less likely to get hit, that one is 16% less likely to be wounded, and yet a third one is 16% more likely to ignore that wound because of an armor save. It gets a little more difficult to figure out how much faster a Jumping Flying Blood Angel or an advancing Assault gunning ground pounding Space Wolf has to get across the board and punch something vs 16% less likely to get hit/wounded/dead but that can be roughly balanced and still has nothing to do with Intercessor vs Aggressor vs Vanguard Vet vs Blood Claw.
I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.
Haighus wrote: I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.
Haighus wrote: I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.
Variety is better than monotony. In all (sub)factions. Put another way its better to have no Meta than everyone in the Meta faction able to play the Meta List.
The template for Chapter Tactics doesn't work for every faction, so something similar but different should be whipped up when the faction doesn't fluff in a way that make Chapter Tactics Work - tho this is less important with the changes to enforcing "purity":
Top Level Faction apathy by GW has been far more detrimental to balance than Chapter/Hive/Craftword etc.
Adding the 6 Detachments was a step forward. Removing Chapter Tactics was two steps back.
Using both would make far more interesting games as each Chapter can take any of the 6 Dets then modify how it plays with their Chapter Tactic.
The only reason Chapter Tactics return should be first is because its quick.
The only reason expanding the "Oliver Twist" factions should be second is because it will take far longer to design, mold, produce, etc more kits and units, but it should be a priority put into high gear.
Haighus wrote: I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.
Variety is better than monotony. In all (sub)factions. Put another way its better to have no Meta than everyone in the Meta faction able to play the Meta List.
The template for Chapter Tactics doesn't work for every faction, so something similar but different should be whipped up when the faction doesn't fluff in a way that make Chapter Tactics Work - tho this is less important with the changes to enforcing "purity":
Top Level Faction apathy by GW has been far more detrimental to balance than Chapter/Hive/Craftword etc.
Adding the 6 Detachments was a step forward. Removing Chapter Tactics was two steps back.
Using both would make far more interesting games as each Chapter can take any of the 6 Dets then modify how it plays with their Chapter Tactic.
The only reason Chapter Tactics return should be first is because its quick.
The only reason expanding the "Oliver Twist" factions should be second is because it will take far longer to design, mold, produce, etc more kits and units, but it should be a priority put into high gear.
Conversely I'm stating the new method is notably better as it doesn't punish people for paint jobs and doesn't hinder internal balance as much because there are fewer moving parts impacting the efficacy of units that are simply inaccessible to large chunks of that faction.
Chapter tactics flanderise based on paint job, restrict peoples ability for their army to perform on arbitrary means.
Unlike Breton I don't consider adding units to armies a solution or necessary for the player to have the army flavoured to their choice of subfaction or play style, although the new detachment system will be easier with bigger ranges.
Other than that I'm apparently a chronic liar about the fact space marines over the last 2 editions were one singular faction with too many layers of junk that made it impossible to balance correctly.
It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.
You keep saying unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO? Why? The Tau could not move outside of their own turns. They, like Eldar jetbikes and warp spiders, could make a non-charge move in the assault phase. That is not breaking IGO-UGO any more than any unit running in the shooting phase. There were two types of units in the Tau 3rd and 4th ed book who could JSJ. Those in Stealth suits and those in Crisis suits. That's the exact same number as Eldar (jetbikes and warp spiders).
I'm not sure why you say their guns were "even" over loyalist and chaos space marines. When has it ever been said, outside of Imperium propaganda, that Space Marines have the best equipment in the galaxy? They have the best basic gear the Imperium can make, but that's the notably technologically stagnant and regressive Imperium.
It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.
You keep saying unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO? Why? The Tau could not move outside of their own turns. They, like Eldar jetbikes and warp spiders, could make a non-charge move in the assault phase. That is not breaking IGO-UGO any more than any unit running in the shooting phase. There were two types of units in the Tau 3rd and 4th ed book who could JSJ. Those in Stealth suits (1 unit) and those in Crisis suits. That's the exact same number as Eldar (jetbikes and warp spiders).
I'm not sure why you say their guns were "even" over loyalist and chaos space marines. When has it ever been said, outside of Imperium propaganda, that Space Marines have the best equipment in the galaxy? They have the best basic gear the Imperium can make, but that's the notably technologically stagnant and regressive Imperium.
Also, it is the best basic equipment for their specific role as close range shock troops. Being sturdy enough to clobber an armoured foe over the head with it isn't a typical design consideration for Tau weaponry.
It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.
You keep saying unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO? Why? The Tau could not move outside of their own turns. They, like Eldar jetbikes and warp spiders, could make a non-charge move in the assault phase. That is not breaking IGO-UGO any more than any unit running in the shooting phase. There were two types of units in the Tau 3rd and 4th ed book who could JSJ. Those in Stealth suits (1 unit) and those in Crisis suits. That's the exact same number as Eldar (jetbikes and warp spiders).
I'm not sure why you say their guns were "even" over loyalist and chaos space marines. When has it ever been said, outside of Imperium propaganda, that Space Marines have the best equipment in the galaxy? They have the best basic gear the Imperium can make, but that's the notably technologically stagnant and regressive Imperium.
It "breaks" IGO-UGO in that they get to move a second time before getting return fire. Everyone else has to march out, shoot, take any return fire, then they can move back out of LOS.
Haighus wrote: I think at this point the two of you should restate your actual positions and stop the mess of broken-up quote trains that are increasingly nonsensical to read.
Variety is better than monotony. In all (sub)factions. Put another way its better to have no Meta than everyone in the Meta faction able to play the Meta List.
The template for Chapter Tactics doesn't work for every faction, so something similar but different should be whipped up when the faction doesn't fluff in a way that make Chapter Tactics Work - tho this is less important with the changes to enforcing "purity":
Top Level Faction apathy by GW has been far more detrimental to balance than Chapter/Hive/Craftword etc.
Adding the 6 Detachments was a step forward. Removing Chapter Tactics was two steps back.
Using both would make far more interesting games as each Chapter can take any of the 6 Dets then modify how it plays with their Chapter Tactic.
The only reason Chapter Tactics return should be first is because its quick.
The only reason expanding the "Oliver Twist" factions should be second is because it will take far longer to design, mold, produce, etc more kits and units, but it should be a priority put into high gear.
Conversely I'm stating the new method is notably better as it doesn't punish people for paint jobs and doesn't hinder internal balance as much because there are fewer moving parts impacting the efficacy of units that are simply inaccessible to large chunks of that faction.
Chapter tactics flanderise based on paint job, restrict peoples ability for their army to perform on arbitrary means.
Unlike Breton I don't consider adding units to armies a solution or necessary for the player to have the army flavoured to their choice of subfaction or play style, although the new detachment system will be easier with bigger ranges.
Other than that I'm apparently a chronic liar about the fact space marines over the last 2 editions were one singular faction with too many layers of junk that made it impossible to balance correctly.
Again as I just made clear right before you lied about it, I don't think adding units is to make factions more flavored, I think some just plain need more units/rules period.
Chapter Tactics doesn't at all flanderise paint jobs because Chapter Tactics have little to nothing to do with paint jobs. Yellow Ultramarines are still Ultramarines. What matters are the rules not the paint job.
And as I pointed out if Everybody gets SOMETHING and each of those SOMETHINGs are roughly equal in value it doesn't affect internal balance.
You really think that stuff like Death Company or Wulfen or TWC or Sang Guard or locked gear patern (DA speeders, Baal predators etc) don't make factions that have them more flavoured?
Okey lets say we remove those things. They no longer exist, and lets say it happens to the ones GW already created for primaris too.
What is the difference between an ultramarines, DA and SW army? The core army rules given and how they are painted ? Awesome this is how we end up with sneaky centurions and ultramarines being the best, because they have a larger pool of special characters then other factions, which for some reason don't get nerfed like the BA or DA ones.
I don't understand why chapter specific stuff is considered flanderisation. SW had they grey hunters/grey slayers for ever. Stuff like wulfen or TWC is in the 2ed codex and model wise, there are metal ones of wulfen, so they are at least half the history of w40k old. I have seen the 2ed SW codex, dudes wear wolf pelts, have huge tusks on the black an white art, crazy hair etc
Death Company is in the 2ed codex. So are deathwing terminators. And the lore for those units is that they are chapter/legion unique and nothing like similar units of other chapters.
The problem with the "internal" balance GW tries to achive is that all those chapters shouldn't have shared a single codex to begin with. A biker for a WS or Raven Wing shouldn't have the same rules and point costs as a bike for an ultramarines army. But GW decided that it is going to be good ,and I assume it is good for them, that players have to buy 2 books to play one army.
That is how we get not working detachments. Detachments of the DA type, where one wonders, why should anyone take them over a gladius. Siege centurions in IF "detachment" not even sure, if worth to be run at the points cost they have now. But run as ultras with access to venguard stuff? As characterful and lore accurate as the late 8th 15 centurions infiltrating Raven Guard lists.
And when stuff like this combines with players knowing that their faction won't be fixed this edition it is not a good expiriance. That flanderised WS player with his biker army is suppose to do what? Wait for 11th and hope there are going to be bikes released in it and that they will have good rules, the core rules won't punish the use of bikes (like it is now) and that they only have to wait 2+ years for it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.
Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.
As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.
It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.
The problem was that it was mostly what...Tau and Eldar 'monstrous creatures' (ie: things that really should have been vehicles but the rules writers made monsters because the monster rules were stronger than vehicles) that were the problem. Nid monsters were actually fairly fun in low tier fights. Like if Grav didn't also have the ability to strip hull points off of vehicles as well it might have been a bit more reasonable - its not like vehicles were that good in 7th anyways.
But yeah, brings up another issue with the 6th/7th era - its when Monstrous Creatures got extremely out of hand, with higher and higher toughness values, lower and lower saves, layered saves and so on. They also tended to have more wounds than vehicles, while being equally as hard or harder to wound, and unlike vehicles got saving throws and didn't have the damage chart vehicles had to contend with. To add insult to injury, pretty much all of the Nid beasties did not get these buffs and languished as a low tier dex.
As I said, 7th could still be fun, two low tier dexes could still have a great game at it, or a higher tier dex that purposely kneecapped themselves could still be ok. To put into perspective just how out of hand some things got, thanks to unkillable necrons, eldar and tau getting buff after buff etc, Marines getting free transports for their entire army was considered mid tier and one of the few viable ways to run Marines at the time to basically just win by attrition and having too many models on the board to kill.
Vankraken wrote:
The codexes introduced formations and faction specific force orgs into the army building process and things started off toned down with Orks, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels being rather tame (Orks and D Eldar got nerfed essentially) while Space Wolves had a few quite strong things (Thunder cav, Wulfen, Iron Priests on Thunder Wolves, the smaller wolves, etc) that made them a step or two above the rest but it was still somewhat reasonable. Then came Necrons which basically introduced the Decurion super formation that layered powerful bonuses on top of already decent formation bonuses that made the Necrons super powerful. Then almost every faction after that has their own super formation and it seemed like the rules writers completely abandoned balance restraints. Eldar was the most OP faction in 6th and basically their 7th edition codex was buffs across the board with the tiny exception that the OP busted unit of 6th was nerfed a bit. Tau was also incredibly strong in 6th (but struggled in 7th vs the super formation and psychic powers) got only buffs via the powerful formations and added war gear options but all the unit stat lines/point costs basically remained the same from 6th. The icing on the overpowered cake was Ynnari which was basically stacking the brokenly OP Eldar rules (including their OP formations) with a faction ruleset that was basically the strongest win more mechanic in the game. Also this is when Imperial Knights showed up which could field an entire army of super heavy walkers to be the end all be all skew list due to how vehicle rules worked.
7th was peak incompetence from GW as they lost the plot a 3rd of the way through the edition and the end result was a steaming pile of garbage. All that said, the key to making the edition fun was understand some basic concepts of game balance and making sure both players are fielding lists that where relatively on par with each other. If you could do that simple bit of sportsmanship then you could very easily have some fun games. If you expected to just slap down any army list blindly in a pick up game then your very likely to have some bad mismatches irregardless of player skill differences. Tournament play was a dumpster fire due to the horrible top end game balance but to be frank, 40k is a terrible tournament game regardless of the edition being played.
Yup, I remember popping back in shortly after Necrons dropped, and prior to that 7th was seen as scaling back the excesses of 6th with codexes that were nerfed from their previous incarnations etc. Then the wild stuff started to drop and it got more nad more insane. It is true though that with the right people and mindset, you could still have fun with 7th.
7th also did have 2 of my favorite army lists - Renegades and Heretics and Eldar Corsairs. Both originally had lists for 5th, but the 7th lists were more interesting and customizable and fun. I actually bought one of the Boarding Patrol boxes with a bunch of Corsairs in it to start a small list for oldhammer (though likely using 5th's core rules and tweaking things to make sure not too strong). Both lists had lots of fun things you can do to alter the play styles and so on. If you want a rough idea of what it was like, the free Imperial Militia list they released for Horus Heresy can basically trace its lineage back to these.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.
Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.
As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.
It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.
Misquote, I never wrote that. I also never played before 7th, so I have no idea what grav was like....
Quote was me, from memory, so could have it a bit wrong, it was first of all ap2, so basically ignored armor saves, and then wounded based on the saving throw of the opponent's model. So that big expensive model with a 2+ save now A) didn't get its save and B) was wounded on a 2+. Bonus points, it also could destroy vehicles in a pinch because on a 6 it would automatically strip a hull point, and I believe a later faq then said if it hit a second time it would auto-strip 2 hull points which would destroy most vehicles in the edition. It was something like if you got a 'crew shaken' result twice on the chart, instead of shaking them a second time it would deal the extra hull point.
