I am not sure AA can work with how large w40k games are. I know that sudo AA the way Ifinity has it, work good with limited number of models.
Having an AA w40k or AA would probably require the reworking of all the rules to be more squad/squadron based with infantry models being more like wound or weapon tokens, then actual singular units forced in to formation of a squad, which have their own LoS, cover etc. Also balancing heroes between unimportant buff bots and deathmachines killling whole armies, could be a problem too. The main barrier for such a change is that GW would have to reset the whole game, and give each faction not just the core rules, but new faction rules too. And something like that can take decades for GW to prepare.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm still waiting to see the mythical AA rules that work well.
In general? See any of the many previously mentioned games, personal favorite being Epic Armageddon with risk-management baked into faction dependent operational reliability.
For painless 40k conversions? Try this:
- No player turns, only a combined round.
- At the beginning of the round, count the number of units each player has. Put that many coloured dice in a bag.
- Draw dice from the bag until the colour changes. The indicated player makes a full 40k-turn with all phases (barring Morale) with that many units of their choice. No unit can be activated multiple times during one round.
- Units that are charged get one free go at striking back.
- Psionic buffs, strats, command abilities etc. last only until the end of the round, so better prioritize what you start with.
- No repeating strats in similar phases of the mini-turns, just like regular 40k.
- Morale for everyone at the end, recalculate the unit count, new round begins.
Some edge cases are bound to pop up here and there, given how 9th ed puts layers on top of all things, but from tabletop experience I can say even a very simple system like this has been much more fun to play with. Depending on the players, it is easy to start tweaking it further to their liking.
Wouldn't such a game system more or less kill any army that works around formations of 2-3 models/units, often with buffing and debuffing being spread over multiple sub phases?
There should be an option to not allow AA conversations in a topic, or maybe people should just stop bringing it up when it is totally 100% irrelevant to the topic (dataslate released 4/14/2022). The 1000s club have all weighed in on AA. If someone gaks on it or glorifies it and you feel it should be glorified or gakked on then you can simply not respond.
I am guilty of doing the same on the topic of whether 9th was made for competitive 40k and to get back on topic, I think the dataslate has changed my mind. HotE and AoC were made to fix external balance issues seen in tournaments at the cost of narrative, something I don't think GW have done a lot of. Being a casual 9th edition player this has annoyed me greatly. Although the win rates do look about as good as one can hope for, so now I suppose I can play competitive 40k while trying to ignore my my gauss rifles supreme uselessness against (C)SM and Sororitas tanks until competitive is ruined by the next OP codex.
If you really want to debate AA start a new thread and ensure that everyone posts how their minds can be changed on the subject of AA, because otherwise, the discussion is worthless. Consider whether you really want to have your mind changed and whether you can really change someone's mind on the subject. Otherwise, you might just write a Dakka article on your opinions and link to it every time the discussion comes up so people can see your unchanging opinions on the subject.
As a former Space Marine player and then Imperial Guard player I can confidently say that AA or conditional activation rules would be nothing but be a benefit to the game
Basically there just needs to be a system to handle activation count. Perhaps something that broadly groups equivalent points worth of activations together to avoid the peril of activation spam (something like splitting your list into 4 activation groups) and then that's the only real downside solved.
In SW Armada AA was balanced at first by having cards that guaranteed first/last activation on a particular turn for a particular unit, which in 40k could be a strategem for particularly tactical factions (i.e Ultramarines, Vect's Dark Eldar, Creed, etc)
They then switched it to a system that there is now where the side with less activations get pass tokens, but that would work less well in 40k
Something similar to X-wing's initiative system could certainly be interesting in 40k. Tl;dr low initiative move first but shoot last in the two movement/shooting phase equivalents. Then the entire game system could be balanced around the fact that Imperial Guard will always shoot last.
Both systems feel strategic and skill based, far more than any game of 40k I ever had, and that's why I gradually switched to playing both and then played 40k rarely for a while. X-wing's rules nosedived a bit just recently due to change in management but that's a whole 'nother story.
The gist of it is this; in the current state of balance, whenever I've played Imperial Guard the most important roll of the game is always the initiative roll. You can mitigate being shot at on turn one but you can't mitigate your opponent having 3 good shooting phases before you have had 3. And no matter what way you cut it, getting to shoot first with your entire gunline is always a huge advantage because a competently built one can destroy a list that didn't expect or adequately plan to come up against triple Russes and triple heavy arty (Bas/Mant) or 6 Russes or w/e can be crippled on turn one. And if you're facing an equally good gunline, whoever shoots first typically wins unless his rolling is so bad he sees red or he plays an extremely inefficient game.
To tie it into the thread; as a longtime AM player, I think the changes are daft. When the only way to balance AM is to make Infantry Squads with a Lascannon, plasma pistol and plasma gun an auto-take, there is a massive problem with the system. The rot that led to this level of absurdity started in 8th with GW being unable to balance morale and swarms. Either it was one 30pt Commissar turning a blob of 50 Conscripts into a completely indestructible, impassable object, or Conscripts were basically worthless, because blocking reliably or having an OP damage output from force multiplication has only been the reasons to take them. We are now in the latter stage again. Joy.
AM routinely swing between being excellent and too mediocre to be considered truly competitive entirely on the basis on how much GW feel like letting them have one-turn-destructive-capability or broken defensive gimmicks this month. They were amazing in 5th Edition with leafblower and 130 pt Vendettas, then they were mediocre in 6th and 7th and largely overshadowed by armies they couldn't rinse with just a good shooting phase like Tau and Eldar. Then 8th happened and overnight a Leman Russ that was previously useless against a Riptide was now better or equal than the Riptide because it could actually do multiple wounds to the latter. Fearless Conscript swarms that couldn't be deleted with templates and weapon balance that hadn't yet caught up was just the icing on the cake that was having Leman Russes that countered everything. I won a few tournaments in 8th because of those changes.
Then when I saw the rules for 9th penalizing units with 10 models or more with D6 weapons, bubblewrapping etc I felt my enthusiasm to get back into the game take a nosedive. I am absolutely not surprised we are in this state of affairs where a balance patch gives AM gives free upgrades and auto-wounds on 6s to hit in light of that.
IGOUGO cannot be turned into a good rules system. It disproportionately rewards having the best faction rules/stats and luck on the initiative roll while player skill takes a backseat. You can only put band aids on it and watch the pendulum swing back and forth. And that is what GW have been doing for years.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: "Mythical AA Rules that work well"
I feel you might just not like that kind of rule.
He has participated in a lot of discussions in the past on AA and yeah that was the distinct conclusion I had also drawn - he was just not into those kinds of rules.
While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.
As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.
Jidmah wrote: While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.
As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.
What would you consider the biggest problems to be, if they are not related to the turn order itself in some way?
Off the top of my head, the largest pitfalls of traditional IGOUGO40k currently are:
- Long uninteractive player turns. AA removes this by involving all sides in the decisionmaking all the time.
- Lethality. AA removes most of the problematic elements of this, since both players get to swing at each other effectively at all times. One side isn't playing catch-up on kills and staying power.
- Layered rules combinations of buffs and tricks in perfect coordination. An AA version should end up with a more localized use of buffing models and more interesting play in timing of those abilities, which can in turn also be disrupted by the opponent so there is more interplay than you get in the "whole army moves into perfect position and kills things with max buffs".
- Scoring advantage depends on being first or second. With combined AA rounds instead, that problem just doesn't exist.
Jidmah wrote: While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.
As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.
What would you consider the biggest problems to be, if they are not related to the turn order itself in some way?
The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:
- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices - Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in - Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it
Off the top of my head, the largest pitfalls of traditional IGOUGO40k currently are:
- Long uninteractive player turns. AA removes this by involving all sides in the decisionmaking all the time.
Absolutely.
- Lethality. AA removes most of the problematic elements of this, since both players get to swing at each other effectively at all times. One side isn't playing catch-up on kills and staying power.
Lethality is still a problem in AA. Some 40k units on top of the arms race are lethal enough to wipe two or even three units in one shooting phase. It would reduce the impact of lethality, but it would not solve the problem.
- Layered rules combinations of buffs and tricks in perfect coordination. An AA version should end up with a more localized use of buffing models and more interesting play in timing of those abilities, which can in turn also be disrupted by the opponent so there is more interplay than you get in the "whole army moves into perfect position and kills things with max buffs".
Same as above. If units still have auras and you can still drop 12 CP to shoot twice, re-roll everything, get +1 to hit, wound, damage and tying your shoelaces, it doesn't rally matter whether your opponent gets a turn after your combo has wiped out all his anti-tank. AA doesn't inherently solve this, so there is a good chance of GW fething it up anyways.
- Scoring advantage depends on being first or second. With combined AA rounds instead, that problem just doesn't exist.
I don't think this is a huge problem in the current game, but scoring and performing actions would definitely be more interesting with AA.
In the end, a more interactive AA which sucks just as much as the currently IGOUGO would probably still be a better game. I have no illusions of GW not making it a game on par with any of the AA games that keep being referenced in these discussions though.
Jidmah wrote: While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.
As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.
What would you consider the biggest problems to be, if they are not related to the turn order itself in some way?
Codex creep is definitely the biggest problem, not everyone plays on the same league at some point. AA/IGOUGO means nothing when an army belongs to Premier League and the opponent to Championship.
Jidmah wrote: While I do not doubt that AA would result in a more fun game just because there more interaction, I seriously doubt that any of the game's problems would go away.
As long as the same four dudes are in charge of the rules, they will continue to make the same mistakes they have been make for the last decade.
What would you consider the biggest problems to be, if they are not related to the turn order itself in some way?
The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:
- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices
- Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in
- Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it
Off the top of my head, the largest pitfalls of traditional IGOUGO40k currently are:
- Long uninteractive player turns. AA removes this by involving all sides in the decisionmaking all the time.
Absolutely.
- Lethality. AA removes most of the problematic elements of this, since both players get to swing at each other effectively at all times. One side isn't playing catch-up on kills and staying power.
Lethality is still a problem in AA. Some 40k units on top of the arms race are lethal enough to wipe two or even three units in one shooting phase. It would reduce the impact of lethality, but it would not solve the problem.
- Layered rules combinations of buffs and tricks in perfect coordination. An AA version should end up with a more localized use of buffing models and more interesting play in timing of those abilities, which can in turn also be disrupted by the opponent so there is more interplay than you get in the "whole army moves into perfect position and kills things with max buffs".
Same as above. If units still have auras and you can still drop 12 CP to shoot twice, re-roll everything, get +1 to hit, wound, damage and tying your shoelaces, it doesn't rally matter whether your opponent gets a turn after your combo has wiped out all his anti-tank. AA doesn't inherently solve this, so there is a good chance of GW fething it up anyways.
- Scoring advantage depends on being first or second. With combined AA rounds instead, that problem just doesn't exist.
I don't think this is a huge problem in the current game, but scoring and performing actions would definitely be more interesting with AA.
In the end, a more interactive AA which sucks just as much as the currently IGOUGO would probably still be a better game. I have no illusions of GW not making it a game on par with any of the AA games that keep being referenced in these discussions though.
