Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 07:14:47


Post by: drbored


As it says in the title.

How do you feel about the state of Warhammer 40k as a game?

I'd like, if you would, to consider also the state of the model releases. Are you feeling positive about the state of the game and the way the models are coming out? Or do you feel negative about the state of the game and hope for change? This is not to say just the 'tournament meta' of the game, but everything around Warhammer 40k, from models to gameplay to update speed, etc.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 07:21:11


Post by: Gir Spirit Bane


OVerall positive. Almost solely due to how much FUN crusade games have been narratively, seeing the local meta make narrative focused lists (even the local WAAC guy commented this was... fun. even if he lost, which was a shock to us all!!)

It's brought people together to share hobbying tips to make that custom character and painting tips and the actual games aren't as feels bad if one team gets destroyed since the crusade mechanics still allow both armies to grow in a way and the storyline to advance, you get connected to each match and have real investment to keep going for that conclusion. So for that, well done GW!

However, book of rust (PA round 2) is awful and overly expensive for not much contents, and what IS there can destroy matches. Yep looking at you Succubus with the BoR upgrades.


Overall positive, I just wish GW would publish a book which was narrative/crusade only and really lean into that and not make matched play/tournaments feel bad to play if you're not running the latest hotness


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 07:22:56


Post by: Dai


Neutral - not really a fan of the 8th/9th game mechanics but still get a lot of joy from models, lore, art etc.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 07:28:53


Post by: ccs


Game: Generally fun. Better than it was. Still plenty of room for improvement. So positive.

Models: Great models as always. Still room for improvement considering Finecast is still around.
Model release: Generally fine so far.
Model prices..... Some of the prices are firmly in the realm of the absurd.
Other than some of the prices? Positive.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 07:28:55


Post by: AngryAngel80


Negative, though the positive is odd as it basically reads what I think. It's ok, but it's trending to bloat and self implosion and I don't think that is at all a good game state.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 07:36:02


Post by: harlokin


I like 9th edition, the new codexes, and the Drukhari Crusade rules in particular.

I'm not fond of how the codex rollout is being handled, and am frustrated with how GW prioritises model releases.

Overall, pretty positive.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 07:45:16


Post by: Slipspace


I went with negative but more because of the direction I can see the game going in than the position we're in right now. Right now I think it's hovering between vaguely positive and vaguely negative depending on which aspect of the game we're looking at.

I think the move towards no model, no rules and an increasing focus on big centrepiece models and generally trying to make the game bigger with more and more models and more and more lethality has pushed the gameplay away from what I prefer. The new mission structure in 9th is better than 8th but I think GW have shown their inability to balance anything properly with the way secondaries have been handled.

The game still works fine between likeminded individuals, I think, so I guess the state of the game depends mostly on having those people to play with.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 08:02:53


Post by: Not Online!!!


Negative.
for one, well main army is legends now.
For two, gw seems to even make fun of that with the recent regimental standard.
For three, the corporate greed sabotaging the balance cue first day DLC and cut content. Oh and we are seemingly back in the not listening to playtesters / trying to actually make a ruleset worth a damn with the recen book of rust....



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 08:05:06


Post by: Karol


I think the game is better, and by a lot, then it was through out 8th. Specially as over all balance goes for multiple armies.

I think my own army is a lot more fun to play, then it was in 9th.

On the model side of things, I am more or less neutral. We didn't get any models in 8th, unless some limited stuff I will never be able to get is counted. This time we are suppose to get Crow, but considering him being in a big box and being power armoured, it is just as good as if the model has not existed.

All in all a lot more positive expiriance then 8th ed was, at any moment.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 08:06:01


Post by: a_typical_hero


Very positive. The game is in a great place and it can (and should) still improve.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 08:28:26


Post by: kirotheavenger


I think this is an interesting demonstrating in the different opinions of polls vs posts.
In the poll, positive outweights negative 2:1, in the comments it's more like 50/50.

Anyway,
 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Negative, though the positive is odd as it basically reads what I think. It's ok, but it's trending to bloat and self implosion and I don't think that is at all a good game state.

This pretty accurately sums up my opinions.
Although I think the bloat's already here and it's only getting worse.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 08:58:27


Post by: vict0988


Points and Eternal War/GT missions aren't even a groundwork for balance, Chapter Tactics makes units theoretically impossible to balance, GW basically needs to start fresh in order to make the game balanced.

1W CSM, TS and GK is a joke, 8" burnas are a joke, Monoliths, Repulsors and Impulsors without FLY is a joke. There is really no standpoint from which this flies, balance, narrative or game design.

You can still have fun with unbalanced games and the core game mechanics are the best they've been since I started in 5th edition. All the gamey bs that made me feel bad in 8th was fixed, so I feel very negative about 40k because while there are a lot of issues, with a year of effort it could be unbelievably good.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 09:04:07


Post by: addnid


It was "great" before drukhari, now it is just "good". Still the best edition yet, but still lots of room for improvement.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 09:06:38


Post by: harlokin


 addnid wrote:
It was "great" before drukhari....


Them's fightin' words


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 09:08:38


Post by: Not Online!!!


considering the Dex is less an issue and more the piecemeal sales of cut content first day dlc without seemingly any quality controll of it. yeah i agree with harlokin on this one.

Granted the raider could stomach a pts hike...


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 09:10:12


Post by: Blackie


Very positive, the game is in one of its greatest moments ever.

The only things I really don't like are rules bloat, the amount of dice rolling which is definitely too high, and the common presence of big models. I miss the times when the Battlewagon was the centerpiece model of an ork army and considered a huge miniature, while the heroes were just the same size or slightly bigger than regular infantries.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 09:27:59


Post by: addnid


I really hate that tiny models, such as a succubus, drazhar or that harlequin solitary fool, can kill huge monsters in one swoop. Teeth of terra dark angel interrogator chaplain is just as bad (I play DA).
It just completely breaks the immersion for me (though i did love dragon ball z as a kid, but DBZ is not 40k), and it would simply require GW to be a bit more careful with buff stacking, which is very infuriating. Many things are complicated to fix in 40k, but avoiding buff stacking is not.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 09:31:51


Post by: kirotheavenger


I definitely agree on the big models.
Not only are they big, but posing makes them huge (eg outstretched wings) and they're very easy to break, such as swirling lightning effects or trailing parchment supporting the entire model.
I know many friends need to bring an entire case just to transport their one centrepiece model. It's silly.
I used to think Droppods were a pain in the bum!


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 09:53:58


Post by: jaredb


For me, 40k is in the best place it's been in a while. I certainly really enjoy this edition so far!


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 10:02:35


Post by: Deadnight


Neutral on the main 40k game, loving the boxed games like necromunda and kill team.

In terms of models, it's the best it's ever been in my mind.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 10:24:58


Post by: Voss


Negative. Too much rules bloat and too much offensive power and dice rolling. And rerolling. If you're rolling over a hundred dice to resolve one unit's action, something has gone badly wrong with the rule set.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 10:36:44


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Generally ok, but on a downward trend for the past 18 months or so.

8th was overall pretty well-done (not perfect, but hey), before Marines imploded it. 9th feels like a more bloated continuation of the bad final act of 8th. Kinda the 6th edition to the lean (pre-GK) 5th Edition.

Love the models, but kinda bracing for a history-repeats-itself of 9th = 6th Edition, 10th = 7th Edition, before GW once again have to pull the emergency break for 11th edition or something.





How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 11:03:32


Post by: Blackie


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I definitely agree on the big models.
Not only are they big, but posing makes them huge (eg outstretched wings) and they're very easy to break, such as swirling lightning effects or trailing parchment supporting the entire model.
I know many friends need to bring an entire case just to transport their one centrepiece model. It's silly.
I used to think Droppods were a pain in the bum!


Yeah, I hate them on any possible level. Conceptwise as I don't like superheroes, unkillable units or stuff that does most of the work alone, but also in practise as they're a massive investment of points and money, due to their nature (high values in their profiles, massive amount of wargear and special rules) they are typically either overpowered or trash, they're a pain to carry and to move on the table and some of them are also extremely fragile.

I haven't bought anything bigger than a Battlewagon or a Land Raider yet so to me Drop Pods are still the worst experience ever in building a model .


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 11:16:35


Post by: Marshal Loss


Positive about the game itself, negative about GW's continued handling of codex/rules releases.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 11:17:50


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


Overall the game is fine, you have to write your own missions as always.
Just needs an activation system instead of IGOUGO.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 11:30:09


Post by: the_scotsman


Overall, I think the 9th edition codexes are a massive improvement over 8th edition in the amount of effort GW is putting in.

In 8th, they almost totally relied on the simple stupid manufactured discontent of having factions that had their full rules playing vs factions that had 50% of your rules, so your codex is obviously going to be an improvement...you're going to get your full fething rules, and you wont have to fight vs people who get chapter tactics, warlord traits, relics and stratagems while you...don't...

In 9th, theyre actually significantly redesigning each faction's stats and abilities and I don't think a single faction hasn't been restructured in a significant way. The only thing that's frustrating is their priorities of who needs a codex the most is just....bonkers.

Currently we have the barest tiniest hint of GSC being one of the more distant upcoming books, but otherwise like...Admech were already doing alright, admittedly their original model range is just fething screaming for rules updates but they had their new model wave pumping in new life, and sisters already have "the 9th edition super special extra rule" for crying out loud and were the last 8th ed codex. Orks were a late 8th 'dex as well, and while they have some problems, have consistently had multiple styles of viable builds to play around with, I have never felt bad bringing orks since the codex came out.

Compare any of those three armies' current state with the state of fething Eldar, or Tau, or Guard, or the actual Tyranid codex (not talking the FW options people are occasionally riding to a sneaky tourney win), or GSC, and the situation is fething DIRE. Everything is still busted as hell from the original 9th ed points pass when for some reason gw decided they had to collossally smack down all the armies that were structurally the worst at 9th, and most of them (guard, eldar, tsons, and nids) are playing almost unchanged datasheets out of the indexes from 8th. I was looking at a Wraithknight out of curiosity the other day because someone said their stats were bad, and I did not REALIZE just how BAD THAT SITUATION WAS, like the big huge fuckoff cannon on a wraithknight is a freaking glorified twin lascannon, the full melee version of the thing is still A4 still WS3+ unlike the all-melee knight, and the version of the thing that gets just one big gun is like "2D6 shots S6 AP-2 D2, so like, a pair of super downgraded regular plasma cannons hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm SIXTY POINTS!!!"

There's a lot of units running around like that in the game. An eldar guardian is still +1BS, +1S on his gun, +2" movement compared to a guardsman, DOUBLE the point cost. An aberrant is still a completely naked no armor whatsoever Thunder Hammer terminator with no shock assault for like -5 points, every nid monster is still swinging like 4 WS4+ attacks, CSM GK and Tsons still have 1W... and they're like "Gotta get that Sisters codex out there though!"


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 11:37:52


Post by: Tarvitz77


I have gone with positive. I'm pretty happy with the state of the rules as they are and think they're the best they've been in a while. But there is one thing that bugs me (and quite a lot) which people bring up often.

It's just so damn lethal. I love the crusade rules that let you make your force and give a framework for them to gain experience and progress, but it runs so counter to what actually happens in the games. Often, units don't fight each other, they totally obliterate each other. Offense and defense seem so out of whack that I'm actually dreading what is going to happen when more of the shooty codices come out (and I own Eldar and Tau!).

Someone made an excellent comparison to chess in another thread. Units kill each other so thoroughly that it's more like you're trading pieces than having squads of badasses fight each other to the death, which means it's much rarer (though not impossible) for that lone survivor of your marine/ork/eldar/whatever squad to perform some feat of heroism that makes you remember them in future games.

I would also be against units being invincible, but there has to be some sort of middle ground where units can feel powerful but your troops don't get deleted as quickly as they do.

So basically happy, but very prepared to be unhappy as the edition progresses.

As for models, I'm a little disappointed in some of the sisters releases as they seem pretty uninspired, but I'm looking forward to getting some mace/halberd girls and seeing if I can convert up a dogmata. Hoping the future brings us some more cool xenos releases as demonstrated by the orks.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 11:45:27


Post by: wuestenfux


Disappointing is the state of codices, some are new and some are old in the new edition.
It could happen that SM will get a new codex before every other codex has been updated.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 12:02:31


Post by: vict0988


Guardians cost 8, same as they did in 8th when they were competitive. Guardsmen cost 5,5, 38% more than they did in 8th when they were competitive.

Sisters are coming out because GW has new models for them, the game comes second to the models and the profit. Models are made years in advance. GW should absolutely release more errata for struggling factions and releasing objectives for new armies but not for old armies is total BS.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 12:12:36


Post by: the_scotsman


 Tarvitz77 wrote:
I have gone with positive. I'm pretty happy with the state of the rules as they are and think they're the best they've been in a while. But there is one thing that bugs me (and quite a lot) which people bring up often.

It's just so damn lethal. I love the crusade rules that let you make your force and give a framework for them to gain experience and progress, but it runs so counter to what actually happens in the games. Often, units don't fight each other, they totally obliterate each other. Offense and defense seem so out of whack that I'm actually dreading what is going to happen when more of the shooty codices come out (and I own Eldar and Tau!).

Someone made an excellent comparison to chess in another thread. Units kill each other so thoroughly that it's more like you're trading pieces than having squads of badasses fight each other to the death, which means it's much rarer (though not impossible) for that lone survivor of your marine/ork/eldar/whatever squad to perform some feat of heroism that makes you remember them in future games.

I would also be against units being invincible, but there has to be some sort of middle ground where units can feel powerful but your troops don't get deleted as quickly as they do.

So basically happy, but very prepared to be unhappy as the edition progresses.

As for models, I'm a little disappointed in some of the sisters releases as they seem pretty uninspired, but I'm looking forward to getting some mace/halberd girls and seeing if I can convert up a dogmata. Hoping the future brings us some more cool xenos releases as demonstrated by the orks.


I find myself almost always proposing some kind of houserule to reduce deadliness when I play games, and it generally makes the game more fun. A lot of the time, just "everything gets +1 to their save rolls" works pretty well and incredibly simply.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 13:31:33


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I put "negative" but not "very negative."

I generally enjoy 40k, but I enjoy it less than many of the other games I play and would always play those in preference if I could.

I don't like competition, and Crusade doesn't do it for me as a narrative system. I find myself building my own narrative campaigns anyways, using Crusade as the progression system... but narrative campaigns don't always need a progression system anyways, so it doesn't even help with those.

As a game, 40k lacks what I want from a game, which is the ability to narratively parse the storyline and tell it from stem to stern. This is especially notable with tanks - consider the case where 3 Lascannon shots leave a Russ with 1 wound left, and then a boltgun shot kills it.

Who killed it? With what sort of hit? Did the crew survive? Was it a morale issue and a concern for the company commander (i.e. the crew bailed out of an otherwise perfectly good tank) or was the tank severely damaged somehow and I need to write a narrative about working with the Mechanicus to secure a replacement or repair?

Crusade would award the XP (where relevant) to the boltgun-armed Marine. Is that really the case? Should the Marine player write about the heroic Intercessor that put a bolt-round through the driver's hatch and detonated the ammunition somehow? Or really was it the lascannons that killed it, and the fact that the last wound done by a boltgun was simply the last shot taken in a series of "simultaneous" events irrelevant?

40k does not give me the mechanism to parse that narrative, yet GW keeps forcing in process-oriented narrative mechanics despite it being an outcome-oriented game. I foresee that this will continue to get worse.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 14:13:40


Post by: AnomanderRake


I put "very negative". Everything that's been wrong with the game since the scale creep started at the end of 5th is still wrong, and since the community's largely composed of people who started post-8th and have been fed exaggerated horror stories about unkillable deathstars and OP formation bonuses there's a pervasive myth running around that GW's somehow improved because they release nonfunctional/untested rules slightly more frequently than they used to, so GW's got no incentive to get any better since their PR has gotten so much better without them having to improve the game at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think this is an interesting demonstrating in the different opinions of polls vs posts.
In the poll, positive outweights negative 2:1, in the comments it's more like 50/50...


Personally I'm interested in the fact that we're getting posts saying "positive, only I just like the minis releases and don't like the game much" or "positive, but you still have to write your own rules for stuff" or "positive, but IGOUGO is still killing the game." I'd be interested in the results of a more targeted poll asking just about the rules and see if people still say "everything's great in spite of the fact that the rules still don't work."


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 14:35:03


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 the_scotsman wrote:
Overall, I think the 9th edition codexes are a massive improvement over 8th edition in the amount of effort GW is putting in.

In 8th, they almost totally relied on the simple stupid manufactured discontent of having factions that had their full rules playing vs factions that had 50% of your rules, so your codex is obviously going to be an improvement...you're going to get your full fething rules, and you wont have to fight vs people who get chapter tactics, warlord traits, relics and stratagems while you...don't...

In 9th, theyre actually significantly redesigning each faction's stats and abilities and I don't think a single faction hasn't been restructured in a significant way. The only thing that's frustrating is their priorities of who needs a codex the most is just....bonkers.

Currently we have the barest tiniest hint of GSC being one of the more distant upcoming books, but otherwise like...Admech were already doing alright, admittedly their original model range is just fething screaming for rules updates but they had their new model wave pumping in new life, and sisters already have "the 9th edition super special extra rule" for crying out loud and were the last 8th ed codex. Orks were a late 8th 'dex as well, and while they have some problems, have consistently had multiple styles of viable builds to play around with, I have never felt bad bringing orks since the codex came out.

Compare any of those three armies' current state with the state of fething Eldar, or Tau, or Guard, or the actual Tyranid codex (not talking the FW options people are occasionally riding to a sneaky tourney win), or GSC, and the situation is fething DIRE. Everything is still busted as hell from the original 9th ed points pass when for some reason gw decided they had to collossally smack down all the armies that were structurally the worst at 9th, and most of them (guard, eldar, tsons, and nids) are playing almost unchanged datasheets out of the indexes from 8th. I was looking at a Wraithknight out of curiosity the other day because someone said their stats were bad, and I did not REALIZE just how BAD THAT SITUATION WAS, like the big huge fuckoff cannon on a wraithknight is a freaking glorified twin lascannon, the full melee version of the thing is still A4 still WS3+ unlike the all-melee knight, and the version of the thing that gets just one big gun is like "2D6 shots S6 AP-2 D2, so like, a pair of super downgraded regular plasma cannons hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm SIXTY POINTS!!!"

There's a lot of units running around like that in the game. An eldar guardian is still +1BS, +1S on his gun, +2" movement compared to a guardsman, DOUBLE the point cost. An aberrant is still a completely naked no armor whatsoever Thunder Hammer terminator with no shock assault for like -5 points, every nid monster is still swinging like 4 WS4+ attacks, CSM GK and Tsons still have 1W... and they're like "Gotta get that Sisters codex out there though!"


Yup, nailed it. I have many armies (Eldar, Tyranids, Guard, Emperor's Children, Harlequins, Necrons). With the Necrons, when I play them even against the DE or DA or whatever player in my group, it's FUN because I feel like an equal player. With Harlequins, I get that feeling too but I feel bad running them because they beat up on the have-nots in my playgroup. With all the other books... it's just lacklustre. Lame. I have large model collections of all of those armies so I can min-max but I don't want to do that. I want to run the fluffy, cool lists that I can write for Necrons and not get the crap beat out of me.

I just can't. Looking at the 9e Codexes, they're SO GOOD. Looking at the core rules of the game, they're the best they've been in a long time. And yet, I still had to put my answer to the poll as "negative" because out of the $$$$ I have spent on my armies, only running 1 army is really bringing me joy right now.

Like you said, the Codex priorities are just kind of bizarre. I know GW's lead times are long enough that they can't exactly write codices to fix meta imbalances, but even if they just sequenced things similarly to how they did it in 8e, it would be better. Most of those armies you listed as being nonfunctional were early 8e codexes; you'd think they would get boosts relatively early in 9e! Instead, the only really early 8e books GW has prioritized are Admech (who didn't need it given that new model line) and DG (I can't begrudge them there). Throwing books at Orks and Sisters and SM to start the edition is just feelsbad to me.