No other army had this problem, becuase Marines had too much stuff.
Other armies had huge point costs problems in 9th too. Ones with few or almost no units comparing to what marines had. The problems with marines point cost was coming from the fact that GW forced marines in to the same single codex. And it wasn't just creating problems for marines. GK were getting points nerfs, because marines were getting nerfs, even if GK didn't have access to the unit combinations or rules. It is a long standing way for GW to work. They know the problem is eldar MW generations, two or three specific units that shot out of LoS. And how do they fix it? wreck the MW generation and defence for the entire game. Nerf point costs of all indirect platforms which still makes the best of the best used, but suddenly GK heavy weapon specialists cost as if they were a nigh spinner. etc Also most of the time, end of 8th being the exclusion to this, the actual unit choice list of sm list is so small that it doesn't matter how much lets say an intercessors costs. They just went down in costs, is anyone going to use them? no. But the scout, aggressors, interceptor package that went up in points will still be used, because without it marines don't really have good stuff to run. And in some extrem cases, like being a White Scar player, the codex doesn't even support having a 2000pts list.
The problem was that it was mostly what...Tau and Eldar 'monstrous creatures'
That started earlier I think, I forget exactly when but I can remember Dread vs Carnifex being laughably one-sided because of Monsters getting bonuses vs Vehicles.
Breton wrote: Again as I just made clear right before you lied about it, I don't think adding units is to make factions more flavored, I think some just plain need more units/rules period.
Chapter Tactics doesn't at all flanderise paint jobs because Chapter Tactics have little to nothing to do with paint jobs. Yellow Ultramarines are still Ultramarines. What matters are the rules not the paint job.
And as I pointed out if Everybody gets SOMETHING and each of those SOMETHINGs are roughly equal in value it doesn't affect internal balance.
I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what you're getting at.
Everyone has 6 detachments and then IF players get SH1 with bolters and something else. Is that the general idea?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: And when stuff like this combines with players knowing that their faction won't be fixed this edition it is not a good expiriance.
Have you not been paying attention to the dataslate? GW is perfectly capable of making mid-edition changes. Blood Angels got a buff. Custodes got FNP vs DW. Death Guard got extra debuffs. DE just got a glow up.
It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.
I wasn't talking about the Greater Good, just their visual style. It's an immediate, visceral reaction that this faction doesn't fit in with the rest of the grimdark, that WFB in space doesn't need Gundams. The annoying rules just magnified that sentiment.
Chapter tactics definitely flanderise paint jobs, if my blue ultramarines use imperial fists rules because the rules suit my collection better, then I've been pigeon holed by chapter tactics.
The problem was that everyone got SOMETHING inside of marines but the number of moving parts meant that the cumulative somethings catapult some units beyond the ability to be fairly balanced for other chapters. I don't understand why this is hard to grasp? If your flamer aggressors are autohitting max hits with +1 to wound as a salamander, are those worth the same points in an ultramarine army where they can fall back and shoot with no further buffs?
Was the unkillable bro-viathan dread with twin guns worth the same points as a stock blood angels one?
Karol wrote: You really think that stuff like Death Company or Wulfen or TWC or Sang Guard or locked gear patern (DA speeders, Baal predators etc) don't make factions that have them more flavoured?
Okey lets say we remove those things. They no longer exist, and lets say it happens to the ones GW already created for primaris too.
What is the difference between an ultramarines, DA and SW army? The core army rules given and how they are painted ? Awesome this is how we end up with sneaky centurions and ultramarines being the best, because they have a larger pool of special characters then other factions, which for some reason don't get nerfed like the BA or DA ones.
I don't understand why chapter specific stuff is considered flanderisation. SW had they grey hunters/grey slayers for ever. Stuff like wulfen or TWC is in the 2ed codex and model wise, there are metal ones of wulfen, so they are at least half the history of w40k old. I have seen the 2ed SW codex, dudes wear wolf pelts, have huge tusks on the black an white art, crazy hair etc
Death Company is in the 2ed codex. So are deathwing terminators. And the lore for those units is that they are chapter/legion unique and nothing like similar units of other chapters.
The problem with the "internal" balance GW tries to achive is that all those chapters shouldn't have shared a single codex to begin with. A biker for a WS or Raven Wing shouldn't have the same rules and point costs as a bike for an ultramarines army. But GW decided that it is going to be good ,and I assume it is good for them, that players have to buy 2 books to play one army.
That is how we get not working detachments. Detachments of the DA type, where one wonders, why should anyone take them over a gladius. Siege centurions in IF "detachment" not even sure, if worth to be run at the points cost they have now. But run as ultras with access to venguard stuff? As characterful and lore accurate as the late 8th 15 centurions infiltrating Raven Guard lists.
And when stuff like this combines with players knowing that their faction won't be fixed this edition it is not a good expiriance. That flanderised WS player with his biker army is suppose to do what? Wait for 11th and hope there are going to be bikes released in it and that they will have good rules, the core rules won't punish the use of bikes (like it is now) and that they only have to wait 2+ years for it.
You basically followed the entire train of logic of the thread and summaries it for me, thank you.
Most of the unique marine units are hold overs from when they existed to provide army identity but thunderwolf cavalry simply existing does very little to differentiate the 13 great companies and their unique playstyles. You could make a new flyer, transport and dread unit for GK but that doesn't make it any more easy to identify how the brotherhoods all function differently necessarily.
It took forever for the Space Communists meme to cycle through, if you didn't buy the codex you didn't know about it. The unilateral breaking of IGO-UGO is almost definitely the cause of the hate. There are a number of things to object to - they had the strongest and longest "trooper" guns, even over Loyalist and Chaos SM who have been fighitng the long war for 10,000 years against power armored foes but those were fairly minor things - JSJ is going to be one of the first things people who played in that era will point to.
I wasn't talking about the Greater Good, just their visual style. It's an immediate, visceral reaction that this faction doesn't fit in with the rest of the grimdark, that WFB in space doesn't need Gundams. The annoying rules just magnified that sentiment.
In 'The Exodite' I think it created a fantastic foil to the raw and brutal Imperium. The contrast only enhances the brutality and the Tau still had their own dogmatic failings.
Breton wrote: Again as I just made clear right before you lied about it, I don't think adding units is to make factions more flavored, I think some just plain need more units/rules period.
Chapter Tactics doesn't at all flanderise paint jobs because Chapter Tactics have little to nothing to do with paint jobs. Yellow Ultramarines are still Ultramarines. What matters are the rules not the paint job.
And as I pointed out if Everybody gets SOMETHING and each of those SOMETHINGs are roughly equal in value it doesn't affect internal balance.
I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what you're getting at.
Everyone has 6 detachments and then IF players get SH1 with bolters and something else. Is that the general idea?
I think so, which isn't terrible, but if you have a fists army without many bolters then you might as well not bother still.
Karol wrote: You really think that stuff like Death Company or Wulfen or TWC or Sang Guard or locked gear patern (DA speeders, Baal predators etc) don't make factions that have them more flavoured?
Okey lets say we remove those things. They no longer exist, and lets say it happens to the ones GW already created for primaris too.
What is the difference between an ultramarines, DA and SW army? The core army rules given and how they are painted ? Awesome this is how we end up with sneaky centurions and ultramarines being the best, because they have a larger pool of special characters then other factions, which for some reason don't get nerfed like the BA or DA ones.
I don't understand why chapter specific stuff is considered flanderisation. SW had they grey hunters/grey slayers for ever. Stuff like wulfen or TWC is in the 2ed codex and model wise, there are metal ones of wulfen, so they are at least half the history of w40k old. I have seen the 2ed SW codex, dudes wear wolf pelts, have huge tusks on the black an white art, crazy hair etc
Death Company is in the 2ed codex. So are deathwing terminators. And the lore for those units is that they are chapter/legion unique and nothing like similar units of other chapters.
The problem with the "internal" balance GW tries to achive is that all those chapters shouldn't have shared a single codex to begin with. A biker for a WS or Raven Wing shouldn't have the same rules and point costs as a bike for an ultramarines army. But GW decided that it is going to be good ,and I assume it is good for them, that players have to buy 2 books to play one army.
That is how we get not working detachments. Detachments of the DA type, where one wonders, why should anyone take them over a gladius. Siege centurions in IF "detachment" not even sure, if worth to be run at the points cost they have now. But run as ultras with access to venguard stuff? As characterful and lore accurate as the late 8th 15 centurions infiltrating Raven Guard lists.
And when stuff like this combines with players knowing that their faction won't be fixed this edition it is not a good expiriance. That flanderised WS player with his biker army is suppose to do what? Wait for 11th and hope there are going to be bikes released in it and that they will have good rules, the core rules won't punish the use of bikes (like it is now) and that they only have to wait 2+ years for it.
Not sure who/what you're asking here but I'll give it a go:
Sure DC, Wulfen etc add flavor. But like a unit Specific Chapter Tactic, not enough. The "character" of the chapter should weave throughout the entire chapter, not just a few specific "special characters" so to speak. Every blood Angel has the Red Thirst not just the Sanguinary Guard. Chapter Tactics should be a somewhat minor tweak that twirls every unit just a hair.
Chapter Specific stuff isn't flanderisation, Chapter Specific stuff (or basically anything) to extremes is. Spacewolves were basically turned into a 1960s Batman spoof with wolf claws frozen to wolf bones wielded next to an ice pistol. Also see: Skulls on spikes on skulls on spikes.
I'm not sure which DA Det you're talking about but:
The Unforgiven Task Force is bad because Morale is bad.
The Inner Circle Task Force is bad but will probably be decent hopefully when the massive KEYWORD problems are resolved. Somebody who didn't know DA - or 40K in general - dropped the ball on this one.
The Company of Hunters doesn't look too bad and has some potential.
Also:
A biker for a WS or Raven Wing shouldn't have the same rules and point costs as a bike for an ultramarines army.
Sure they should. The Black Knight bikes can't be in an Ultramarine's Army and currently there's no difference between an Ultramarines Outrider vs a Ravenwing Outrider. At most you could attach a Ravenwing Command Squad to the Outrider squad, but why would you - its a bad choice. Plus I disagree with that being Ravenwing only for multiple reasons. Finally, even if Chapter Tactics came back and each biker was modified by a relatively equivalent Chapter Tactic they're still worth about the same.
I have a question for you: How do you think Bikes are punished?
Dudeface wrote: I think so, which isn't terrible, but if you have a fists army without many bolters then you might as well not bother still.
Yea I don't favor such a dynamic. I liked it. And I built lists around it, but I don't think it's better.
If we contextualize it within "is 10th edition heavily sanitized" -- ( this is directed at the forum )
We can have a setup that promotes bolters and heavy bolters for IF. And then people will build IF lists with bolters and heavy bolters. If such a setup is good people will build IF. If it is not, then they will not.
Why would that be "less sanitized" than IF who can --
- Take 1st Company with a terminator focus, which also contains lots of objective control and durability options
- Take Anvil Siege Force and focus on Heavy Intercessors, who carry lots of bolters with Heavy, an ability to stand back up, more objective control abilities, and access to SH on 5s
- Take Gladius and Tor leading some Aggressors and a character with SH1 on 5s in Dev and keep that unit in Dev - Take Ironstorm with a vehicle heavy IF using dreadnoughts for objective control and another option to give a Heavy Intercessor ( or other bolter ) unit SH1 on 5s
Dai wrote: Which is a problem with having to play marines so often as much as anything? WS 4 S 4 A 2 stats would do decent damage against most troops infantry in the game but you just relatively rarely got to see it.
It's always been a bit of a problem. Something can be pretty good but if it isn't against marine stats and armour it'll often as not be useless.
those 20 kroot wouldn’t even wipe 10 guardsmen in combat. If they were fighting any chaff tier combat unit (hormagaunts, ork boyz, ect) they’d get absolutely clobbered in return, usually at less ppm.
While the ubiquity of marines did have an effect on kroot effectiveness, they’ve been a bad combination of super squishy, low damage, and overcosted.
Breton wrote: Again as I just made clear right before you lied about it, I don't think adding units is to make factions more flavored, I think some just plain need more units/rules period.
Chapter Tactics doesn't at all flanderise paint jobs because Chapter Tactics have little to nothing to do with paint jobs. Yellow Ultramarines are still Ultramarines. What matters are the rules not the paint job.
And as I pointed out if Everybody gets SOMETHING and each of those SOMETHINGs are roughly equal in value it doesn't affect internal balance.
I'm having a hard time conceptualizing what you're getting at.
Everyone has 6 detachments and then IF players get SH1 with bolters and something else. Is that the general idea?
Probably not the bolter thing specifically. That specific boost would be on the borderline for what I'd be looking for - I mean bolters are fairly ubiquitous in a Space Marine army so it would hit a lot but I'd be looking for something casting a wider net. Something that hits every marine. Bolter Drill feels like more of a Strat than a Chapter Tactic. Red Thirst(BA), Grim Resolve(DA), Hunters Unleashed(SW), and Lightning Assault(WS) from 9th are the type if not the "power" (Could be, could not be, I'm not the one to math-hammer and theory craft that one out). But the contrast here is say Siege Masters (Ignore Cover, and SH1 for Bolters) vs Lightning Assault (Everyone can charge after Advance/Fall Back and no to-hit penalty for advance and shoot assault weapons). I don't like the Ignore Cover because Flamers are bad enough already and someone needs to throw them a bone - but the affects everyone is nice. The Bolt weapon again doesn't affect everyone. Lightning Assault has an affects everyone with Advance and Charge - the advance and assault weapon is again a little limited - not as much as the bolt weapon thing - and completely alien to the current edition. Something close to this but within the new design space wouldn't suck. Maybe everything gets ASSAULT, but that's probably a little stronger than I'm looking for.