So about GW not going back to fix broken errors or update codexes, here is the problem: Every man hour spent on writing or developing or researching the proper fix to previous codexes is a net loss for the company. You don't go backwards, because there is zero money in releasing a free update. There is only lost money in paying someone to do so. GW has done this for 40k 9th, it feels like, more so than any edition I've seen 7th, 8th, 8.2, 9th. It feels like they are making an honest effort in correcting the flood of errors, but if they really want to fix these sort of issues, literally hire a proofer, or a proofing division. Correct the spelling issues, the horrible grammar resulting in RAI/RAW arguments (Scions recently) and someone who checks the consistency of rule interactions. Make one of the current rule teamers a new title, and force them with a 2' length of pipe to find and fix errors.
GW is kind of a dinosaur. It's basically the only major table top miniatures company that has it's roots in the 70s. In way, it's the obvious analoge to the D&D branch of WotC, in that both are simply going to stick with trying to refine old fashioned mechanics than switch to new ones. 40k is always going to rely on mass d6s, it will always be IGOUGO, it will never have a true living rulebook, etc. Just like D&D will always be beholden to the d20 and insist on using spell slots.
It's a perfectly fine academic argument, but 8 edition was in many ways the biggest shake up to 40k ever, and certainly the biggest in 20 years. Redrawing 40k with activating alternations would be a completely different game. Now, that might be a better game for some people, but that's throwing out 30 years of institutional knowledge.
So about GW not going back to fix broken errors or update codexes, here is the problem: Every man hour spent on writing or developing or researching the proper fix to previous codexes is a net loss for the company. You don't go backwards, because there is zero money in releasing a free update. There is only lost money in paying someone to do so.
I'm not sure that's true. Certainly if fixing an old codex makes a unit usable or stronger, that might juice sales of that unit. Further, people feel more comfortable knowing that their purchases are receiving at least some update. Given the relatively small cost of updating materials, even a tiny bump in goodwill or sales more than makes up for it.
GW has done this for 40k 9th, it feels like, more so than any edition I've seen 7th, 8th, 8.2, 9th. It feels like they are making an honest effort in correcting the flood of errors, but if they really want to fix these sort of issues, literally hire a proofer, or a proofing division. Correct the spelling issues, the horrible grammar resulting in RAI/RAW arguments (Scions recently) and someone who checks the consistency of rule interactions. Make one of the current rule teamers a new title, and force them with a 2' length of pipe to find and fix errors.
GW absolutely has a proofreader, probably multiple. Some errors slip through, but that's more because the game is incredibly complicated than because they don't do proofreading or editing. the scion thing was a classic corner case in which they forgot that they had a codex, then a supplement, and the supplement monkeyed with the key words.
I got a document the other day at work, and it had been reviewed by at least two different attorneys. I read through, and immediately noticed that it listed the name of the recently retired executive, instead of the current person acting in the role. Does that mean it wasn't reviewed, or that I shouldn't trust the work? No, it just means I caught a different mistake from the prior two people. And if a fourth person looked at it, they'd catch something everybody prior missed.
I would rather GW commit to week two errata, which will quickly fix all problems, than try to hunt down everything before had.
8th was the biggest shake up for 40k yet the same mistakes were made that caused the problems in previous editions
the main problem are the Codex rules
call it power creep, bad balance, etc, but the problem is always related to the codex rules
yet GW always goes for the cheap fix by changing the core rules in hope that they catch all the Codex problems at once without the need to adjust each single army
they do it always this way and it does not matter how often or in which way they change the core rules again, as long as GW trys to fix individual Codex problems with generic changes for everything, the game won't become better
I think the "codex plus new dice, datacards, and maybe some new models" release schedule is also one of GWs vestigial attributes. Games with higher levels of balance don't use that model... although I think you can poke your head into a discussion of any game, and find people screaming about poor balance. I mean, ranking factions in tiers is a time honored tradition, so I'm not sure simply switching models would fix 40ks balance.
The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:
- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices
- Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in
- Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it
A huge problem with 9th (and 8th) is that the core rules are so bare bones. It leaves very little design space and lacks mechanical depth that it forces game mechanics / rules to be added into the codex which is something that other codexes cannot reasonably design around. Generally a codex's special rules are mostly modifying what you can do with the core rules (move, shoot, chop, die) so it really limits how much more a unit or weapon can do. This results in a lot of power creep as the codex pumps up those numbers (number of attacks, to hit, to wound, damage, saves, wounds, etc) without really having any sort of way to counter play it without just having even more pumped up numbers or USRs (unique special rules in this case). This also causes a lot of rules layering which creates a huge amount of tall bloat (that stacking effect which rapidly escalates power creep or balance issues) where as the older rule sets tended to have a lot of wide bloat (a large amount of niche stuff which tends to cause less power creep issues but more rules questions due to GW's generally poor way of wording its rules). Formation rules in 7th showed how problematic this could be but I would argue that the wide bloat style of the BRB helped make a lot of formations interesting without just being a number pump.
Hmm, that's interesting to define the tall bloat vs. wide bloat. The former will supercharge everything, but the latter is when you get goofy stuff like an old FW unit interreacting weirdly with a new codex rule.
I don't think 8th/9th are too bare bones, I think that GW wants each army to play in a wildly distinct way, and just runs out of design space. there are what, about two dozen major books, most of which have 5 or 6 subfactions, plus supplements. Look at three different superfaction rules from the last year alone: Miracle dice, strands of fate dice, and luck of the laughing god rerolls. These are all different ways to manipulate dice rolls, how do you balance these? Experieince is showing that the rerolls are better than strands, and Miracle dice have already been buffed but bring up the rear.
I think GW thinks that layers of rules are cool, and I don't think they're wrong, but it's the layers of rules that can result in things breaking.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So about GW not going back to fix broken errors or update codexes, here is the problem: Every man hour spent on writing or developing or researching the proper fix to previous codexes is a net loss for the company. You don't go backwards, because there is zero money in releasing a free update. There is only lost money in paying someone to do so. GW has done this for 40k 9th, it feels like, more so than any edition I've seen 7th, 8th, 8.2, 9th. It feels like they are making an honest effort in correcting the flood of errors, but if they really want to fix these sort of issues, literally hire a proofer, or a proofing division. Correct the spelling issues, the horrible grammar resulting in RAI/RAW arguments (Scions recently) and someone who checks the consistency of rule interactions. Make one of the current rule teamers a new title, and force them with a 2' length of pipe to find and fix errors.
Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.
It also doesn't matter at all if GW sacrifices a IGOUGO game for the quick buck or if they do the same for an AA game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: I think the "codex plus new dice, datacards, and maybe some new models" release schedule is also one of GWs vestigial attributes. Games with higher levels of balance don't use that model... although I think you can poke your head into a discussion of any game, and find people screaming about poor balance. I mean, ranking factions in tiers is a time honored tradition, so I'm not sure simply switching models would fix 40ks balance.
The release schedule is not an excuse for blatant power-creep and having some codices feel like master-crafted clockworks while others don't even have their transport rules written in a proper way.
Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.
That's true, but being the only wargame with a full wall of mini in most LGS kinda counteracts the fact that the game is poor. Some random kid wanting to play wargames will most probably have heard of 40k before any other ones, and is gonna be able to walk in his store to pickup a start collecting/combat patrol.
40k is the most discussed online wargame
40k is the game with the most content on youtube
40k is the biggest.
GW reached a point where the sheer inertia of the franchise will carry them through tough times
The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:
- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices - Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in - Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it
A huge problem with 9th (and 8th) is that the core rules are so bare bones. It leaves very little design space and lacks mechanical depth that it forces game mechanics / rules to be added into the codex which is something that other codexes cannot reasonably design around. Generally a codex's special rules are mostly modifying what you can do with the core rules (move, shoot, chop, die) so it really limits how much more a unit or weapon can do. This results in a lot of power creep as the codex pumps up those numbers (number of attacks, to hit, to wound, damage, saves, wounds, etc) without really having any sort of way to counter play it without just having even more pumped up numbers or USRs (unique special rules in this case). This also causes a lot of rules layering which creates a huge amount of tall bloat (that stacking effect which rapidly escalates power creep or balance issues) where as the older rule sets tended to have a lot of wide bloat (a large amount of niche stuff which tends to cause less power creep issues but more rules questions due to GW's generally poor way of wording its rules). Formation rules in 7th showed how problematic this could be but I would argue that the wide bloat style of the BRB helped make a lot of formations interesting without just being a number pump.
If anything those three issues were worse in 7th that they were in 9th. Codex creep was rampant then, pet armies received buffs and tons of powerful formations, while armies the team didn't care about received nerfs and half-assed rules which were not play-tested once.
9th was a perfectly fine edition until Codex: Durkhari and could have stayed that way if the rules writers hadn't fallen back into their old habits.
As a matter of fact that is exactly what our group does. we play core 5th ed rules but any codex of your choice is allowed from 3rd-7th. so we do get all the best (most lore accurate and flavorful codex) choices for recreational play. all of those editions are very cross compatible as well as the fact that many codexes existed for years across multiple editions given GWs release model.
Huh. That's an interesting idea.
But does it not create issues with USRs, psychic powers or other such changing between editions?
e.g. if I'm remembering correctly, psychic powers in 5th were cast just with a leadership test, usually in your movement or shooting phase. However, in later editions you had whole tables of randomly-determined psychic powers, cast using the Magic Phase from WHFB - including power and dispel dice.
Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.
That's true, but being the only wargame with a full wall of mini in most LGS kinda counteracts the fact that the game is poor. Some random kid wanting to play wargames will most probably have heard of 40k before any other ones, and is gonna be able to walk in his store to pickup a start collecting/combat patrol.
40k is the most discussed online wargame
40k is the game with the most content on youtube
40k is the biggest.
GW reached a point where the sheer inertia of the franchise will carry them through tough times
...and yet it has never reached the same level of success as WoW or MtG or LoL or D&D or any other game which has embraced the truth of "make your game better = more $$$".
Maybe they hit the cap of how much plastic and paper they can sell during the beginning of 9th and decided that they don't want to be better anymore?
...and yet it has never reached the same level of success as WoW or MtG or LoL or D&D or any other game which has embraced the truth of "make your game better = more $$$".
Maybe they hit the cap of how much plastic and paper they can sell during the beginning of 9th and decided that they don't want to be better anymore?
WoW/LoL : Online games which automatically have more exposure and is easier to get into (just download the client and play)
MtG : i can start playing for 20$ and its the other big LGS game.
D&D : Still cheaper to get into than 40k, more accessible since you can "do anything" in it. (and it also got released 10 years before 40kIIRC?)
Wargames just arent as accessible as these other kind of games, telling someone they have to drop hundreds of bucks, then assemble/paint their models is a big ask.
...and yet it has never reached the same level of success as WoW or MtG or LoL or D&D or any other game which has embraced the truth of "make your game better = more $$$".
Maybe they hit the cap of how much plastic and paper they can sell during the beginning of 9th and decided that they don't want to be better anymore?
WoW/LoL : Online games which automatically have more exposure and is easier to get into (just download the client and play)
MtG : i can start playing for 20$ and its the other big LGS game.
D&D : Still cheaper to get into than 40k, more accessible since you can "do anything" in it. (and it also got released 10 years before 40kIIRC?)
As a matter of fact that is exactly what our group does. we play core 5th ed rules but any codex of your choice is allowed from 3rd-7th. so we do get all the best (most lore accurate and flavorful codex) choices for recreational play. all of those editions are very cross compatible as well as the fact that many codexes existed for years across multiple editions given GWs release model.