If GW could just get their together the second half of this year, 9e could be massively salvaged. I'm hoping that'll be the case but I don't think I'm optimistic.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 14:36:01


Post by: PenitentJake


Karol wrote:
I think the game is better, and by a lot, then it was through out 8th. Specially as over all balance goes for multiple armies.

I think my own army is a lot more fun to play, then it was in 9th.

On the model side of things, I am more or less neutral. We didn't get any models in 8th, unless some limited stuff I will never be able to get is counted. This time we are suppose to get Crow, but considering him being in a big box and being power armoured, it is just as good as if the model has not existed.

All in all a lot more positive expiriance then 8th ed was, at any moment.


I feel you on Crowe trapped in a box; but so was Lelith (Piety and Pain released mid-late Feb); she preorders as a standalone this weekend.

True that we still don't have stand-alone Greater Possessed, Venom Crawlers, Obliterators or a Master of Possession- they haven't been very nice to chaos.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 15:06:18


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Overall, I think the 9th edition codexes are a massive improvement over 8th edition in the amount of effort GW is putting in.

In 8th, they almost totally relied on the simple stupid manufactured discontent of having factions that had their full rules playing vs factions that had 50% of your rules, so your codex is obviously going to be an improvement...you're going to get your full fething rules, and you wont have to fight vs people who get chapter tactics, warlord traits, relics and stratagems while you...don't...

In 9th, theyre actually significantly redesigning each faction's stats and abilities and I don't think a single faction hasn't been restructured in a significant way. The only thing that's frustrating is their priorities of who needs a codex the most is just....bonkers.

Currently we have the barest tiniest hint of GSC being one of the more distant upcoming books, but otherwise like...Admech were already doing alright, admittedly their original model range is just fething screaming for rules updates but they had their new model wave pumping in new life, and sisters already have "the 9th edition super special extra rule" for crying out loud and were the last 8th ed codex. Orks were a late 8th 'dex as well, and while they have some problems, have consistently had multiple styles of viable builds to play around with, I have never felt bad bringing orks since the codex came out.

Compare any of those three armies' current state with the state of fething Eldar, or Tau, or Guard, or the actual Tyranid codex (not talking the FW options people are occasionally riding to a sneaky tourney win), or GSC, and the situation is fething DIRE. Everything is still busted as hell from the original 9th ed points pass when for some reason gw decided they had to collossally smack down all the armies that were structurally the worst at 9th, and most of them (guard, eldar, tsons, and nids) are playing almost unchanged datasheets out of the indexes from 8th. I was looking at a Wraithknight out of curiosity the other day because someone said their stats were bad, and I did not REALIZE just how BAD THAT SITUATION WAS, like the big huge fuckoff cannon on a wraithknight is a freaking glorified twin lascannon, the full melee version of the thing is still A4 still WS3+ unlike the all-melee knight, and the version of the thing that gets just one big gun is like "2D6 shots S6 AP-2 D2, so like, a pair of super downgraded regular plasma cannons hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm SIXTY POINTS!!!"

There's a lot of units running around like that in the game. An eldar guardian is still +1BS, +1S on his gun, +2" movement compared to a guardsman, DOUBLE the point cost. An aberrant is still a completely naked no armor whatsoever Thunder Hammer terminator with no shock assault for like -5 points, every nid monster is still swinging like 4 WS4+ attacks, CSM GK and Tsons still have 1W... and they're like "Gotta get that Sisters codex out there though!"


Yup, nailed it. I have many armies (Eldar, Tyranids, Guard, Emperor's Children, Harlequins, Necrons). With the Necrons, when I play them even against the DE or DA or whatever player in my group, it's FUN because I feel like an equal player. With Harlequins, I get that feeling too but I feel bad running them because they beat up on the have-nots in my playgroup. With all the other books... it's just lacklustre. Lame. I have large model collections of all of those armies so I can min-max but I don't want to do that. I want to run the fluffy, cool lists that I can write for Necrons and not get the crap beat out of me.

I just can't. Looking at the 9e Codexes, they're SO GOOD. Looking at the core rules of the game, they're the best they've been in a long time. And yet, I still had to put my answer to the poll as "negative" because out of the $$$$ I have spent on my armies, only running 1 army is really bringing me joy right now.

Like you said, the Codex priorities are just kind of bizarre. I know GW's lead times are long enough that they can't exactly write codices to fix meta imbalances, but even if they just sequenced things similarly to how they did it in 8e, it would be better. Most of those armies you listed as being nonfunctional were early 8e codexes; you'd think they would get boosts relatively early in 9e! Instead, the only really early 8e books GW has prioritized are Admech (who didn't need it given that new model line) and DG (I can't begrudge them there). Throwing books at Orks and Sisters and SM to start the edition is just feelsbad to me.

If GW could just get their together the second half of this year, 9e could be massively salvaged. I'm hoping that'll be the case but I don't think I'm optimistic.


Yeah I love my orks but boy howdy do they not need a new book more than a ton of factions.

The thing that kills me is the 3 months of Space Wolves/Deathwatch/Blood Angels/Dark Angels supplements, when they had much more functional rules out of their free PDF update and minimal content in codex Space marines than any of Eldar/Tau/Guard/Nids/GSC have right now.

Eldar still have Marines 1.0 style chapter traits - 6++ FNP as the whole trait is the best core book eldar subfaction trait. You know, the one nobody took in Marines 1.0 and said was awful. Tau needed to have 8th ed overwatch and fall back and shoot stapled back onto them to even have a prayer in 9th and theyre repping like a 40% wr even with it. GSC still get no subfaction traits on literally 2/3s of the unit entries in their codex, and have several subfaction trait rules and relic rules busted by 9th ed (+2 to wound on one relic, move and shoot heavy weapons with bikes as 1/2 of one of their traits, etc)

Almost every busted-ass faction in the game could be fine right now if they'd just

1) have released a core CSM codex with get-you-by updoots for Tsons and DG
2) have included GK in the get-you-by pdfs
3) released codexes for tau/guard/eldar/gsc/nids instead of supplements for sw/da/ba/dw and the new DE codex.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 17:19:51


Post by: Racerguy180


Positive with a caveat, I despise the gamey aspects they've introduced. Strats should just be special abilities on datasheets, secondaries need to die a horrible commoragh death & kill half the re-rolls, the dice have spoken and deal with it.

The models are great
The lore is aight
The rules...well they're rules

Biggest thing is GW really needs to stop sucking the proverbial tourney dick!


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 17:28:54


Post by: Unknown_Lifeform


I'm generally feeling very positive but I put myself down as just positive. I love the increased effort on internal and external balance, the more objective focused gameplay of 9th and where the edition looks to be heading. But whilst armies like GSC, Eldar and Tau are still languishing with codexes that have aged extremely badly I can't honestly say "everything is currently great". My very positive feeling is based on hope for the future and the track record of 9th to date in meeting those expectations rather than the games overall current state, which is that of a work in progress.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 17:58:59


Post by: The_Real_Chris


I have still to get a game on the new smaller tables, so no idea game feel wise. Model wise nothing has changed for my armies (IG old, Deathwatch new ish, GSC kinda new), rules wise it isn't very balanced for them which turns me off big games but small narrative stuff should be fine.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 18:12:57


Post by: Seabass


So far, I'm really enjoying 9th edition. What I like is the way the missions are prioritized, the focus on core units vs non-core units, (I actually like this mechanic), and the new terrain rules. I play BA, Khorne Demons (and boy is Anggrath better now! still not great, but playable and fun!!!) space wolves, adeptus mechanicus, Tyranids, black legion, world eaters, and chaos knights, and my favorite army is a tie between Blood Angels and Chaos Knights.

It's a pretty wide range of "good" and "bad" armies but I seem to have a pretty consistent win some lose some game experience and have a lot of fun playing them.

What i would like to see improved is the communication from GW regarding the codex release schedule. I would love to see what the long-term plan is, and I'm sure the rest of the community would too.

Also, after a more recent discussion post, I'm not sure I like the mechanism of the Charadon style books anymore. At first, I didn't really have a problem with them and enjoyed them, but as someone who doesn't play Drukhari or Death Guard, the consideration brought out by others about how they don't like having to get another book for their complete rules does make a great deal make sense (Thank you Yukishiro for taking the time to legitimately answer my question instead of just assuming I was white-knighting and insulting me).

I still find value in the books for other reasons, so I don't mind buying them, but I'm not sure how much I like that model.

Overall, I'm positive. My real life is pretty rough, and I deal with a lot of "heavy" topics daily acting as an interim Grief Counselor and clinical cognitive behavioral therapist, while going to school for my PsyD, so what little time I get to relax and enjoy my hobby outside of my wife and daughter, I gladly take and tend to focus on the positives (which is why I have a reputation, if one at all, as a white knight).

Overall, I'm positive, but some things are needed, namely communication, to help give the players something to look forward to if you're one of those Black Legion or World Eaters players out there like me

The game is fun, it's a hobby that I enjoy and pulls me out of reality into a fantastic setting and a wonderfully valid excuse to hang out with friends. Ultimately, if I am asking for more out of my hobby, I'm placing the wrong expectations on my hobby.

YMMV


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 18:36:35


Post by: ArbitorIan


Yeah, good but with some big caveats:

RULES
8/9ed is a way better ruleset, but it's already got too much bloat for me to keep track of it. Playing Warhammer competitively is silly, so Codex balance is irrelevant. The big issue for me here is that Matched or Crusade are both the standard ways to play and both require tons of homework and prep, and have colossal gaps in balance between people who just want to play a casual game and people who want to spend ages doing the homework. So, base rules: good, spread of rules: bad, amount of work required to play a game: really bad.

MODELS/RELEASES
Great! Models look lovely, though I miss true multi-part kits. The entire concept of 'supporting' particular factions is dumb, so I don't care if they release another Marine next or another Tyranid. Finecast was fine, but I'm glad they're releasing more cool plastic characters. All the outrage over limited releases and stocks also passes me by. I'm fine with just not having a model.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 18:38:23


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


drbored wrote:
As it says in the title.

How do you feel about the state of Warhammer 40k as a game?

I'd like, if you would, to consider also the state of the model releases. Are you feeling positive about the state of the game and the way the models are coming out? Or do you feel negative about the state of the game and hope for change? This is not to say just the 'tournament meta' of the game, but everything around Warhammer 40k, from models to gameplay to update speed, etc.


I feel very negative about the state of the game.

It is mechanically unsatisfying to play, with everything feeling very sort of soft and mushy and "doesn't-die", and nothing really feeling effective or responsive except in accumulation. And then, because units can move, shoot, and assault freely, the game is very aggressive with few limits or tactical trade offs, and is over early as despite almost every weapon feeling mushy and ineffective
On top of that, we're at a level of "free variable rules" and formations-type crap that is only barely short of the free units 7th, and balance is astoundingly terrible.

I would say the downhill started when they came out with SM2.0 and the supplements. The supplements are terrible in every respect, and basically represent a return to the 7e-style of rules writing and motivation. 8th could get over the mechanical unsatisfaction by having really on-point balance until then.


I played 5e for a while recently, and it's astounding how much better 5e feels to play in general than 9e.




As far as model releases and release cycles:
I wish they would revert to the slower codex+models for a month release cycle. I'd rather wait longer for a codex for it to come with new units and kits rather than the way it is now, where rules come and go and it's easier to skip over a army for true updates.
The technical qualities of the models are very high, and aesthetically some of them look really good, but I'd really like to see new kits for the "old" big factions, and am pretty tired out on Space Marines. I have an enormous backlog of unpainted SM models, and I still haven't got ones that I want to get and really like, like the Repulsor Executioner, just because I feel swamped [and also disinclined to get something that will be a paperweight when I could get something that will see the table]

Really, though, I've redoubled my efforts on Flames of War and Legion, and have been thinking of taking up Dystopian Wars and resuming Dropzone Commander.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 18:43:54


Post by: Quasistellar


I generally like the direction most things are going, I just don't like the inequality some of the armies are seeing along the way.

Tau, CSM, Thousand Sons, Grey Knights. . . there's no reason they couldn't have gotten a few pre-codex updates to at least fix some of their glaring issues like 1 wound marines and no more fall back and shoot for Tau. Heck, even some point updates would have been nice.

I feel like their antiquated book distribution methodology has really shown why it's truly inferior to full digital. A digital ruleset would not care about global shipping issues, and adjustments could be made immediately without needing to wait for books to reach ports.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 18:46:09


Post by: Xenomancers


I feel pretty negative about the state of the game but it is mostly rules and release structure. The models have never been better and there are lots of people playing so there is that.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 19:06:38


Post by: Vaktathi


For my own part, I haven't played much of late, and nothing about the current state of the rules really impresses me all that much to go out of my way to play currently. I've played some solo home games of 8th, but with all the gaming venues shut down playing has been difficult, and as far as I'm concerned the game was probably at its peak state of the last 4 editions ~summer/autumn of 2019 in terms of broad general viability and playability (not that it was perfect by any means), so picking up 9th hasn't been a huge imperative for solo home gaming when I can just stick to that. That may change in the future.

In broader terms, the new models are all gorgeous, I'm glad they're expanding on stuff like Sisters. GW's ability to put out beautiful plastic kits is absolutely unparalleled. I think more people than ever before are into 40k as a setting, and that's a good thing. My bigger issue is that the newer fluff and lore just doesn't do much for me or drive the interest it once did, the increasing Disneyfication in terms of managing 40k as an IP (with unique silly copyrightable but difficult to remember names for everything, every imagineable slice of IP being submarketed, etc) is turn-off, and it's gotten so big that I honestly just can't keep track of it all anymore


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 19:25:12


Post by: waefre_1


I haven't been able to play 9e yet, so my overall is "neutral", but I voted Negative as I'm not particularly optimistic about the way GW has handled 8e since the first few months passed, and I don't see 9e as improving things.

- Indexes were a great way to make sure no one had to play with a codex that simply was not made for the current edition (discontinued, excepting the Space Marines who got fresh codices/supplements shortly thereafter)
- The Community Survey was an excellent means to get in touch with their user base and implied that they wanted to actually hear from us rather than just our credit cards (did that even last a full year? I can only remember the one)
- The return of Regimental doctrines was something I dearly missed from the 3.5e-era codices (but they've been as hit-and-miss as ever. I'm willing to give GW a bit of a pass on this for the moment since we've only had a few 9e dexes come out, but I expect more of the same - a handful of strats/characters/relics, but little that truly changes the way the armies play)
- The Primaris refresh implied that GW was willing to redo entire lines, which was desperately needed for some factions (but years later, IG have bled damn near all of our different regiments with barely an upgrade sprue or Made to Order to show for it, and Eldar kits are still old enough to drink)
- FAQs promised to prevent broken things from staying broken for too long (This one I'll give GW - they haven't been the best, but they are still doing them at least)
- 8e allegedly being a "living edition" implied that the codex churn would be a thing of the past ()

Add to that the continued price increases, often baffling design/production choices, and increase in the number of kits that are monopose and/or appear intended for desk displays rather than tabletop play, and I just can't muster the excitement and optimism that I felt when 8e dropped.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 19:46:19


Post by: Vilehydra


Currently I'm Neutral, because I like the way the rules have gone for the most part (compared with 8th that is). Excepting Druhkari, most codices have been brought in line and had most of the egregious things removed (namely doubleshoots/fights).

The main issues I have (as others here also seem to have) are to do with codex rollouts and centerpiece models:

Centerpiece models just warp the gameplay, It just keeps stretching the design space of the game beyond what it can bear - especially with GW's unwillingness to have units greater then T8. I fully acknowledge this is about taste, but I despise herohammer and seeing named super characters almost every fight, and am currently guilty of having to bring my own as a counter to those characters.

The Codex rollouts have also just been bad. I'm a Salamander player - Marine supplements shouldn't be a thing, but they ESPECIALLY should not have been one of the first things on the codex rollouts. And if they were going to be one of the first things, they shouldn't have split them over the course of what they've done. I think it's fair that Marines got their codex first, they have the greatest market share of players - being first also generally dulls the army effectiveness over time by means of power creep/meta-familiarity.
But the way they've rolled out the Marine Supplements now is just.... why? If supplements were absolutely needed then it should've been (Marine Codex -> Literally every single other codex -> Supplements)

But as it is they've maximized the amount of dissatisfaction -
Non-Marines get to watch marine chapters get two rulesets before they get one
Players will have to deal with FoTM marines that end up taking advantage of whatever broken interactions come out of supplements
And Marine Players who enjoy specific chapters that have to wait for their supplements whilst other chapters already have their own


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 20:57:56


Post by: jeff white


Negative for reasons stated by others already.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 21:02:33


Post by: yukishiro1


Hard to pick one or the other. There are many positive aspects, and many negative ones. The base ruleset for the 9th is the best they've had in a while, maybe ever.

But there are lots of problems with the implementation, and they're being made much worse by the slow pace of getting out codexes, and the terrible decision to slow down the codex release in order to instead accommodate day-1 DLC nonsense. That terrible decision also contributes to the rules bloat that is becoming incredibly unwieldy even for veteran players, and is keeping newer players from getting a foothold because the sheer amonut of rules you need to grasp is becoming more and more absurd.

I chose neutral but my real opinion is more like very positive and very negative at the same time. The big frustration is that it feels like they have a really solid foundation, but they're mutilating what gets built on top of that foundation.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 21:14:27


Post by: Just Tony


The state of 40K is such that I went back to playing a version of the game that is almost 25 years old...


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/21 23:20:46


Post by: Vankraken


Very negative for me. 8th and 9th are an unfun mess of a game due to the gutting of the core rules (super bare bones with all the rules being slapped on top from the codexes, this is not a good way to design a game to have any meaningful depth). Power creep is still problematic so it's not like GW really learned any lessions about quality rules writing. The community by and large just devours whatever gak GW shovels out so the actions I greatly despise from GW are being financially rewarded which means there is little chance for a reverse course towards a game that is more like previous editions. It made me bitter to the hobby because all of my work, passion, and love for the hobby was shot when GW releases 8th. Now the bitterness has faded to having moments where I care but I'm too tired of being frustrated with the game to try and put any effort into it anymore. Worst part is seeing how now "it's the best 40k has ever been" is a common sentiment while this "best" smoothered the love I have/had for 40k.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 05:02:34


Post by: Zeruel13


Over-all kind of negative for me, but maybe leaning towards neutral. I don't mind the core rules of 9th but there's still things about the rules that bother me.

I don't particularly like anything can hurt anything, I miss the days where to kill a tank you need an anti-tank weapon. Now it feels like I lose as many Rhinos to massed bolter rifle fire in tactical doctrine as I do to melta guns and lascannons. I really don't like how torqued offensive firepower is, it's got to the point where a codex has to limit damage per phase, allow getting wounds back, halving or minimizing incoming damage, have multiple layers of saves/ignore wounds and in many cases several at the prior at once for a model to even be considered survivable.

I don't like how many innate unit special rules and wargear options have become stratagems, not that I mind stratagems as a concept, I just think they're poorly implemented and there's far too many of them. I don't get to game more than one or twice a week and between other games that means I might play 40K two or three times a month and I can't even begin to think of how many times I've probably missed to a situation to use a strat because I simply forgot it existed in my mitt full of cards, let alone get past the dread 'gotcha' moment of an opponent's strat because how can be expected to know 40 stratagems for each other army let alone mine.

Then there's all the bloat, which isn't to say the rules are bad in and of themselves but when I have to buy my Dark Eldar book and then buy some campaign book that released on the same day to have access to all my rules, it feels like day one DLC and a sad money grab. They came out on the same day, any rules should be in the Dark Eldar codex. I mean if it was only crusade rules for expanding into a themed campaign, or the rules were optional campaign rules and not actually legal for standard match play then sure by all means release a cool campaign supplement but don't make it something I really need to have to have my complete matched play rules. That's kind of infuriating.