The general point is they work together, they work on everything, so even a White Scars Assault Centurion still acts like a White Scar as it "runs" ahead shooting people with the Centurion Bolters until it gets into Clobbering Range. Meanwhile the less impetuous more stoic Dark Angel Assault Centurion is going to make a measured choice between getting closer or REALLY focusing on the shooting wtih the Bolter and the melta guns while being far less battleshocked at the Centurion next to him gurgling blood into his gorget.
An Assault Centurion is still an Assault Centurion with a ton of wounds, high Toughness, and the propensity to face punch no matter who his DNA mods come from - but I like it when they play just a little different that way. Sometimes it won't matter. Almost nobody is ever going to care if Blood Angels Devastators get to add 1" and +1 to wound when they charge, but I like the idea of gun toting BA Intercessors making that charge because being BA twirled the numbers just enough, while the Ultramarines Intercessors would be more likely to Fall back and shoot because their Chapter Tactics twirled the numbers just a little differently.
Almost 13 pages, and still no one has clearly laid out the salient argument for why 10th is "sanitized". I've seen a lot of word swapping and goalpost shifting, but no actual evidence to suggest the incredibly vague assertion that the OP put forward. 10th is by all accounts I'm reading, a bland and boring update/sidegrade to 9th. Which was by all financial metrics, one of the most successful editions of 40k.
What is the point of this thread, really? 10th is fine. People like it. It's entire point is to make GW money. So far it's doing gangbusters, and games are flying off the shelves. Sorry you don't like the changes.
Hey, I wish Ro3 would get tossed in the rubbish bin, and I could bring back my all Bustodes Bike list. But it's never going to happen. I got over it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Almost 13 pages, and still no one has clearly laid out the salient argument for why 10th is "sanitized". I've seen a lot of word swapping and goalpost shifting, but no actual evidence to suggest the incredibly vague assertion that the OP put forward. 10th8t is by all accounts I'm reading, a bland and boring update/sidegrade to 9th. Which was by all financial metrics, one of the most successful editions of 40k.
What is the point of this thread, really? 10th is fine. People like it. It's entire point is to make GW money. So far it's doing gangbusters, and games are flying off the shelves. Sorry you don't like the changes.
Hey, I wish Ro3 would get tossed in the rubbish bin, and I could bring back my all Bustodes Bike list. But it's never going to happen. I got over it.
I'd say it's due to the design goal of core rule simplicity since 8th edition. That makes an edition seem quite sanitised even if there are a ridiculous amount of very similar special rules added on top. The lack of customisation options just adds to that. There's undoubtedly some nostalgia goggles about earlier editions but i think the fact remains that 8th edition was a pardigm shift toward simple core rules and lots of "dlc" add ons that comes across as sterile.
8th was the most bloated mess of conflicting rules on top of rules ever.....
I am not sure we played the same 8th.
Also, the core of 8th was deathstars, which was boring and lame. There is no diversity behind building the loyal32 around a couple Knights and watching them break the game turn 1 with their op shooting.
Dudeface wrote: I think so, which isn't terrible, but if you have a fists army without many bolters then you might as well not bother still.
Yea I don't favor such a dynamic. I liked it. And I built lists around it, but I don't think it's better.
If we contextualize it within "is 10th edition heavily sanitized" -- ( this is directed at the forum )
We can have a setup that promotes bolters and heavy bolters for IF. And then people will build IF lists with bolters and heavy bolters. If such a setup is good people will build IF. If it is not, then they will not.
Why would that be "less sanitized" than IF who can --
- Take 1st Company with a terminator focus, which also contains lots of objective control and durability options
- Take Anvil Siege Force and focus on Heavy Intercessors, who carry lots of bolters with Heavy, an ability to stand back up, more objective control abilities, and access to SH on 5s
- Take Gladius and Tor leading some Aggressors and a character with SH1 on 5s in Dev and keep that unit in Dev - Take Ironstorm with a vehicle heavy IF using dreadnoughts for objective control and another option to give a Heavy Intercessor ( or other bolter ) unit SH1 on 5s
Well No, that isn't exactly it.
I'd like to see these new Dets AND Chapter Tactics. The New Dets should enable the theme of the army - like a 1st Company Terminator Focused list. The Chapter Tactic should tilt just a little how the Terminators in that list play.
As for your question: Nothing would be less sanitized. Nothing would be more sanitized. They're all the same.
A UM who can --
- Take 1st Company with a terminator focus, which also contains lots of objective control and durability options
- Take Anvil Siege Force and focus on Heavy Intercessors, who carry lots of bolters with Heavy, an ability to stand back up, more objective control abilities, and access to SH on 5s
- Take Gladius and Calgar leading some Aggressors and a character with SH1 on 5s in Dev and keep that unit in Dev - Take Ironstorm with a vehicle heavy IF using dreadnoughts for objective control and another option to give a Heavy Intercessor ( or other bolter ) unit SH1 on 5s
Whats the sum total of variety there? Tor's Aggressors ignore cover, and Calgar's can Advance, shoot, and charge. Oh, and Calgar gives +1CP per turn, while the IF list will have to find some way of 5+'ing a CP if it wants extra. Fairly minor and entirely locked into the Epic Special Character Hero not the whole army.
And lets not give GW too much credit here either. How many mounted HQ's who can take an enhancement are there in the core SM book? 1 - the Chaplain on a bike. Its got almost as many problems as the DA Inner Circle Task Force. So I suppose I should modify the above statement to say Model Support and Detachments should enable the theme of the army, while Chapter Tactics tilts it just a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Almost 13 pages, and still no one has clearly laid out the salient argument for why 10th is "sanitized". I've seen a lot of word swapping and goalpost shifting, but no actual evidence to suggest the incredibly vague assertion that the OP put forward. 10th is by all accounts I'm reading, a bland and boring update/sidegrade to 9th. Which was by all financial metrics, one of the most successful editions of 40k.
What is the point of this thread, really? 10th is fine. People like it. It's entire point is to make GW money. So far it's doing gangbusters, and games are flying off the shelves. Sorry you don't like the changes.
Hey, I wish Ro3 would get tossed in the rubbish bin, and I could bring back my all Bustodes Bike list. But it's never going to happen. I got over it.
I wouldn't agree with that at all. 10th is the Reboot. 9th was the up/side grade to 8th. I would expect 11th to be the side/upgrade to 10th.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Almost 13 pages, and still no one has clearly laid out the salient argument for why 10th is "sanitized". I've seen a lot of word swapping and goalpost shifting, but no actual evidence to suggest the incredibly vague assertion that the OP put forward. 10th is by all accounts I'm reading, a bland and boring update/sidegrade to 9th. Which was by all financial metrics, one of the most successful editions of 40k.
What is the point of this thread, really? 10th is fine. People like it. It's entire point is to make GW money. So far it's doing gangbusters, and games are flying off the shelves. Sorry you don't like the changes.
Hey, I wish Ro3 would get tossed in the rubbish bin, and I could bring back my all Bustodes Bike list. But it's never going to happen. I got over it.
I have laid it out out multiple times that the entire design system of 40k post 7th is fundamentals lacking in mechanical depth and makes it way too easy to have the game boil down to mathhammer. While 7th has its own issues (namely codex balance and rules stacking.... It's almost like this keeps happening), it has the bones of 5th edition which by many accounts is considered one of the better game editions for the players. With 8th to 10th I found the gameplay to be mindlessly boring and fails to scratch that tactical battle itch that 6th and 7th could. While many people didn't see things how I saw them with regarding to 8th and 9th, 10th somehow is getting even more bland results and it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm with the game because of it. That said it's kind hard to recognize vapid or bland gameplay while it's a lot easier to point to frustrating or imbalance issues and identify them as being an issue.
Sadly the greater Warhammer community will throw money at GW regardless of the quality of the rules they publish or how much they lose the main setting's plot. Mobile games make companies billions of dollars a year despite those games being absolute garbage from a gameplay perspective and literally designed to hook players into spending money to keep playing/buying power. The financial success of the company is not a good representation of how well designed or fun the game is to play unless you only care about profitability. Monopoly the board game was a highly successful game that continues to sell dozens of editions that had little to no gameplay changes in them. It sold well and was not an uncommon sight in people's homes despite it having absolutely terrible rules, a reputation of being a slog to play, and becoming a mockery of the original point that the game was trying to make.
To use an example from GW past, back in 7th (peak terrible 40k, worst edition ever, Tom Kirby time, etc) Necrons stuff was almost constantly sold out , especially those Tomb Blades despite them being a unit I rarely saw in Nercon players collections let alone on the table top before that codex came out. I strongly suspect that those units didn't have much appeal to the average Necron player be it design or maybe the stat line from their previous codex was terrible or something. It just so happened that Decurion needed Tomb Blades so people bought them up like crazy. Point being bad game design can sell product because people are not rational and will throw money at stupid things if they feel it gives them some benefit.
TL: DR Company profits and sales does not equal a good game.
I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.
I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, dropping initiative, strats, etc. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout and so on -- it's all the same with minor updates.
9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.
Daedalus81 wrote: I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.
I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, and strats. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout.
9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.
7th to 8th was way more than a shift. It was a gutting of the entire assortment of gameplay mechanics that had existed up to that point and boiled everything down to move, shoot, stab, die. Cover and terrain rules were effectively gone, templates/blast was gone, USRs stopped existing besides "fly", just about all the unit mechanics vanished, psychic phase changed again, the entire process for directional wounding on infantry squads and armor facings went away, the entire AP system changed, adding in a damage value for wounding attacks, inflation of wounds on models.
Also 6th didn't have D weapons in the base game as those were still just in Apoc (there was a supplement book for using them in 6th but it wasn't widely utilized), 7th added them along with super heavy rules, and fortifications into the core ruleset.
I have laid it out out multiple times that the entire design system of 40k post 7th is fundamentals lacking in mechanical depth and makes it way too easy to have the game boil down to mathhammer. While 7th has its own issues (namely codex balance and rules stacking.... It's almost like this keeps happening), it has the bones of 5th edition which by many accounts is considered one of the better game editions for the players. With 8th to 10th I found the gameplay to be mindlessly boring and fails to scratch that tactical battle itch that 6th and 7th could. While many people didn't see things how I saw them with regarding to 8th and 9th, 10th somehow is getting even more bland results and it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm with the game because of it. That said it's kind hard to recognize vapid or bland gameplay while it's a lot easier to point to frustrating or imbalance issues and identify them as being an issue.
Sadly the greater Warhammer community will throw money at GW regardless of the quality of the rules they publish or how much they lose the main setting's plot. Mobile games make companies billions of dollars a year despite those games being absolute garbage from a gameplay perspective and literally designed to hook players into spending money to keep playing/buying power. The financial success of the company is not a good representation of how well designed or fun the game is to play unless you only care about profitability. Monopoly the board game was a highly successful game that continues to sell dozens of editions that had little to no gameplay changes in them. It sold well and was not an uncommon sight in people's homes despite it having absolutely terrible rules, a reputation of being a slog to play, and becoming a mockery of the original point that the game was trying to make.
To use an example from GW past, back in 7th (peak terrible 40k, worst edition ever, Tom Kirby time, etc) Necrons stuff was almost constantly sold out , especially those Tomb Blades despite them being a unit I rarely saw in Nercon players collections let alone on the table top before that codex came out. I strongly suspect that those units didn't have much appeal to the average Necron player be it design or maybe the stat line from their previous codex was terrible or something. It just so happened that Decurion needed Tomb Blades so people bought them up like crazy. Point being bad game design can sell product because people are not rational and will throw money at stupid things if they feel it gives them some benefit.
TL: DR Company profits and sales does not equal a good game.
An anecdote about a sellout ( there's lots of those recently -- ones where they can't keep up with general demand ) when decurions got popular and before GW had an expanded factory isn't really a great metric. This is more telling :
Spoiler:
You could of course hand wave people who are buying into the new system as mindless and make unsupported assertions like "it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm". It's kind of like a Fox News segment. I'm certain listening to people in a bubble will help reinforce those ideas. This forum probably isn't a great place to get a real assessment since it seems many people here have yet to actually play 10th.
None of that means that 40K is now the premier system that satisfies all types and I don't think anyone should make that claim. It is certainly more tournament friendly. The OP was whether or not it's sanitized, which I disagree with. We're certainly still in index hammer and there isn't a lot of Crusade stuff yet. I can see where people who want a particular facet ( like Gorgon Nids ) or those with an index that doesn't yet match their desired play style can feel let down.
Daedalus81 wrote: I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.
I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, and strats. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout.
9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.
7th to 8th was way more than a shift. It was a gutting of the entire assortment of gameplay mechanics that had existed up to that point and boiled everything down to move, shoot, stab, die. Cover and terrain rules were effectively gone, templates/blast was gone, USRs stopped existing besides "fly", just about all the unit mechanics vanished, psychic phase changed again, the entire process for directional wounding on infantry squads and armor facings went away, the entire AP system changed, adding in a damage value for wounding attacks, inflation of wounds on models.
Also 6th didn't have D weapons in the base game as those were still just in Apoc (there was a supplement book for using them in 6th but it wasn't widely utilized), 7th added them along with super heavy rules, and fortifications into the core ruleset.