Huh. That's an interesting idea.
But does it not create issues with USRs, psychic powers or other such changing between editions?
e.g. if I'm remembering correctly, psychic powers in 5th were cast just with a leadership test, usually in your movement or shooting phase. However, in later editions you had whole tables of randomly-determined psychic powers, cast using the Magic Phase from WHFB - including power and dispel dice.
How do you resolve that sort of thing?
I don't recall exactly how Aphyon resolved the psychic power side of thing. At a minimum, you can do things where a unit references the USR that matches the rulebook edition that was in use when the codex came out.
Honestly, with regard to psychic powers, you can just ignore all the fancy psychic power points and just have it where a psychic can just cast 1 power per turn or up to two powers per turn if it knows more than one. Works fine and is much less fiddly. Maybe that's what Aphyon does.
If that were true, why does just this forum alone have hundreds of pages in active threads riddled with people complaining about the rules?
Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?
Don't you think it affects how many people are recommending 40k to their friends?
How about all those people actively discouraging others to buy books and models from GW?
Why did the only communities of 40k grow and prosper each time 40k was in a decent state and started to stagnate and lose people each time GW fethed up balance hard?
Why do tournament attendances drop each time the game is in a bad state?
But sure, keep telling yourself that 40k is special and unique and not just yet another game whose only saving grace is a unique vast background and iconic models.
Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.
That's true, but being the only wargame with a full wall of mini in most LGS kinda counteracts the fact that the game is poor. Some random kid wanting to play wargames will most probably have heard of 40k before any other ones, and is gonna be able to walk in his store to pickup a start collecting/combat patrol.
40k is the most discussed online wargame
40k is the game with the most content on youtube
40k is the biggest.
GW reached a point where the sheer inertia of the franchise will carry them through tough times
The thing is, that if the logic is that 40K will be successful despite its rules (i.e. inertia, market presence, IP-value, etc. is enough to carry its success) and that the game will continue to be successful regardless of what they do to their rules, then there isn't any reason why making the rules better wouldn't translate into potentially more success.
Except - I'm also not sure about the the above. 6th and into 7th edition was clearly a troubling time period and 40k did seem to be in decline a bit. It's common knowledge that 8th edition brought a lot of people into the game (or back into it). Was it "just" the idea of it being a clean-start or was it actually because of the greatly simplified core rules that made it easy for people to try it out and check out the buzz?
So, for GW, yes they could invest in a "better" rule system - but I wonder if they are hesitant to do that because they got such a positive market response from the streamlined 8th edition. If they feel that better (using AA or something else) also mean's more-complex, I could see GW deciding that the complexity isn't worth losing relatively more audience than they would gain by appeasing to hardcore wargame enthusiasts with a better design.
Jidmah wrote: If that were true, why does just this forum alone have hundreds of pages in active threads riddled with people complaining about the rules?
I mean, Dakka would have hundreds of pages complaining about free ham and swiss sandwich day, ranging from arguments that it hurts the lactose intolerant to whining that they won't throw in a bag of chips.
Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?
You're begging the questions. I dont think GW's rules are good, but they are "good enough."
Don't you think it affects how many people are recommending 40k to their friends?
probably, although probably not as much as we'd think
How about all those people actively discouraging others to buy books and models from GW?
havne't they always existed?
Why did the only communities of 40k grow and prosper each time 40k was in a decent state and started to stagnate and lose people each time GW fethed up balance hard?
Why do tournament attendances drop each time the game is in a bad state?
But sure, keep telling yourself that 40k is special and unique and not just yet another game whose only saving grace is a unique vast background and iconic models.
40k is special and unique, because it's one of the very few games with "a unique vast background and iconic models." It's certainly the only one to have both of those and near universal distribution. I'll happily concede that GW games aren't great examples of game design (although they are surprisingly clever and creative within an antiquated engine), but GW is one of the extremely few games that gets people to collect armies they don't even play with. Plenty of companies sell models to painters, but not a ton of folks are collecting massive Warmachine collections if they don't play.
The rules matter, enough to really affect GW's profit, but probably not enough to completely tank the company.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mezmorki wrote: Except - I'm also not sure about the the above. 6th and into 7th edition was clearly a troubling time period and 40k did seem to be in decline a bit. It's common knowledge that 8th edition brought a lot of people into the game (or back into it). Was it "just" the idea of it being a clean-start or was it actually because of the greatly simplified core rules that made it easy for people to try it out and check out the buzz?
So, for GW, yes they could invest in a "better" rule system - but I wonder if they are hesitant to do that because they got such a positive market response from the streamlined 8th edition. If they feel that better (using AA or something else) also mean's more-complex, I could see GW deciding that the complexity isn't worth losing relatively more audience than they would gain by appeasing to hardcore wargame enthusiasts with a better design.
The switch to 8th had a lot of major effects. It was a clean slate on codexes, it (briefly) eliminated the obscene bloat of 7th edition, it simplified the core rules while adding meaningful decisions (namely stratagems), but it also introduced primaris space marines, which was the first complete overhaul for Space Marines since 3rd edition. All of these things combined to reignite what had been a stale game.
40k is a game that serves a lot of masters. It's being played at a very high competitive level, in store leagues, in narrative games, while also being simple enough for people to play a game or two a year and not completely miss the thread. that is a harder needle to thread than you may think.
Jidmah wrote: If that were true, why does just this forum alone have hundreds of pages in active threads riddled with people complaining about the rules?
Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?
Don't you think it affects how many people are recommending 40k to their friends?
How about all those people actively discouraging others to buy books and models from GW?
Why did the only communities of 40k grow and prosper each time 40k was in a decent state and started to stagnate and lose people each time GW fethed up balance hard?
Why do tournament attendances drop each time the game is in a bad state?
But sure, keep telling yourself that 40k is special and unique and not just yet another game whose only saving grace is a unique vast background and iconic models.
Look, i'm not saying 40k cannot grow and that having a better game will not make more sales. This is 100% true.
I'm saying that for GW execs, seeing the current amount of money they make off their inertia is enough for them (aka : they don't need to pay more for better designers).
Jidmah wrote: Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?
You're begging the questions. I dont think GW's rules are good, but they are "good enough."
GW writes bad rules, bad rules affect sales, GW's sales are affected by bad rules. Do you disagree with the premises or the conclusion?
I am also not certain that Jidmah was begging the question, he was just asking a question.
not begging the question wrote:Jane is an intelligent, insightful, well-educated and personable individual, which begs the question: why does she stay at that dead-end job?
begging the question wrote:The Apple iPhone is the best smartphone on the planet because no one makes a better smartphone than Apple does.
Tyran wrote: All corporations are creatures of inertia, it comes with bureaucracy.
Even if you manage to convince a GW executive that they need better rules, that executive still needs to convince the rest of the executives.
Corporations are very slow, and the bigger they are the slower they become.
i'm using the physics definition of "Inertia" in case that was what caused the misunderstanding.
a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.
Mr.Omega wrote: Perhaps something that broadly groups equivalent points worth of activations together to avoid the peril of activation spam (something like splitting your list into 4 activation groups) and then that's the only real downside solved.
My group uses a system like that. Depending on game size you get to build your army around 3-6 mandatory detachments of quite narrow but flexible enough size. The order in which detachments activate is created at the start of round via queue of hidden cards, so you have to plan ahead and try to predict the whole round in advance. And then on top of that, we use end of round saves. This system has none of the problems 40k has. No downtime to speak of, no alpha strike, everything get's to act at least once, movement/positioning/order matters a lot, auras work, there is depth to the game and games are pretty much always close ones, as attrition is even. The dreaded bookkeeping of end of round saves comes down to two or three dice besides a unit and due to how saves work in our system we don't have the problem of "dead men charging", as everything gets some form of a save, always.
40K has never provided such interesting and engaging gameplay.
My group uses a system like that. Depending on game size you get to build your army around 3-6 mandatory detachments of quite narrow but flexible enough size. The order in which detachments activate is created at the start of round via queue of hidden cards, so you have to plan ahead and try to predict the whole round in advance. And then on top of that, we use end of round saves. This system has none of the problems 40k has. No downtime to speak of, no alpha strike, everything get's to act at least once, movement/positioning/order matters a lot, auras work, there is depth to the game and games are pretty much always close ones, as attrition is even. The dreaded bookkeeping of end of round saves comes down to two or three dice besides a unit and due to how saves work in our system we don't have the problem of "dead men charging", as everything gets some form of a save, always.
40K has never provided such interesting and engaging gameplay.
This sounds great - any chance you could PM me the details?
My experience has been that the Sisters dex convinced me to not play Sisters (the Crusade system didn't support my army's lore at all). I haven't sold them but I also haven't unpacked them since moving in January.
The Aeldari codex made me sell my Eldar, because, again, the Crusade system didn't support my army's lore at all ("grav tanks? You idiot, those aren't an aspect. Stop playing Eldar wrong!" - GW)
That's why I don't think crusade is a very good system and telling someone "just play casual PL crusade games" is not the answer to the atrocious balance we've been seeing in matched play recently.
Karol wrote: How much does an avarge titanicus army cost? Is it a lot cheaper then w40k?
They had a maniple box last year that would've been a fully playable 1500 point list for like $150. It's MUCH cheaper. I've maybe spent $400 and I have all the campaign books plus a 1750 list with different weapon options.
Yep. The "its easier to find a game of the current edition" is what sticks a lot of people to GW games, and is why GW has no incentive to make good rules.
Also +1 to the Titanicus ruleset. If they put in tanks and infantry and made a proper EPIC I'd buy in 100%.
That's the only thing that keeps me playing 40k. I try like hell to start groups for Titanicus, Infinity, Necromunda, etc everywhere I live. Nobody wants to spend for a new game when they can just play 40k with their existing models even if the game is awful.
40K has never provided such interesting and engaging gameplay.
RT & 2nd were plenty interesting & engaging. Which apparently is something they gave up in the quest for larger model counts.
Oh, I agree, that 2nd ed was a pinnacle of 40k and I still play Oldmunda, which I vastly prefer to the new AA iteration. But as you wrote, it collapses under model count and even originally, a squad vs squad CC was tedious. 3rd had none of the charm, some of it gradually returned, with 7th ed garagehammer games having at least the feel of heroism 2nd ed had, but as stated above, classic IGOUGO has it's very tight limits, that 40k breaks all around.
Jidmah wrote: If that were true, why does just this forum alone have hundreds of pages in active threads riddled with people complaining about the rules?
Don't you think that their gakky rules have an impact on how many models and books people buy?
Don't you think it affects how many people are recommending 40k to their friends?
How about all those people actively discouraging others to buy books and models from GW?
Why did the only communities of 40k grow and prosper each time 40k was in a decent state and started to stagnate and lose people each time GW fethed up balance hard?
Why do tournament attendances drop each time the game is in a bad state?
But sure, keep telling yourself that 40k is special and unique and not just yet another game whose only saving grace is a unique vast background and iconic models.
People who do like current 40k tend not to spend hours and hours writing comments about it, they just enjoy the game.
Call it silent majority if you want.
If 40k was such a bad game it wouldn't sell like it does, events wouldn't sell out as quickly nor would be as frequent, ...