I don't want to dwell to negatively though and like I said I think the core of 9th is kind of okay. I haven't played a lot of 9th yet, only really when it first came out and then kind of fell away from it. My main armies are Craftworlds and Night Lords, so I don't even feel like I can keep up with the newer books. Also as a guy who likes the lore and thematic play, the fact that my Astartes (along with GK and TS) have only a single wound and other Marines have two at the same time just irks me to no end.

I'd also like to echo the sentiment of a few I've seen here too. I HATE centre piece models. I broke into 40K when this game was about an army. I can't stand always seeing the same big model in every list, I want it to be about the grunts, the tanks, and handful of elite warriors, not Mortarion vs Guilliman every game with cannon fodder on each side to make them look good (I know that's a slight exaggeration). 9th core rules had potential but more and more 40K has just stopped feeling like 40K. Maybe it's the newer style of game, a little simpler, more combo based and streamlined. I like my crunchy games (avid lover of Battletech and WHFB) so maybe I'm just not the target audience anymore.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 06:14:45


Post by: Crackedgear


I’m mostly a fan. My only real big complaint is how the power creep works. Like a codex will come out with some sort of faction defining special rule, but then the next codex has that rule too, and now your faction doesn’t feel so unique. Especially when a few months later the marines get a better version of that rule.

Personally I’ve been keeping track of every faction that’s had transhuman added with their update. As far as I know it started with chaos knights, then marines got it, then necrons, think there’s at least a death guard warlord trait, then drukhari got the weird version, and of course dark angels got it. Probably missed some too.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 06:37:04


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Very interesting data so far. Few people in the neutral and almost everyone, even from those who like it, agree the game could use improvement (and I doubt they mean it in the sense of 'well things could always be a little better...'). Those who are negative trend much more into thinking it is in an extremely bad place.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 07:00:46


Post by: aphyon


For anybody who has read any of my posts, i am hard in the very negative camp.

I think 9th in fact rivals 6th edition as probably the worst edition ever made.

the bloat, the clunky time consuming game mechanics that make the game drag out, the scoring system, the excessive lethality, the lack of personal creative ownership, the reality that the game is focused on comp play (crusade is a bone that most people looking for a pick up game at the FLGS are not going after including regulars)

Much like Inquisitor Lord Katherine discovered our group going back and playing 5th with a few house rules is way more fun than anything that 9th has to offer. and more importantly is FEELS like 40K.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 09:51:12


Post by: addnid


I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 12:23:08


Post by: aphyon


 addnid wrote:
I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me


We have an entire topic on this


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page


But the short answer is yes
5th is the core rules set with the 15 house rules(imports of better versions of the rules from the other related editions that we all agreed on needed to be in the 5th ed rules set) but you can use any codex that is compatible from 3rd-7th however you must adhere to the 5th ed USRs all new models from newer codexes are allowed and easy to backfill into the codex of your choice. our chaos player uses the 3.5 codex and imported the helldrake into the codex with no issues.

Also nobody needs to buy any new GW models since we all have huge collections to choose from. If there is something we need. there are plenty of people selling the older kits (pre-8th) online.

Additional note, because i dislike 9th do not proceed from the idea i don't understand it. the pandemic never completely shut us down we just moved to limited private invite only gaming for about 6 months where people played many different games including 9th


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 15:41:45


Post by: Gnarlly


Overall negative for me for late 8th and current 9th editions for me, for many of the same reasons stated by others (i.e. lethality, stratagems, rules bloat, etc.). I actually liked early 8th (the Index era, and just prior to the 8th Space Marines 2.0 codex). The new Apocalypse however is the best 40k release in a long time and makes for some simple and fun games with more strategic decisions than the current 9th ruleset. I'm also a fan of older editions (4th/5th) and much prefer those rulesets and codexes over the current editions.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 17:13:45


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 addnid wrote:
I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me


One appeal of older editions to me is that the Riptide, Wraithknight, and Lords of War in regular games just aren't a thing. If everybody in the playgroup was playing in 5th, then we all have 5e-compatible collections.

If all else fails, models that have been introduced since then proxy for models that were valid at the time, or have drop-fit conversions [IE: a wyvern becomes a griffin by dropping a new turret with a mortar on it on the turret ring].


As we don't use any house rules or adapters. We could do something about wound allocation, but we'd rather play it straight.

Agreeing on house rules is, in general, hard. For example, I wouldn't abide by almost all of the house rules aphyon has, in my opinion reduced rapid fire restrictions, overwatch, snap shots, non troop scoring, and flyers were all overwhelmingly negative contributions to the game [and I have specific reasoning behind all of those for another place and another time], and the others don't actually improve the game, or remedy the editions known deficiencies.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 17:20:37


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 addnid wrote:
I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me


One appeal of older editions to me is that the Riptide, Wraithknight, and Lords of War in regular games just aren't a thing. If everybody in the playgroup was playing in 5th, then we all have 5e-compatible collections.

If all else fails, models that have been introduced since then proxy for models that were valid at the time, or have drop-fit conversions [IE: a wyvern becomes a griffin by dropping a new turret with a mortar on it on the turret ring].


it's also not particulary difficult really.
Take the lord discordant f.e. you can easily just make him into a count as DP with the same price, like one with wings, forgoe the psy for the aura and there done.
It's not rocket science.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 17:23:25


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 addnid wrote:
I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me


One appeal of older editions to me is that the Riptide, Wraithknight, and Lords of War in regular games just aren't a thing. If everybody in the playgroup was playing in 5th, then we all have 5e-compatible collections.

If all else fails, models that have been introduced since then proxy for models that were valid at the time, or have drop-fit conversions [IE: a wyvern becomes a griffin by dropping a new turret with a mortar on it on the turret ring].


it's also not particulary difficult really.
Take the lord discordant f.e. you can easily just make him into a count as DP with the same price, like one with wings, forgoe the psy for the aura and there done.
It's not rocket science.


It's not a matter of difficulty. A, just use the DP's rules, keep the psy, no aura, and B, as I said, to some degree we just don't want those units in the game, so there isn't a need to adapt them.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 18:38:33


Post by: gibbindefs


Very Negative.

Fiddly rules: Weird coherency (over 5 models you can randomly lose models if you didn't perfectly align them within 2'' of two other models. If they wanted to stop daisy chaining they could've taken a page out of warmachine and had coherency based on diameter of the entire squad or radius from a sgt model.) <core> tag is clunky, if you want buffs to only effect certain units they could've used keywords that already existed. Too many secondary objectives and the secondary objectives aren't balanced across factions. I also wish the game had alternating activations. It's 2021 FFS.

Stratagems: There are way too many stratagems and they have lost focus of what they were meant to be. The list either needs to be very small or very generic. Stratagems shouldn't be a replacement for special rules on a unit. Units had some of their rules gutted and transferred into stratagems. Stratagems should be about simplistic "command" style orders, that you as the general give to your army. They should not be powerful generic bonuses or weird situational special rules. There are just entirely too many of them and it also leads to gotcha moments.

Lethality: The board is smaller, everything is deadlier. Tanks don't feel like tanks, they feel like they are made of paper, and melt if anything looks at them funny.

Faction Unbalance: It's been almost a year since 9th came out and we still have CSM and GK with 1 wound. Eldar, GSC, and Tau feel incredibly weak. They really should've released an index at the start of 9th. Necrons already feel like they are already getting power crept by the newer releases.

Outrageous Prices: GW is back at it again...


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 20:33:34


Post by: jeff white


 addnid wrote:
Spoiler:
I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?


I am genuinely curious as to how that works.
Spoiler:


I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for
me


Besides as the Lord inquisitor has pointed out, no big things that don’t belong there, another nice thing is that flying tanks are land raiders or chimeras etc, restartes are marines and so on... does the work of retconning GW idiocy with one simple change.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 20:43:22


Post by: Sim-Life


I think I voted Very Negative. I couldn't be bothered explaining my reasons at the time but I may as well.

Rules bloat: I was on board for most of 8th. You had a codex and it was cool. Then they just kept releasing more and more supplements and scattering rules all over the place and I couldn't keep up any more and just gave up trying.

Book Keeping: So I liked 40k as a beer-and-pretzels game. I liked that you could throw an army on the table and go and only worry about universal army rules which applied to everything. Now you need to remember faction specific rules and some other "battle forged" special rule most armies have which is often a random effect. Then there's also secondaries, strategems (including faction specific ones), warlord traits etc not to mention how all these things interact and exceptions to rules within the rules themselves. It's just too much effort for one game. I consider myself pretty good at keeping rules in my head but I don't think I've played a game of 40k where I've haven't realised that I've forgotten multiple rules after the game.

Release schedule: It's far too fast. The meta barely gets time to settle before something comes along to screw it up. I was hoping that with the release of 9th and all the 8th codexes updated they would slow down the codex churn but no. We waited how long for a Sisters dex and it was only 2 years old before they announced a new one. I'm genuinly shocked that there wasn't more outrage over Space Marines having LESS THAN A YEAR between two of theirs.

Models: The only thing I'm fairly okay about. Aside from their massive boner for baby-carrier walkers the sculpts have mostly been okay. Far too many people carting around huge chunks of rock to stand on or pointless details to pump up the cost on centrepiece models. Did the Silent King really need a gigantic throne, his two besties and some floating plastic slabs? Why couldn't have have just been a Guilliman/Abaddon/Swarmlord scale necron and cost half as much? And this relates to a big problem I have, the prices are out of control. I simply cannot justify the prices GW are asking any more. I'll get maybe one game a month and spending 50 euro on a few plastic models just isn't worth it when I can buy a board game at a similar price that I'll play three times as much and will give me a better sense of value.

Gameplay: Every game of 40k I've seen has been an game of two people setting up a lovely board full of cool hand made terrain, setting up lovingly painted armies and then spending the next 3-4 hours using RNG to decide what order they're put away in. Or at least whatever player goes second does. And it's not even like the first player has any difficult decisions to make. They just declare what they're shooting at and then spends turn 2-3 collecting secondaries.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 21:20:37


Post by: gibbindefs


 Sim-Life wrote:
Book Keeping: So I liked 40k as a beer-and-pretzels game. I liked that you could throw an army on the table and go and only worry about universal army rules which applied to everything.


^ This.

I always considered 40k the beer and pretzels game where I could just slap an army on the table, push my toy soldiers forward, and roll dice for some bolters and lascannons. If I wanted a complex system I would be playing Infinity or Necromunda. I played 40k specifically because it was casual and easy to pick up and play. I don't know if it is these days.

Now I play my Necrons and I have to pick protocols pre-game, make sure my units are within range of auras and targeted buffs, remember dozens of stratagems, keep track of secondaries, manage my CP, and know every stratagem and secondary my opponent could possibly use so I don't get caught with my pants down.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 22:22:24


Post by: Blackhair Duckshape


Negative.

I think the rules are pretty good. I wish we could move away from big centerpiece models and treating characters as walking auras.

I absolutely despise the state of the lore, I feel like 40k is undergoing the same degeneration that has claimed so many cherished nerd franchises in recent years, where what originally made them special is eroded away for the sake of mass market appeal. Primaris are the poster boys of this process.

I think the new models look "good" but a lot of them seem to have been made by someone who doesn't actually understand the faction.

I think the Necron and initial SoB model ranges are great.

The Primaris range abandoned the gothic ostentatiousness of the original space marines for sleek and tacticool (some of the more recent Primaris releases have done better in this regard).

The Death Guard range is pretty good but it can be a little bit cartoony with all the sculpted on smoke effects and goofy nurglings everywhere.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 22:31:28


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
Negative.

I think the rules are pretty good. I wish we could move away from big centerpiece models and treating characters as walking auras.

I absolutely despise the state of the lore, I feel like 40k is undergoing the same degenerate that has claimed so many cherished nerd franchises in recent years, where what originally made them special is eroded away for the sake of mass market appeal. Primaris are the poster boys of this process.

I think the new models look "good" but a lot of them seem to have been made by someone who doesn't actually understand the faction.

I think the Necron and initial SoB model ranges are great.

The Primaris range abandoned the gothic ostentatiousness of the original space marines for sleek and tacticool (some of the more recent Primaris releases have done better in this regard).

The Death Guard range is pretty good but it can be a little bit cartoony with all the sculpted on smoke effects and goofy nurglings everywhere.


IMO: The gothic ostentatiousness is really only like DA and BT. Space Marines, and the first wave of Primaris Marines, were formerly an extremely blank canvas, this whole things with "abandoned the gothic ostentatiousness" is flat out wrong; they have more gothic fetishes than they did before, and it's actually the thing I like least about the latest round of guys, because they all come molded with it on and require a lot of careful cutting to take it out.

But, take a look at the "classic" space marine line, like the tactical marines, rhinos, land raiders, and predators. There isn't any gothic tat there, lots of smooth surfaces with the classic sci-fi segmented layered armor on the tanks.


I, personally, also really like the tacticool Space Marines. They're basically what I always wanted in space marines, and I love how ridiculously over the top tacticool they are. I like the tacticool aesthetic enough that my Shadowspear marines basically only got the Space Wolves headswaps [which works out fine anyway: SoF beards!] and a little bit of conversion effort for loadouts, while I did a lot of work on my Indomitus marines to make them Huskarlar instead of Crusaders.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 22:46:57


Post by: BlackoCatto


If only guard could be tacticool and not 20+ years old with pig lipstick.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 22:48:44


Post by: Blackhair Duckshape


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
IMO: The gothic ostentatiousness is really only like DA and BT. Space Marines, and the first wave of Primaris Marines, were formerly an extremely blank canvas, this whole things with "abandoned the gothic ostentatiousness" is flat out wrong; they have more gothic fetishes than they did before, and it's actually the thing I like least about the latest round of guys, because they all come molded with it on and require a lot of careful cutting to take it out.

But, take a look at the "classic" space marine line, like the tactical marines, rhinos, land raiders, and predators. There isn't any gothic tat there, lots of smooth surfaces with the classic sci-fi segmented layered armor on the tanks.
You're probably referring to the more recent wave of Primaris, I mentioned that I liked the increased "gothicness".

They've also done away with that "boxy" aesthetic the vehicles had, like they had been pulled straight out of WW2. Now everything has to float, have all sorts of antennas everywhere, have guns out the wahzoo (can't leave leave home without a tacked on stubber can we?) and has to have this long, sleek prow.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I, personally, also really like the tacticool Space Marines.
I envy you.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 23:16:54


Post by: Argive


A bazilion books being turned over.. these going out of date as fast as they are printed. Really archaic way of doing rules resulting in HIGE bloat and FAQs needing FAQs

Models languishing in garabge finecast and old ass sculpts.

Game play really reliant around combo wombo startegem+relic+trait stacking STILL looking to leverage dice to decide victory rather than manouvering.

Overall - Not good..


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/22 23:34:37


Post by: SamusDrake


Negative, in comparison to Age of Sigmar.

40K is too focused on tournament league tables while AoS seems to be a jack of all trades, with better support and having more fun.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 00:02:05


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
IMO: The gothic ostentatiousness is really only like DA and BT. Space Marines, and the first wave of Primaris Marines, were formerly an extremely blank canvas, this whole things with "abandoned the gothic ostentatiousness" is flat out wrong; they have more gothic fetishes than they did before, and it's actually the thing I like least about the latest round of guys, because they all come molded with it on and require a lot of careful cutting to take it out.

But, take a look at the "classic" space marine line, like the tactical marines, rhinos, land raiders, and predators. There isn't any gothic tat there, lots of smooth surfaces with the classic sci-fi segmented layered armor on the tanks.
You're probably referring to the more recent wave of Primaris, I mentioned that I liked the increased "gothicness".

They've also done away with that "boxy" aesthetic the vehicles had, like they had been pulled straight out of WW2. Now everything has to float, have all sorts of antennas everywhere, have guns out the wahzoo (can't leave leave home without a tacked on stubber can we?) and has to have this long, sleek prow.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I, personally, also really like the tacticool Space Marines.
I envy you.


No, I'm saying that oldmarines weren't covered with all the little fetishes and things, so the complaints about having "lost the gothic aesthetic" are factually unfounded.

Also, what do you mean long, sleek prow? The Repsulor is exactly as boxy as the Rhino, and definitely doesn't have a long, sleek prow by any construction of the term. It's not sleek, it's not long, and it doesn't have a prow, because it's big and flat across the front. In fact, it's even more boxy; the Rhino has protruding track horns and the sloped down parts on the return, the Repulsor is actually a brick.

The first wave primaris basically went exactly right down to the T on the oldmarine aethetic, then the Shadowspear marines did tacticool, then the Indomitus marines did knightly.



There's things to complain about, sure, since I answered that I'm overwhelming unsatisfied with 9e, but "lost gothic fetishes", "no longer boxy", and "failed to carry the oldmarine aesthetics" aren't any of them.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 00:36:44


Post by: Blackhair Duckshape


The devil is in the detail, if you can't see it, you can't see it.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 00:51:20


Post by: Goose LeChance


They're more like WW1 tanks

Space Marines are Space Knights, always have been. It's obvious Primaris are an attempt to move away from the gothic, knightly aesthetic and straight into Halo Spartans or Terran from Starcraft.

Indomitus was a return to form, which was a large reason why I bought it. Everyone else already does tacticool(and does it better). It's boring.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 02:03:15


Post by: Rihgu


What "Space Knight" aesthetic do say, RTB-01 marines have that Primaris do not?

Because I see this stuff
Spoiler:

And I say "yup! That's a knight in space! Heraldry, frilly kneecaps, little shoulder plates, huge shoulder pads, knightly looking helms, trinkets and purity seals.
it's all there.

edit: Unless... did I mistakenly put a picture of a firstborn squad up there? Very hard to tell.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 02:18:38


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
The devil is in the detail, if you can't see it, you can't see it.


The Repulsor is inarguably a trapezoidal box to an even more extreme degree than the rhino, and I can assure you that none of the new tanks have a prow that is either long or sleek [or have a prow at all], and the whole model is very angular and geometric. I'm certain there isn't anything that I'm not seeing.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 03:07:54


Post by: Blackhair Duckshape


Rihgu wrote:
What "Space Knight" aesthetic do say, RTB-01 marines have that Primaris do not?

Because I see this stuff
Spoiler:

And I say "yup! That's a knight in space! Heraldry, frilly kneecaps, little shoulder plates, huge shoulder pads, knightly looking helms, trinkets and purity seals.
it's all there.

edit: Unless... did I mistakenly put a picture of a firstborn squad up there? Very hard to tell.
Intercessors are probably the best of Primaris range simply because the niche they're filling is so simple that it's hard to go wrong (although I do think the removal of the exposed cables and vox grille of Mk.7 is a downgrade).

It's stuff like the Incursor marines who look straight out of a Call of Duty game, the Gravis marines who look somehow manage to simultaneously look too sleek/agile and comically bulky, or the vehicles that eschew the iconic tracked metal box aesthetic in favour of a much longer, sleeker, flying form, covered in all sorts of extraneous armour panels, bulbous sponsons and other miscellaneous doodads that smooth out the vehicle's profile that are the major problems.

Primaris just look way too clean and "futuristic" for a setting that was supposed to be about a dying empire with a medieval aesthetic on the ass end of 10000 years of technological stagnation.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 03:19:18


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
Primaris just look way too clean and "futuristic" for a setting that was supposed to be about a dying empire with a medieval aesthetic on the ass end of 10000 years of technological stagnation.


Here's the thing: oldmarines, with the exception of BT and DA, never had a medieval aesthetic. And actually, neither did the Imperial Guard. Or the Admech. Really, only the Sisters of Battle.

The Repulsor is the almost exactly the same dimensions as a Land Raider, so it's not longer, and I'm still not sure how it's sleeker considering it is basically entirely made out of geometric blocks with not a spline in sight.


This is literally one of my pet peeves here.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 03:22:14


Post by: Racerguy180


Easy fix is to give them MKIII helmets, makes them look better along with different pauldrons.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 04:06:06


Post by: Blackhair Duckshape


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
Primaris just look way too clean and "futuristic" for a setting that was supposed to be about a dying empire with a medieval aesthetic on the ass end of 10000 years of technological stagnation.