Very true. I didn't try to go to an exhaustive list, but certainly lots changed.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.
Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.
As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.
It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.
Misquote, I never wrote that. I also never played before 7th, so I have no idea what grav was like....
@FezzikDaBullgryn
Look again please, I quoted 3 different people to respond to multiple points. That part was under "kurhanik wrote:" and not part of your quote. Your quote was correct.
*Edit: Ah I see where it went wrong. Insectum7 attempted to quote and shrunk it down to comment on that point but erased the wrong quote links. In my post it is quoted correctly though
I have laid it out out multiple times that the entire design system of 40k post 7th is fundamentals lacking in mechanical depth and makes it way too easy to have the game boil down to mathhammer. While 7th has its own issues (namely codex balance and rules stacking.... It's almost like this keeps happening), it has the bones of 5th edition which by many accounts is considered one of the better game editions for the players. With 8th to 10th I found the gameplay to be mindlessly boring and fails to scratch that tactical battle itch that 6th and 7th could. While many people didn't see things how I saw them with regarding to 8th and 9th, 10th somehow is getting even more bland results and it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm with the game because of it. That said it's kind hard to recognize vapid or bland gameplay while it's a lot easier to point to frustrating or imbalance issues and identify them as being an issue.
Sadly the greater Warhammer community will throw money at GW regardless of the quality of the rules they publish or how much they lose the main setting's plot. Mobile games make companies billions of dollars a year despite those games being absolute garbage from a gameplay perspective and literally designed to hook players into spending money to keep playing/buying power. The financial success of the company is not a good representation of how well designed or fun the game is to play unless you only care about profitability. Monopoly the board game was a highly successful game that continues to sell dozens of editions that had little to no gameplay changes in them. It sold well and was not an uncommon sight in people's homes despite it having absolutely terrible rules, a reputation of being a slog to play, and becoming a mockery of the original point that the game was trying to make.
To use an example from GW past, back in 7th (peak terrible 40k, worst edition ever, Tom Kirby time, etc) Necrons stuff was almost constantly sold out , especially those Tomb Blades despite them being a unit I rarely saw in Nercon players collections let alone on the table top before that codex came out. I strongly suspect that those units didn't have much appeal to the average Necron player be it design or maybe the stat line from their previous codex was terrible or something. It just so happened that Decurion needed Tomb Blades so people bought them up like crazy. Point being bad game design can sell product because people are not rational and will throw money at stupid things if they feel it gives them some benefit.
TL: DR Company profits and sales does not equal a good game.
An anecdote about a sellout ( there's lots of those recently -- ones where they can't keep up with general demand ) when decurions got popular and before GW had an expanded factory isn't really a great metric. This is more telling :
Spoiler:
You could of course hand wave people who are buying into the new system as mindless and make unsupported assertions like "it seems they many people are experiencing a decline in enthusiasm". It's kind of like a Fox News segment. I'm certain listening to people in a bubble will help reinforce those ideas. This forum probably isn't a great place to get a real assessment since it seems many people here have yet to actually play 10th.
None of that means that 40K is now the premier system that satisfies all types and I don't think anyone should make that claim. It is certainly more tournament friendly. The OP was whether or not it's sanitized, which I disagree with. We're certainly still in index hammer and there isn't a lot of Crusade stuff yet. I can see where people who want a particular facet ( like Gorgon Nids ) or those with an index that doesn't yet match their desired play style can feel let down.
I want to point out that those financials don't actually say anything beyond a vague hypothesis about the popularity of 10th edition 40k. They only say GW is making a lot of profit. I know GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase in sales or whether the increased popularity is due to the current edition. It could be, but those numbers don't tell us that. I don't think GW even splits out 40k vs AoS. Even if we knew how many rule books were being sold vs, say, 7th edition, it still wouldn't control for various confounding factors that can relate to the success of a company in shifting products (factors both within and outside GW's control, like marketing or recessions or pandemics). But that level of detail could give us inferences about how many people were interested in the rules at least.
To be clear, I'm not saying tenth isn't popular, I'm just annoyed by those financials being used in an unrigorous manner that they don't support.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also grav weapons, god grav was annoying.
Grav started in 6th (Centurions) and was just as bad as it was in 7th.
As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.
It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.
Misquote, I never wrote that. I also never played before 7th, so I have no idea what grav was like....
@FezzikDaBullgryn
Look again please, I quoted 3 different people to respond to multiple points. That part was under "kurhanik wrote:" and not part of your quote. Your quote was correct.
*Edit: Ah I see where it went wrong. Insectum7 attempted to quote and shrunk it down to comment on that point but erased the wrong quote links. In my post it is quoted correctly though
Yeah, my bad. Sorry @Fezzik. I'll pull your name off the post.
An Assault Centurion is still an Assault Centurion with a ton of wounds, high Toughness, and the propensity to face punch no matter who his DNA mods come from - but I like it when they play just a little different that way. Sometimes it won't matter. Almost nobody is ever going to care if Blood Angels Devastators get to add 1" and +1 to wound when they charge, but I like the idea of gun toting BA Intercessors making that charge because being BA twirled the numbers just enough, while the Ultramarines Intercessors would be more likely to Fall back and shoot because their Chapter Tactics twirled the numbers just a little differently.
See, I'd be onboard with the high concept of distinct-but-slightly-different chapter tactics being layered on top of detachment rules if it was done well. However, I am dubious that it would be done well.
Using your BA devastator as an example, as you point out, extra melee ability isn't a terribly useful rule on them. So if there exists a different chapter tactic that is more powerful/obviously useful for devastators, then the BAdev is fundamentally at a disadvantage next to his peers from that other chapter. This is what people mean (or at least what I mean) when they talk about units being punished. That BA devastator is just straight up inferior to a devastator that gets Salamander re-rolls or Raven Guard to-hit penalties.
So in order for chapter tactics to avoid punishing some armies for taking units of the wrong paint scheme, you'd need every chapter tactic to benefit a given unit roughly as much as every other unit. That is, devastators would need to benefit from UM, BA, WS, etc. chapter tactics all equally as much. Because if any chapter tactic benefits the devastator significantly more or less, then anyone fielding devastators of that chapter is at dis/advantage.
Going back to the bike army, I don't want WS bikers to be better bikers than everyone else because the inverse of that is that anyone playing non-WS bikes is playing "worse bikes," and that doesn't feel good. The current detachment system avoids this by saying that WS and IF and UM bikes are all using the same rules. Bringing chapter/paintjob back into it risks reintroducing the problems described with the devastator above.
Also, having both a detachment and chapter tactic rule is made trickier to balance by the risk of some combinations having more chemistry than others. If your chapter tactic and your detachment both make units really good at, let's say, melee, then vanguard vets with that combination of rules are significantly stronger than vanguard vets using a better-melee tactic and a better-shooting detachment or what have you.
Daedalus81 wrote: I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.
I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, dropping initiative, strats, etc. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout and so on -- it's all the same with minor updates.
9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.
I think this is why I feel 10th has lost its soul/is heavy sanitized.
10th isn't its own thing. Its not a real reset. I don't get the people who think it is - and have to assume they were not active in late 9th.
I think 10th is late 9th - but in a different language. And with loads of stuff taken out. (And a few rules updates, that happened 3rd-7th, or 8th to 9th).
I mean imagine if instead of resetting the codexex with indexes, they had just said "codexes carry on - but you can't take subfactions. You don't the purity bonuses (well I guess you kind of do, but not really). Rather than a big pool of WLT and Relics and Psychic Powers, you pick from 4 and get what you are given. Rather than having dozens of strategems you get six."
You'd say this is 9th edition - but a weirdly neutered/hamstrung 9th. Which is how I feel. I had the full fat version. Why would want this stripped down diet version with none of the content? Its functional - but worse.
As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.
It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.
I think the reason it was irksome was that Marines, who already had a substantial arsenal at their disposal, were given this amazing weapon.
Meanwhile, other factions who were suffering just as much (if not moreso) at the hands of those monsters, were given naff-all. No Grav, no D-weapons, nothing else to help them against Riptides, Wraithknights etc.
I've had way more fun (or at least had potential for fun) getting beat playing Orks vs bloody Eldar in 7th than playing Orks in 8th/9th where it was just SOOO BORING. The 3rd to 7th style of core gameplay mechanics made the game fun to play as it had a lot more mechanical depth to how things worked. The new set of bare bones core rules suck for having an actually interesting game as it now feels very bland and uninteresting. At least for me, it very much isn't rose tinted glasses as the few times I got to play a game of 7th years after a year plus of 8th where still a ton of fun.
I really hate the argument that people only like 7th because of power gaming when completely overlooks all the gameplay potential the edition had at tables where it wasn't cutthroat WAAC games every match. Formations are a good example of how a good flavorful concept gets dumped on because of the 10% of OP formations that dominated the meta while a lot of the "not good" formations did a decent job of letting themed armies play out differently or at the very least plugging some holes in the viability of some underpowered units.
7th had a ton of stuff I hated. At the same time, it also seems much more solid as an edition to build and improve on than anything since.
It also had Corsairs, which is by far my favourite army book ever.
So obviously GW killed it stone dead in 8th and then proceeded to butcher its corpse, and handed bits of it bloody entrails to other factions.
^Well all that and they stripped out points-for-upgrades, killing a big part of listbuilding. And then they sent a whole bunch of firstborn/realmarine stuff to legends.
As a Marine player, Grav was an irritating mechanic but it's purpose was exceedingly clear. It was the answer to how out of control MCs had become. When the Lascannon is bouncing off MCs with 3++ invulns and 2++ cover saves, and only doing a single wound to an MC IF it gets through, the a multi-shot weapon that wounds easily and punched through armor is a solution you hop on board for.
It may have been irritating as a weapon, but it wasn't half as irritating as what it was responding to.
I think the reason it was irksome was that Marines, who already had a substantial arsenal at their disposal, were given this amazing weapon.
Meanwhile, other factions who were suffering just as much (if not moreso) at the hands of those monsters, were given naff-all. No Grav, no D-weapons, nothing else to help them against Riptides, Wraithknights etc.
Oh yeah, I agree with all that too. 7th was also the edition where they stripped off the ability for a whole squad to use grenades in combat against vehicles too, which really hurt Dark Eldar and Orks against Superheavies. Ork Tankbustas, and DE units with Haywire got shafted.
Haighus wrote: I want to point out that those financials don't actually say anything beyond a vague hypothesis about the popularity of 10th edition 40k. They only say GW is making a lot of profit. I know GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase in sales or whether the increased popularity is due to the current edition. It could be, but those numbers don't tell us that. I don't think GW even splits out 40k vs AoS. Even if we knew how many rule books were being sold vs, say, 7th edition, it still wouldn't control for various confounding factors that can relate to the success of a company in shifting products (factors both within and outside GW's control, like marketing or recessions or pandemics). But that level of detail could give us inferences about how many people were interested in the rules at least.
To be clear, I'm not saying tenth isn't popular, I'm just annoyed by those financials being used in an unrigorous manner that they don't support.
No, you're right - it is all encompassing and certainly GW's foray into more stuff has helps, however from the half year --
"Our June 2023 sales performance set a new benchmark for sales in one month driven by sales of our new Warhammer 40,000 core set"
Haighus wrote: I want to point out that those financials don't actually say anything beyond a vague hypothesis about the popularity of 10th edition 40k. They only say GW is making a lot of profit. I know GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase in sales or whether the increased popularity is due to the current edition. It could be, but those numbers don't tell us that. I don't think GW even splits out 40k vs AoS. Even if we knew how many rule books were being sold vs, say, 7th edition, it still wouldn't control for various confounding factors that can relate to the success of a company in shifting products (factors both within and outside GW's control, like marketing or recessions or pandemics). But that level of detail could give us inferences about how many people were interested in the rules at least.
To be clear, I'm not saying tenth isn't popular, I'm just annoyed by those financials being used in an unrigorous manner that they don't support.
No, you're right - it is all encompassing and certainly GW's foray into more stuff has helps, however from the half year --
"Our June 2023 sales performance set a new benchmark for sales in one month driven by sales of our new Warhammer 40,000 core set"
In fairness, that gives a bit more credence to 10th specifically selling well than the topline figure. I doubt GW would give out more info than that publically unless they felt it would benefit them.
For what it is worth (which isn't much) I've bought every starter set from 4th edition to 9th and it has been primarily for the models
In practice, we can never know whether an older edition style released under current GW circumstances would perform as well as current 40k, so this will remain an unknown to me.
Remember they are a model company first now, not a game design company. as such people are buying....but almost nobody is playing. that was an issue with the lockdowns and why they did so well. granted there are people into all sorts of aspects of the hobby-building/painting, converting etc... not just playing. Keep in mind also the polls that were done even here on DAKKA most "active" players play once a month in a pickup game. to me that is bonkers. i would not be in the miniature gaming hobby if i played that little. even during pandemic lockdowns in 2020 i was getting more games than that in weekly private group games. in the last 20 years i average 3 or 4 games every weekend of various games not just 40K, but when 40K was my main game (3rd-5th) i was getting 3 games a week if not more.
i rarely see anybody play 10th at my FLGS. compared to past editions even 7th. what i do see is stuff about tournaments constantly. but that is what GW has been catering to for 2 editions now, so that's not a surprise.
None of that means that 40K is now the premier system that satisfies all types and I don't think anyone should make that claim. It is certainly more tournament friendly. The OP was whether or not it's sanitized, which I disagree with. We're certainly still in index hammer and there isn't a lot of Crusade stuff yet. I can see where people who want a particular facet ( like Gorgon Nids ) or those with an index that doesn't yet match their desired play style can feel let down.
GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase.
Our June 2023 sales performance set a new benchmark for sales in one month driven by sales of our new Warhammer 40,000 core set
What we know for certain is that close to zero percent of those sales are directly of people playing games. If players have to venmo 13.99 to GW for every game they play, and the models are either priced at cost or made by third parties, then maybe you can that GW's revenue shows how much people like playing tenth edition.
As it is, the numbers can't show that people think the gameplay is fun. At best it could show that people like the rule gizmos attached to the models, after you control for network effect, media exposure, etc.
None of that means that 40K is now the premier system that satisfies all types and I don't think anyone should make that claim. It is certainly more tournament friendly. The OP was whether or not it's sanitized, which I disagree with. We're certainly still in index hammer and there isn't a lot of Crusade stuff yet. I can see where people who want a particular facet ( like Gorgon Nids ) or those with an index that doesn't yet match their desired play style can feel let down.
GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase.
Our June 2023 sales performance set a new benchmark for sales in one month driven by sales of our new Warhammer 40,000 core set
What we know for certain is that close to zero percent of those sales are directly of people playing games. If players have to venmo 13.99 to GW for every game they play, and the models are either priced at cost or made by third parties, then maybe you can that GW's revenue shows how much people like playing tenth edition.
As it is, the numbers can't show that people think the gameplay is fun. At best it could show that people like the rule gizmos attached to the models, after you control for network effect, media exposure, etc.
I agree. I think Codices are probably the product that might most suggest interest in playing and rules, but it's still a poor proxy overall.
^Related: I bought the box for 9th for the Necron models, swapped the Primaris for more Crons, played a total of three games of 9th, then switched over to One Page Rules and am looking to offload thpse Crons now.
So yeah, bought box, barely played, not keeping any of it. If GW wants to count that as a win, fine, but I wouldn't.
Daedalus81 wrote: I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.
I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, dropping initiative, strats, etc. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout and so on -- it's all the same with minor updates.
9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.
10th had a major shift on S/T. It added USRs. It changed nearly every data sheet to put a bespoke rule or more on almost every unit. It eliminated an entire phase of the turn/game.
I think the reason it was irksome was that Marines, who already had a substantial arsenal at their disposal, were given this amazing weapon.
Meanwhile, other factions who were suffering just as much (if not moreso) at the hands of those monsters, were given naff-all. No Grav, no D-weapons, nothing else to help them against Riptides, Wraithknights etc.
Yeah, that is often another symptom of GW's Not Finished problem. Its one thing to say Executioner Chainaxes with a 4A S8, -2 D2 stat (just for context, not as a finished ready for produciton idea) are limited to the two major Marine factions as a throwback to the Horus Heresy flavor. But then I'd expect to see stuff that is proportionally (S3 armies might get it as S6, etc) similar (different kit bit, same template) in other armies. This goes doubly so for the Elements (Flame, grav, las, plas, melta) and double that again while the elements are the Rock-Paper-Anti theme. I don't object to some factions not having access to one of the elements (as long as its not overly oppressive to them) as a flavorful tweak i.e. Sisters don't get Las but do get more/better melta on more/better melta delivery platforms. Alternately the new XYZ Facton culturally appropriating Fuedal Japan doesn't get flamers because their society reveres and fears fire to the point that its terrifying and sacrilegious to use fire as a weapon but their Last Air Bender guns ignore cover. Most of the already existing factions have some of this already built in. Tau don't chop. Orks don't (generally) Melt. Sisters don't Las, and on and on. But there's at least five elements (I'm assuming I may have missed one) - so each faction should have access to at least four.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ^Well all that and they stripped out points-for-upgrades, killing a big part of listbuilding. And then they sent a whole bunch of firstborn/realmarine stuff to legends.
Nah I'd say those are the minors. We've already had a few discussions but I'd wager most people will agree the current points system is 3 Digit vs 2 Digit Power Level and that's been around a while. Nor would I count one faction in upheaval as a reboot of the entire system. That's usually covered by things that hit all the factions.
I think the major points of this being a reboot:
T12 Tanks.
No More Psychic Phase.
Almost every squad unit with at least one bespoke rule.
aphyon wrote: Remember they are a model company first now, not a game design company. as such people are buying....but almost nobody is playing. that was an issue with the lockdowns and why they did so well. granted there are people into all sorts of aspects of the hobby-building/painting, converting etc... not just playing. Keep in mind also the polls that were done even here on DAKKA most "active" players play once a month in a pickup game. to me that is bonkers. i would not be in the miniature gaming hobby if i played that little. even during pandemic lockdowns in 2020 i was getting more games than that in weekly private group games. in the last 20 years i average 3 or 4 games every weekend of various games not just 40K, but when 40K was my main game (3rd-5th) i was getting 3 games a week if not more.
i rarely see anybody play 10th at my FLGS. compared to past editions even 7th. what i do see is stuff about tournaments constantly. but that is what GW has been catering to for 2 editions now, so that's not a surprise.
aphyon wrote: Remember they are a model company first now, not a game design company. as such people are buying....but almost nobody is playing. that was an issue with the lockdowns and why they did so well. granted there are people into all sorts of aspects of the hobby-building/painting, converting etc... not just playing. Keep in mind also the polls that were done even here on DAKKA most "active" players play once a month in a pickup game. to me that is bonkers. i would not be in the miniature gaming hobby if i played that little. even during pandemic lockdowns in 2020 i was getting more games than that in weekly private group games. in the last 20 years i average 3 or 4 games every weekend of various games not just 40K, but when 40K was my main game (3rd-5th) i was getting 3 games a week if not more.
i rarely see anybody play 10th at my FLGS. compared to past editions even 7th. what i do see is stuff about tournaments constantly. but that is what GW has been catering to for 2 editions now, so that's not a surprise.
Anecdotes != evidence
Tournaments were up 20% yoy for January. My shop has never has as many consistently attended tournaments.
The company telling you directly=evidence. they made it very clear "we are a model company that happens to have a game attached to our model line".
Then you go on and prove my point-9th and 10th are for tournaments not for general play. your tournaments are up 20% and you have good attendance at tournaments. exactly what i said. back between 3rd and 5th we had at least half a dozen players playing every saturday (thats 3 or 4 games going at once) and zero trounaments were happening anywhere.
I throw it back at you. you have loads of tournaments and tournament players=Anecdotes
at my FLGS we barely have anybody playing 10th and people have trouble finding people to play 10th because the players who were active in 9th+ are now focused on battle tech, MCP, infinity and a host of other games, or we are playing old hammer based on 5th ed when we want some 40K.
Look at the "post a pic of your last game" topic. i post about our store every week. not just my own games.
In the last month just on Saturdays-
11 battle tech games
2 dust 1947 games
8+ MCP games
7 house 5th ed 40K games
4 10th ed 40K games
2 B5 wars games
1 giant warmachine MKIII game
Had the day off today and came in for a short time for some WWII games had 2 of those by the time i left, and we already have at least 3 games scheduled for tomorrow....none of them are 10th ed 40K.
1) we are a model company is a Kirby line - "Our key consumer facing brand is ‘Warhammer’ - this unites all aspects of the Warhammer hobby - collecting, building,
painting, playing, reading, watching, gaming etc. in the worlds of Warhammer."
2) that's not from GW - I'll load the full dataset tonight
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. Pick your "Trust But Verify" example. Entities cooking their own books to massage the results isn't unheard of. It isn't even rare. A company telling you directly is evidence of what the company wants you to believe, not evidence of veracity or lack thereof. Ben Kenobi's "Certain Point Of View". Lets say 25% of HH players cite 40K as their introduction to HH. So GW gives 40K credit for 25% of HH sales in their accounting by moving 25% of profit from HH to 40K. From a Certain Point of View.
The problem was that it was mostly what...Tau and Eldar 'monstrous creatures'
That started earlier I think, I forget exactly when but I can remember Dread vs Carnifex being laughably one-sided because of Monsters getting bonuses vs Vehicles.
I wouldn't be surprised by that as for awhile the Carnifex had some really nasty tools at its disposal though I have vague recollections of people bemoaning it getting nerfed from 4th into 5th and then 7th. One aspect of this though is that I remember Dreads at least in the 7th era were considered bad due to being walkers. I actually forget a lot of the details on specifics of the why on that though, but it is a small segway to something I actually like about the newer editions.
With all the Marines under one blanket book, you no longer have the issue of one chapter's dreadnoughts being outright worse than another's. If memory serves, Blood Angels Dreads in 7th had 2 attacks base, while when the standard Marine book came out Dreads there got 4 - it took a faq over a year later to make them equivalent. I preferred the fact that the non compliant chapters lost some standard armory units and in exchange got their own (as opposed to the current have everything + extras approach), but having some baseline units just be completely different in such a way was awkward.
*I actually looked it up and its probably because if the Carnifex charged, it specifically got a rule that let it get 1d3 attacks at initiative step 10 using its base strength. It had no ap, but with strength 9, it had a decent chance of stripping some hull points and vehicles did not have saving throws back then.
I think the reason it was irksome was that Marines, who already had a substantial arsenal at their disposal, were given this amazing weapon.
Meanwhile, other factions who were suffering just as much (if not moreso) at the hands of those monsters, were given naff-all. No Grav, no D-weapons, nothing else to help them against Riptides, Wraithknights etc.
Yeah, that is often another symptom of GW's Not Finished problem. Its one thing to say Executioner Chainaxes with a 4A S8, -2 D2 stat (just for context, not as a finished ready for produciton idea) are limited to the two major Marine factions as a throwback to the Horus Heresy flavor. But then I'd expect to see stuff that is proportionally (S3 armies might get it as S6, etc) similar (different kit bit, same template) in other armies. This goes doubly so for the Elements (Flame, grav, las, plas, melta) and double that again while the elements are the Rock-Paper-Anti theme. I don't object to some factions not having access to one of the elements (as long as its not overly oppressive to them) as a flavorful tweak i.e. Sisters don't get Las but do get more/better melta on more/better melta delivery platforms. Alternately the new XYZ Facton culturally appropriating Fuedal Japan doesn't get flamers because their society reveres and fears fire to the point that its terrifying and sacrilegious to use fire as a weapon but their Last Air Bender guns ignore cover. Most of the already existing factions have some of this already built in. Tau don't chop. Orks don't (generally) Melt. Sisters don't Las, and on and on. But there's at least five elements (I'm assuming I may have missed one) - so each faction should have access to at least four.
Oh yeah, I completely agree.
I don't expect every faction to have access to every weapon type or anything like that. The issue is more one of roles. For example, a faction like Sisters might have fewer blasts but more flamers. Point being, they've still got something to take out massed infantry.
As you say, it's the same story with anti-vehicle weapons. Giving them more meltas instead of lascannons helps to form their playstyle, without leaving them unable to reliably hurt vehicles.
The big issue was when stuff like gargantuan creatures, Imperial Knights etc. were added to the game. But while some factions got Grav and/or D-weapons to deal with them, other factions were given absolutely nothing to fill that role.
I'm reasonably convinced "GW sales" correlates to "happy GW players".
Yes, we know a very high percentage of models sold will never see dice rolled in anger. But I suspect the ratio of that is going to be around the same. If everyone genuinely hated 10th, the buzz online would be fundamentally different, and I feel sales would inevitably show a dramatic drop off.
I feel the number of genuine mantelpiece collectors - i.e. people buying who have no intention of ever playing - is relatively small.
I mean in my case, I have lots of models that have never seen a game. Usually because its a couple of squads or a start collecting I brought in a "new year, new army" phase over the past 10 years. But at the time at least I thought "this could be the one, I'll build up this army and then play with it". I wouldn't buy random stuff for games I never thought I'd play.
I got quite a lot of Necromunda stuff to play 5 Parsecs from home, but it does see some action as imperial guard proxies in 40k.
For all it's flaws, I prefer 10th over 9th. All the time I spend figuring out subfactions etc. just made me stop playing, now it's way less overhead for factions ...
Now if not every unit had its own abilities, that would be great.
Breton wrote: I was hoping someone else would have picked up on this:
Which goalpost is being shifted and by whom here?
There's nothing to pick up on. He has a negative association and I have a positive one as in "hey I can do that, too". The reality is that lots of people here are plugging their ears and making up excuses. "Well it's probably just model sales!" "Even if it's popular it's just tournament stuff".
I've played all the editions from 2nd onward. I've thrown vortex grenades, shot pulsa rokkits, deepstruck 3 man chaos terminators with meltas behind tanks, and lost my characters to spawn in forced challenges ( always the bridesmaid never the bride ). I know what those systems were. Often there's attempts to define wargame to one-up newer editions, but everyone uses their own personal definition when no clear one exists ( debate that continues everywhere : https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/11516/what-wargame ). Really it just seems to mean "things I like about oldhammer" rather than a real introspective.
I also recall long ago that people would post the ICV2 results here as proof of GW's doom. ( sorry no winter data yet )
Here's the tournament data that finished loading so far.
Weeks 48 to 52 in 9th - 26,176 games. The same period in 10th - 32,656 - about 25%. And that could be an unfair shake putting a new edition up against one at it's end ( or maybe TOs were tired ), but given the other indicators I doubt it. I'm still loading as much history as possible ( because data is interesting ).
If you've tried it and you just don't like it - great. You're not required to like it. There are other games. I'm running a D&D campaign, playing Scythe ( a rather fantastic game ), HeroQuest with the kids, Helldivers 2, and 40K tournaments. I'm not monolithically tied to 40K.