If 40k was such a bad game it wouldn't sell like it does, events wouldn't sell out as quickly nor would be as frequent, ...
GW have stated numerous times that the majority of their models sold are never used in a game. The game could cease to exist and they would still sell a ton based on people who like the models/lore and just want to collect them.
If 40k was such a bad game it wouldn't sell like it does, events wouldn't sell out as quickly nor would be as frequent, ...
GW have stated numerous times that the majority of their models sold are never used in a game. The game could cease to exist and they would still sell a ton based on people who like the models/lore and just want to collect them.
The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.
Dai wrote: The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.
I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.
My group uses a system like that. Depending on game size you get to build your army around 3-6 mandatory detachments of quite narrow but flexible enough size. The order in which detachments activate is created at the start of round via queue of hidden cards, so you have to plan ahead and try to predict the whole round in advance. And then on top of that, we use end of round saves. This system has none of the problems 40k has. No downtime to speak of, no alpha strike, everything get's to act at least once, movement/positioning/order matters a lot, auras work, there is depth to the game and games are pretty much always close ones, as attrition is even. The dreaded bookkeeping of end of round saves comes down to two or three dice besides a unit and due to how saves work in our system we don't have the problem of "dead men charging", as everything gets some form of a save, always.
40K has never provided such interesting and engaging gameplay.
This sounds great - any chance you could PM me the details?
If 40k was such a bad game it wouldn't sell like it does, events wouldn't sell out as quickly nor would be as frequent, ...
GW have stated numerous times that the majority of their models sold are never used in a game. The game could cease to exist and they would still sell a ton based on people who like the models/lore and just want to collect them.
This gets glossed over way too often.
Because it's definitely bullgak? That's pure marketing talk and primarily came from an era where GW ALSO said they very proudly didn't do market research.
Fantasy ceasing to exist at the same time 40k was largely unplayable had the company verifiably hemorrhaging money in 2015-2016, but yeah, I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
This is only my personal experience, but me and some people I play with own way more models then we could realistically field, and indeed we own models we never played with. They are collected and painted, and then end up in a box. But I can guarantee you I would have never bought the model without the possibility of using it in a game. So I might believe that most models never see play, but without the game these models wouldn't even see the outside of a store.
Brickfix wrote: This is only my personal experience, but me and some people I play with own way more models then we could realistically field, and indeed we own models we never played with. They are collected and painted, and then end up in a box. But I can guarantee you I would have never bought the model without the possibility of using it in a game. So I might believe that most models never see play, but without the game these models wouldn't even see the outside of a store.
I'm 100% in the same boat. I would not look at the models without the game. I'd be building model fighter planes or oil painting or doing cg something else. I collect 40k models with the expectation of eventual use.
This just seems to incentivize throwing units out into the open. They're going to get their shots off so who cares? Then the guy with the fastest units dictates the flow of the game.
Brickfix wrote: This is only my personal experience, but me and some people I play with own way more models then we could realistically field, and indeed we own models we never played with. They are collected and painted, and then end up in a box. But I can guarantee you I would have never bought the model without the possibility of using it in a game. So I might believe that most models never see play, but without the game these models wouldn't even see the outside of a store.
I'm 100% in the same boat. I would not look at the models without the game. I'd be building model fighter planes or oil painting or doing cg something else. I collect 40k models with the expectation of eventual use.
I collect and play, but I have a few friends who only collect, are completely uninterested in the game and don't even own/read a codex for their faction. And yes, those who are long enough in the hobby own a full army worth of models, or more.
Dai wrote: The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.
I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.
Dai wrote: The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.
I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.
Dai wrote: The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.
I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.
[Citation required]
I had exactly as much evidence as the other guy did.
Dai wrote: The only reason gw care about pandering toward the waac scene at all is that they are the loudest shouters online and as such bad publicity. They are a minority of a minority.
I mean...they pander to the narrative crowd and they're a fraction of a percent of even the tournament crowd.
That's hilarious
Unsubstantiated claims based on anecdotes usually are. People just don't notice that until they hear one that goes against what THEY believe to be true.
Mr. 'GW SAYS NO ONE EVER BUYS MODELS FOR THE GAME THO!!!!'
As discussed previously, and vociferously: 9th ed 40k does not pander to any particular type of player- it does its best to pander to ALL of them.
25PL / 500 Point games of ANY type pander to new players without large armies.
100PL/ 2k point armies pander to long time players who have a lot of models already and are used to 2k as a sort of pick-up standard.
150PL/ 3K point games pander to collectors of multiple factions who have a massive number of models.
Beyond that, OPEN panders to beginners who want to get playing fast without being bogged down by too many rules and restrictions.
Crusade panders to those who want to tell a story over multiple linked games.
GT Mission pack Matched play panders to people who want to play in events.
Tempest of War Matched play seems to have been designed for Matched players who want casual pick-up games.
You can rest assured that if GW just wanted any one of these demographics, they would not have developed so many options.
Since they did develop these options, you can rest assured that GW wants ALL of these players.
And again, we can debate about how well GW did or did not achieve that objective. Games that focus exclusively on only ONE of the above demographics probably will create a better product for that smaller more narrowly focused audience... but said game would leave all the other demographics out of the equation.
I know probably 2-3x amount of collectors/painters than I do gamers. Some of us fall more at the modeling/painting side rather than the game end of the continuum. But the people happy with models, lore, narrative aren't screaming about stuff they dislike, cuz there is plenty to like. Whereas, if you're constantly playing bleeding edge tourney meta there is a large prospect that something will be egregiously wrong enuff to complain.
But game use never enters my mind when I'm buying a model. Sold the Judiciar & bladeguard ancient from Indomitus box as willfully as the necron side due to how they look. Morvenn & Nundams have no place in my Bloody Rose. Wracks & grotesques do absolutely nothing for me esthetically, so zero in my army.
I can understand that I'm not the normal 40k player, but to think the really really squeaky wheel is the only one is ridiculously Folly.
jeff white wrote: If the game were better then more collectors may play…
Not really, at least not all of them. None of my collecting only friends are interested in playing any sort of game with their minis. They are modelers, not players and are not interested what the rules are or if they are good or bad.
PenitentJake wrote: As discussed previously, and vociferously: 9th ed 40k does not pander to any particular type of player- it does its best to pander to ALL of them.
And I continue to vehemently disagree. 9th is Tournament Edition 40k. The "balance" sheets, the FAQs, the 'seasons', the actual "Tournament Packs", the people play-testing the game, the emphasis on ITC-style terrain, that 'metawatch' malarkey; they have geared just about everything in this edition towards competitive and tournament matched play.
I mean think about with it any level of honesty:
What dominates the discussion at this place and other forums? 1. Discussion about the latest FAQ/balance sheet/tournament results. 2. The new crusade relics/battlescar tables in the last Warzone book?
"But Crusade???"
Yeah? What about it? It's something they've stuck into every Codex so there's another way to play 40k. It's a progression system that can help campaigns and it is certainly welcome - I certainly think it's great - but it's not the emphasis in this edition. Hell, most of the crusade-related material GW has made already out of print. They didn't even announce a separate Crusade book to go alongside the upcoming Warzone book. Even the people pirating GW's Codices leave out the Crusade sections, FFS.
"But Open???"
... exists because "3 ways to play" sounds better for marketing speak than "2 ways to play".
PenitentJake wrote: As discussed previously, and vociferously: 9th ed 40k does not pander to any particular type of player- it does its best to pander to ALL of them.
25PL / 500 Point games of ANY type pander to new players without large armies.
100PL/ 2k point armies pander to long time players who have a lot of models already and are used to 2k as a sort of pick-up standard.
150PL/ 3K point games pander to collectors of multiple factions who have a massive number of models.
Beyond that, OPEN panders to beginners who want to get playing fast without being bogged down by too many rules and restrictions.
Crusade panders to those who want to tell a story over multiple linked games.
GT Mission pack Matched play panders to people who want to play in events.
Tempest of War Matched play seems to have been designed for Matched players who want casual pick-up games.
You can rest assured that if GW just wanted any one of these demographics, they would not have developed so many options.
Since they did develop these options, you can rest assured that GW wants ALL of these players.
And again, we can debate about how well GW did or did not achieve that objective. Games that focus exclusively on only ONE of the above demographics probably will create a better product for that smaller more narrowly focused audience... but said game would leave all the other demographics out of the equation.
Hard hard HARD, disagree there man. 9th ed is very much a tourny game. The FAQs if you watch them, are always in direct response to tournaments. If 9th ed really was the edition to pander to everyone you would see lists/armies that are not doing good being buffed, but you arnt. Guard have been in the gutter on the tournament scene for pretty much all of 9th and they have never been buffed to any meaningful extent. Why? because they are not causing a problem on the tournament level, the FAQs are all these to gut/nerf the current meta.
Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.
If their only goal was to run tournaments it would be, but its not. They are there to sell models first and formost, which if you notice, they always are buffing unit that are not, or did not sell well or were models that a lot of people did not really buy in the past.
Notice how with eldar dark reaper such swamp water in terms of tournament scene? that was not by random chance.
The name of the game is buff units, sell units, nerf units, repeat.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.
If their only goal was to run tournaments it would be, but its not. They are there to sell models first and formost, which if you notice, they always are buffing unit that are not, or did not sell well or were models that a lot of people did not really buy in the past.
Notice how with eldar dark reaper such swamp water in terms of tournament scene? that was not by random chance.
The name of the game is buff units, sell units, nerf units, repeat.
That makes sense, and is a part of the problem.
The executive's pockets might be healthy, but the game as a whole sure isn't.
The problem is GW has switched to the burn and churn marketing method. They basically brought the worst aspect of MTG which is "New set is out, pretty designed exclusively to counter the previous meta, so all those decks are very suboptimal and you need to buy the new hotness"
Whats gonna happen is, GW is gonna run outta things to burn and churn out, its a lot easier to print up an entire new set then it is to create an all new model set.
On top of that GW basically abandoned their promise from 8th. With 8th was going to be the "living edition" and we were meant to get regular chapter approved updates, that would be collective FAQs to correct problems. That, however, was only kept for like all of 6 months then GW wanting to pander to the tournament scene who were demanding more and more frequent FAQs in the name of "balance" got what they wanted.
Now the FAQs are so bad, that GW put out a list of approved and non approved rules and they are still pumping out more FAQs. Hell Nids got an FAQ before they even came out.
PenitentJake wrote: As discussed previously, and vociferously: 9th ed 40k does not pander to any particular type of player- it does its best to pander to ALL of them.
25PL / 500 Point games of ANY type pander to new players without large armies.
100PL/ 2k point armies pander to long time players who have a lot of models already and are used to 2k as a sort of pick-up standard.
150PL/ 3K point games pander to collectors of multiple factions who have a massive number of models.
Beyond that, OPEN panders to beginners who want to get playing fast without being bogged down by too many rules and restrictions.
Crusade panders to those who want to tell a story over multiple linked games.
GT Mission pack Matched play panders to people who want to play in events.
Tempest of War Matched play seems to have been designed for Matched players who want casual pick-up games.
You can rest assured that if GW just wanted any one of these demographics, they would not have developed so many options.
Since they did develop these options, you can rest assured that GW wants ALL of these players.