Here's the thing: oldmarines, with the exception of BT and DA, never had a medieval aesthetic.
They literally walk around in suits of armour and wield swords and shields.

I can understand you not being able to see how the all the extra gak they've slapped on Primaris and their vehicles dilutes the aesthetic but come on.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 04:06:53


Post by: Gadzilla666


An Astraeus is long, and I guess you could argue that it has a prow, but I don't know about "sleek". The rest are just floating metal boxes. And the Heresy pattern tanks make them look like junk. A 360 PPM Achilles will absolutely trash a 365 PPM Repulsor Executioner, and Sicarans move faster on treads than any of the floaty primaris tanks.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 04:27:25


Post by: Gregor Samsa


Only alternating activation can save the 40k tabletop experience. Else GW will let the board game languish and use the models as merchandising for their expanding video game and animated series IP.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 04:47:48


Post by: Blastaar


Well, I don't play 40k anymore and have not seen anything that makes me inclined to return. I very much think that 40k needs a proper rewrite.

Mostly, I find he present incarnation terrible boring. Also sloppy.

IMO, the game struggles because the core mechanics are too simple and shallow. Every edition tinkers around the edges but fails to address this. There aren't enough meaningful choices to make. Special rules, formations, chapter tactics, etc., can only do so much, and are almost universally rerolls, or modifiers to attack and defense. The entire game is rolling to hit, rolling to wound, and rolling saves.

40k could be so much better if GW broadened its concept of what a war game is.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 05:01:41


Post by: vict0988


Blastaar wrote:
Well, I don't play 40k anymore and have not seen anything that makes me inclined to return. I very much think that 40k needs a proper rewrite.

Mostly, I find he present incarnation terrible boring. Also sloppy.

IMO, the game struggles because the core mechanics are too simple and shallow. Every edition tinkers around the edges but fails to address this. There aren't enough meaningful choices to make. Special rules, formations, chapter tactics, etc., can only do so much, and are almost universally rerolls, or modifiers to attack and defense. The entire game is rolling to hit, rolling to wound, and rolling saves.

40k could be so much better if GW broadened its concept of what a war game is.

I don't see how you can call it sloppy given the way they've tightened standards on how rules are written and have done away with (I think) all of BaconCatBug's list of issues with RAW. Objectives do broaden what you want to achieve in a game, I'm not sure what you want? Beer-chugging contests or beard-measuring contests?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 05:34:55


Post by: Insectum7


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
Primaris just look way too clean and "futuristic" for a setting that was supposed to be about a dying empire with a medieval aesthetic on the ass end of 10000 years of technological stagnation.


Here's the thing: oldmarines, with the exception of BT and DA, never had a medieval aesthetic. And actually, neither did the Imperial Guard. Or the Admech. Really, only the Sisters of Battle.

The Repulsor is the almost exactly the same dimensions as a Land Raider, so it's not longer, and I'm still not sure how it's sleeker considering it is basically entirely made out of geometric blocks with not a spline in sight.


This is literally one of my pet peeves here.
Boxy? Yes. But the details are all more future-ey COD tacticool-ish. Also far more guns than it ostensibly has crewmen. No treads. The OG Marine vehicles are pretty simple designs in comparisson.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 06:51:46


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
Primaris just look way too clean and "futuristic" for a setting that was supposed to be about a dying empire with a medieval aesthetic on the ass end of 10000 years of technological stagnation.


Here's the thing: oldmarines, with the exception of BT and DA, never had a medieval aesthetic.
They literally walk around in suits of armour and wield swords and shields.

I can understand you not being able to see how the all the extra gak they've slapped on Primaris and their vehicles dilutes the aesthetic but come on.


Only bladeguard [a primaris unit] and assault terminators have shields and swords.

Classic marine units like rhinos, tacticals, devastators, predator, vindicator, land raider, assault marines, etc. aren't medieval in the least.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 07:22:34


Post by: Bosskelot


This is also all missing the fact that the over-the-top ostentatiousness of Marine designs really only started in 4th edition onwards, so saying the Primaris range is turning its back on the roots of the faction is, uh, not true. (and as others have mentioned, Intercessors are basically the same as Tacticals details-wise anyway)

The increasing levels of bling on the models and especially the artwork from 4th onwards is what initially turned me off from Marines. I played BA in 3rd and outside of Dante and a few characters, the faction was basically similar to your Imperial Fists or Ultramarines (then) in being lots of smooth, flat surfaces and not going insane with detail. The period of the mid-00's to the mid-10's is when 40k and Fantasy entered its "Grimderp" period, with increasing amounts of models and artwork that cranked up the "dark" nature of the settings to a level that only just made it look comical instead. The 7th ed Empire releases for Fantasy and the general tone and vibe of them were especially glaring with this.

If anything the Primaris range is GW returning to the actual roots of the faction and allowing people to customize the look of their army as they see fit by providing more of a blank canvas with which to work from. Mostly. Some of the new Crusade-themed stuff goes back on that a little bit.

Plus, I think people look at Sternguard or Vanguard veterans and just think that's the entire faction for some reason. Have you looked at a Predator or a Vindicator recently? How about Scouts with all their tacticool sniper rifles and googles? Where are the medieval influences there?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 08:19:33


Post by: Blackie


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Only bladeguard [a primaris unit] and assault terminators have shields and swords.

Classic marine units like rhinos, tacticals, devastators, predator, vindicator, land raider, assault marines, etc. aren't medieval in the least.


There's also lots of SW units, including some walkers, that have a viking look, which is totally medieval aesthetics. Litterally any infantry firstborn SW unit can have at least a dude with sword and shield.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 09:17:34


Post by: Vector Strike


I find the general 9e rules to be better in every regard to any previous edition I've played (since 6th).

However, the terrain rules are too convoluted. My group got some new players and they basically ignore anything other than +1 to armour save


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 09:25:01


Post by: General Kroll


Been enjoying the game more than at any point in the last five or six years that I’ve been back playing.

I think the crusade system is great fun, our group of players are loving it. Most of us agree that the ninth edition rules are a decent improvement on what was already a good version of the game in 8th edition.

None of us play super competitive lists, so we couldn’t really care less about the swings in the meta etc.

Sure there are some tweaks I’d make, but I like things how they currently are.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 10:40:31


Post by: Aenar


Awful. The release schedule is the main reason for me.

The classic old "one codex at a time" release schedule doesn't work as it creates unbalance. Power creep and all that.

40K has always been this way so it's not a new issue.
The thing is that in 8th everyone got a hard reset and within 12 months 90% of the factions received their codex.
Between the castellan nerf and the SM 2.0 codex + supplements the game was in it's best shape ever, at least from a balance perspective. Now it's a complete mess.

The basic rules of 9th aren't bad, but without balance a game can't be considered to be in a good state imho.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 10:50:04


Post by: AngryAngel80


Seabass wrote:
So far, I'm really enjoying 9th edition. What I like is the way the missions are prioritized, the focus on core units vs non-core units, (I actually like this mechanic), and the new terrain rules. I play BA, Khorne Demons (and boy is Anggrath better now! still not great, but playable and fun!!!) space wolves, adeptus mechanicus, Tyranids, black legion, world eaters, and chaos knights, and my favorite army is a tie between Blood Angels and Chaos Knights.

It's a pretty wide range of "good" and "bad" armies but I seem to have a pretty consistent win some lose some game experience and have a lot of fun playing them.

What i would like to see improved is the communication from GW regarding the codex release schedule. I would love to see what the long-term plan is, and I'm sure the rest of the community would too.

Also, after a more recent discussion post, I'm not sure I like the mechanism of the Charadon style books anymore. At first, I didn't really have a problem with them and enjoyed them, but as someone who doesn't play Drukhari or Death Guard, the consideration brought out by others about how they don't like having to get another book for their complete rules does make a great deal make sense (Thank you Yukishiro for taking the time to legitimately answer my question instead of just assuming I was white-knighting and insulting me).

I still find value in the books for other reasons, so I don't mind buying them, but I'm not sure how much I like that model.

Overall, I'm positive. My real life is pretty rough, and I deal with a lot of "heavy" topics daily acting as an interim Grief Counselor and clinical cognitive behavioral therapist, while going to school for my PsyD, so what little time I get to relax and enjoy my hobby outside of my wife and daughter, I gladly take and tend to focus on the positives (which is why I have a reputation, if one at all, as a white knight).

Overall, I'm positive, but some things are needed, namely communication, to help give the players something to look forward to if you're one of those Black Legion or World Eaters players out there like me

The game is fun, it's a hobby that I enjoy and pulls me out of reality into a fantastic setting and a wonderfully valid excuse to hang out with friends. Ultimately, if I am asking for more out of my hobby, I'm placing the wrong expectations on my hobby.

YMMV


I may disagree with what you say in this a bit but I feel for the reasons you say them. You aren't for enjoying it, just so long as you aren't faulting someone else for seeing and commenting on the faults right ? You don't want to view them, say yourself you look past them and try and ignore them, not everyone either can or will doesn't make either person wrong. So I wouldn't say you are a white knight, I'd say you just don't want to focus on the bad, so long as you aren't claiming there is no bad that's all good right ?

That all said, I hear ya on the rough stuff IRL, hang tough brother, a lot worse things than GW being GW we can all agree on that I am sure.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 10:55:10


Post by: Blackie


 Aenar wrote:

The thing is that in 8th everyone got a hard reset and within 12 months 90% of the factions received their codex.


I guess I was unlucky then since I played 4 armies (Drukhari, SW, Orks, Adepta Sororitas) in 8th and got the first codex 14 months after the edition's release.

I had way more fun in this edition so far using my 8th edition codexes than in those 14 months when I was forced to play with indexes, and a much worse edition core rules wise.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 11:32:56


Post by: Aenar


 Blackie wrote:
 Aenar wrote:

The thing is that in 8th everyone got a hard reset and within 12 months 90% of the factions received their codex.


I guess I was unlucky then since I played 4 armies (Drukhari, SW, Orks, Adepta Sororitas) in 8th and got the first codex 14 months after the edition's release.

I had way more fun in this edition so far using my 8th edition codexes than in those 14 months when I was forced to play with indexes, and a much worse edition core rules wise.

Sisters were released in the CA before and as a codex only with the big wave of new models after that, no surprise they were the last one to come out.
DE, Orks, SW and GSC were among the last codices in Fall 2018. Considering the edition was released in Summer 2017, 14 months from start to finish was definitely a better scenario than the current release schedule, where 12 months in we are still missing more than half of the codices. If we consider AdMech, Orks and Sisters in the "uptaded to 9th" column (over the next month or two), 14 factions are missing updated rules.
The current wild unbalance (DE in primis) is just the cherry on top.

8th wasn't a great edition rules-wise, but at least it was balanced.
9th is a complete mess so far. Core rules are tighter, but balance is way off. I just hope they manage to fix it before the end of the year or we might as well wait for 10th ed in two years time at this point.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 12:21:24


Post by: Blackie


14 months from starts to finish is incorrect, my main army (orks) got their codex 18 months after the edition's release. And the gap between index and codex was huge, that's why GW rushed codexes releases. Now there isn't that issue since 8th editions codex are perfectly functioning. Not the utter nonsense that indexes were.

To me 9th seems way more balanced than 8th actually. I'm not even sold on the DE OPness, I think they're solid but mostly a perfect counter for the most common tournament lists, with one build that is actually extremely OP (DT liq spam) but that is also extremely uncommon in real life as very very few people actually own all the required models, and I don't think that many will rush to buy them in the near future. In casual to semi-competitive games DE shouldn't cause major issues.

And 8th edition's balance (which again it's just your personal opinion) means nothing if a functioning list HAS to bring 4-6 HQs and 6-9 troops just to work properly. At least I can enjoy 9th from day one, while I had to wait a year and a half to enjoy 8th.

I consider 8th a dumpster fire, and I think you're probably biased towards 9th (as I can be towards 8th for the same reason) because your main army, assuming it's Tau from your avatar, is in a pretty bad state now.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 12:21:44


Post by: Formosa


the game seems to be in an interesting place, the core rules seem pretty solid but could use a few tweaks however the down side is it is now in the same cycle of nonsense all the previous Eds got into, incremental change to rulebook, make new Ed, spit out loads of books and supplements and bloat the game until its unplayable.

if 6th/7th were the beta test for this, 9th is the culmination of that bad sales strategy (from a customer standpoint).

Thankfully the community does a great job of holding it all together and communicating what books are needed and diseminating information, GW is awful at it.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 12:50:41


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


It's been ten months since 9th dropped and about a year since the news broke. My own gaming has been disrupted by three lockdowns, but I was able to get lots of games in. Overall I think that the game is a great place but there are warning signs out there.

The models are great. Modeling has been fun and painting in the community has come a long way with Youtube. Painting both halves of the Indomitus Set was fun.

The core rules improved some of the wonky areas of 8th. Terrain matters and re-rolls are toned down.

Missions matter now and I really like the Secondaries. I have dabbled with Crusade but not enough to comment. The GT2020 pack works well - been to three fun but challenging local tournies using the pack as is.

The warning sign is the DE Drukhari Codex and Charandon Supplement. The preceding books all seemed to have been well tested. The Drukhari book with supplement shows that mistakes can still be made.

Still, very much enjoying my 40K hobby and can't wait for the latest lockdown to be our last and get back to the FLGS for some 9th Ed.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 13:12:23


Post by: Aenar


 Blackie wrote:
14 months from starts to finish is incorrect, my main army (orks) got their codex 18 months after the edition's release. And the gap between index and codex was huge, that's why GW rushed codexes releases. Now there isn't that issue since 8th editions codex are perfectly functioning. Not the utter nonsense that indexes were.

To me 9th seems way more balanced than 8th actually. I'm not even sold on the DE OPness, I think they're solid but mostly a perfect counter for the most common tournament lists, with one build that is actually extremely OP (DT liq spam) but that is also extremely uncommon in real life as very very few people actually own all the required models, and I don't think that many will rush to buy them in the near future. In casual to semi-competitive games DE shouldn't cause major issues.

And 8th edition's balance (which again it's just your personal opinion) means nothing if a functioning list HAS to bring 4-6 HQs and 6-9 troops just to work properly. At least I can enjoy 9th from day one, while I had to wait a year and a half to enjoy 8th.

I consider 8th a dumpster fire, and I think you're probably biased towards 9th (as I can be towards 8th for the same reason) because your main army, assuming it's Tau from your avatar, is in a pretty bad state now.

I also have Necrons and SM in a larger quantities than I feel comfortable with, so I've had no issues in playing 9th (last Summer, pre-lockdown). The current state of Tau buggers me but only to a certain extent, what I really don't like is this staggered release schedule.
We all know that in 2022 a new edition will likely drop, as a max 3 year lifespan is the way of 40K editions.

Covid and brexit may have impacted the release of new stuff, but releasing rules is not as complicated as shipping physical models around the world when the internet exists.
If they don't want to go full digital for the rules, they could've (definitely should've imho) released a set of PDF files with updated stuff for the factions with codices 1+ year(s) out. Give CSM, GK & co their second wound, Eldar the new weapon profiles and so on.
There's simply no reason for not doing that, other than not having started working on those factions yet. That would be the likely reason for the current unbalance, so much for "all codices have been worked on and outlined in advance".


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 13:40:38


Post by: 455_PWR


As a Deathwing/Dark Angels, Chaos, Deamons, Vanilla Marine, Grey Knight, and Custodes player:

3rd edition was great
4th was terrible
5th was ok
6th was awesome
7th sucked and became bloated (formations and pay to play)
8th was pretty good
9th - why the change from 8th? Lost interest

I always had a passion for playing pure dw armies. 3rd was great and I could run two ac in a 5 man squad. Funnny thing, I heard dw are good again but haven't even played a game with them in 9th.

I wish they could create an edition and keep it around for 10 years, adding supplements for new units.

I thought that was the point of 8th too, adjust codex books but the core rules wouldn't have to be changed for a long time. Lesson learned though, I stopped buying every codex in 6th/7th. I only buy what I play now.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 14:37:12


Post by: Sasori


I'm with Positive, but still needs a fair amount of work.

Overall, I really like the GT mission pack idea (though they could be better) the regular points updates and FAQS, and I really feel like they've been nailing the flavor and mechanics of the recent codexes.

That being said, as is tradition, they really haven't gotten the balance right, Drukhari have shown to be an absolutely broken mess that all this extra playtesting was supposed to alleviate. Not a big fan of the early DLCs either.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 15:01:15


Post by: Gadzilla666


I went with "neutral". I like most of the 9th edition core rules, with a few caveats (the limit of only -1 to hit shouldn't apply to self inflicted penalties, like moving infantry with heavy weapons). And although the new codexes have been great so far, one of my armies doesn't have one yet and the other was thrown into Legends purgatory. So no help there so far. I liked almost everything they did with my fw stuff except the MASSIVE caveat of Martial Legacy, and they still haven't fixed the Dreadclaws rules yet and melee Contemptors remain pointless. So little bit of good, little bit of bad. Neutral.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 15:09:56


Post by: solkan


At the rate 40k is going, either 10th edition or 11th edition will feature someone on the design team touting the introduction of "universal special rules" placed in the rulebook to consolidate and simplify rules interactions (and reduce rules complications caused by the multiple different versions of 'not quite feels no pain').



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 15:46:21


Post by: Da Boss


40K seems like it's not too different to how it was back in 5e when I last played regularly in many ways. Marines are still the favourite faction of the designers, balance is still all over the place, certain factions spend ages with crap rules and it is absolutely not a priority to do anything about them and so on.
The core rules seem okay but the amount of bloat layered on top of them is really astounding to me. It's not a style of play I'm particularly into any more, looking for very gamey combos in my wargame mechanics. I'd rather something straightforward and streamlined.

I keep an eye on 40K because I'd like to get into it. But I'm not optimistic.

Oh, and the background, yeah I really don't like the "ongoing story" kind of background they're going with these days. No big deal, I have access to all my old background materials and can make up my own stuff, but I'm not inspired by what they are presenting when it is focused on a small number of superhero characters.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 15:59:25


Post by: ottokill


Very negative for me!! 4th-5th edition was awesome and fun, after that I just lost interest in the following editions. I love Harlequins and hate how they have become so boring. They need nightmarish units like an Avatar and Mimes and some additional troupe model alternatives.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 16:21:53


Post by: Karol


 Aenar wrote:


8th wasn't a great edition rules-wise, but at least it was balanced.
9th is a complete mess so far. Core rules are tighter, but balance is way off. I just hope they manage to fix it before the end of the year or we might as well wait for 10th ed in two years time at this point.


9th has a lot more armies around the 50% win rate, and fewer outliers that are way above other armies. I don't think they are going to fit all the stuff they wanted in to 9th ed though. They already have 3 months plus of delay.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 16:27:33


Post by: guardpiper


I find it interesting that in December I believe GW said that 2021 was going to be the year of the xenos, and its almost to the half way point of the year and we have had two xeno codexes. (Anyone please correct me if I dreamt them saying that, but I am pretty sure they said that or something to that effect.) I am still waiting for my Tau Codex to show me some sort of life for my army. I know supply chains issues are a thing, but it just feels like they are bogged down right now and not releasing a whole lot of stuff.
I am not really paying to much attention right now and will not until I see a Tau Codex and if it addresses the many issues that the army has.
Did an edit too account that have been two xeno codices when the OP said there was only one.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 16:27:52


Post by: Lord Damocles


Karol wrote:
 Aenar wrote:


8th wasn't a great edition rules-wise, but at least it was balanced.
9th is a complete mess so far. Core rules are tighter, but balance is way off. I just hope they manage to fix it before the end of the year or we might as well wait for 10th ed in two years time at this point.


9th has a lot more armies around the 50% win rate, and fewer outliers that are way above other armies. I don't think they are going to fit all the stuff they wanted in to 9th ed though. They already have 3 months plus of delay.

Win rate drawn from tournament data doesn't really tell us anything meaningful about balance though.