If you've never tried it and you don't like it - I can't really value your opinion on 10th. If you want to go a step further and claim how it couldn't possibly be popular...I don't know what to say other than you're living in a bubble.
After all this it isn't to say that 10th doesn't have problems, but every edition did. And in that regard GW has never been more responsive as they are now.
They're responsive, but they're responsive to "this is making the rounds in the last few GTs let's fix that". I'd 100% take the old style to this chasing the competitive player's tails bullgak they are doing.
Well put Daedalus. I've played every edition and all had some type of issue. There are things I like from every edition as well as things I don't like in every edition.
And 40K is still growing. It amazes me now how big it has gotten compared to the late 80s - early 90s.
You can claim Avatar is a better movie than Dune because of how many people went to see it in the theater, but I think we can agree that there are limits to that metric.
Insectum7 wrote: You can claim Avatar is a better movie than Dune because of how many people went to see it in the theater, but I think we can agree that there are limits to that metric.
That depends on your definition of better. It's certainly more successful and I'd argue widely enjoyed if only because more people have seen it.
If we're moving the goalpost to "10h is selling more and played more, but it's not the best thing ever" I think it's kind of reaching for a reason to be negative for the sakes of it.
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
Because for some people that means the skill of the player is the deciding factor, for the vast majority of people: they don't, they play on all sorts of tables.
Insectum7 wrote: You can claim Avatar is a better movie than Dune because of how many people went to see it in the theater, but I think we can agree that there are limits to that metric.
That depends on your definition of better. It's certainly more successful and I'd argue widely enjoyed if only because more people have seen it.
Spoken like a true "suit"
Blade Runner famously flopped in the theater too, but the incredibly long tail of its significance is undeniable. This points to the shallow nature of a rigid ticket-sale metric.
If we're moving the goalpost to "10h is selling more and played more, but it's not the best thing ever" I think it's kind of reaching for a reason to be negative for the sakes of it.
I'm still not even sure it's being played more. More people reporting data can still be different than more people playing. It could just be an indicator of changing player habits.
This isn't negative for the sake of negative, this is just being skeptical of the value of the data presented. Attempting to square the circle of anecdotes of seeing fewer people playing and more alternatives popping up, but apparently big sales numbers and tournament turnouts.
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
Because for some people that means the skill of the player is the deciding factor, for the vast majority of people: they don't, they play on all sorts of tables.
Don't you care at all about the spectacle? Having every table be the same layout with only L-shaped ruins is boring as feth, I don't know any other game that has such blandness. Even Warmahordes used to tell you specifically to NOT set up identical terrain, so choosing your deployment zone became a tactical decision, not an irrelevant one.
And my local gaming group is much bigger and active than ever. We do have our old veterans that refuse to play "new40k" and found other alternatives (both within and outside GW) but they are outnumbered.
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
Because for some people that means the skill of the player is the deciding factor, for the vast majority of people: they don't, they play on all sorts of tables.
Don't you care at all about the spectacle? Having every table be the same layout with only L-shaped ruins is boring as feth, I don't know any other game that has such blandness. Even Warmahordes used to tell you specifically to NOT set up identical terrain, so choosing your deployment zone became a tactical decision, not an irrelevant one.
Personally I play on a mix of terrain and don't follow pre-drafted layouts because as you say, theyl spectacle is part of the appeal. On the flip side I've certainly been screwed over by too much/little terrain of the wrong kind at points, so can see the appeal to tournament terrain.
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
Because it is the rules. That is how the tables are set up stores, mirroring how they are set up in events. No one has time to reset tables or build something that will end the game turn 1, w40k already has enough problems without people inventing additional ones. On top of that right now people have their armies build to fit specific terrain, those that only have a 2000pts army would be unable to adapt, if tables were changes all the time. Most people would just quit, if new set ups killed their armies. It did happen to a lot of biker army players, even before GW decided to kill that type of lists by making them mostly legends.
Tyran wrote: And my local gaming group is much bigger and active than ever. We do have our old veterans that refuse to play "new40k" and found other alternatives (both within and outside GW) but they are outnumbered.
Anecdotal data is just anecdotal.
And to the subject of the thread, that's another anecdotal point to the idea that 40k doesn't scratch the itch it used to.
Popular? Sure.
Sanitized? There's something to that label.
It probably differes from index to index. The eldar autarch has more weapon option then the entire GK codex, for example. So some armie got hit harder then others. Some lost rules, other lost gear options (some are just unexplainable, why can a power armour cpt have stormshield, but a terminator one can not?), and then there are those lucky to lose both rules and gear options.
And w40k right now is at a "too big to fail stage". It was first to go big, is more or less a monopolist in the market. Only technology or change in buyer market could make GW change, but by the time that happens, most of the dudes who run the company will be in pansion, safe and sound, what do they care if w40k or AoS are going to be a thing in 10year time. Which funny enough mirrors what some new people interested in table top are thinking too. Because good luck explaining to someone that the faction they are thinking about investing 500-600$ in, maybe potentialy fun/fixed in 2 to 6 years.
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
As others have said, the majority of people don't.
It's always important to disinguish between what GW actually give us and the things that we get twisted into doing as a result of the communities and people with whom we pkay our games.
According to GW, Legends are legal anywhere but tournaments.
According to GW, games of 40k are anywhere from 1k-3k points, with smaller games restricted to Combat Patrol.
And according to GW, there are ZERO rules telling people to play exclusively with L shaped terrain.
If your community insists that you follow rules that are not written in any book, and you don't like that, you need to advocate for change within that community. Because they aren't taking their "orthodoxy" from any rulebook.
Personally I'd be interested to see actual breakdowns of where those tournament games are being played and at what kind of event.
Down in my neck of the woods, and from speaking to multiple friends who live in continental Europe, the mid-small level tournament scene has basically collapsed in 10th. Big supermajors are still posting good numbers, but those mid-range GT's and regular RTT's events are struggling to even hit half-capacity. Firestorm and Factorum who do regular events are finding it difficult to get like 30/50 players for their GT's, despite always selling out in 9th. We do regular RTT's down here and again; they've gone from 40-60 max capacity events in 8th and 9th, to barely managing to get 20 people to show up.
On Thursday club nights 40k is always bouncing and very active but there has objectively been a huge drop off in tournament attendance down in the South-West and South Wales.
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
What makes you assume people are cool with playing that way? People do prefer board-edge neutral setups but that doesn't required same L Shaped buidlings.
Tyran wrote: And my local gaming group is much bigger and active than ever. We do have our old veterans that refuse to play "new40k" and found other alternatives (both within and outside GW) but they are outnumbered.
Anecdotal data is just anecdotal.
And to the subject of the thread, that's another anecdotal point to the idea that 40k doesn't scratch the itch it used to.
Popular? Sure. Sanitized? There's something to that label.
I agree on that, modern 40k and classic 40k scratch different itches, and there has been a considerable amount of sanitization to (somewhat) achieve the aims of modern 40k, but with the caveat that there is also a somewhat newer, overall larger demographic of competitive minded players that prefer a more sanitized game.
I also believe that a simplified, easier to balance and learn system is going to be more successful than a more complex, more simulationist but also borderline impossible to balance system.
There is the question if it is possible to create a system that combines the strengths of both approaches, a more complex classic lite system with the competitive approach of modern 40k. But I have seen plenty of people more familiar with game design pretty much state it is borderline impossible with the scope 40k wants to play with.
Which is why I guess GW has both 40k and HH and thus can monitor (and profit from) the appetite for both approaches at the same time.
Tyran wrote: And my local gaming group is much bigger and active than ever. We do have our old veterans that refuse to play "new40k" and found other alternatives (both within and outside GW) but they are outnumbered.
Anecdotal data is just anecdotal.
And to the subject of the thread, that's another anecdotal point to the idea that 40k doesn't scratch the itch it used to.
Popular? Sure.
Sanitized? There's something to that label.
I agree on that, modern 40k and classic 40k scratch different itches, and there has been a considerable amount of sanitization to (somewhat) achieve the aims of modern 40k, but with the caveat that there is also a somewhat newer, overall larger demographic of competitive minded players that prefer a more sanitized game.
I also believe that a simplified, easier to balance and learn system is going to be more successful than a more complex, more simulationist but also borderline impossible to balance system.
There is the question if it is possible to create a system that combines the strengths of both approaches, a more complex classic lite system with the competitive approach of modern 40k. But I have seen plenty of people more familiar with game design pretty much state it is borderline impossible with the scope 40k wants to play with.
Which is why I guess GW has both 40k and HH and thus can monitor (and profit from) the appetite for both approaches at the same time.
All that makes sense. The issue for many now is that HH doesn't scratch that 40 itch either, because it's a human (virtually 95% Marine) enterprise anyways. It's also run by GW, who's practices have become more tranparently ahh . . . abrasive.
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
What makes you assume people are cool with playing that way? People do prefer board-edge neutral setups but that doesn't required same L Shaped buidlings.
Have more time for more in depth now -
I have two of the Kill Zone Fronteris (and a Charadon) sets because my main factions are Imperial. There are a few small L Shaped ruins but its not the majority of the kit.
I don't have the Ork terrain because I don't play Orks, The Pariah set is kinda meh when compared to these, and I don't play Necrons. I'd love it if they made Xenos (and some Chaos upgradesprues/sets) for each Xenos.
These sets - especially if they're little more than visually distinct mirrors of each other - Make not-cookie-cutter placement easier to manage neutrally.
The homemade terrain often lends itself to the Big Center Building that would be too unfair in either deployment zone and a bunch of "walls" to make "roads" because its an easy way to create both a killing ground objective AND a mirror match when it comes to terrain.
This boils down to the same problem GW had with The Fallen. Expecting people to carry around extra models just in case the run into a situation they're useful doesn't work. Few people carried around a unit of Fallen just in case their random pickup game was against a Dark Angels player. Few people are going to carry around a Kill Zone Fronteris set just in case they run into an Ork Player who just happens to be carrying around their Ork Village set that can be combined into a 2,000 point sized board with flavor terrain on each side.
The long and short of it is - not everyone is ok with it, and not everyone who hates it has done something to fix it but a bunch of people have.
Gibblets wrote:I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
Because for some people that means the skill of the player is the deciding factor, for the vast majority of people: they don't, they play on all sorts of tables.
Don't you care at all about the spectacle? Having every table be the same layout with only L-shaped ruins is boring as feth, I don't know any other game that has such blandness. Even Warmahordes used to tell you specifically to NOT set up identical terrain, so choosing your deployment zone became a tactical decision, not an irrelevant one.
As a terrain nut this is a pet peeve of mine. 40K is not chess. the tables should be laid out like they make sense on the terrain or mat. no buildings in the middle of the road because there is one on the other side of the table for example. as pointed out on the previous page. when you roll separately for set up and first turn. winning the roll for setup allows you choose the table side you think your army would like to fight on. the flip side is that your enemy gets to react to your deployment.
Karol wrote:
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
Because it is the rules. That is how the tables are set up stores, mirroring how they are set up in events. No one has time to reset tables or build something that will end the game turn 1, w40k already has enough problems without people inventing additional ones. On top of that right now people have their armies build to fit specific terrain, those that only have a 2000pts army would be unable to adapt, if tables were changes all the time. Most people would just quit, if new set ups killed their armies. It did happen to a lot of biker army players, even before GW decided to kill that type of lists by making them mostly legends.
Nothing against you Karol, but that just is not a valid excuse. aside from being a good general and adapting to the terrain. there are plenty of fan made STL files that are fantastic and made for 40K (and other systems). you can print them or just buy the finished prints on etsy.
war scenery pull straight from the old dawn of war video games, and sacrusmundus has created at least 2 terrain sets for every single 40K faction. thats not even counting the generic industrial terrain from forbidden prints or other buildings from corvus games terrain.
I will give a few examples of our 40K tables- all this is my personal terrain and most of it is 3d printed or from gale force 9 battlefield in a box series.
Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.
You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.
You forget we play core 5th ed- there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.
This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.
You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.
This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.
Aphyon replied to Karol with a bunch of images of terrain, yet never once mentioned that "we play a different edition" until called out by Dudeface.
Go and look at the spoilered images of the tables. No matter the edition, those are sparse as heck.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.
You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.
This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.
Aphyon replied to Karol with a bunch of images of terrain, yet never once mentioned that "we play a different edition" until called out by Dudeface.
Go and look at the spoilered images of the tables. No matter the edition, those are sparse as heck.
I did look at em, they still look better than "every board is a city ruin because game is unplayable without it"
In my local area we have 14 players for 40K(used to be 30+): 5 of them are perpetual last minute no shows; 3 are real casuals who never learn their rules and you've always got to watch what they do. The other 6 are the WAAC, sweaties who will tailor their lists in between rounds based on who they think they'll be playing next. There's no changing their minds they're hard set on following everything GW puts out, no narrative games, no open games, just matched/tourney always. So 1/3rd of my Dark Angles army is no longer usable and YES all of the players are replacing their terrain will L shaped MDF on bases, just like the book. No forests/bunkers trenches anything fun. So if you like a story with your battle like me, then you frig off to AoS like the 16+ fun people in my aera who used to play 40K did before me.
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
As others have said, the majority of people don't.
It's always important to disinguish between what GW actually give us and the things that we get twisted into doing as a result of the communities and people with whom we pkay our games.
According to GW, Legends are legal anywhere but tournaments.
According to GW, games of 40k are anywhere from 1k-3k points, with smaller games restricted to Combat Patrol.