And again, we can debate about how well GW did or did not achieve that objective. Games that focus exclusively on only ONE of the above demographics probably will create a better product for that smaller more narrowly focused audience... but said game would leave all the other demographics out of the equation.
Hard hard HARD, disagree there man. 9th ed is very much a tourny game. The FAQs if you watch them, are always in direct response to tournaments. If 9th ed really was the edition to pander to everyone you would see lists/armies that are not doing good being buffed, but you arnt. Guard have been in the gutter on the tournament scene for pretty much all of 9th and they have never been buffed to any meaningful extent. Why? because they are not causing a problem on the tournament level, the FAQs are all these to gut/nerf the current meta.
That's a really, really skewed interpretation. GW has ALWAYS had far more factions that were too weak than too strong and far more unusably bad units that OP units. They've also been incredibly reluctant across...basically all of their game systems to buff anything outside of the codex cycle. At least as far as systemic power increase is concerned. Fixing systemic issues with specific factions/units takes time and careful thought. Resources GW has no interest in spending on tounament gaming.
All they want is the lowest effort way they can find to SEEM like they really support each subset of the consumer base. The lowest effort way to do that with tournament play is to fix unintended rules interactions and play whack-a-mole with nerfing top lists.
They don't actually do anything to make 40k a more palatable tournament game, like fix systemic issues present in weaker factions outside of the codex cycle, they just do enough lip service to trick people into thinking they care.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.
They definitely want that. They just can't because they love the profit margin on printed books which means most of their balancing will be addressing a 6-8 month old meta. They also love giving people 47 different ways to play an army because "fluff" even if some of those are horribly broken and others are unusable. They need less rules sources and a digital release strategy if they ever want to get the game to a decent state balance wise.
It still does not decract from my point. GW only has been dealing with tournament meta lists.
Guard for example have been aweful this entire edtion, and the only things they have gotten is a crappy buff to their indirect fire, a laughable 6 to hit wounds, and 2+ on their tanks in the edition of armor saves me absolutely nothing.
GW has had the entire edition to correct guards issues, but they are not an issue in the tournament scene in any capacity so, they have gotten zero attention. Oks, same way, the one thing they had going, nerfed instantly after it dominated tournaments.
Backspacehacker wrote: The problem is GW has switched to the burn and churn marketing method. They basically brought the worst aspect of MTG which is "New set is out, pretty designed exclusively to counter the previous meta, so all those decks are very suboptimal and you need to buy the new hotness"
Whats gonna happen is, GW is gonna run outta things to burn and churn out, its a lot easier to print up an entire new set then it is to create an all new model set.
On top of that GW basically abandoned their promise from 8th. With 8th was going to be the "living edition" and we were meant to get regular chapter approved updates, that would be collective FAQs to correct problems. That, however, was only kept for like all of 6 months then GW wanting to pander to the tournament scene who were demanding more and more frequent FAQs in the name of "balance" got what they wanted.
Now the FAQs are so bad, that GW put out a list of approved and non approved rules and they are still pumping out more FAQs. Hell Nids got an FAQ before they even came out.
That middle bit was entirely made up. No one ever said it was going to be a living edition and regular chapter approved updates were always understood to be point changes and little else. Same as the Age of Sigmar GHB they copied the format from.
The tournament scene has also never demanded an FAQ that wasn't the direct result of GW utterly failing to write rules in a way that made sense. You're continually blaming people who play tournaments for problems GW created.
You're also, just straight up lying about stuff that never happened now because you don't like tournaments.
Backspacehacker wrote: The problem is GW has switched to the burn and churn marketing method. They basically brought the worst aspect of MTG which is "New set is out, pretty designed exclusively to counter the previous meta, so all those decks are very suboptimal and you need to buy the new hotness"
Whats gonna happen is, GW is gonna run outta things to burn and churn out, its a lot easier to print up an entire new set then it is to create an all new model set.
On top of that GW basically abandoned their promise from 8th. With 8th was going to be the "living edition" and we were meant to get regular chapter approved updates, that would be collective FAQs to correct problems. That, however, was only kept for like all of 6 months then GW wanting to pander to the tournament scene who were demanding more and more frequent FAQs in the name of "balance" got what they wanted.
Now the FAQs are so bad, that GW put out a list of approved and non approved rules and they are still pumping out more FAQs. Hell Nids got an FAQ before they even came out.
That middle bit was entirely made up. No one ever said it was going to be a living edition and regular chapter approved updates were always understood to be point changes and little else. Same as the Age of Sigmar GHB they copied the format from.
The tournament scene has also never demanded an FAQ that wasn't the direct result of GW utterly failing to write rules in a way that made sense. You're continually blaming people who play tournaments for problems GW created.
You're also, just straight up lying about stuff that never happened now because you don't like tournaments.
Uhhhh yes they did lol
8th ed was marketed as being like the AoS rules IE a living rule set with annual updates this was discussed in their live stream. They also started off doing this by intorducing beta rules through WD, which players would test, provide feed back, and then if good implament and or change before implementing it. This lasted all of 6 months before they went back to their old habbits.
Backspacehacker wrote: It still does not decract from my point. GW only has been dealing with tournament meta lists.
Guard for example have been aweful this entire edtion, and the only things they have gotten is a crappy buff to their indirect fire, a laughable 6 to hit wounds, and 2+ on their tanks in the edition of armor saves me absolutely nothing.
GW has had the entire edition to correct guards issues, but they are not an issue in the tournament scene in any capacity so, they have gotten zero attention. Oks, same way, the one thing they had going, nerfed instantly after it dominated tournaments.
It destroys your point. Dealing with 'tournament meta lists' is not 'catering to tournaments' it's the smallest, most miniscule interaction possible.
You also have this insane idea that 'being bad' ISN'T a major tournament issue and it absolutely is. It doesn't effect as many people as a Voidweaver being 50% too cheap, but it is absolutely a prevalent and concerning issue that tournament players DO care about.
You're mistaking GW picking ONE low hanging fruit for GW successfully tending the orchard.
Backspacehacker wrote: The problem is GW has switched to the burn and churn marketing method. They basically brought the worst aspect of MTG which is "New set is out, pretty designed exclusively to counter the previous meta, so all those decks are very suboptimal and you need to buy the new hotness" Whats gonna happen is, GW is gonna run outta things to burn and churn out, its a lot easier to print up an entire new set then it is to create an all new model set. On top of that GW basically abandoned their promise from 8th. With 8th was going to be the "living edition" and we were meant to get regular chapter approved updates, that would be collective FAQs to correct problems. That, however, was only kept for like all of 6 months then GW wanting to pander to the tournament scene who were demanding more and more frequent FAQs in the name of "balance" got what they wanted.
Now the FAQs are so bad, that GW put out a list of approved and non approved rules and they are still pumping out more FAQs. Hell Nids got an FAQ before they even came out.
That middle bit was entirely made up. No one ever said it was going to be a living edition and regular chapter approved updates were always understood to be point changes and little else. Same as the Age of Sigmar GHB they copied the format from.
The tournament scene has also never demanded an FAQ that wasn't the direct result of GW utterly failing to write rules in a way that made sense. You're continually blaming people who play tournaments for problems GW created.
You're also, just straight up lying about stuff that never happened now because you don't like tournaments.
Uhhhh yes they did lol
8th ed was marketed as being like the AoS rules IE a living rule set with annual updates this was discussed in their live stream. They also started off doing this by intorducing beta rules through WD, which players would test, provide feed back, and then if good implament and or change before implementing it. This lasted all of 6 months before they went back to their old habbits.
They literally didn't do or say any of that for AOS either. Straight up lies. The only beta rules they ever had was the Sisters of Battle Beta codex. Players said they WANTED a living ruleset and they said they'd do a yearly update the way they did with the GHB that would be focused around points.
The rest of it was wishlisting from the playerbase you mistook for marketing.
"Will the rules be updated annually (ala, the General’s Handbook)?
What a great idea! We’ve had such a fantastic response to our community-led approach with the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules updates that we’re committed to doing the same for Warhammer 40,000. You’ll be able to submit your questions and queries on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page and we’ll make sure we continue to evolve the game as feedback rolls in."
Spike bits article on the live stream for 2017, one of the points were it being a living edition with annual updates.
An article that literally doesn't say anything about a living ruleset and specifically calls out the annual updates as being about POINTS AND says that it was only implied. Literally no aspect of that suggested that rules would see significant changes and everyone who had seen the livestream at the time knew they were just copying the GHB.
"Will the rules be updated annually (ala, the General’s Handbook)? What a great idea! We’ve had such a fantastic response to our community-led approach with the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules updates that we’re committed to doing the same for Warhammer 40,000. You’ll be able to submit your questions and queries on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page and we’ll make sure we continue to evolve the game as feedback rolls in."
By that definition, they've done EXACTLY what they said they would, and you're STILL mostly making things up.
The GHB never had meaningful rules update outside of missions until third edition. It was points and a couple of new scenarios. They've done EXACTLY what they said they would, you're just salty it's not the scenario you made up in your own head.
Check the Community post from war hammer, they literally say they are going to do it like AoS rules, IE annually update the codex and be al living ruleset, just like AoS, which that lasted all of a few month before it changed.
"Will the rules be updated annually (ala, the General’s Handbook)?
What a great idea! We’ve had such a fantastic response to our community-led approach with the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules updates that we’re committed to doing the same for Warhammer 40,000. You’ll be able to submit your questions and queries on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page and we’ll make sure we continue to evolve the game as feedback rolls in."
Bro thats an offical FAQ from warhammer, thats not a marketing quote, they literally said yes we will being doing it like generals handbook because the feed back was so good.
8th ed was sold as being a living rule set, and was going to be getting annual updates /chapters approved and that did not last at all. You can pretend that it never was that way, but GW right there is saying it, stop moving the goal post with "WeLl ItS jUsT MarKeTiNg" cmon man.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Which is kind of weird, because you'd think that a tournament focused game would try to bring all armies up to the same level instead of leaving them in the gutter.
That assumes that they:
1. Aren't trying to do just that.
2. Are just really bad at it.
GW have stated numerous times that the majority of their models sold are never used in a game. The game could cease to exist and they would still sell a ton based on people who like the models/lore and just want to collect them.
While 40k has a significant barrier to entry and many people never play, I think if the game went away entirely many people who don't play games would be less interested.
Backspacehacker wrote: Check the Community post from war hammer, they literally say they are going to do it like AoS rules, IE annually update the codex and be al living ruleset, just like AoS, which that lasted all of a few month before it changed.
"Will the rules be updated annually (ala, the General’s Handbook)?
What a great idea! We’ve had such a fantastic response to our community-led approach with the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules updates that we’re committed to doing the same for Warhammer 40,000. You’ll be able to submit your questions and queries on the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page and we’ll make sure we continue to evolve the game as feedback rolls in."
Bro thats an offical FAQ from warhammer, thats not a marketing quote, they literally said yes we will being doing it like generals handbook because the feed back was so good.
8th ed was sold as being a living rule set, and was going to be getting annual updates /chapters approved and that did not last at all. You can pretend that it never was that way, but GW right there is saying it, stop moving the goal post with "WeLl ItS jUsT MarKeTiNg" cmon man.
You argument would make sense if we weren't onto the third edition of AoS....