It might be that a 'good' list using 10% of a faction's available units has a 50% win rate on the tournament circuit, but the other 90% of units are hot garbage compared to all other factions.


As for 'fitting stuff in to 9th ed', GW aren't forced to stick to a 3-ish year edition cycle - they could put as much time/content as they like in an edition. They won't because new editions aren't fundamentally about improving the game, but rather making mucho dollar dollar.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 16:36:48


Post by: ccs


Sure, they said something about xenos in '21 (forget what exactly). And we're nearly 6 months into the year with the only '21 xenos arriving so far being Drukari.

But we know the Orks are coming.
And we don't know what's after that. So '21 may still be a good xeno year.

Or maybe they were just slyly referring to how the Drukari were going to reign supreme tourney-wise....


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 16:47:04


Post by: Sim-Life


ccs wrote:
Sure, they said something about xenos in '21 (forget what exactly). And we're nearly 6 months into the year with the only '21 xenos arriving so far being Drukari.

But we know the Orks are coming.
And we don't know what's after that. So '21 may still be a good xeno year.

Or maybe they were just slyly referring to how the Drukari were going to reign supreme tourney-wise....


Given that we know Sisters and AdMech are this year as well I very much doubt it.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 17:23:10


Post by: ccs


 Sim-Life wrote:
ccs wrote:
Sure, they said something about xenos in '21 (forget what exactly). And we're nearly 6 months into the year with the only '21 xenos arriving so far being Drukari.

But we know the Orks are coming.
And we don't know what's after that. So '21 may still be a good xeno year.

Or maybe they were just slyly referring to how the Drukari were going to reign supreme tourney-wise....


Given that we know Sisters and AdMech are this year as well I very much doubt it.


Because.... reasons?



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 18:17:33


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


ccs wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
ccs wrote:
Sure, they said something about xenos in '21 (forget what exactly). And we're nearly 6 months into the year with the only '21 xenos arriving so far being Drukari.

But we know the Orks are coming.
And we don't know what's after that. So '21 may still be a good xeno year.

Or maybe they were just slyly referring to how the Drukari were going to reign supreme tourney-wise....


Given that we know Sisters and AdMech are this year as well I very much doubt it.


Because.... reasons?



Well, we can probably expect around 6-or-so releases in a year for 40k, and with DA, DE, Orks, Sisters, AdMech, GK, and TSons already reasonably assumed to be coming, were not likely to see too many more in there.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 19:11:37


Post by: PenitentJake


If the new AoS drops in July, they could give us both Sisters and Orks in June. If that happens, it puts us back to averaging 1 dex/ month.

If GK and Ksons get a vs. box and maybe an additional unit each, we could end up with both of those in a month too.

But even just assuming one/ month from here out: Sisters for June, Orks July, GK August, Ksons Sept. This leaves minimally 3 more dexes.

We've been dealing with delays for so long, it's easy to forget how ambitious the original release schedule was. I don't know if it's realistic to assume that there is the potential to return to that level of output, but they really did seem to have a plan for 2/ month right up until it all fell apart.

One faction per month, I believe is very reasonable; we're not far from that even with the delays.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 19:36:36


Post by: Karol


 Lord Damocles wrote:


Win rate drawn from tournament data doesn't really tell us anything meaningful about balance though.

It might be that a 'good' list using 10% of a faction's available units has a 50% win rate on the tournament circuit, but the other 90% of units are hot garbage compared to all other factions.
.


I have not seen a bad tournament faction army do good world wide, outside of tournaments. Or vice versa, and I don't think it is the case in 9th ed either.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 20:49:29


Post by: vict0988


 Lord Damocles wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Aenar wrote:


8th wasn't a great edition rules-wise, but at least it was balanced.
9th is a complete mess so far. Core rules are tighter, but balance is way off. I just hope they manage to fix it before the end of the year or we might as well wait for 10th ed in two years time at this point.


9th has a lot more armies around the 50% win rate, and fewer outliers that are way above other armies. I don't think they are going to fit all the stuff they wanted in to 9th ed though. They already have 3 months plus of delay.

Win rate drawn from tournament data doesn't really tell us anything meaningful about balance though.

It might be that a 'good' list using 10% of a faction's available units has a 50% win rate on the tournament circuit, but the other 90% of units are hot garbage compared to all other factions.

There are two factors in balance and both are extremely important, the internal balance between units inside a faction and external balance between factions.

Playing with bad external balance means you win too much or too little which can make it feel like you don't have as much agency because regardless of how you play you are going to win/lose anyway. A bad army will not be picked up in competitive play, meaning that the light competitive play can shine on internal imbalance does not get put to use in solving that faction's internal imbalances.

Playing with an army that is internally imbalanced can make it feel too easy when playing with some units and too hard when playing with others. It can make people rip their miniatures apart to rebuild them with different more cost-effective options, wasting time on rebuilding and repainting miniatures that could be spent building and painting new things.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 20:59:18


Post by: jeff white


42 % positive on a fansite is ,... not great. On Rotten Tomatoes, for instance,I would not see the movie. I wouldn’t even watch it on da webz for free. Yikes... GW.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 21:39:08


Post by: Jidmah


 jeff white wrote:
42 % positive on a fansite is ,... not great. On Rotten Tomatoes, for instance,I would not see the movie. I wouldn’t even watch it on da webz for free. Yikes... GW.


Dakkadakka is not a fan site. Even ignoring that the page also supports other games, it's probably a safe bet to assume that a tenth of the people voting haven't even played 9th once.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 22:07:27


Post by: Aenar


Seeing that a new Chapter Approved is coming out in a week, with new points, missions and secondaries for tournament play, my opinion is definitely improved.
I was complaining about a lack of balance and them not even trying to, but this definitely goes in the right direction.
Let's hope some point updates and new missions are enough to bring balance to the...game.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/23 22:16:09


Post by: DVader311


I started my obsession with the grim dark during second edition. While I haven't always been involved during that time, my most recent foray is border line lunacy and heresy. I LOVE this game, the community, the lore, the sculpts (OoooooOOOO, you dirty little gaunt!) Table top, sculpting, painting, but I digress. I am in absolute disgust of GW and the way they treat us. Fests with not much to be festive about, price gouging, intentional merch shortages, and a ridiculous price point for just about everything.

I would be genuinely HAPPY if they closed shop tomorrow. BECAUSE of us. If these gakkers closed up tomorrow, this community would keep this game alive and THRIVING. In this age of digital sharing and buying, 3D printing, digital media, and the huge well of talent this universe pulls from, we will NEVER see it's death. Not only that, but it would continue to thrive like an awoken tomb world.

Straight forward, my views and opinions of the company are VERY negative. However, my views about this universe are blindingly positive. Being only outshined by the light of our emperor. So stay positive you marines, you warbosses, you TITANS. I have stared hard into the warp, and I see naught but victory for our side! Stay positive you titans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I started my obsession with the grim dark during second edition. While I haven't always been involved during that time, my most recent foray is border line lunacy and heresy. I LOVE this game, the community, the lore, the sculpts (OoooooOOOO, you dirty little gaunt!) Table top, sculpting, painting, but I digress. I am in absolute disgust of GW and the way they treat us. Fests with not much to be festive about, price gouging, intentional merch shortages, and a ridiculous price point for just about everything.

I would be genuinely HAPPY if they closed shop tomorrow. BECAUSE of us. If these gakkers closed up tomorrow, this community would keep this game alive and THRIVING. In this age of digital sharing and buying, 3D printing, digital media, and the huge well of talent this universe pulls from, we will NEVER see it's death. Not only that, but it would continue to thrive like an awoken tomb world.

Straight forward, my views and opinions of the company are VERY negative. However, my views about this universe are blindingly positive. Being only outshined by the light of our emperor. So stay positive you marines, you warbosses, you TITANS. I have stared hard into the warp, and I see naught but victory for our side! Stay positive you titans.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 00:07:27


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


PenitentJake wrote:
If the new AoS drops in July, they could give us both Sisters and Orks in June. If that happens, it puts us back to averaging 1 dex/ month.

If GK and Ksons get a vs. box and maybe an additional unit each, we could end up with both of those in a month too.

But even just assuming one/ month from here out: Sisters for June, Orks July, GK August, Ksons Sept. This leaves minimally 3 more dexes.

We've been dealing with delays for so long, it's easy to forget how ambitious the original release schedule was. I don't know if it's realistic to assume that there is the potential to return to that level of output, but they really did seem to have a plan for 2/ month right up until it all fell apart.

One faction per month, I believe is very reasonable; we're not far from that even with the delays.


Orks and Sisters both have substantial model releases. Seems unlikely they happen in the same month. I also see little to make me think GW is going to suddenly get faster again; I feel like they'd be trumpeting that fact if it was about to happen. I don't share your optimism.

Also, one faction per month is alright... if you prioritize the right factions. GW hasn't done that.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 00:15:45


Post by: Ordana


There is like 17? more factions left to do in 9th.
1 per month is to slow a pace for how big 40k is vs how long an edition lasts.

8th edition was the sort of speed I want GW to have. Practically everyone got their codex reasonably quickly and was able to enjoy them for a long (relative) time with supplements coming out to keep GW's gravy train rolling.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 00:16:48


Post by: Voss


Keep in mind the ork release is split.

They'll push out 1001 units of the Beastsnaggas Limited Edition Collectors Box For Scalpers, then come back with the separate ork codex and actual release in a couple months.

So they may well release sisters, punt the ork box, and then drop AoS 3.0, the new faction's and Stormcast battletomes, and then come back to 40k with TS vs GK, their respective books and settle in for the orks proper release..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ordana wrote:
8th edition was the sort of speed I want GW to have. Practically everyone got their codex reasonably quickly and was able to enjoy them for a long (relative) time with supplements coming out to keep GW's gravy train rolling.


Hard disagree here. 8th happened way too fast, and the books lasted an absurdly short time, doubly so for the terrible supplements.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 00:44:11


Post by: ccs


 Ordana wrote:
There is like 17? more factions left to do in 9th.
1 per month is to slow a pace for how big 40k is vs how long an edition lasts.


24.
Only 12 of wich need actual Codex books & maybe model releases.

The other 12?
7 of those are SM supplements - they could throw 2 of those out a month.
5 more of those could be WD articles (Inquisition, Assassins, Sisters of Silence, Harlequins, & Ynnari)


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 02:05:41


Post by: Seabass


 AngryAngel80 wrote:


I may disagree with what you say in this a bit but I feel for the reasons you say them. You aren't for enjoying it, just so long as you aren't faulting someone else for seeing and commenting on the faults right ? You don't want to view them, say yourself you look past them and try and ignore them, not everyone either can or will doesn't make either person wrong. So I wouldn't say you are a white knight, I'd say you just don't want to focus on the bad, so long as you aren't claiming there is no bad that's all good right ?

That all said, I hear ya on the rough stuff IRL, hang tough brother, a lot worse things than GW being GW we can all agree on that I am sure.


That's a lot of how I see it. I don't mind talking about the things that can be better. I think it's healthy and should be discussed. Feedback is a gift. Constructive critique has a lot of value to both the fan base and the publisher, but so many times what we see on Dakka is far from healthy, as I would think of it.

I also try not to focus too much on the negative. Sometimes I fail. I played a game with my Tyranids, and I got absolutely ROFL stomped, and it irritated me at the discrepancy between the Tyranid and sisters codex. So I get it, there are very real things that the game needs to do better, but sometimes, it just is what it is, and so a few minutes later it was all laughs again and planning our next game. I thought about things i could have done differently (and maybe putting catalyst on my gargoyles would have kept a few alive long enough to recycle them, not putting my warriors in with the Trygon might have given me a bit more firepower at the start to take down that rhino, etc etc) and tried to learn from my mistake.

Ultimately, a bad day of Warhammer is just that, some cussing and discussing rules, trash-talking our friends, and having some fun. So I can't get too negative about something like that. There is enough negativity in this world to go around. I think thats why some of the more excessive rancor on this site actually gets to me.

YMMV.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
There is like 17? more factions left to do in 9th.
1 per month is to slow a pace for how big 40k is vs how long an edition lasts.


24.
Only 12 of wich need actual Codex books & maybe model releases.

The other 12?
7 of those are SM supplements - they could throw 2 of those out a month.
5 more of those could be WD articles (Inquisition, Assassins, Sisters of Silence, Harlequins, & Ynnari)


I'm often surprised why they don't consolidate the harlequins and Ynnari into the craftworlds codex, same with knights and Ad Mech. I also kind of have this feeling that Tyranids and GSC might end up sharing a book, but that might just be me.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 02:08:12


Post by: Eonfuzz


Negative. The trash pile of DLC that was Psychic Awakening followed by a near instantaneous release of marines 2.0 and then a brand new edition into a brand new marines 3.0 into more marine suppliements more or less ruined the release cycle for me and our playgroup.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 03:42:05


Post by: jeff white


DVader311 wrote:
I started my obsession with the grim dark during second edition.
Spoiler:
While I haven't always been involved during that time, my most recent foray is border line lunacy and heresy. I LOVE this game, the community, the lore, the sculpts (OoooooOOOO, you dirty little gaunt!) Table top, sculpting, painting, but I digress.
I am in absolute disgust of GW and the way they treat us. Fests with not much to be festive about, price gouging, intentional merch shortages, and a ridiculous price point for just about everything.

I would be genuinely HAPPY if they closed shop tomorrow. BECAUSE of us. If these gakkers closed up tomorrow, this community would keep this game alive and THRIVING. In this age of digital sharing and buying, 3D printing, digital media, and the huge well of talent this universe pulls from, we will NEVER see it's death. Not only that, but it would continue to thrive like an awoken tomb world.
Spoiler:

Straight forward, my views and opinions of the company are VERY negative. However, my views about this universe are blindingly positive. Being only outshined by the light of our emperor. So stay positive you marines, you warbosses, you TITANS. I have stared hard into the warp, and I see naught but victory for our side! Stay positive you titans.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I started my obsession with the grim dark during second edition. While I haven't always been involved during that time, my most recent foray is border line lunacy and heresy. I LOVE this game, the community, the lore, the sculpts (OoooooOOOO, you dirty little gaunt!) Table top, sculpting, painting, but I digress. I am in absolute disgust of GW and the way they treat us. Fests with not much to be festive about, price gouging, intentional merch shortages, and a ridiculous price point for just about everything.

I would be genuinely HAPPY if they closed shop tomorrow. BECAUSE of us. If these gakkers closed up tomorrow, this community would keep this game alive and THRIVING. In this age of digital sharing and buying, 3D printing, digital media, and the huge well of talent this universe pulls from, we will NEVER see it's death. Not only that, but it would continue to thrive like an awoken tomb world.

Straight forward, my views and opinions of the company are VERY negative. However, my views about this universe are blindingly positive. Being only outshined by the light of our emperor. So stay positive you marines, you warbosses, you TITANS. I have stared hard into the warp, and I see naught but victory for our side! Stay positive you titans
.

Exalted.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 06:31:32


Post by: addnid


 jeff white wrote:
42 % positive on a fansite is ,... not great. On Rotten Tomatoes, for instance,I would not see the movie. I wouldn’t even watch it on da webz for free. Yikes... GW.


Sometimes Dakka general section feels more like a hatesite than a fansite, and also IMHO watching a movie is 0 investment, playing 40k is a lot of investment, so people will feel a lot more strongly about the latter.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 06:45:58


Post by: Karol


Have you actually seen a real hate site? Because I can tell you that it does not look like dakka. First of all there is no big merch store with pop ups for it all the time. No one is trying to sell their mix tape, there are no sub section for supplements etc.


Constructive critique has a lot of value to both the fan base and the publisher, but so many times what we see on Dakka is far from healthy, as I would think of it.

Okey, but does GW want, assuming someone from them has the time or is assigned to browse forums, get feed back from fans, which is not either a free add or a list of things to buy?

If factions stay bad for multiple versions of an army book,what are people suppose to do? There is a limit how often one can say that they don't want this kind of a book or that it is so bad and few people play it. Or that no new models are not being put out and some of the older models are being phased out without a replacment.

What kind of a construcitve criticism is a GSC or Knight player suppose to give to GW? You changed the rules of how an edition worked, and now my army doesn't work at all, because you linked its effectivness on the board with very specific core rules from prior editions, that no longer exist or they exist and now work as a handicap. Ah and then you decided to start updates with armies which were already doing okey in the new edition. If the start of 9th was something like GSC, Necrons, IG, Knights and then maybe CSM , then at least people could agree that GW is fixing something. If alongside that there were actual pdf that let armies survive the year or so of wait time, before their bad rules get updated, one could even say that GW thinks about the players who already bought a GW army. But nothing like that happens.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 07:18:49


Post by: Blackie


 Lord Damocles wrote:

Win rate drawn from tournament data doesn't really tell us anything meaningful about balance though.

It might be that a 'good' list using 10% of a faction's available units has a 50% win rate on the tournament circuit, but the other 90% of units are hot garbage compared to all other factions.


I typically agree with that except that what you say is true for 8th and older editions, not 9th. If you take a look at 9th winning lists you'll notice that they seem very close to average collections of models, and many of these lists don't spam anything. In 8th and previous editions most of the competitive lists were something that a casual game would not see very often. Even semi-competitive lists HAD to spam stuff in order to be optimized, now it's no longer true.

Overall 9th feels extremely more balanced than 8th, both in number of factions that are in a good spot and in terms of lists' composition. Thankfully nonsense like lists based on the loyal32 and/or scout spam, 60-90 gretchins, etc just to make the army work is long gone. Not to mention that pure castles and gunlines don't exist anymore, which is another huge improvement.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 08:13:44


Post by: Aenar


 Blackie wrote:
 Lord Damocles wrote:

Win rate drawn from tournament data doesn't really tell us anything meaningful about balance though.

It might be that a 'good' list using 10% of a faction's available units has a 50% win rate on the tournament circuit, but the other 90% of units are hot garbage compared to all other factions.


I typically agree with that except that what you say is true for 8th and older editions, not 9th. If you take a look at 9th winning lists you'll notice that they seem very close to average collections of models, and many of these lists don't spam anything. In 8th and previous editions most of the competitive lists were something that a casual game would not see very often. Even semi-competitive lists HAD to spam stuff in order to be optimized, now it's no longer true.

Overall 9th feels extremely more balanced than 8th, both in number of factions that are in a good spot and in terms of lists' composition. Thankfully nonsense like lists based on the loyal32 and/or scout spam, 60-90 gretchins, etc just to make the army work is long gone. Not to mention that pure castles and gunlines don't exist anymore, which is another huge improvement.

100% this. 9th is doing way better than 8th in this regard. Also the core rules work better as they are definitely worded in a more exhaustive way. Still room for improvement, but it's a step forward.
Now IF the external balance between codices (and the internal one in some of them) gets fixed next week by the upcoming point update + new missions, we could definitely have on our hands one of the best 40K editions ever.
Big IF, of course, but trying to be optimistic for once can't hurt right?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2010/02/23 22:46:43


Post by: Not Online!!!


i like how gw once again paywalls the pts for the factions in what ammounts to a balance patch in literally every other game, which should be free but alas...
But considering that i should supposedly be willing to pay 58 CHF for 5 slightly larger intercessors if i were to ever collect marines....

I am not surprised. Just disapointed how people can defend that gak company.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 09:32:53


Post by: Jidmah


Not Online!!! wrote:
i like how gw once again paywalls the pts for the factions in what ammounts to a balance patch in literally every other game, which should be free but alas...
But considering that i should supposedly be willing to pay 58 CHF for 5 slightly larger intercessors if i were to ever collect marines....

I am not surprised. Just disapointed how people can defend that gak company.


What's there to defend? Not a single person buys this pair of books for the points, whether you use their app or battlescribe, you don't need it.

The only value is having updated tournament missions in with a small rulebook attached to it.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 09:35:20


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
i like how gw once again paywalls the pts for the factions in what ammounts to a balance patch in literally every other game, which should be free but alas...
But considering that i should supposedly be willing to pay 58 CHF for 5 slightly larger intercessors if i were to ever collect marines....