And according to GW, there are ZERO rules telling people to play exclusively with L shaped terrain.
If your community insists that you follow rules that are not written in any book, and you don't like that, you need to advocate for change within that community. Because they aren't taking their "orthodoxy" from any rulebook.
You're such a privileged person to have enough people in your group to have free thinkers come together and do fun stuff, understand, your experience isn't transferable to anyone else's situation.
Aphyon replied to Karol with a bunch of images of terrain, yet never once mentioned that "we play a different edition" until called out by Dudeface.
Go and look at the spoilered images of the tables. No matter the edition, those are sparse as heck.
i have made quite a few replies previously in this very topic where i indicated our group plays core 5th ed, so i thought it was understood. sorry if that led to confusion. and yes for ease of model movement we use "area terrain" the templates do indeed represent "forests" or some "ruins" in the abstract. our tables generally have quite a few bocking LOS pieces such as large buildings as well as 5+, 4+, and even 3+ hard cover. this existed in the previous edition specifically to address 1st turn alpha strikes. there is also the fact that the terrain in that edition also can hamper movement which is much reduced compared to everything since 8th. outside of special rules (like rage) all walking infantry based models that were not beasts or cav. only move 6", run a d6" (if they want to give up shooting) and charge 6" over open ground.
What is more important though is the tables look good and draw the players into the setting.
P.S. i think i should also mention that we roll for various table setups other than just basic 12" deployment across from each other such as end to end with 24" deployment, table quarters, L shaped deployments and so on. it really changes deployment options based on the terrain.
In my local area we have 14 players for 40K(used to be 30+): 5 of them are perpetual last minute no shows; 3 are real casuals who never learn their rules and you've always got to watch what they do. The other 6 are the WAAC, sweaties who will tailor their lists in between rounds based on who they think they'll be playing next. There's no changing their minds they're hard set on following everything GW puts out, no narrative games, no open games, just matched/tourney always. So 1/3rd of my Dark Angles army is no longer usable and YES all of the players are replacing their terrain will L shaped MDF on bases, just like the book. No forests/bunkers trenches anything fun. So if you like a story with your battle like me, then you frig off to AoS like the 16+ fun people in my aera who used to play 40K did before me.
Sorry to hear that man. there are a few players who play both 10th and older editions and the occasional non regular person that comes in but our old hammer group currently has the regulars/semi regulars that i can remember off the top of my head-
.myself-salamanders, dark angels, admech
.dakota-DKOK, demon hunters
.Bark-imperial guard, orks
.cha-nids, iron hands, knights
.ben-tau
.dave-everything but also lots of dark eldar
.fode-dark eldar, necrons, orks
.john and his son-chaos, necrons, angry marines (we created joke rules for them for fun)
.Jason-witch hunters, blood angels
.tre-custodes
.Ryan-crimson fists, chaos
.ray-imperial guard, iron hands, chaos
.patrick-eldar, chaos
.Tom-ultra marines
We have another friend who's work schedule is all over the place so we never know when he can play that has imperial fists as well.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.
You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.
This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.
Aphyon replied to Karol with a bunch of images of terrain, yet never once mentioned that "we play a different edition" until called out by Dudeface.
Go and look at the spoilered images of the tables. No matter the edition, those are sparse as heck.
SOME of them are. Some of them are (at least as I close as I can judge/estimate) overloaded with vehicle movement blockers. Some of them have pieces just too large for the scale it feels like. But that's also more of a personal subjective than an objective view.
Gibblets wrote: In my local area we have 14 players for 40K(used to be 30+): 5 of them are perpetual last minute no shows; 3 are real casuals who never learn their rules and you've always got to watch what they do. The other 6 are the WAAC, sweaties who will tailor their lists in between rounds based on who they think they'll be playing next. There's no changing their minds they're hard set on following everything GW puts out, no narrative games, no open games, just matched/tourney always. So 1/3rd of my Dark Angles army is no longer usable and YES all of the players are replacing their terrain will L shaped MDF on bases, just like the book. No forests/bunkers trenches anything fun. So if you like a story with your battle like me, then you frig off to AoS like the 16+ fun people in my aera who used to play 40K did before me.
Gibblets wrote: I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?
As others have said, the majority of people don't.
It's always important to disinguish between what GW actually give us and the things that we get twisted into doing as a result of the communities and people with whom we pkay our games.
According to GW, Legends are legal anywhere but tournaments.
According to GW, games of 40k are anywhere from 1k-3k points, with smaller games restricted to Combat Patrol.
And according to GW, there are ZERO rules telling people to play exclusively with L shaped terrain.
If your community insists that you follow rules that are not written in any book, and you don't like that, you need to advocate for change within that community. Because they aren't taking their "orthodoxy" from any rulebook.
You're such a privileged person to have enough people in your group to have free thinkers come together and do fun stuff, understand, your experience isn't transferable to anyone else's situation.
Your 40k solutions are obvious.
A) you simply ignore the 6 sweaties. You and they cannot agree on how to play, so don't even bother in the future.
B) you needn't worry about the other 5 either since they just won't show up....
C) So.... that leaves the other 3. The super casuals.
I have a feeling that if they don't know thier own stuffs rules, that they also won't know/care about tourney rules or what all of your stuff is now in Legends.
D) those Sigmar players - that uyou have fun playing with and who used to play 40k?
Of course it'd depend upon how/why they quit, but I'm betting there's a few that you could get decent 40k game in with.
I'm sorry, but perhaps we need to make two threads? I feel like this has de-railed into a "favorite edition rules discussion" and less how 10th is Sanitized....
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm sorry, but perhaps we need to make two threads? I feel like this has de-railed into a "favorite edition rules discussion" and less how 10th is Sanitized....
You can't discuss if it's sanitised without the context of previous editions rules and I'd wager a lot of players likely haven't existed through most of them. That discussion then triggers memory lane.
ccs 812953 11642993 wrote:
Your 40k solutions are obvious.
A) you simply ignore the 6 sweaties. You and they cannot agree on how to play, so don't even bother in the future.
B) you needn't worry about the other 5 either since they just won't show up....
C) So.... that leaves the other 3. The super casuals.
I have a feeling that if they don't know thier own stuffs rules, that they also won't know/care about tourney rules or what all of your stuff is now in Legends.
D) those Sigmar players - that uyou have fun playing with and who used to play 40k?
Of course it'd depend upon how/why they quit, but I'm betting there's a few that you could get decent 40k game in with.
After going through forums, YT channels and especialy Reddit, I must say that the idea that the highly optimised list being limited to " 6 sweaties" does not seem to be the expiriance world wide. In fact what is voice very often by players of various level of skill and time spend playing is that, their armies do not work unless they highly optimise, to a point of optimising the fun out of the game, their lists and model collections. Ad Mecha have two modes of play. The you will never have fun, because your army works against you and "the sweaty 1200$ tournament list, fewer then 100 people around the world know how to or want to play". No car park IG, Orks , WE, all the elite armies. Practicaly the only army that let people play with large amounts of what ever were the pre change eldar, because they had the rules and point costs to carry 500-700pts of balast in a casual settting. But even they can no longer do it. Heck necron can't just play what ever, and they are "The Broken" right now.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.
You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.
This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.
There's never really been an edition with great terrain rules. The L-Shape thing is just players designing something that functions within the limitations created by TLOS. Abstracted LOS rules go a long way towards enabling the game to function with a variety of dynamic terrain styles.
ccs 812953 11642993 wrote:
Your 40k solutions are obvious.
A) you simply ignore the 6 sweaties. You and they cannot agree on how to play, so don't even bother in the future.
B) you needn't worry about the other 5 either since they just won't show up....
C) So.... that leaves the other 3. The super casuals.
I have a feeling that if they don't know thier own stuffs rules, that they also won't know/care about tourney rules or what all of your stuff is now in Legends.
D) those Sigmar players - that uyou have fun playing with and who used to play 40k?
Of course it'd depend upon how/why they quit, but I'm betting there's a few that you could get decent 40k game in with.
After going through forums, YT channels and especialy Reddit, I must say that the idea that the highly optimised list being limited to " 6 sweaties" does not seem to be the expiriance world wide. In fact what is voice very often by players of various level of skill and time spend playing is that, their armies do not work unless they highly optimise, to a point of optimising the fun out of the game, their lists and model collections. Ad Mecha have two modes of play. The you will never have fun, because your army works against you and "the sweaty 1200$ tournament list, fewer then 100 people around the world know how to or want to play". No car park IG, Orks , WE, all the elite armies. Practicaly the only army that let people play with large amounts of what ever were the pre change eldar, because they had the rules and point costs to carry 500-700pts of balast in a casual settting. But even they can no longer do it. Heck necron can't just play what ever, and they are "The Broken" right now.
You are putting too much thought into this.
It's simple:
Don't play with people who insist on playing in ways you don't like & who won't compromise.
It doesn't matter what armies they use, how much $ they've spent, how skilled they are/arent, how long they've been playing, how rules changes have affected thier armies, etc.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.
You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.
This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.
There's never really been an edition with great terrain rules. The L-Shape thing is just players designing something that functions within the limitations created by TLOS. Abstracted LOS rules go a long way towards enabling the game to function with a variety of dynamic terrain styles.
I mean, the above examples would seem to indicate that 5th had better terrain rules, even with the handicap of TLoS. Not perfect but better.
Weird how we've progressed 5 editions since then only to end up with worse rules.
I mean, the above examples would seem to indicate that 5th had better terrain rules, even with the handicap of TLoS. Not perfect but better.
Weird how we've progressed 5 editions since then only to end up with worse rules.
For 3 editions GW has been learning the lessons that indirect fire is bad for game balance, dice manipulation in a game where procs on roll X exist create imbalances that are impossible to fix with points and mass re-rolls slow the game down/are unfun as a mechanic. For all I know GW may have learned the same same lessons before 8th ed too. Yet it doesn't stop them from writing the rules the same way. But the "best" thing they do is to punish people for having models in dynamic poses. Models that GW designed that way and which they make harder to model different each edition. It is litteraly punishing people for buying your models for your own game.
I assume the description "sanitized" is being used somewhat pejoratively? Like the game has lost some flavour or chrome? Each game edition has changed things, and sometimes things have gone away. I found the change from 2nd to 3rd very jarring as much of the flavour I liked disappeared. But I still enjoyed the gameplay so I soldiered on. I can understand that if someone really really like Armour Values, vehicle facings, templates and scatter dice that the shift from 7th to 8th would have been very negative. I get that, but I don't find myself missing those things and when I play Horus Heresy I am reminded of the problems. So if "sanitized" means a "cleaner" tabletop experience I suppose 40K is more sanitized than it was in early 2017. I am reminded of that when I do play Flames of War or Horus Heresy and we get into discussions of rules interactions and LOS. I don't mind losing some rules chrome as long as we keep faction chrome. If that makes sense. Other will have a different view that will also be valid.
Returning to today, if someone's only exposure to 10th Ed 40K is from livestreams of tournament games then it might look off-putting and indeed, sanitized. The symmetrical layout of terrain consisting of large LOS-blocking L-shaped ruins could look bland, as would the neoprene objective markers denoting where a model has to be to contest an objective. The speed of play and throwing around of terms such as "Lethal and Sustained on 5s due to Fire Discipline" might also seem off-putting to an observer from a past edition. I just wouldn't base your judgement of 10th Ed from Youtube videos - they are very useful and can be engaging, but watching is not the same thing as playing.
I've played since 2nd Ed, and I would much rather play a pickup game on a symmetrical board drawn from a bank of layouts that suit the mission. Spending three hours of leisure time on a "tilted table" is not my cup of tea for a given Saturday unless we have both agreed to play some "narrative" mission with an unfair terrain layout that is compensated somehow by special rules for the battle. I do play in local tournaments (five 40K tourneys a year), but this is more to be able to pick a weekend in my busy life and say "I am playing Warhammer all weekend, I will make it up to you for the rest of the month!"
I initially found the WTC format for player-placed terrain off-putting, but I found myself liking them after a while. I think that 10th Ed terrain rules for Ruins are finally in a place where you can have windows and still have functional terrain. We are a long-way from the Magic Boxes of late-8th and those Knight-high sheets of MDF.
In terms of 10th Ed being "sanitized", I do mourn the loss of Space Marine units to Legends. Having said that, we didn't lose any Chapters or Factions that I am tracking, and we recently saw Votann added at the end of 9th and World Eaters as a distinct faction. I feel that there is still lots of flavour in the game.
You are putting too much thought into this.
It's simple:
Don't play with people who insist on playing in ways you don't like & who won't compromise.
It doesn't matter what armies they use, how much $ they've spent, how skilled they are/arent, how long they've been playing, how rules changes have affected thier armies, etc.
It is not a question of thought. It is a question of rules design, core rules etc. It isn't even a question of skill, because the same problems pop up at all level or types of players. The advice is also, only true, if one has access to a gigantic community. It is also puts HUGE focus on added value fo spending time with other people. But in such a situation one has to ask why not just see each other and eat a few kebs/kfc and drink a coke/beer. Same fun, and much smaller investment, both money and times wise, then a w40k or AoS army. For a lot, and IMO majority of players, someone who decides that "I will not play vs people who have unfun armies" is going to end with them not playing at all.
Also this is half the problem too. People having unfun armies to play against one thing. And one can have a fantasy of playing vs people with fun ones. But what does one do, if GW designed their army to be unfun to play ? If a Ad Mecha player like robots, duh I know, there is nothing in their power they can do to have fun. WS player having an illegal army? DW player having half an illegal army and the other half being REALLY bad. I mean at some point in order to play and have fun, one starts to enter the uncanny valley of house rule self made codex. And good luck finding people willing to play against those, when they don't want to play vs legends.