We are getting updates in the form of Chapter Approved, which is the 40k equivalent of the General's Handbook. Now if you are going to argue that GW didn't follow through with this supposed promise with either system then...It really seems like you are just making up the living rule set promise or it was poorly veiled marketing speech.
Not making up anything, AOS at the time of 8th launch was running off the "living ruleset" 8th ed said it would be like AoS's rule set.
they 100% did NOT keep that promise thats for damn sure. My point is they at one point were aiming for annual updates to 40k, very much like AoS was at the time. Which they did not follow through with that at all.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The fact that we're onto the third edition of AoS kinda proves that they abandoned that idea, not that it was never their intend.
Basically this, they abandoned the "living ruleset" for 8th ed right around the time of the rule of three because thats when GW actually got their first taste of what the tournament scene was like. A couple of thier rule writers went to an LVO and got stomped by flying nid circus list and then went back and changed the rules to prevent it.
"This all sets things up for a living edition that never expires. Things just get tweaked annually as we go"
LOL that aged like milk. Spikey Bits really thought GW was going to give up selling you a $65 rulebook every 2-3 years and a $50 codex every year? I want to try whatever strain they were smoking when they wrote that.
Toofast wrote: "This all sets things up for a living edition that never expires. Things just get tweaked annually as we go"
LOL that aged like milk. Spikey Bits really thought GW was going to give up selling you a $65 rulebook every 2-3 years and a $50 codex every year? I want to try whatever strain they were smoking when they wrote that.
Apparently it was what ever GW was smoking when they said they were going to do that and thought they actually could lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Didn't AoS require a fans only lifeline when it started, because of the small problem of not having points for units?
Yes, AoS was actually very close to being DoA until GW scrambled to put actual points in the game. In was really really bad.
I tend to accept the fact that if GW says it will do, which will mean that people will have to buy more of their products or buy them at a higher price, then the stuff GW says is true and will happen. Everything else is just talk. Maybe they do it, or maybe they won't . the more work it requires, the less chance of it actually happening.
Yes, AoS was actually very close to being DoA until GW scrambled to put actual points in the game. In was really really bad.
^ This. That's why the post about "next edition will be PL only" was so funny to me. They already tried that and people literally had peaceful protests where they lit their armies on fire over it. It was probably the biggest backlash GW has ever faced on any single issue.
Toofast wrote: ^ This. That's why the post about "next edition will be PL only" was so funny to me. They already tried that and people literally had peaceful protests where they lit their armies on fire over it. It was probably the biggest backlash GW has ever faced on any single issue.
Wasn't that more about deleting an entire system and world people spent a lot of time and money getting attached to?
Toofast wrote: ^ This. That's why the post about "next edition will be PL only" was so funny to me. They already tried that and people literally had peaceful protests where they lit their armies on fire over it. It was probably the biggest backlash GW has ever faced on any single issue.
Nah, them literally flushing the entire fantasy setting down the toilet and replacing it with the AoS setting was the single biggest mistake GW ever made, and regrets doing it every single day. Old world being proof of that regret.
IMO it was because AoS seemed to be a joke game on release. It was the cards against humanity of wargames after years of Warhammer being a more serious, rank and flank, historicals but with fantasy models type game. Replacing that with "no points, and whoever has the longest beard gets a buff" was a huge insult to the playerbase.
Toofast wrote: ^ This. That's why the post about "next edition will be PL only" was so funny to me. They already tried that and people literally had peaceful protests where they lit their armies on fire over it. It was probably the biggest backlash GW has ever faced on any single issue.
Nah, them literally flushing the entire fantasy setting down the toilet and replacing it with the AoS setting was the single biggest mistake GW ever made, and regrets doing it every single day. Old world being proof of that regret.
I remember reading an article about a dude that worked in GW design team at that time. He claimed that the lower ups employees warned that going from End Times to AoS within a month, and no for warning or hinting that the new thing isn't a new edition of WFB would create huge backlash. And it was just ignored. But then again he said the same thing about eldar knights being undercosted to criminal levels on order of higher up people.
Toofast wrote: IMO it was because AoS seemed to be a joke game on release. It was the cards against humanity of wargames after years of Warhammer being a more serious, rank and flank, historicals but with fantasy models type game. Replacing that with "no points, and whoever has the longest beard gets a buff" was a huge insult to the playerbase.
Oh yeah it was, and thats why i think them nuking that old setting is something they regret so much, because what so ironic about it, was that only after its death did its popularity explode.
Things like Vermintide and total war warhammer, put GW on the map publically with the general public. During the days of AoS launch and earth 8th, the vast majority of new players were coming in because they played vermin tide and or played total warhammer. The irony being the games that drew them in just had their setting nuked from orbit.
Toofast wrote: ^ This. That's why the post about "next edition will be PL only" was so funny to me. They already tried that and people literally had peaceful protests where they lit their armies on fire over it. It was probably the biggest backlash GW has ever faced on any single issue.
Nah, them literally flushing the entire fantasy setting down the toilet and replacing it with the AoS setting was the single biggest mistake GW ever made, and regrets doing it every single day. Old world being proof of that regret.
I remember reading an article about a dude that worked in GW design team at that time. He claimed that the lower ups employees warned that going from End Times to AoS within a month, and no for warning or hinting that the new thing isn't a new edition of WFB would create huge backlash. And it was just ignored. But then again he said the same thing about eldar knights being undercosted to criminal levels on order of higher up people.
From waht i remember ruomor wise, AoS as a whole was kirbys brain child, which truth be told explains a whole freaking lot about how much of a disaster is was, he also had a big hand in a lot of changes of 8th.
Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.
That's true, but being the only wargame with a full wall of mini in most LGS kinda counteracts the fact that the game is poor. Some random kid wanting to play wargames will most probably have heard of 40k before any other ones, and is gonna be able to walk in his store to pickup a start collecting/combat patrol.
40k is the most discussed online wargame
40k is the game with the most content on youtube
40k is the biggest.
GW reached a point where the sheer inertia of the franchise will carry them through tough times
...and yet it has never reached the same level of success as WoW or MtG or LoL or D&D or any other game which has embraced the truth of "make your game better = more $$$".
Maybe they hit the cap of how much plastic and paper they can sell during the beginning of 9th and decided that they don't want to be better anymore?
None of those games had really awkward association with LITERAL Nazis and White Supremacists. LoL may have weeb issues, and tons of rampant ick, but DnD never had to apologize for being a fachist's wetdream in table top form. DnD never had to make a company policy kicking out racists and their ilk. MtG has cheaters, but has never had to disown some of their top content creators because of some really terrible things they said and still say on videos, as recently as last week. I mean, if WoW ever had an Arch problem, or an issue where people dressed as nazis were showing up to their events, we could make a fair comparison. All the work that GW has done to bolster and enhance it's image in the last 5-10 years, is due to self-inflicted wounds. It's repairing the roof, after it tore it off by accident.
Except it has been proven across multiple games that a decent game will attract more player and generate more sales.
That's true, but being the only wargame with a full wall of mini in most LGS kinda counteracts the fact that the game is poor. Some random kid wanting to play wargames will most probably have heard of 40k before any other ones, and is gonna be able to walk in his store to pickup a start collecting/combat patrol.
40k is the most discussed online wargame
40k is the game with the most content on youtube
40k is the biggest.
GW reached a point where the sheer inertia of the franchise will carry them through tough times
...and yet it has never reached the same level of success as WoW or MtG or LoL or D&D or any other game which has embraced the truth of "make your game better = more $$$".
Maybe they hit the cap of how much plastic and paper they can sell during the beginning of 9th and decided that they don't want to be better anymore?
None of those games had really awkward association with LITERAL Nazis and White Supremacists. LoL may have weeb issues, and tons of rampant ick, but DnD never had to apologize for being a fachist's wetdream in table top form. DnD never had to make a company policy kicking out racists and their ilk. MtG has cheaters, but has never had to disown some of their top content creators because of some really terrible things they said and still say on videos, as recently as last week. I mean, if WoW ever had an Arch problem, or an issue where people dressed as nazis were showing up to their events, we could make a fair comparison. All the work that GW has done to bolster and enhance it's image in the last 5-10 years, is due to self-inflicted wounds. It's repairing the roof, after it tore it off by accident.
Neither does 40k, thats just a boogie man talking point of a vast vast VAST super minority that gets attention; As some one who has played pretty much every game you listed, WoW is riddled with pedophiles, nazis and a whole buch of other crap, MTG is filled with some of the weirdest people this side of the earth, and LoL is one of the most toxic dumpster fires of a community.
"40k has nazis" is just a talking point of people cherry picking the worst of the worst to push an agenda, every single community has crappy peopel in it, the larger the community the larger the crappy people are.
None of those games had really awkward association with LITERAL Nazis and White Supremacists. LoL may have weeb issues, and tons of rampant ick, but DnD never had to apologize for being a fachist's wetdream in table top form. DnD never had to make a company policy kicking out racists and their ilk. MtG has cheaters, but has never had to disown some of their top content creators because of some really terrible things they said and still say on videos, as recently as last week. I mean, if WoW ever had an Arch problem, or an issue where people dressed as nazis were showing up to their events, we could make a fair comparison. All the work that GW has done to bolster and enhance it's image in the last 5-10 years, is due to self-inflicted wounds. It's repairing the roof, after it tore it off by accident.
man, seems like you're really going for the official title of "Dakka's Daftest"
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: None of those games had really awkward association with LITERAL Nazis and White Supremacists.
It's only awkward if you're clueless about how the world works and looking for something to feel morally superior/rage online about. It's not really an association when a Nazi is a fan of the company or product unless the company endorses that sort of behavior. Lots of KKK members are fans of Alabama, UGA, the Falcons, the Saints, etc. Does that make the Atlanta Falcons a white supremacist organization or associate them with racism? Lots of Nazis are fans of Real Madrid, what does that have to do with the ownership, coaches, players, sponsors, or all the other fans that aren't Nazis? Guess it's time to cancel every sports team, TV show, movie, and video game in existence just because 1 fan might be a Nazi. By your logic it is...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, how come the people complaining online about Nazis are always acting the most like brownshirts?
Blndmage wrote: *potential new LGBTQ2SIA+ payers bail silently*
Bailing why? Serious question. Because .00001% of GW fans might be nazis? Or because 40k is so big that it appeals to people across the political spectrum? Bailing because of either seems pretty illogical.
It took a legit Neo-Nazi walking into a tournament for GW to declare that Neo-Nazis are bad. And immediately after you had Right Wing pundits denouncing GW for... reasons.
It isn't a problem that 40k is full of Nazis, that is definitely not true and I even know a few LGBTQ2SIA+ players... but goddamn the fandom online discourse (which as always it is dominated by loud donkey-caves) about it is toxic.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: MtG has cheaters, but has never had to disown some of their top content creators because of some really terrible things they said and still say on videos, as recently as last week.
Go look at cards banned because of art. Go look at the people banned from MtG events because of their politics. I can understand why people would want to circle the wagons. Look at the comics industry, the next thing they are pushing for is less than half of all characters can be straight white people, 55% of the US is straight and white. One day it's the Nazis, day 2 it's Tau players, day 30 it's sculpting breasts on a Hive Tyrant, day 60 it's putting sombreros on Orks, day 90 it's playing Slaanesh Daemons. We should stop somewhere between day 3 and 89 but exactly where is hard to determine.