I am not surprised. Just disapointed how people can defend that gak company.


What's there to defend? Not a single person buys this pair of books for the points, whether you use their app or battlescribe, you don't need it.

The only value is having updated tournament missions in with a small rulebook attached to it.


Preciscly, but my problem is the principle.
Also, inevitable complaints about Battlescribe being piracy inbound.

It also was imo a good move from GW to separate the pts out and make them free, of course they were to 180 that again.


Edit: it's also arguable that neither the improved missions nor the small rulebook should've a pricetag associated with it , since it's the same in principle as a balance patch.
But maybee i am just oldschool


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 09:41:22


Post by: Jidmah


I honestly buy it for having a book with everything I need to play in it, not for the "balance patch". That analogy doesn't work out for me anyways, because books don't update.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 09:43:17


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly buy it for having a book with everything I need to play in it, not for the "balance patch". That analogy doesn't work out for me anyways, because books don't update.

We are in a digital era, books can update, and there are other distribution means though. and in the end a Game is just a system.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 09:58:20


Post by: Karol


 Jidmah wrote:


What's there to defend? Not a single person buys this pair of books for the points, whether you use their app or battlescribe, you don't need it.

The only value is having updated tournament missions in with a small rulebook attached to it.


Well, they do. In every place where you can use battlescribe, like playing at stores, which are generaly dead against people using stuff they got outside of the store.


I wonder if GW does stuff like the gaming industry does, when they put out a game they know will make people unhappy, only to sell a patch update and fixing of some problems as actual content.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 14:11:53


Post by: Ravajaxe


 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
i like how gw once again paywalls the pts for the factions in what ammounts to a balance patch in literally every other game, which should be free but alas...
But considering that i should supposedly be willing to pay 58 CHF for 5 slightly larger intercessors if i were to ever collect marines....

I am not surprised. Just disapointed how people can defend that gak company.


What's there to defend? Not a single person buys this pair of books for the points, whether you use their app or battlescribe, you don't need it.

The only value is having updated tournament missions in with a small rulebook attached to it.

Well, as a tournament organizer, I pretty much bought previous iterations of Chapter Approved for the list of points, in order to check the validity of lists I received. This, plus the odd mission rules I included in my tournament packs, like Cities of Death. The first Chapter Approved of 2017 was not that great, but this publication has been thoroughly refined year after year, to the point I don't feel the need to buy the core rulebook to be able to play.

We are not playing in a downloadable video game. New influx of ideas, rules and point costs listings cost money to test, edit, print and ship. So I'm fine with GW selling these books, which are an update to the game. The cost is reasonable, considering you get a nice little handbook with nearly complete rules of the game, together with the munitorum field manual.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 14:26:50


Post by: Audustum


 Ravajaxe wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
i like how gw once again paywalls the pts for the factions in what ammounts to a balance patch in literally every other game, which should be free but alas...
But considering that i should supposedly be willing to pay 58 CHF for 5 slightly larger intercessors if i were to ever collect marines....

I am not surprised. Just disapointed how people can defend that gak company.


What's there to defend? Not a single person buys this pair of books for the points, whether you use their app or battlescribe, you don't need it.

The only value is having updated tournament missions in with a small rulebook attached to it.

Well, as a tournament organizer, I pretty much bought previous iterations of Chapter Approved for the list of points, in order to check the validity of lists I received. This, plus the odd mission rules I included in my tournament packs, like Cities of Death. The first Chapter Approved of 2017 was not that great, but this publication has been thoroughly refined year after year, to the point I don't feel the need to buy the core rulebook to be able to play.

We are not playing in a downloadable video game. New influx of ideas, rules and point costs listings cost money to test, edit, print and ship. So I'm fine with GW selling these books, which are an update to the game. The cost is reasonable, considering you get a nice little handbook with nearly complete rules of the game, together with the munitorum field manual.


Hear me out, they could release all of that on a virtual .pdf and erase theirs costs for editing, printing and shipping. Then we'd only pay for testing + some profit.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 15:23:43


Post by: Seabass


Karol wrote:
Have you actually seen a real hate site? Because I can tell you that it does not look like dakka. First of all there is no big merch store with pop ups for it all the time. No one is trying to sell their mix tape, there are no sub section for supplements etc.


Constructive critique has a lot of value to both the fan base and the publisher, but so many times what we see on Dakka is far from healthy, as I would think of it.

Okey, but does GW want, assuming someone from them has the time or is assigned to browse forums, get feed back from fans, which is not either a free add or a list of things to buy?

If factions stay bad for multiple versions of an army book,what are people suppose to do? There is a limit how often one can say that they don't want this kind of a book or that it is so bad and few people play it. Or that no new models are not being put out and some of the older models are being phased out without a replacment.

What kind of a construcitve criticism is a GSC or Knight player suppose to give to GW? You changed the rules of how an edition worked, and now my army doesn't work at all, because you linked its effectivness on the board with very specific core rules from prior editions, that no longer exist or they exist and now work as a handicap. Ah and then you decided to start updates with armies which were already doing okey in the new edition. If the start of 9th was something like GSC, Necrons, IG, Knights and then maybe CSM , then at least people could agree that GW is fixing something. If alongside that there were actual pdf that let armies survive the year or so of wait time, before their bad rules get updated, one could even say that GW thinks about the players who already bought a GW army. But nothing like that happens.


There are lots of ways to give feedback based on what they have seen. GW does see and read the feedback. Now, I do doubt seriously that they spend any time on Dakka, as I would find it counterproductive too, but to say they are completely deaf to the feedback they have been given, I simply don't think that's true. I know, based on conversations I have seen, but we're not privy to at the time of their generation, that the feedback and sentiment from the community do affect the playtesting process. So when they get their book, I'm sure that GSC and Knights will likely be better for it. In the meantime, points changes do help address some problems, and i agree that there are armies that are structurally in need of a redesign, and for that, we are just going to have to wait. As a chaos knight player (it's my second favorite army) and a Tyranid player, I understand that the wait can suck, but to say that the armies, outside of GSC, just don't work is not an accurate argument. I don't own 9 War Dog Moriax, and somehow I seem to still be able to win some and lose some with my chaos knights, and we've seen some knights lists actually do relatively well according to the Auspex Tactics youtube channel. Even in the case of GSC, I've lost games to them. They weren't competitive games, but I've lost crusade and casual games to them. It is unfortunate that they are not a competitive army right now, but they are still quite playable. Given a little bit of time, I've little doubt they'll be in a much better place, same with Tyranids and knights as a whole.

I understand the frustration, I do. I want everything all at once too. But it is an impossibility of the situation. The pandemic, and the severe push back of the production schedule, labor resources, legal requirements, and just about everything else associated with the releases certainly hasn't done the community any favors, plus the already awkward methodology of codex releases as a whole means we're waiting, but that doesn't mean the concerns aren't or do not make their way anywhere useful.

In terms of what kind of feedback can we as a player of those armies give GW, well, I for one would like to see all Knights be given obsec, so long as all models in the army are from the same knight's detachment. In this case, a knight with 24 wounds in its top bracket would be worth 10 obsec models, in its second bracket, say 5, bottom bracket, 1. the smaller ones would be worth 5, 1, and 0 respectively. Maybe that's not the best way to do it, I have no idea, but it's a starting point. I could write a thesis on Tyranids and what my love letter on them would look like, but you get the point.

And if you truly do feel this disaffected by the game, then step away from it and give it time. Theres nothing wrong with taking a break.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 16:29:39


Post by: Warptide


For me the rules bloat, small tables, complex missions, imbalance between armies, and codex creep makes this an overall negative. I am not a fan of the tournament scene anymore, or even playing pick-ups at the local store.

However most of my gaming is done with a couple of close friends so most of the unpleasantness can be avoided. In this restricted sense this edition of 40K works great.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 17:37:22


Post by: Ravajaxe


So back on topic, I hesitated between neutral and mildly negative , finally voted negative. Here is why.

First and foremost : special rules bloat. Knowing the strenghts and weaknesses, interactions, opponent possibilities (and even its own), making a cohesive gameplan, anticipate the reactions of the opponent are extremely tiedous and difficult. The units datasheets, while relatively streamlined (thanks to 8th edition indexes which imposed a relative simplicity), are not telling much. There is so much more : buff auras, relics, subfactions bonuses, turn-based super-doctrines and whatnot, plus all of these stratagems. There is way too many stratagems involved. Nowadays, special abilities that should be part of many units datasheets have even been moved into stratagems. It contributes to the bloat and to obfuscating the tactical situation. This makes the game confuse and frustrating.

I have a gaming friend (SW) that returned to the game halfway through 8th, he loves the lots of stratagems. I can't even fathom how. I hate all this memorizing, book-keeping, obscure combos, gotcha moments. I can't even have a reasonable conversation on the subject about that with this friend. I hate the situation where I can't even peacefully share opinions about the game with some of my mates. The situations is just too polarized. I feel this is not a game for me anymore. The design team has driven the game far away from the clean intelligible basis that were the 3rd, 4 th, 5th (and to a lesser extent 6-th) editions. This is not the game I fully embraced back then. Remember : the introductory GW video about nineth edition said : "Everyone loves command points, so there is more for everyone !". Sorry, but just no. I don't love command points, I don't want more stratagems, I don't want more crazy combos. I would prefer much less of all of these. I would like the codices to be slimmed down to one page of statagems. Just like there are six warlord traits, six psy powers, a bunch of regimental / chapitral traits... why not just six or eight stratagems ? No more.

Then, there is balance issues. I briefly had some games (including tournaments) in the V8.5 dreaded Space Marine metagame. It was a nightmare. Undercosted new units, silly special rules, free firepower with bonus AP-1, snipers shooting without line of sight, undercosted Invictor warsuits threatening you turn 1 in your deployment zone, rerolls fiesta everywhere... Then 9th edition codex and all the supplements. While the powerlevel was noticeably toned down, SM are still very powerful, but above else, they got all the design attention. More than a year of releases, supplements, new units above new units, new codex, new battleforce, new supplements. At the same time, many other armies get nothing but a lousy "pay to win" psychic awakening book. All the releases the Astra Militarum got in all this period was a made to order campaign with Valhallans from 1995 ! No updated stuff. Eldar and guard miniature ranges are older than grown up players now. This is nonsense. Now look at the state of the metagame post Drukhari. They can't even manage to have a reasonable balance anymore. Drukhari boasting a 70% win rate, while some armies like Tau, Guard, Eldar are sitting at ~40% or below. Is it too much to ask average chances to win ?

To finish off this post, but there is so much to complain about, is the gameplay. The game is so slow to deploy, run. The only things preventing an average sized game in relaxed conditions to extend past 4 hours, are the absurd level of lethality, and the end on turn five. During 4th and 5th editions, you could still have an important part of your army alive by turn 5-th or 6-th or even 7-th, and zooming around objectives. Now, the games are decided by turn 2 or 3 with very few units left. It is brutal. Having first turn is huge. Not having enough terrain on board to hind behind is crippling. And by saying the game is slow to play, I mean resolving the actions involves loads of dice rolling. GW studio response to some units lack of intersest seems to be dialing up dice rolling. Double shoot (e.g. Leman Russ, stratagems), double fight etc... Heavy 6 weapons, heavy 12, heavy 20... And rerolls, ah the rerolls ! Are you in range of a commander bubble ? A stratagem or whatnot ? Roll this shovel of dice, then search and pick all those to reroll them. Oh, plus these exploding giving you even more dice to roll, yeah ! Then next step, you are likely to reroll again (of not your roster may not be an optimized one), then your opponent will have loads of saves to pass and roll again for feel no pain. Roll for damage again. But remember, keep this command point reroll to help with a critical result !


Well...

Everything is not so negative, thanfully. I occasionally still enjoy a game, but there is so many annoying stuff. I enjoyed 4-th 5-th and even 6-th editions way more than 8-th and 9-th. But these are forgotten editions now.
I hope Warhammer 40000 will improve still.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 18:27:39


Post by: Jidmah


Not Online!!! wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly buy it for having a book with everything I need to play in it, not for the "balance patch". That analogy doesn't work out for me anyways, because books don't update.

We are in a digital era, books can update, and there are other distribution means though. and in the end a Game is just a system.


No, you can update PDFs or webpages and I have to print them out or put them on a digital device. You cannot update a book ever.
In case of the GT books I simply pay the money to have printed version to take with me, that can stay in my gaming case. Having a pdf bound and printed in a similar format and quality is only about 8€ cheaper than ordering the real thing from a third party store, assuming that PDF was free to begin with.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/24 23:37:23


Post by: warhead01


I voted negative.
I like the core rules well enough, they're ok.
Everything after that had been a let down.
I especially dislike the ever changing points updates.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 09:45:16


Post by: Semper


I think there's an increasing issue brought on by prices vs volume of content.

One of the things I have started to notice with my local gaming group is that as the new releases come out and the availability of communal copies decreases for them, the cost of keeping up to date with the new rules is significant, especially as there's such significant changes and the huge numbers of stratagems creates a new obstacle to game entry. This is furthered by things like Chapter approved etc adding more things to buy.

I personally enjoy a game with depth and detail but I am not a father nor husband so have a bit of extra time to catch up with new rules. The rule bloat is a thing and I know we've started to remove stratagems from our games aside from the basic ones (ie re-roll, auto pass morale and over watch).


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 09:58:23


Post by: kirotheavenger


 Ravajaxe wrote:
So back on topic, I hesitated between neutral and mildly negative , finally voted negative. Here is why.
...

I agree totally with all of this.
It really baffles me how so many people absolutely adore this approach, to the point of showing outright hostility when I say I think they're bad.
I think ultimately it's because they only consider each element in isolation; "I get +1 strength for this, that's really cool and fluffy!" and their opinion ends there. If you're opposed to it you clearly hate cool and fluffy rules. The bloat? The gotchas? They don't care, it doesn't make into their consideration.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 10:01:06


Post by: Karol


Seabass 798472 11131827 wrote: I understand the frustration, I do. I want everything all at once too. But it is an impossibility of the situation. The pandemic, and the severe push back of the production schedule, labor resources, legal requirements, and just about everything else associated with the releases certainly hasn't done the community any favors, plus the already awkward methodology of codex releases as a whole means we're waiting, but that doesn't mean the concerns aren't or do not make their way anywhere useful.




But this kind of an excuse was used for some armies for multiple editions. GK got what 2 bad codex and an index since they were good last time 4 editions ago? Now I have no personal expiriance of stuff before 8th. But I remember 8th very well. Index comes out and it is bad. But no worries codex will fix it. Codex comes out and it is horrible. No worries there are FAQ/Errata. What follows are 2 years of CA and faq/errata that brings more nerfs then buffs, and the buffs are just buffs that everyone else gets. Then they don't put out a new codex, but instead a PA book, which is fun in 8th, if you live in a place where GW sends book on time. I got my in early february 2020 and ends of that month we went in to lock down. I played 2 games with the good rules in 8th ed. And now we slowly creep on a year of 9th, and GW can't even give GK regular flamers, -1D on dreads or +1W. Which is a new things, because before in 8th we didn't get much buffs, but at least if marins got something we got it too.

It would take how long to write a PDF for 1ksons, GK and CSM to get +1W on their units? A week, maybe two weeks. And for sure a GW employ could do it at home. Lets say the other changes like the -1D to dreads and regular flamer rules, would take another week. Even with a 1-2 month new edition grace phase this means GW is late with their update for a few months already.


And if you truly do feel this disaffected by the game, then step away from it and give it time. Theres nothing wrong with taking a break.

There is if your head sick from the very idea of quiting or losing that much money.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 11:09:55


Post by: KurtAngle2


Voss wrote:
Keep in mind the ork release is split.

They'll push out 1001 units of the Beastsnaggas Limited Edition Collectors Box For Scalpers, then come back with the separate ork codex and actual release in a couple months.

So they may well release sisters, punt the ork box, and then drop AoS 3.0, the new faction's and Stormcast battletomes, and then come back to 40k with TS vs GK, their respective books and settle in for the orks proper release..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ordana wrote:
8th edition was the sort of speed I want GW to have. Practically everyone got their codex reasonably quickly and was able to enjoy them for a long (relative) time with supplements coming out to keep GW's gravy train rolling.


Hard disagree here. 8th happened way too fast, and the books lasted an absurdly short time, doubly so for the terrible supplements.


No, books didn't last an absurdly short time; in fact we've got 8TH books that are few months away from being 4 years old (IG/Eldar/Tyranids/CSM if you do not consider the 2.0 joke)


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 11:14:47


Post by: Deadnight


Karol wrote:



And if you truly do feel this disaffected by the game, then step away from it and give it time. Theres nothing wrong with taking a break.

There is if your head sick from the very idea of quiting or losing that much money.


Jesus christ Karol,

'Taking a break' doesn't mean either quitting or losing money.

And it's certainly better than being a martyr and just wallowing in misery.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 11:22:29


Post by: Tyel


Broadly speaking happy with the game.

I can see the point on relativistic release schedules though.

I feel there are people who play the game every week - a bit like a computer game - and so expect GW to release balance patches instantly and new content on a regularly basis. Three weeks of "an issue" feels like an eternity.

Then there are people who'd consider themselves in the hobby - but only get a game in every month or three (or more). For them the fact things shift so much in 6 months is difficult to grasp. They aren't keeping up with new releases, faqs, the meta etc.

Finally you have people who seem to embrace deep time. They want 40k to exist in semi-stasis, a bit like conventional board games, and they can get a game in once every 5 years and expect rules updates to happen on about that basis.

Due to bouncing between 1 and 2 as real life demands, 40k's release schedule has seemed at once excruciatingly slow - but also blistering ly fast these last few years. But yeah - not sure there is a solution. It represents a genuine divide across the playerbase.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 11:25:25


Post by: vict0988


KurtAngle2 wrote:
No, books didn't last an absurdly short time; in fact we've got 8TH books that are few months away from being 4 years old (IG/Eldar/Tyranids/CSM if you do not consider the 2.0 joke)

Why would you not consider the 2.0 joke? If people wanted to use the new models they had to get the new codex right?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 11:32:06


Post by: Not Online!!!


 vict0988 wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
No, books didn't last an absurdly short time; in fact we've got 8TH books that are few months away from being 4 years old (IG/Eldar/Tyranids/CSM if you do not consider the 2.0 joke)

Why would you not consider the 2.0 joke? If people wanted to use the new models they had to get the new codex right?

No, you could also get yourself the shadowspear booklet (which btw had special sorcerer Warlord traits which never got into 2.0) and vigilus ablaze.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 11:46:33


Post by: the_scotsman


 vict0988 wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
No, books didn't last an absurdly short time; in fact we've got 8TH books that are few months away from being 4 years old (IG/Eldar/Tyranids/CSM if you do not consider the 2.0 joke)

Why would you not consider the 2.0 joke? If people wanted to use the new models they had to get the new codex right?


I think he means he wouldnt consider it a substantial update to the CSM rules and considers them to be still using super old rules.

Which i'd 100% agree with.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 12:10:27


Post by: Nurglitch


I'm kind of bored with it. I haven't played since the end of 8th, but everytime I think about dipping my toes back in I think about everything else I could be doing, including watching the paint on my models dry.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 12:53:49


Post by: Gadzilla666


 vict0988 wrote:
KurtAngle2 wrote:
No, books didn't last an absurdly short time; in fact we've got 8TH books that are few months away from being 4 years old (IG/Eldar/Tyranids/CSM if you do not consider the 2.0 joke)

Why would you not consider the 2.0 joke? If people wanted to use the new models they had to get the new codex right?

CSM 2.0 was such a small "update" on the original 8th edition codex that gw told anyone who already had the original codex to not buy it. If that isn't a statement on how little "new" content there was in it, I don't know what is.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 13:00:14


Post by: kirotheavenger


I find the edition pace of 40k to be lightning quick. New editions arrive and/or major edition upheavals occur faster than the edition has time to settle.
Whereas individual changes are very slow, weak armies having to wait years for a codex/supplement is a big problem as GW doesn't do any major changes any other way.