Dudeface wrote: Whilst I agree with your premise some of those tables are pure shooting galleries though, the necron one in particular, unless you count the water as being in cover.
You forget we play core 5th ed-
there is hard cover everywhere, if you get down to models eye view and can actually see past blocking LOS terrain.
This sounds like another condemnation of 10th, namely that it "requires" boring L-shaped asymmetrical terrain to avoid being completely skewed. Like people's argument is "Without L-shaped ruins all over and perfectly symmetrical layouts, you can lose turn one!" and yet never seem to think that should mean the game is fething garbage for not being able to handle shooting without this.
There's never really been an edition with great terrain rules. The L-Shape thing is just players designing something that functions within the limitations created by TLOS. Abstracted LOS rules go a long way towards enabling the game to function with a variety of dynamic terrain styles.
I mean, the above examples would seem to indicate that 5th had better terrain rules, even with the handicap of TLoS. Not perfect but better.
Weird how we've progressed 5 editions since then only to end up with worse rules.
Just reread through them out of curiosity and honestly I wouldn't say they're any better at all. I would be curious to hear what makes them work however.
As far as progress is concerned, its important to remember that GW is rebuilding from the ashes of 8th, in which terrain rules didn't actually exist or function.
You are putting too much thought into this.
It's simple:
Don't play with people who insist on playing in ways you don't like & who won't compromise.
It doesn't matter what armies they use, how much $ they've spent, how skilled they are/arent, how long they've been playing, how rules changes have affected thier armies, etc.
It is not a question of thought. It is a question of rules design, core rules etc. It isn't even a question of skill, because the same problems pop up at all level or types of players. The advice is also, only true, if one has access to a gigantic community. It is also puts HUGE focus on added value fo spending time with other people. But in such a situation one has to ask why not just see each other and eat a few kebs/kfc and drink a coke/beer. Same fun, and much smaller investment, both money and times wise, then a w40k or AoS army. For a lot, and IMO majority of players, someone who decides that "I will not play vs people who have unfun armies" is going to end with them not playing at all.
Still, with the too much over thinking.
Don't play games with people you don't like to play with (during tournies maybe being the exception - hard to win the prize if you're forfeiting games.).
Doesn't matter what the reason for the dislike is, don't do it. Doesn't matter what size your community is either. You are better off playing NO game than wasting your time on something you don't enjoy because of the other people involved.
Karol wrote: Also this is half the problem too. People having unfun armies to play against one thing. And one can have a fantasy of playing vs people with fun ones. But what does one do, if GW designed their army to be unfun to play ? If a Ad Mecha player like robots, duh I know, there is nothing in their power they can do to have fun. WS player having an illegal army? DW player having half an illegal army and the other half being REALLY bad. I mean at some point in order to play and have fun, one starts to enter the uncanny valley of house rule self made codex. And good luck finding people willing to play against those, when they don't want to play vs legends.
As for the armies:
*Robot loving Ad-Mech players unable to have fun (as a whole)? Pffft. I don't believe you.
Sure, some of them won't be able to. Most though should be able to look at the list & rules and figure out something that will work for them.
*WS having an illegal army?? Did they not add things up right? Are they violating the Rule of 6/3? etc etc etc?
Oh, you're still confusing Legends with being Illegal units..... Stop doing that. Because according to GW Legends are valid rules - though they recommend not using them in tourney play.
So outside of tourney play what the WS player is really facing is a problem of who they play with. Change that & the problem goes away. Now if they insist on playing in tourneys then they'll probably need to change up their force - but you get that if you sign up to play in that environment.....
*Deathwing! Well, right now they're all good as the Codex has yet to officially be released. We'll soon see if the DW Command squad etc shows up in Legends. If so, refer to my comments on White Scars.
Deathwing being really bad? That's more of a player skill problem. Like with the AdMech Robots.
*House Rules: This is why it's important to make friends!
"Hey guys, I had an idea yesterday!"
The people I play with on Sundays? We've played with all sorts of House Rules over the years. For all kinds of games (not just GW stuff) Some good, some bad, some just meh & forgettable. We can do this because there's nothing on the line. Just a bunch of guys playing with toy soldiers (or ships, or space ships, or WWII tanks, or Hot Wheels cars (for Gaslands), etc) and calling it a hobby. Couple months ago? We had a TRAIN running through the middle of a Sigmar game - ain't no rules for that in the book!.
at the dawn of 9th? When the Loyalist Marines all got that 2nd wound? We gave it to the CSM as well. A few years later GW caught up to us.
The one House Rule that's in effect when we play each other at the shop? Vehicles & Monsters aren't removed when destroyed. They become difficult/hazardous terrain, affect movement, and provide cover.
I mean, the above examples would seem to indicate that 5th had better terrain rules, even with the handicap of TLoS. Not perfect but better.
Weird how we've progressed 5 editions since then only to end up with worse rules.
For 3 editions GW has been learning the lessons that indirect fire is bad for game balance, dice manipulation in a game where procs on roll X exist create imbalances that are impossible to fix with points and mass re-rolls slow the game down/are unfun as a mechanic. For all I know GW may have learned the same same lessons before 8th ed too. Yet it doesn't stop them from writing the rules the same way. But the "best" thing they do is to punish people for having models in dynamic poses. Models that GW designed that way and which they make harder to model different each edition. It is litteraly punishing people for buying your models for your own game.
As an aside, I actually think 10th terrain rules are really solid. The obsession with Ruins mostly comes down to them being the only terrain feature that reliably breaks LOS specifically because it abstracts the area it blocks and breaks up firing lanes regardless of model pose or size. It's hard to ensure you have a good setup when a box suddenly stops blocking line of sight to a unit because that one Primaris Lt has his power sword pointed at the sky. A system of model size and terrain size determining LOS would dramatically improve the ability to play with other terrain types. TLOS just demands giant blank walls to remove ambiguity.
ccs 812953 11642993 wrote:
Your 40k solutions are obvious.
A) you simply ignore the 6 sweaties. You and they cannot agree on how to play, so don't even bother in the future.
B) you needn't worry about the other 5 either since they just won't show up....
C) So.... that leaves the other 3. The super casuals.
I have a feeling that if they don't know thier own stuffs rules, that they also won't know/care about tourney rules or what all of your stuff is now in Legends.
D) those Sigmar players - that uyou have fun playing with and who used to play 40k?
Of course it'd depend upon how/why they quit, but I'm betting there's a few that you could get decent 40k game in with.
After going through forums, YT channels and especialy Reddit, I must say that the idea that the highly optimised list being limited to " 6 sweaties" does not seem to be the expiriance world wide. In fact what is voice very often by players of various level of skill and time spend playing is that, their armies do not work unless they highly optimise, to a point of optimising the fun out of the game, their lists and model collections. Ad Mecha have two modes of play. The you will never have fun, because your army works against you and "the sweaty 1200$ tournament list, fewer then 100 people around the world know how to or want to play". No car park IG, Orks , WE, all the elite armies. Practicaly the only army that let people play with large amounts of what ever were the pre change eldar, because they had the rules and point costs to carry 500-700pts of balast in a casual settting. But even they can no longer do it. Heck necron can't just play what ever, and they are "The Broken" right now.
I don't think "sweaties" means what you think it means - he's referring to "sweaties" as other players, another euphamism for a type of TFG.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I assume the description "sanitized" is being used somewhat pejoratively? Like the game has lost some flavour or chrome? Each game edition has changed things, and sometimes things have gone away. I found the change from 2nd to 3rd very jarring as much of the flavour I liked disappeared. But I still enjoyed the gameplay so I soldiered on. I can understand that if someone really really like Armour Values, vehicle facings, templates and scatter dice that the shift from 7th to 8th would have been very negative. I get that, but I don't find myself missing those things and when I play Horus Heresy I am reminded of the problems. So if "sanitized" means a "cleaner" tabletop experience I suppose 40K is more sanitized than it was in early 2017. I am reminded of that when I do play Flames of War or Horus Heresy and we get into discussions of rules interactions and LOS. I don't mind losing some rules chrome as long as we keep faction chrome. If that makes sense. Other will have a different view that will also be valid.
Returning to today, if someone's only exposure to 10th Ed 40K is from livestreams of tournament games then it might look off-putting and indeed, sanitized. The symmetrical layout of terrain consisting of large LOS-blocking L-shaped ruins could look bland, as would the neoprene objective markers denoting where a model has to be to contest an objective. The speed of play and throwing around of terms such as "Lethal and Sustained on 5s due to Fire Discipline" might also seem off-putting to an observer from a past edition. I just wouldn't base your judgement of 10th Ed from Youtube videos - they are very useful and can be engaging, but watching is not the same thing as playing.
I've played since 2nd Ed, and I would much rather play a pickup game on a symmetrical board drawn from a bank of layouts that suit the mission. Spending three hours of leisure time on a "tilted table" is not my cup of tea for a given Saturday unless we have both agreed to play some "narrative" mission with an unfair terrain layout that is compensated somehow by special rules for the battle. I do play in local tournaments (five 40K tourneys a year), but this is more to be able to pick a weekend in my busy life and say "I am playing Warhammer all weekend, I will make it up to you for the rest of the month!"
I initially found the WTC format for player-placed terrain off-putting, but I found myself liking them after a while. I think that 10th Ed terrain rules for Ruins are finally in a place where you can have windows and still have functional terrain. We are a long-way from the Magic Boxes of late-8th and those Knight-high sheets of MDF.
In terms of 10th Ed being "sanitized", I do mourn the loss of Space Marine units to Legends. Having said that, we didn't lose any Chapters or Factions that I am tracking, and we recently saw Votann added at the end of 9th and World Eaters as a distinct faction. I feel that there is still lots of flavour in the game.
I'll reply to this to get us somewhat back on topic:
Perjoratively? That's in the eye of the beholder. If you like sanitized, no, if you don't, probably.
I think you'll also find a lot of "chrome" as you call it being lost is at the faction/subfaction level. The change from AV to T for vehicles ship has pretty much sailed because 1, its been a while, 2 both systems are relatively workable. I mean both systems are flawed - especially when comparing monsters vs vehicles - but neither solves the shortcomings without introducing new ones of its own with relatively similar impact.
I'm actually pretty happy with my table options being two sets of the Fronteris set. I'd like to be able to do 1 Fronteris, 1 Xenos/Chaos Coverted set, but GW listen to me on that one, and it might not be economically feasible. But the Fronteris Set doesn't have the Giant Center Building, just two small habs, and some ruins most of which aren't L Shaped. The MegaZord aspect of things like Charadon also have some appeal. I've also got a 3D Printer and assorted Dawn of War Space Marine Building/STCs.
Legends (recently) is a one-two punch problem caused by GW shooting themselves right below the belt buckle - In a sense the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing in essence they released a bunch of detachments that would sell Bike Captains, Librarian with Jump Pack, at the same time they moved them all to Legends. So now people are looking at the Detachments, and thinking what could have been if they could still buy a generic bike captain or a Librarian with Jump Pack. They released a Det that was about mounted and mechanized (Infantry) units and then self-destructed all but one of the Enhancement eligible targets for Mounted HQ. In the Same book. Jump Packers fare only slightly better. Same with the Anvil Strike Force supposedly representing an Imperial Fists Gravis list.
As for "we didn't lose any Chapters or Factions that I am tracking" I'd say we lost them all. I mean a few are hanging on with bespoke units and epic heroes, but without those they're all the same. For the sake of the hypothetical - lets say we're building a full CHAPTER company list Captain, Chaplain, two Lieutenants (or I think it could/should also be Cap, Chap, LT, Judiciar but that's neither here nor there for this other than more flavor that's now gone.) - so we've got the Headquarters - there may or may not be a Command Squad with an illegally attached Apothecary. Beyond that you've got your 6 Battleline Squads - 10 Heavy Ints, 20 Ints, 20 Tacs, 10 Infiltrators (based on shoulderpads not keywords which are also screwed up for fluffy./flavor). Beyond that you've got 10 Assault Intercessors with Jump Packs, and 10 Incursors, then you've got 5 overpriced (because they're now 3 or 6 instead of something that divides into 10/100) Aggressors, 5 Desolators, and 10 Devastators. 100 Marines. No bespoke chapter units, just a theoretically typical/archtypal Space Marine Chapter Battle Company from any of the Chapters in existence. Maybe the quartermaster shakes this up and 10 incursors turn into 5 Outriders, 1 ATV and 1 Storm Speeder.. whatever.
The "sanitized" part is two fold.
You can't do this with the other Dets in a non-standard theme list with non-standard armor keywords. Terminators/Bikers/Gravis/Jump/etc are all missing some/most of the HQ's
The Chapter fluff twist is now absent. Thus the blacksheep of the Ravenguard leading the First Company in all Terminator Armor is not only missing his subordinate HQs, he's also now missing the centuries of experience, tendencies and genetic instinct from Corax.
Sweaties as in men who sweat. Perhaps they are trying incongruously hard and act uncomfortably intense, perhaps they have poor hygiene and physical conditioning, perhaps their dress is slovenly.
pelicaniforce wrote: Sweaties as in men who sweat. Perhaps they are trying incongruously hard and act uncomfortably intense, perhaps they have poor hygiene and physical conditioning, perhaps their dress is slovenly.
The way sweaties is spelled is so visually ugly.
I just took it to mean "try hards" or WAAC comp players.