The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:
- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices
- Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in
- Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it
A huge problem with 9th (and 8th) is that the core rules are so bare bones. It leaves very little design space and lacks mechanical depth that it forces game mechanics / rules to be added into the codex which is something that other codexes cannot reasonably design around. Generally a codex's special rules are mostly modifying what you can do with the core rules (move, shoot, chop, die) so it really limits how much more a unit or weapon can do. This results in a lot of power creep as the codex pumps up those numbers (number of attacks, to hit, to wound, damage, saves, wounds, etc) without really having any sort of way to counter play it without just having even more pumped up numbers or USRs (unique special rules in this case). This also causes a lot of rules layering which creates a huge amount of tall bloat (that stacking effect which rapidly escalates power creep or balance issues) where as the older rule sets tended to have a lot of wide bloat (a large amount of niche stuff which tends to cause less power creep issues but more rules questions due to GW's generally poor way of wording its rules). Formation rules in 7th showed how problematic this could be but I would argue that the wide bloat style of the BRB helped make a lot of formations interesting without just being a number pump.
If anything those three issues were worse in 7th that they were in 9th. Codex creep was rampant then, pet armies received buffs and tons of powerful formations, while armies the team didn't care about received nerfs and half-assed rules which were not play-tested once.
9th was a perfectly fine edition until Codex: Durkhari and could have stayed that way if the rules writers hadn't fallen back into their old habits.
Never said it wasn't the case, 2nd half of 7th was a runaway train of power creep until the whole thing went over a cliff because GW had lost the plot entirely. What I'm pointing out is that a huge issue with 9th is because of the core rules being so narrow in it's framework. It's not just GW writers fall backing into their old habits but that the foundation laid in 8th is one of the fundimental issues with the game currently and how the very bare bones structure they decided to go with is counter intuative to both complex gameplay but more importantly not being very compatible to GW's rule style of piling on more gak with each release.
As a matter of fact that is exactly what our group does. we play core 5th ed rules but any codex of your choice is allowed from 3rd-7th. so we do get all the best (most lore accurate and flavorful codex) choices for recreational play. all of those editions are very cross compatible as well as the fact that many codexes existed for years across multiple editions given GWs release model.
Huh. That's an interesting idea.
But does it not create issues with USRs, psychic powers or other such changing between editions?
e.g. if I'm remembering correctly, psychic powers in 5th were cast just with a leadership test, usually in your movement or shooting phase. However, in later editions you had whole tables of randomly-determined psychic powers, cast using the Magic Phase from WHFB - including power and dispel dice.
How do you resolve that sort of thing?
I don't recall exactly how Aphyon resolved the psychic power side of thing. At a minimum, you can do things where a unit references the USR that matches the rulebook edition that was in use when the codex came out.
Honestly, with regard to psychic powers, you can just ignore all the fancy psychic power points and just have it where a psychic can just cast 1 power per turn or up to two powers per turn if it knows more than one. Works fine and is much less fiddly. Maybe that's what Aphyon does.
The topic kind of took off before i could get back online to answer this.
It is really very simple-core 5th ed rules apply
USRs There are 22 in 5th. if you have some new/old one from one of the other edition codexes you are using.
1.use the one it is supposed to represent I.E.-dunestrider from the 7th admech books-it gives extra movement to represent their ability to cross rough terrain easily. there is no extra standard movement in 5th but what it is trying to represent is covered via "move through cover" USR 2.if there is no equivalent it cannot be used and is ignored.
When it comes to psyker powers it is pure 5th ed mechanics.
LD test with perils on double 1's and double 6's.
You can take any power available from 3rd-7th from the codex of your army list, however we purposely leave out some like "blind" to keep the game fun.
Powers are used as they were-intuitively in their appropriate phase (there are only 3 in 5th move/shoot/assault) I.E. if it is a ranged attack (smite/blood lance etc..) it is cast and used in the shooting phase, melee ability during the assault phase(hammerhand, force weapons etc..), support or movement in the movement phase (gate of infinity, doom, fortune etc...).
As far as powers cast. aside from special characters that have access to many powers or more than average casting abilities the regular psykers follow 5th ed rules. they pick powers (one or two in the case of the 2 classes of librarians epistolary/reclusiarch for marines) that they will "know" for the duration of the game that they can cast.
Very few players in our group use psykers. i have one i occasionally use mostly in kill teams, and then my GK grand master w/retinue. for my actual reclusiarch i use gate of infinity that lets me immediately remove the model and/or his unit from the table and deepstrike them somewhere within 24" (with all normal deepstrike rules applied), and since i am a salamanders player i usually take the emperors wrath a S5 AP3 psychic flame thrower (template) to stay true to the lore.
Tyran wrote: It took a legit Neo-Nazi walking into a tournament for GW to declare that Neo-Nazis are bad. And immediately after you had Right Wing pundits denouncing GW for... reasons.
It isn't a problem that 40k is full of Nazis, that is definitely not true and I even know a few LGBTQ2SIA+ players... but goddamn the fandom online discourse (which as always it is dominated by loud donkey-caves) about it is toxic.
40k reaches a giant audience, it's gonna catch some donkey-caves in that giant effin net. And if a certain online community is toxic. . . Then don't frequent it? I dunno, man. This seems like a pretty avoidable issue.
As for declaring neo-nazis bad, I'd sorta expect a company doesn't have to explicitly say that. Are there any rl fascist fans of The Empire from SW? Is it any different?
Backspacehacker wrote:From waht i remember ruomor wise, AoS as a whole was kirbys brain child, which truth be told explains a whole freaking lot about how much of a disaster is was, he also had a big hand in a lot of changes of 8th.
Rumour wise they wanted to do the same for 40k as done with AoS yet because it did not work they changed it
and the whole thing was born from the idea that GW does not need a game to sell model
as the past has shown, GW need a game, but the game just needs to be good enough to get people into thinking "I need this model to have fun" rather than "I can buy what I want/like and have fun"
Toofast wrote:This. That's why the post about "next edition will be PL only" was so funny to me. They already tried that and people literally had peaceful protests where they lit their armies on fire over it. It was probably the biggest backlash GW has ever faced on any single issue.
And yet, AoS uses Powerlevel for 3 Editions now and no one cares
the problem was not PL, but that there were no points at all and "matched play" did not exist
something a lot of people know form historical gaming were you play a scenario and create forces according to that, without ever using any points
something the Warhammer Community does not know and does not want (even Crusade uses Points)
Backspacehacker wrote:
Karol wrote: Didn't AoS require a fans only lifeline when it started, because of the small problem of not having points for units?
Yes, AoS was actually very close to being DoA until GW scrambled to put actual points in the game. In was really really bad.
Main problem at the start was that without points, you needed Scenarios to build forces, the Order of Battle in historical games, yet those were only provided for Stormcast and new-Khorne in the beginning
hence everyone who played something else or wanted to switch from Warhammer Fantasy had nothing and needed to create such scenarios on their own
and here it was much easier to come up with points and matched play than to create scenarios for each possible encounter
None of those games had really awkward association with LITERAL Nazis and White Supremacists. LoL may have weeb issues, and tons of rampant ick, but DnD never had to apologize for being a fachist's wetdream in table top form. DnD never had to make a company policy kicking out racists and their ilk. MtG has cheaters, but has never had to disown some of their top content creators because of some really terrible things they said and still say on videos, as recently as last week. I mean, if WoW ever had an Arch problem, or an issue where people dressed as nazis were showing up to their events, we could make a fair comparison. All the work that GW has done to bolster and enhance it's image in the last 5-10 years, is due to self-inflicted wounds. It's repairing the roof, after it tore it off by accident.
Hasbro had DnD go on an apology your for saying that orcs had different traits than humans, and claimed that orcs were symbolic of black people. Harold McNeill, an early Magic artist, is a neo-nazi.
40k does have the problem where because they portray the Imperium as unironically heroic people like Arch (racists etc) have glommed onto the hobby as secondaries. You also get the people who think that the Sororitas, or hypothetical female Space Marines, wouldn't be baby-murdering fascists but strong feminist grrls, and that causes a similar problem.
The biggest problems of 9th edition, just like all editions before are:
- Codex creep, inability to stick with design paradigms, not going back to fix released codices
- Rules team playing favorites with factions, not just in terms of power, but also in terms of quality and effort put in
- Rules team not actually knowing their game well enough to tweak it
A huge problem with 9th (and 8th) is that the core rules are so bare bones. It leaves very little design space and lacks mechanical depth that it forces game mechanics / rules to be added into the codex which is something that other codexes cannot reasonably design around. Generally a codex's special rules are mostly modifying what you can do with the core rules (move, shoot, chop, die) so it really limits how much more a unit or weapon can do. This results in a lot of power creep as the codex pumps up those numbers (number of attacks, to hit, to wound, damage, saves, wounds, etc) without really having any sort of way to counter play it without just having even more pumped up numbers or USRs (unique special rules in this case). This also causes a lot of rules layering which creates a huge amount of tall bloat (that stacking effect which rapidly escalates power creep or balance issues) where as the older rule sets tended to have a lot of wide bloat (a large amount of niche stuff which tends to cause less power creep issues but more rules questions due to GW's generally poor way of wording its rules). Formation rules in 7th showed how problematic this could be but I would argue that the wide bloat style of the BRB helped make a lot of formations interesting without just being a number pump.
If anything those three issues were worse in 7th that they were in 9th. Codex creep was rampant then, pet armies received buffs and tons of powerful formations, while armies the team didn't care about received nerfs and half-assed rules which were not play-tested once.
9th was a perfectly fine edition until Codex: Durkhari and could have stayed that way if the rules writers hadn't fallen back into their old habits.
Never said it wasn't the case, 2nd half of 7th was a runaway train of power creep until the whole thing went over a cliff because GW had lost the plot entirely. What I'm pointing out is that a huge issue with 9th is because of the core rules being so narrow in it's framework. It's not just GW writers fall backing into their old habits but that the foundation laid in 8th is one of the fundimental issues with the game currently and how the very bare bones structure they decided to go with is counter intuative to both complex gameplay but more importantly not being very compatible to GW's rule style of piling on more gak with each release.
The first two books released for 7th were already failures of epic proportions and it just went downhill from there. To me, 7th started being a lost case without any hope of redemption after the necron codex.
Hecaton wrote: Hasbro had DnD go on an apology your for saying that orcs had different traits than humans, and claimed that orcs were symbolic of black people.
Which might be one of the dumbest things to happen in fantasy writing in the past 50 years...
this was also brought up against Tolkin and that Lord of the Rings is fascist propaganda (because of the West/East, White Against Black, noble/pure Humans against hybrids, fights etc.)
kodos wrote: this was also brought up against Tolkin and that Lord of the Rings is fascist propaganda (because of the West/East, White Against Black, noble/pure Humans against hybrids, fights etc.)
Hecaton wrote: Hasbro had DnD go on an apology your for saying that orcs had different traits than humans, and claimed that orcs were symbolic of black people.
Which might be one of the dumbest things to happen in fantasy writing in the past 50 years...
Ironically, it is also a quite racist thing to declare. "Yeah, so those brutish, aggressive and stupid humanoids? Totally black people"
kodos wrote: this was also brought up against Tolkin and that Lord of the Rings is fascist propaganda (because of the West/East, White Against Black, noble/pure Humans against hybrids, fights etc.)