Which is really the worst of both worlds, people languish in poor rules for seemingly ages, but at the same time it seems that whatever you do get is worthless before you've even used it.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 13:10:13


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Part of the reason I like 30k is the rules are steady, but have sufficient depth that metas are still evolving, and releases make ripples in the meta without being OP.

For example, the balance between monsters and tanks has always been shaky in 7th (which is what HH is based on), but the design team so far has kept them not only at parity, but actually as different threats you have to prepare for. In 7th, it was always the case that anti-tank weapons could kill tanks, but there was no such thing as an anti-monster weapon, not really. Some things did Instant Death, but almost everything had access to Eternal Warrior somehow.

Anyways, in 30k there are anti-monster weapons that don't do much to tanks or infantry, there are anti-tank weapons that don't do much to monsters or infantry, and there are anti-infantry weapons that don't do much to tanks or monsters.

Now, within these categories there are sub categories (anti-superheavy/anti-transport/anti-flyer as examples for vehicles, anti-Gargantuan Creature/anti-multi-wound/Instant Death for monsters, and anti-heavy infantry/anti-horde etc. for infantry). But the point is that the game doesn't need new edition releases to keep people's armies evolving - just new books that subtly adjust the existing meta and can encourage people to buy that new unit they've been eyeing or whatever.

THAT SAID, HH not constantly changing itself/switching editions may be a player's paradise, but it's not a moneymaker in terms of selling the books. You only need to buy them once, and GW hates that


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 13:10:58


Post by: Tycho


Pretty board. The missions are so samey, and the design just isn't great imo. Games are super predictable. 5th ed (which was generally a good edition) ran into a similar issue at the end of its lifespan, but that was much further on than where we are with 9th. The fact that Covid has forced GW into a slow release cycle doesn't even bother my group. It just feels like the core game itself wasn't quite ready for prime time. A lot of it could be fixed with some FAQs but I don't see it happening. Meh.


Also worried about my favorite personal army. I have a huge Tsons/Demons army built around summoning (just because I find it fun - it's not the best army in the world - just enjoyable for me from a narrative stand point). Judging from Death Guard, that army is about to take a hit (if/when that codex eventually comes out). It happens of course. I would just rather it not happen to my favorite army in an edition I already find to be a bit stale.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 13:20:48


Post by: the_scotsman


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Part of the reason I like 30k is the rules are steady, but have sufficient depth that metas are still evolving, and releases make ripples in the meta without being OP.

For example, the balance between monsters and tanks has always been shaky in 7th (which is what HH is based on), but the design team so far has kept them not only at parity, but actually as different threats you have to prepare for. In 7th, it was always the case that anti-tank weapons could kill tanks, but there was no such thing as an anti-monster weapon, not really. Some things did Instant Death, but almost everything had access to Eternal Warrior somehow.

Anyways, in 30k there are anti-monster weapons that don't do much to tanks or infantry, there are anti-tank weapons that don't do much to monsters or infantry, and there are anti-infantry weapons that don't do much to tanks or monsters.

Now, within these categories there are sub categories (anti-superheavy/anti-transport/anti-flyer as examples for vehicles, anti-Gargantuan Creature/anti-multi-wound/Instant Death for monsters, and anti-heavy infantry/anti-horde etc. for infantry). But the point is that the game doesn't need new edition releases to keep people's armies evolving - just new books that subtly adjust the existing meta and can encourage people to buy that new unit they've been eyeing or whatever.

THAT SAID, HH not constantly changing itself/switching editions may be a player's paradise, but it's not a moneymaker in terms of selling the books. You only need to buy them once, and GW hates that


True. if only HH wasn't the metaphorical no-stuff oreo of the 40k setting.

All the "everything is space marines" that you know and enjoy from 40k, but with none of the "theoretically there could be other factions that are enjoyable and interesting" that's so pesky and inconvenient.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 13:47:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 14:00:37


Post by: Galas


Actually the lack of change and updates to the games they play is one of the biggest factors I have seen for most people to stop playing whatever they are playing because it is not "supported".

People grows bored without new stuff, changes to the stuff they allready have, etc... and this applies to all online games but also most wargames I know. So I woldn't call it a player paradise.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 14:04:49


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Galas wrote:
Actually the lack of change and updates to the games they play is one of the biggest factors I have seen for most people to stop playing whatever they are playing because it is not "supported".

People grows bored without new stuff, changes to the stuff they allready have, etc... and this applies to all online games but also most wargames I know. So I woldn't call it a player paradise.


Don't confuse a lack of "edition churn" with a lack of support.

New stuff is releasing for 30k fairly constantly, and it is clear GW supports it. Not to the degree it supports 40k, mind, but it isn't like the game is "Dead" and getting nothing. That sort of trickle of cool stuff is exactly what I was talking about when I said "new releases subtly change the meta".

That's totally different than ALRIGHT DROP EVERYTHING NEW EDITION. Tanks don't have hull points, Instant Death is gone, and psychic powers work totally differently! If your army doesn't work, you can have a slap-dash FAQ until your next Army List comes out. Oh, it came out eight months ago? Right, then, DROP EVERYTHING NEW EDITION!


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 14:05:01


Post by: the_scotsman


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).


I like xenos. The imperium is and always has been the least interesting aspect of 40k to me, so a system thats just imperium vs imperium with a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle tiny hint of chaos thrown in there every once in a while is the exact opposite of an engaging setting for me.

The only reason I ever got into 30k extremely briefly was when they had admech stuff that did not exist in 40k, and making the mistake of investing money into that burned me harder than basically any other hobby purchasing decision I have ever made.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 14:06:06


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).


I like xenos. The imperium is and always has been the least interesting aspect of 40k to me, so a system thats just imperium vs imperium with a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle tiny hint of chaos thrown in there every once in a while is the exact opposite of an engaging setting for me.

The only reason I ever got into 30k extremely briefly was when they had admech stuff that did not exist in 40k, and making the mistake of investing money into that burned me harder than basically any other hobby purchasing decision I have ever made.


Fair enough. I like non-Imperial humans and Chaos-humans a lot. I also like Mechanicum a lot. So those are the armies I own. You actually could make a fairly convincing "xenos" list thanks to the flexibility of the Militia/Cults list, if you really wanted, but nothing there quite fits with any of the specific 40k Xenos.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 14:10:48


Post by: Not Online!!!


30k has the issue that it would've been trivially easy to implement some of the more obscure xenos.....
but then again in many cases i'd describe 30k as a missed opportunity. f.e. plastic expansion, mainlining some of units and increasing the design studios capability and size...


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 14:17:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I won't derail the thread too much further (too late) but I'll say one last thing:

One of the things a "stable" ruleset allows for is the ability of skilled player-creators to deviate from the "Cult of Officialdom" that surrounds GW. For example, there is an excellent (and fairly well-balanced!) Craftworld Eldar fan-list for 30k that's even been printed and bound before. It's pretty well accepted, including by my local club.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 15:46:10


Post by: Some_Call_Me_Tim


There's also a pretty boss ruleset for orkz that i like. You can put a boss on a deffkopta, really appeals to my idea of makin a STORMWAAAAGGHH!!!


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 15:47:31


Post by: the_scotsman


 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
There's also a pretty boss ruleset for orkz that i like. You can put a boss on a deffkopta, really appeals to my idea of makin a STORMWAAAAGGHH!!!


You wanna shoot a road brother a link to those ork rules?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 18:28:46


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I won't derail the thread too much further (too late) but I'll say one last thing:

One of the things a "stable" ruleset allows for is the ability of skilled player-creators to deviate from the "Cult of Officialdom" that surrounds GW. For example, there is an excellent (and fairly well-balanced!) Craftworld Eldar fan-list for 30k that's even been printed and bound before. It's pretty well accepted, including by my local club.


Is that the Australius Ultima Sector one that's 240mb for an 80-page PDF for some reason? I was confused by that one, it reads like they took the 7e book and awkwardly shaved off Exarchs into HQ for no readily apparent reason.

1d4chan had an interesting article discussing challenges and recommended changes for converting the 7e xenos books over to 30k (Ork super-Nobz for people who want to use the really big Ironjawz models, a weird hybrid Eldar army where you can mix and match Corsairs/Craftworlds/DE/Exodites but almost everything's 0-1 without Rites of War to represent an Eldar civilization that hasn't yet solidified into its 40k form, expanded Necron small Lord mechanics to let them participate in the challenge/morale game more, that kind of thing), but 1d4chan seems to be down again.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 18:28:49


Post by: aphyon


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).


I like xenos. The imperium is and always has been the least interesting aspect of 40k to me, so a system thats just imperium vs imperium with a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle tiny hint of chaos thrown in there every once in a while is the exact opposite of an engaging setting for me.

The only reason I ever got into 30k extremely briefly was when they had admech stuff that did not exist in 40k, and making the mistake of investing money into that burned me harder than basically any other hobby purchasing decision I have ever made.


Fair enough. I like non-Imperial humans and Chaos-humans a lot. I also like Mechanicum a lot. So those are the armies I own. You actually could make a fairly convincing "xenos" list thanks to the flexibility of the Militia/Cults list, if you really wanted, but nothing there quite fits with any of the specific 40k Xenos.


When we play 30K we allow people to play the xenos races that were around at the time that the great crusade did or could run into, so-necrons, eldar, orks, dark eldar since they have compatible codexes. you just cannot use named characters who were not around (mostly orks)


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/02/25 06:08:01


Post by: the_scotsman


 aphyon wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).


I like xenos. The imperium is and always has been the least interesting aspect of 40k to me, so a system thats just imperium vs imperium with a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle tiny hint of chaos thrown in there every once in a while is the exact opposite of an engaging setting for me.

The only reason I ever got into 30k extremely briefly was when they had admech stuff that did not exist in 40k, and making the mistake of investing money into that burned me harder than basically any other hobby purchasing decision I have ever made.


Fair enough. I like non-Imperial humans and Chaos-humans a lot. I also like Mechanicum a lot. So those are the armies I own. You actually could make a fairly convincing "xenos" list thanks to the flexibility of the Militia/Cults list, if you really wanted, but nothing there quite fits with any of the specific 40k Xenos.


When we play 30K we allow people to play the xenos races that were around at the time that the great crusade did or could run into, so-necrons, eldar, orks, dark eldar since they have compatible codexes. you just cannot use named characters who were not around (mostly orks)


Cool. Last time I played 30k I brought my 2500 points of mechanicum models, but my opponent wanted to play 3000 points so he could field all the stuff he wanted to, so I went and grabbed my knight castigator because, hey, it's painted to match my mechanicum and its a forgeworld model, its probably designed for 30k.

He spent basically the whole game bitching about how the knight 'didnt belong in 30k' and '30k just isnt designed for superheavies' after having talked up how the game is just soooooooooooo much better than the garbage theyre shoveling at people with the trash 8th edition.

I'm guessing that's exactly what I'd get if I tried running one of the interesting armies' 7th edition rules in the precious baby 30k that is the most balanced and robust and best game system ever but also a delicate fabrige egg that will shatter into a zillion pieces the second anyone takes anything that isn't a T4 3+ armor profile into the game.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 19:24:31


Post by: Rihgu


That person was definitely just whiny. Not saying 30k isn't a delicate fabrige egg that shatters at slight pressure, because it is (but the pressure in this case isn't knights, it's... quad mortars)

30k is like, ALL about Superheavies. Like, almost entirely the point is to have your primarch roll down the field and smash up space marines. If that's what the local playgroup is like, nah, I wouldn't have any interest in 30k either.

I feel like what you'd run into if you tried to play orks or eldar in 30k is a marine player with 2 sicarans and 3 quad mortars is going to cackle gleefully as you remove every model in your army by the handful.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 19:39:34


Post by: AnomanderRake


Well...On one hand the person grumbling about how 30k isn't designed for superheavies is being pretty whiny (it is, and if your 3,000pt list can't address a single Knight something's very wrong), but the Castigator specifically is pretty format-warping because of the AP3 hellstorm torrent template. 30k does sort of break down if you bring cover-ignoring low-AP templates (Castigator, Malcador Infernus, Typhon siege tank), or if you don't warn your opponent before bringing a Cybernetica or Questoris core detachment (one Knight's fine, six are a problem), or if you bring Primarch's Chosen to a 1,000pt game, but it'll handle most 40k xenos books just fine. Maybe not wraithcannon/scatterbike Craftworlders, and probably not Tau, but most anything else should do fine.

(For quad-mortars they're mostly a problem because you need to resolve four twin-linked small blasts per gun per shot, but if you use the beta rules where it fires one large blast they're much less irritating.)


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 19:41:33


Post by: Rihgu


Castigator is the one with the pewpew gatling gun. Acheron is the flamethrower one.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 19:43:14


Post by: AnomanderRake


Rihgu wrote:
Castigator is the one with the pewpew gatling gun. Acheron is the flamethrower one.


My mistake. Castigator ought to be just fine.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/25 20:05:18


Post by: Nurglitch


I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 05:37:37


Post by: aphyon


Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.


That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 06:11:20


Post by: kodos


 aphyon wrote:
but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.

this already happend long before the change to vehicles, it was 5th Edition with the GK Codex were Anti-Infantry weapons became the best AT weapons
and GW never solved that problem because they never saw it a game-play problem and to make everything a monster was one of the better changes (as what became a vehicle, a walker and a monster was random anyway)


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 06:21:37


Post by: Gadzilla666


 aphyon wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.


That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.

Ummm. Have you seen the AT weapons that armies are running around with nowadays? What "mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF" kill vehicles better than a multi-melta or dark lance?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 10:00:43


Post by: aphyon


Yes i have and aside from the super broken things like eradicators the increased fixed damage of things like autocannons and heavy bolters (hell in 8th stalker bolters in the hands of my friends crimson fists murdered my vehicles) make them good at killing everything. prior to the 8th ed switch over a leman russ or a land raider never worried about such things


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 10:44:12


Post by: Blackie


 aphyon wrote:
Yes i have and aside from the super broken things like eradicators the increased fixed damage of things like autocannons and heavy bolters (hell in 8th stalker bolters in the hands of my friends crimson fists murdered my vehicles) make them good at killing everything. prior to the 8th ed switch over a leman russ or a land raider never worried about such things


True, AV14 boxes were tough to kill by shooting. My poor ork vehicles, including battlewagons, were litterally paper things though due to AV10-12 on some or all sides and open topped. In 5-7th it wasn't uncommon to lose 1-3 Battlewagons just to 3 lascannons shots, now it takes lots of anti tank to bring down the same vehicles. However in combat a single dude with power klaw had very good odds to one-shot a Leman Russ and now he barely scratches it. And a single hit could incapacitate the whole vehicle for a turn or even the rest of the battle.

Overall vehicles are way tougher now, except those who were full AV14. Vehicles are even more efficient as they can move and fire without penalty, while in older editions they could fire with all their weapons only if they didn't move at all, or just a single weapon if they moved at minimum distance, and arcs limited their shooting a lot. Not to mention that they can fire in combat and automatically disengage from tarpits. In older editions a single dude that was locked in combat with a tank used to lock the vehicle forever.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 13:07:03


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Point of order: in older editions, only walkers could be locked in combat. Tanks could walk away unimpeded and basically ignored attacking infantry (unless they penetrated it's armor ofc).

In general Blackie I think you are lying. It takes 18 Space Marine lascannons to kill a 4 Hull Point BW in 7rh, and 36 if it has cover or a safe (KFF is 27 shots). Otherwise, it could Explode, but there is only a .018% chance of that happening (i.e. about one in five thousand Space Marines with Lascannons). Other damage results were more common of course.

Additionally, vehicle movement was more complex than you were letting on. Depending on the edition, some could fire all guns on the move, some could fire one, some none.

Additionally, 9th edition vehicles aren't really much safer. Certain weapons are more effective in 9th than in 7th/HH (e.g. Shadows word). They really aren't all that comparable except the whole tanks in combat thing


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 13:29:37


Post by: Blackie


Well, a BW was AV12 in the side and open topped. So blowing it up with a single shot was super easy. A single melta hit from a dop pod was an almost guarenteed Explode! result.

In my experience I now play against lists that have twice or three times the anti tank that I faced in 5-7th and yet my vehicles last way longer without being forced to spam a crazy amount of them.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 13:47:17


Post by: Pickled_egg


Positive overall.

My main complaints;
* first day DLC / campaign books where you spend £30 just to get access to 3-4 pages of matched play rules
* rules bloat / already needing to take 3-5 books to a game/tournament. partly due to the above
* codex creep

I'm hopeful that the codex creep will be addressed through the FAQ's and regular points updates, which are both good for the game.
The rules bloat is only going to continue while they carry on using the current model.

The campaign style books with 3-4 pages of faction specific matched play rules are a blatent gouge.

The game is still in the best place in terms of balance and fun that I can remember since I started playing Rogue Trader in the late 80's.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 14:00:22


Post by: the_scotsman


 aphyon wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.


That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.


....Except that they don't.

People take dedicated antitank weapons all the time in the current edition. People are whinging about Dark Lances, Multi-Meltas, the new admech chicken super-lascannon, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 aphyon wrote:
Yes i have and aside from the super broken things like eradicators the increased fixed damage of things like autocannons and heavy bolters (hell in 8th stalker bolters in the hands of my friends crimson fists murdered my vehicles) make them good at killing everything. prior to the 8th ed switch over a leman russ or a land raider never worried about such things



Oh yeah, that's true, why you'd only need, lets see...

...twenty-seven space marines firing autocannons at a leman russ to kill it, wheras in pre-8th that weapon couldn't even damage a leman russ*


*unless it got behind it in which case a single autocannon fired by a bs3+ model had an 88% chance to roll on the damage table, at least preventing the russ from shooting for the turn, at most destroying it instantly.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 14:12:16


Post by: Karol


 the_scotsman wrote:


....Except that they don't.

People take dedicated antitank weapons all the time in the current edition. People are whinging about Dark Lances, Multi-Meltas, the new admech chicken super-lascannon, etc.


Because they double dip as anti marine weapons. If the game had something like multi shot str 6-7 ap 2/3 weapons doing 2 or more wounds, on valid platforms, people would spam them. Because they would kill marines and vehicles. In fact from what kind of vehicles are being run by majority armies right now, single shot anti tank weapons are really bad. Becaue more often then not you get to shot them, maybe once per game, and they either get killed or traded, or they get engaged in melee and can't use the weapons.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 14:23:45


Post by: Tyran


Dark Lances are not anti-marine weapons, they are a single shot high damage that hilariously overkills one marine model. Its sibling the Disintegrator is a fantastic anti-marine weapon, but no one takes it over the Dark Lance.

Same goes for the new Admech lascannon.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 14:38:26


Post by: Valkyrie


Generally speaking, I'm rather neutral on the topic. There were some pretty big issues in 7th that 8th took care of, but I think the pendulum swung too far back the other way towards simplicity.

I've been playing since 4th and the amount of stuff to remember was far, far greater than 8th onwards. Vehicle explosions for example, several possible results depending on how it was destroyed, each result doing a different effect. 5th slimmed it down into one damage table, but it still had a bit of character:

- "Oh no, my tank ground to a halt, dead in the water!" = Nothing
- "Oh no, the ammo compartment took a hit and detonated!" = Units within 6" take D6 S4 hits
- "Oh crap! The fuel and ammo have detonated in a spectacular explosion!" = Units take a stronger hit, passengers inside unlikely to survive.

It had that little bit of extra cinematic quality which I enjoyed. Now it's just "On a 6, you do Mortal Wounds". Boring as balls.

Everything has to be Mortal Wounds now. It's a lazy overused mechanic which should be used at the absolute bare minimum. In the newer codexes it seems that other mechanics (+1 to hit, can't fall back, 6's to hit autowound) are just being copy/pasted across the board in stratagems and relics. In addition we're starting to see the pinnacle of GW's model-based policy with the Plague Marines, Wyches and now Skitarii's options limited in a pointless and wordy manner.