Wasn't it exactly the other way around?
Well pirates from Umbar are eastern and evil, same with some of the easterlings. But how someone goes from orcs in any sitting to clearly those are black people is beyond me. It is not even true as far as inspirations goes. The urks or ugurs are based on the 10th century ungar(hungarians) the man eating Oger/Uger is a hungarian, So if anyone should be angry at Hasbro or Tolkien it should be them. Although am not sure if Otto the First would be happy to know that he was one of the inspirations for Elendil and Aragorn.
The topic kind of took off before i could get back online to answer this.
It is really very simple-core 5th ed rules apply
USRs There are 22 in 5th. if you have some new/old one from one of the other edition codexes you are using.
1.use the one it is supposed to represent I.E.-dunestrider from the 7th admech books-it gives extra movement to represent their ability to cross rough terrain easily. there is no extra standard movement in 5th but what it is trying to represent is covered via "move through cover" USR 2.if there is no equivalent it cannot be used and is ignored.
When it comes to psyker powers it is pure 5th ed mechanics.
LD test with perils on double 1's and double 6's.
You can take any power available from 3rd-7th from the codex of your army list, however we purposely leave out some like "blind" to keep the game fun.
Powers are used as they were-intuitively in their appropriate phase (there are only 3 in 5th move/shoot/assault) I.E. if it is a ranged attack (smite/blood lance etc..) it is cast and used in the shooting phase, melee ability during the assault phase(hammerhand, force weapons etc..), support or movement in the movement phase (gate of infinity, doom, fortune etc...).
As far as powers cast. aside from special characters that have access to many powers or more than average casting abilities the regular psykers follow 5th ed rules. they pick powers (one or two in the case of the 2 classes of librarians epistolary/reclusiarch for marines) that they will "know" for the duration of the game that they can cast.
Very few players in our group use psykers. i have one i occasionally use mostly in kill teams, and then my GK grand master w/retinue. for my actual reclusiarch i use gate of infinity that lets me immediately remove the model and/or his unit from the table and deepstrike them somewhere within 24" (with all normal deepstrike rules applied), and since i am a salamanders player i usually take the emperors wrath a S5 AP3 psychic flame thrower (template) to stay true to the lore.
Ah, thank you very much for that explanation.
The USR thing would seem a bit of a shame to me, as I like some of the later ones like It Will Not Die (though I can also understand not wanting the bother of Fear or Soulfire or the like).
As for psykers, it occurs to me that I don't actually have all that many myself. The only ones that came to mind were the Corsair Prince and Void Dreamer from the 7th edition book.
Anyway, I wanted to ask because I do like the sound of this game mode and might see if I can give it a try sometime (assuming I can find some other willing friends).
Hecaton wrote: Hasbro had DnD go on an apology your for saying that orcs had different traits than humans, and claimed that orcs were symbolic of black people.
Which might be one of the dumbest things to happen in fantasy writing in the past 50 years...
Ironically, it is also a quite racist thing to declare.
"Yeah, so those brutish, aggressive and stupid humanoids? Totally black people"
Ah yes, I remember WotC's genius response to that particular controversy - "Oh my god, you're right! Orcs are literally black people! But don't worry, in the future we'll make orcs less brutish, aggressive and stupid, so that they'll be less like black people. See how not-racist we are?"
I believe the current paradigm for D&D races (or lineages or whatever the hell they're calling them these days) is that all of them are just 5ft cubes of meat with no distinguishing features. Not even kidding.
vipoid wrote: I believe the current paradigm for D&D races (or lineages or whatever the hell they're calling them these days) is that all of them are just 5ft cubes of meat with no distinguishing features. Not even kidding.
If people are going to think "this fictional race is evil"="racism" then that's the inevitable end point.
Not sure what the reaction would have been to "They. Are. Not. Real. Go. Out. Side."
Tyran wrote: It took a legit Neo-Nazi walking into a tournament for GW to declare that Neo-Nazis are bad. And immediately after you had Right Wing pundits denouncing GW for... reasons.
It isn't a problem that 40k is full of Nazis, that is definitely not true and I even know a few LGBTQ2SIA+ players... but goddamn the fandom online discourse (which as always it is dominated by loud donkey-caves) about it is toxic.
40k reaches a giant audience, it's gonna catch some donkey-caves in that giant effin net. And if a certain online community is toxic. . . Then don't frequent it? I dunno, man. This seems like a pretty avoidable issue.
And yet here we are screaming each at each other over plastic toys and a company's inability to balance its plastic toys game. So surprisingly harder than one would have thought.
As for declaring neo-nazis bad, I'd sorta expect a company doesn't have to explicitly say that. Are there any rl fascist fans of The Empire from SW? Is it any different?
Yes, there is a "The Empire Was Right" apologist/fascist crowd, which have a surprising ability to pretty much ignore each and every political message Lucas put in his movies (because Lucas is and always has been an extremely political author).
I would argue that 40k has the aggravating issue that GW has pretty much stopped trying to push any political message, even thought 40k was originally supposed to be political satire (and the works it takes for inspiration are all extremely political).
Tyran wrote: Yes, there is a "The Empire Was Right" apologist/fascist crowd, which have a surprising ability to pretty much ignore each and every political message Lucas put in his movies (because Lucas is and always has been an extremely political author).
And there's a massive "Chaos are the good guys because they fight 'fascists' and each Chaos God represents marginalised people in 2022 society!". They're equally as stupid, if not moreso.
But ultimately - and this is the important part that you should pay close attention to - is that these people do. Not. Matter.
They are such an infinitesimally small part of the fandom that even just this discussion is giving them more air time - so to speak - than I imagine any of them have had for months.
Tyran wrote: Yes, there is a "The Empire Was Right" apologist/fascist crowd, which have a surprising ability to pretty much ignore each and every political message Lucas put in his movies (because Lucas is and always has been an extremely political author).
And there's a massive "Chaos are the good guys because they fight 'fascists' and each Chaos God represents marginalised people in 2022 society!". They're equally as stupid, if not moreso.
But ultimately - and this is the important part that you should pay close attention to - is that these people do. Not. Matter.
They are such an infinitesimally small part of the fandom that even just this discussion is giving them more air time - so to speak - than I imagine any of them have had for months.
Tyran wrote: Yes, there is a "The Empire Was Right" apologist/fascist crowd, which have a surprising ability to pretty much ignore each and every political message Lucas put in his movies (because Lucas is and always has been an extremely political author).
And there's a massive "Chaos are the good guys because they fight 'fascists' and each Chaos God represents marginalised people in 2022 society!". They're equally as stupid, if not moreso.
Personally I like to think of Chaos as anarchism to the IoM's oppressiveness. Chaos to me is about freedom, freedom of the IoM, freedom of its corpse good, freedom of reality and mortality and freedom of ethics and morality. So the bad kind of freedom, the freedom that once had a point but it lost it in favor of the freedom of beat, rape and murder each other, the kind of freedom that destroys civilizations.
But ultimately - and this is the important part that you should pay close attention to - is that these people do. Not. Matter.
They are such an infinitesimally small part of the fandom that even just this discussion is giving them more air time - so to speak - than I imagine any of them have had for months.
Neo-Nazis in particular? Sure they do not matter.
But we are forgetting that we are talking about LGBTQ+ people, who have far more to fear than just Neo-Nazis. As we speak, the US Supreme Court prepares to repeal Roe vs Wade with rhetoric that heavily implies they will go for Obergefell v. Hodges next. Homophobic and transphobic and sexist and racist people may be a minority these days, but they still hold a lot of political power. They may not be Neo-Nazis nor fascists if we want to use the actual precise political definitions, but they are just as horrible and dangerous.
As much as forums like to pretend that the 40k fandom and politics have nothing to do with each other, that is as fictional as the setting itself.
Sure here we have mods to kinda maintain that illusion, but if you are out there interacting with other 40k players in person, chances are that illusion will break. Specially if you are from a racial, ethnic, sexual or gender minority.
Tyran wrote: As much as forums like to pretend that the 40k fandom and politics have nothing to do with each other, that is as fictional as the setting itself.
Sure here we have mods to kinda maintain that illusion, but if you are out there interacting with other 40k players in person, chances are that illusion will break. Specially if you are from a racial, ethnic, sexual or gender minority.
Yes, because my opponents regularly start debates mid game about the viability of a constitutional monarchy and the failings of democracy
Yeah no, that doesn't happen. Like, at all. I've been playing the game for about a decade and not once has "politics" popped up. My opponents tend to be more interested in the game. Sounds more like a local thing than a 40k thing.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yes, because my opponents regularly start debates mid game about the viability of a constitutional monarchy and the failings of democracy
Yeah no, that doesn't happen. Like, at all. I've been playing the game for about a decade and not once has "politics" popped up. My opponents tend to be more interested in the game. Sounds more like a local thing than a 40k thing.
Exactly, the worst we get is arguments about Rules lol. And the odd socially inept dude that has his brain shut off whenever he sees one of the women playing.
People here talk about politics a lot, but it is hard not to when 3 weeks ago we saw and heard explosions on the other side of the border.
There is also football club talk, that is always serious and on the level of politics. Because you can get get in to trouble for being too much of a fan of some teams.
Karol wrote: People here talk about politics a lot, but it is hard not to when 3 weeks ago we saw and heard explosions on the other side of the border.
There is also football club talk, that is always serious and on the level of politics. Because you can get get in to trouble for being too much of a fan of some teams.
being a neighboring country to one that's currently in war is kind of a good reason to talk about.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yes, because my opponents regularly start debates mid game about the viability of a constitutional monarchy and the failings of democracy
Yeah no, that doesn't happen. Like, at all. I've been playing the game for about a decade and not once has "politics" popped up. My opponents tend to be more interested in the game. Sounds more like a local thing than a 40k thing.
Agreed. There are people I've known through gaming for a decade or more and I honestly couldn't tell you what their politics are. It just doesn't come up.
Karol wrote: People here talk about politics a lot, but it is hard not to when 3 weeks ago we saw and heard explosions on the other side of the border.
There is also football club talk, that is always serious and on the level of politics. Because you can get get in to trouble for being too much of a fan of some teams.
being a neighboring country to one that's currently in war is kind of a good reason to talk about.
Russia is alwasy at war. So is the US. Why wouldn't people talk about war in those countries all the time.
Karol wrote: People here talk about politics a lot, but it is hard not to when 3 weeks ago we saw and heard explosions on the other side of the border.
There is also football club talk, that is always serious and on the level of politics. Because you can get get in to trouble for being too much of a fan of some teams.
being a neighboring country to one that's currently in war is kind of a good reason to talk about.
Russia is alwasy at war. So is the US. Why wouldn't people talk about war in those countries all the time.
Russia is far from the main posters here (US, UK)
USA wages its wars halfway across the globe (out of sight, out of mind).
I don't follow US politics very keenly, but I remember like a year or two ago, being shown burning cities every day for months. I can imagine that, if something was burning my town for that long people would be talking about it at the store. But maybe in the US they don't do that. For example here making jokes about religion is a total no go, specially as we are in a mix area of catholics and ortodox. While from what I have seen people talk about in podcasts jokes about those things, seem to be maybe not common, but they do happen.
Well plus you can be put on trail for offending religions here.