I'm also just getting sick of the Primaris lot now. I didn't mind the Primaris Marines when they were first released, thought they were pretty cool and interesting stats. Now it's just getting tiresome. Why do Primaris need 3 different kinds of Land Speeders? Good thing the flyer-hunter variant has BS2+ basic, heaven forbid they have to hit on 3's! Why do we suddenly need new and improved Melta weapons? Didn't realise our anti-tank was that bad.

Perhaps it's the lack of any games due to Covid, perhaps I am just getting tired of the game as a whole, who knows, but overall I think 8th was a bit of fresh air compared to the state of 7th. 9th was a good spot to make improvements given the player base has had a few years to get used to a radically different system, and GW blew it.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 14:40:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 aphyon wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.


That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.


....Except that they don't.

People take dedicated antitank weapons all the time in the current edition. People are whinging about Dark Lances, Multi-Meltas, the new admech chicken super-lascannon, etc.

No, heavy bolters and ACs are TOTALLY the best way to kill tanks. Why, it only takes 108 shots from either from a BS3 platform to kill a Land Raider (144 if it pops Smokescreen). Please, everyone leave your multi-meltas and dark lances at home and try to kill my 2+ save tanks and -1 to all incoming damage dreadnoughts with heavy bolters and splinter cannons! Please don't throw me into that briar patch!

For the record, I don't think that multi-meltas and dark lances are too good at killing vehicles either. They're just doing what they're supposed to do. They're a bit too cheap on some platforms, but really, people should stop thinking that they can drive their tanks straight into the guns of a dedicated anti-tank unit and win.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 14:56:16


Post by: Ordana


When all premier AT weapons were D6 damage, before the Melta changes, its true that people generally did not bring much dedicated AT weapons.

Because d6 damage simply wasn't reliable enough while you payed premium prices for them.
This is no longer the case for those armies that have been updated.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:01:39


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I mean, there was a phase before GW FAQ'd Imperial Fists (back when their HBs did two damage before the change to Str 7 and above) where an Imperial Fists list took only Heavy Bolters and Onslaught Cannons as anti-tank.

Now HBs are Damage 2, though fortunately Onslaught cannons aren't. Still, I wait for the day that some low-strength high-ROF weapon becomes D2. Punisher Cannons (for example) will be the best AT in the game.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:05:29


Post by: the_scotsman


Karol wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:


....Except that they don't.

People take dedicated antitank weapons all the time in the current edition. People are whinging about Dark Lances, Multi-Meltas, the new admech chicken super-lascannon, etc.


Because they double dip as anti marine weapons. If the game had something like multi shot str 6-7 ap 2/3 weapons doing 2 or more wounds, on valid platforms, people would spam them. Because they would kill marines and vehicles. In fact from what kind of vehicles are being run by majority armies right now, single shot anti tank weapons are really bad. Becaue more often then not you get to shot them, maybe once per game, and they either get killed or traded, or they get engaged in melee and can't use the weapons.


Yeah, you're just wrong. One common example of a low-ROF high-Strength antitank weapon is generally not very good (regular lascannons) and plenty of people are taking alternatives that have reliable damage profiles.

And theyre not taking them because you can shoot a Dark Lance at a marine, lol. They're taking them because they reliably kill tanks. Because theyre fething antitank weapons.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:06:54


Post by: Voss


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 aphyon wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.


That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.


....Except that they don't.

People take dedicated antitank weapons all the time in the current edition. People are whinging about Dark Lances, Multi-Meltas, the new admech chicken super-lascannon, etc.

No, heavy bolters and ACs are TOTALLY the best way to kill tanks. Why, it only takes 108 shots from either from a BS3 platform to kill a Land Raider (144 if it pops Smokescreen). Please, everyone leave your multi-meltas and dark lances at home and try to kill my 2+ save tanks and -1 to all incoming damage dreadnoughts with heavy bolters and splinter cannons! Please don't throw me into that briar patch!

For the record, I don't think that multi-meltas and dark lances are too good at killing vehicles either. They're just doing what they're supposed to do. They're a bit too cheap on some platforms, but really, people should stop thinking that they can drive their tanks straight into the guns of a dedicated anti-tank unit and win.


I'm not really sure that's the issue. More that a dedicated anti-tank elements can just turn up, point at a tank and it dies before it drives anywhere or accomplishes anything.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:12:03


Post by: the_scotsman


Voss wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 aphyon wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.


That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.


....Except that they don't.

People take dedicated antitank weapons all the time in the current edition. People are whinging about Dark Lances, Multi-Meltas, the new admech chicken super-lascannon, etc.

No, heavy bolters and ACs are TOTALLY the best way to kill tanks. Why, it only takes 108 shots from either from a BS3 platform to kill a Land Raider (144 if it pops Smokescreen). Please, everyone leave your multi-meltas and dark lances at home and try to kill my 2+ save tanks and -1 to all incoming damage dreadnoughts with heavy bolters and splinter cannons! Please don't throw me into that briar patch!

For the record, I don't think that multi-meltas and dark lances are too good at killing vehicles either. They're just doing what they're supposed to do. They're a bit too cheap on some platforms, but really, people should stop thinking that they can drive their tanks straight into the guns of a dedicated anti-tank unit and win.


I'm not really sure that's the issue. More that a dedicated anti-tank elements can just turn up, point at a tank and it dies before it drives anywhere or accomplishes anything.


I do see this as a big weakness in the current game - while shorter ranges and more cover options have generally made it so you can keep light infantry units alive, it's generally quite a bit harder to keep tanks safe unless you have the perfect goldilocks board setup with Obscuring cover to hide them behind.

GW is slowly porting reliable 1cp -1 to hit strats for vehicles through the new Smokescreen thing, but generally speaking it does still seem very easy to just reach out and boop an expensive tank top of turn 1, as compared to how difficult it is to do that vs infantry stuff.

That comes compounded by the fact htat many new defensive abilities require you to turn them on in YOUR command phase (meaning theyre off top of 1 if your opponent goes first) and while you deploy, you cant know if youre going first or second, so reserving your big thing might be a huge missed tempo opportunity if you do end up going first and you could have used your first punch to hit your opponent's glass cannon antitank units and remove them from contention.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:29:59


Post by: Gadzilla666


Voss wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 aphyon wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.


That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.


....Except that they don't.

People take dedicated antitank weapons all the time in the current edition. People are whinging about Dark Lances, Multi-Meltas, the new admech chicken super-lascannon, etc.

No, heavy bolters and ACs are TOTALLY the best way to kill tanks. Why, it only takes 108 shots from either from a BS3 platform to kill a Land Raider (144 if it pops Smokescreen). Please, everyone leave your multi-meltas and dark lances at home and try to kill my 2+ save tanks and -1 to all incoming damage dreadnoughts with heavy bolters and splinter cannons! Please don't throw me into that briar patch!

For the record, I don't think that multi-meltas and dark lances are too good at killing vehicles either. They're just doing what they're supposed to do. They're a bit too cheap on some platforms, but really, people should stop thinking that they can drive their tanks straight into the guns of a dedicated anti-tank unit and win.


I'm not really sure that's the issue. More that a dedicated anti-tank elements can just turn up, point at a tank and it dies before it drives anywhere or accomplishes anything.

That sounds like a "heavy melta rifle Eradicators" problem. I think I've said repeatedly that I think a melta unit that does the same damage at max range as other melta does at half is bad design, but they aren't going away. I'd definitely put them into my "too damned cheap for what they do" category. Right at the top of it, in fact.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:36:07


Post by: Tyran


Eradicators are way too damn slow, they are not one-shooting a tank in the enemy deployment zone, at least not turn one.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:38:35


Post by: the_scotsman


 Tyran wrote:
Eradicators are way too damn slow, they are not one-shooting a tank in the enemy deployment zone, at least not turn one.


Yeah, mostly I'm thinking of stuff like mobile MM attack bikes/whatever the sisters tank with the meltas is/myphitiic blight-haulers and PBCs with the super lascannons, Dark Lances, new admech shooty ostriches.

You know, all the low-shots long range dedicated antitank weaponry that nobody takes because I'm complaining about some phenomenon from a full edition ago to try and convince people that the edition that brought you Scatterbikes and D-weapon rules is somehow better.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:39:06


Post by: Unit1126PLL


7th was gross, 4th with some tweaks is where it is at.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:43:40


Post by: the_scotsman


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
7th was gross, 4th with some tweaks is where it is at.


Any edition where people are playing in such a way as to not purposefully create a worse play experience is the best edition.

If players are playing in such a way as to purposefully create a worse play experience (i.e. competitively) I will take 9th over any other past edition, because the competitive list setups in every other edition besides this one made me want to projectile vomit into the player's face like linda blair.

Right now? I can at least look at a competitive list and go "yeah, that looks like a Death Guard list. They've got models in power armor. Theyre slow, theyre tough, they're doing what Death Guard is supposed to do. They have more than 3 different types of unit on the board."


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:45:15


Post by: Tyran


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
7th was gross, 4th with some tweaks is where it is at.


Too bad everyone focuses on 5th when it comes to Oldhammer for some weird reason.

Personally I think if you are going to play with an alternative ruleset, you are better making your own than trying to refit a decade old ruleset that is just changing some design flaws for others.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:58:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Eradicators are way too damn slow, they are not one-shooting a tank in the enemy deployment zone, at least not turn one.


Yeah, mostly I'm thinking of stuff like mobile MM attack bikes/whatever the sisters tank with the meltas is/myphitiic blight-haulers and PBCs with the super lascannons, Dark Lances, new admech shooty ostriches.

You know, all the low-shots long range dedicated antitank weaponry that nobody takes because I'm complaining about some phenomenon from a full edition ago to try and convince people that the edition that brought you Scatterbikes and D-weapon rules is somehow better.

Not sure about the ostriches, but most of that stuff shouldn't be deleting a tank turn one unless you stick it out in the open. Attack bikes can, if you deploy them way up your dz, but if you don't get turn one that's risky. And obviously I'm assuming that by "just turning up" Voss meant coming out of reserves. My apologies to Voss if that was wrong.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 15:58:42


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Agreed. Playing 40k with the Chain of Command rules and structure would be awesome.

In fact... I wonder...


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 16:13:05


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Eradicators are way too damn slow, they are not one-shooting a tank in the enemy deployment zone, at least not turn one.


Yeah, mostly I'm thinking of stuff like mobile MM attack bikes/whatever the sisters tank with the meltas is/myphitiic blight-haulers and PBCs with the super lascannons, Dark Lances, new admech shooty ostriches.

You know, all the low-shots long range dedicated antitank weaponry that nobody takes because I'm complaining about some phenomenon from a full edition ago to try and convince people that the edition that brought you Scatterbikes and D-weapon rules is somehow better.

Not sure about the ostriches, but most of that stuff shouldn't be deleting a tank turn one unless you stick it out in the open. Attack bikes can, if you deploy them way up your dz, but if you don't get turn one that's risky. And obviously I'm assuming that by "just turning up" Voss meant coming out of reserves. My apologies to Voss if that was wrong.


The main problem is, outside of being totally behind Obscuring terrain, being behind Dense Cover, or simply not being on the board, there is generally no good way to keep that kind of firepower from hitting your big stuff, because its crazy long range, and generally crazy high AP, so your Sv stat is mostly just wasted.

The only relevant stats for vehicles vs anti-vehicle weaponry are:

-minus to hit
-invulns sometimes
-minus to damage
-Toughness 7 to toughness 8, again sometimes.

Anti-infantry weaponry *tends* to be shorter range and lower Ap, so a unit having a higher sv stat or simply being placed farther back can actually matter as a way to easily protect the unit from firepower top of 1.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 16:31:51


Post by: Gadzilla666


 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Eradicators are way too damn slow, they are not one-shooting a tank in the enemy deployment zone, at least not turn one.


Yeah, mostly I'm thinking of stuff like mobile MM attack bikes/whatever the sisters tank with the meltas is/myphitiic blight-haulers and PBCs with the super lascannons, Dark Lances, new admech shooty ostriches.

You know, all the low-shots long range dedicated antitank weaponry that nobody takes because I'm complaining about some phenomenon from a full edition ago to try and convince people that the edition that brought you Scatterbikes and D-weapon rules is somehow better.

Not sure about the ostriches, but most of that stuff shouldn't be deleting a tank turn one unless you stick it out in the open. Attack bikes can, if you deploy them way up your dz, but if you don't get turn one that's risky. And obviously I'm assuming that by "just turning up" Voss meant coming out of reserves. My apologies to Voss if that was wrong.


The main problem is, outside of being totally behind Obscuring terrain, being behind Dense Cover, or simply not being on the board, there is generally no good way to keep that kind of firepower from hitting your big stuff, because its crazy long range, and generally crazy high AP, so your Sv stat is mostly just wasted.

The only relevant stats for vehicles vs anti-vehicle weaponry are:

-minus to hit
-invulns sometimes
-minus to damage
-Toughness 7 to toughness 8, again sometimes.

Anti-infantry weaponry *tends* to be shorter range and lower Ap, so a unit having a higher sv stat or simply being placed farther back can actually matter as a way to easily protect the unit from firepower top of 1.

Yeah, maybe that's why I'm not seeing it. Because every vehicle I play has, or can have, at least one of those. A couple have three out of 4. Whoops.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 16:38:48


Post by: Voss


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Eradicators are way too damn slow, they are not one-shooting a tank in the enemy deployment zone, at least not turn one.


Yeah, mostly I'm thinking of stuff like mobile MM attack bikes/whatever the sisters tank with the meltas is/myphitiic blight-haulers and PBCs with the super lascannons, Dark Lances, new admech shooty ostriches.

You know, all the low-shots long range dedicated antitank weaponry that nobody takes because I'm complaining about some phenomenon from a full edition ago to try and convince people that the edition that brought you Scatterbikes and D-weapon rules is somehow better.

Not sure about the ostriches, but most of that stuff shouldn't be deleting a tank turn one unless you stick it out in the open. Attack bikes can, if you deploy them way up your dz, but if you don't get turn one that's risky. And obviously I'm assuming that by "just turning up" Voss meant coming out of reserves. My apologies to Voss if that was wrong.


The main problem is, outside of being totally behind Obscuring terrain, being behind Dense Cover, or simply not being on the board, there is generally no good way to keep that kind of firepower from hitting your big stuff, because its crazy long range, and generally crazy high AP, so your Sv stat is mostly just wasted.

The only relevant stats for vehicles vs anti-vehicle weaponry are:

-minus to hit
-invulns sometimes
-minus to damage
-Toughness 7 to toughness 8, again sometimes.

Anti-infantry weaponry *tends* to be shorter range and lower Ap, so a unit having a higher sv stat or simply being placed farther back can actually matter as a way to easily protect the unit from firepower top of 1.

Yeah, maybe that's why I'm not seeing it. Because every vehicle I play has, or can have, at least one of those. A couple have three out of 4. Whoops.


Yeah, but you have to know that isn't actually the norm for vehicles in 40k. And that you limit yourself to playing those that do (or even have multiple) is pretty telling, yeah?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 16:55:39


Post by: Gadzilla666


Voss wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
Eradicators are way too damn slow, they are not one-shooting a tank in the enemy deployment zone, at least not turn one.


Yeah, mostly I'm thinking of stuff like mobile MM attack bikes/whatever the sisters tank with the meltas is/myphitiic blight-haulers and PBCs with the super lascannons, Dark Lances, new admech shooty ostriches.

You know, all the low-shots long range dedicated antitank weaponry that nobody takes because I'm complaining about some phenomenon from a full edition ago to try and convince people that the edition that brought you Scatterbikes and D-weapon rules is somehow better.

Not sure about the ostriches, but most of that stuff shouldn't be deleting a tank turn one unless you stick it out in the open. Attack bikes can, if you deploy them way up your dz, but if you don't get turn one that's risky. And obviously I'm assuming that by "just turning up" Voss meant coming out of reserves. My apologies to Voss if that was wrong.


The main problem is, outside of being totally behind Obscuring terrain, being behind Dense Cover, or simply not being on the board, there is generally no good way to keep that kind of firepower from hitting your big stuff, because its crazy long range, and generally crazy high AP, so your Sv stat is mostly just wasted.

The only relevant stats for vehicles vs anti-vehicle weaponry are:

-minus to hit
-invulns sometimes
-minus to damage
-Toughness 7 to toughness 8, again sometimes.

Anti-infantry weaponry *tends* to be shorter range and lower Ap, so a unit having a higher sv stat or simply being placed farther back can actually matter as a way to easily protect the unit from firepower top of 1.

Yeah, maybe that's why I'm not seeing it. Because every vehicle I play has, or can have, at least one of those. A couple have three out of 4. Whoops.


Yeah, but you have to know that isn't actually the norm for vehicles in 40k. And that you limit yourself to playing those that do (or even have multiple) is pretty telling, yeah?

I'm not exactly "limiting" myself to those. They're just what I've been using since IA13. The only thing that's changed is that the Achilles and Sicaran have come out of retirement since they got updated rules. It isn't the norm for vehicles still playing with 8th edition rules, but most with 9th edition rules have some of that. Or something like Quantum Shielding. So another problem caused by the way gw updates factions.

Edit: Fixed quotations.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 17:37:47


Post by: Karol


 the_scotsman wrote:


Yeah, mostly I'm thinking of stuff like mobile MM attack bikes/whatever the sisters tank with the meltas is/myphitiic blight-haulers and PBCs with the super lascannons, Dark Lances, new admech shooty ostriches.

You know, all the low-shots long range dedicated antitank weaponry that nobody takes because I'm complaining about some phenomenon from a full edition ago to try and convince people that the edition that brought you Scatterbikes and D-weapon rules is somehow better.


But the thing is that those things aren't low shots, long range weapons. no on is running a single MM bike as their anti tank. People run 4-6 of them. Raiders don't have just one dark lance, they also have shoting from everything that is inside it, plus there is 6 of them. Even sisters don't run singles of melta weapons, and they have miracle dice to max out at least one damage roll.

Having 3 MM or 3 Lascanons on 3 dreadnoughts does not suddenly make the army destroy every tank in sight. Specially if they have inv saves.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 17:42:36


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Karol wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:


Yeah, mostly I'm thinking of stuff like mobile MM attack bikes/whatever the sisters tank with the meltas is/myphitiic blight-haulers and PBCs with the super lascannons, Dark Lances, new admech shooty ostriches.

You know, all the low-shots long range dedicated antitank weaponry that nobody takes because I'm complaining about some phenomenon from a full edition ago to try and convince people that the edition that brought you Scatterbikes and D-weapon rules is somehow better.


But the thing is that those things aren't low shots, long range weapons. no on is running a single MM bike as their anti tank. People run 4-6 of them. Raiders don't have just one dark lance, they also have shoting from everything that is inside it, plus there is 6 of them. Even sisters don't run singles of melta weapons, and they have miracle dice to max out at least one damage roll.

Having 3 MM or 3 Lascanons on 3 dreadnoughts does not suddenly make the army destroy every tank in sight. Specially if they have inv saves.


No one is running ANY weapon as a single pick in their army and expecting it to singlehandedly get rid of its preferred target.

"I'll run a single lascannon as anti tank"
"I'll run a single assault cannon as anti-infantry"

are things that no good player ever says. 40k listbuilding has redundancy at its core. You take multiples of what you need.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 17:45:49


Post by: the_scotsman


Karol wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:


Yeah, mostly I'm thinking of stuff like mobile MM attack bikes/whatever the sisters tank with the meltas is/myphitiic blight-haulers and PBCs with the super lascannons, Dark Lances, new admech shooty ostriches.

You know, all the low-shots long range dedicated antitank weaponry that nobody takes because I'm complaining about some phenomenon from a full edition ago to try and convince people that the edition that brought you Scatterbikes and D-weapon rules is somehow better.


But the thing is that those things aren't low shots, long range weapons. no on is running a single MM bike as their anti tank. People run 4-6 of them. Raiders don't have just one dark lance, they also have shoting from everything that is inside it, plus there is 6 of them. Even sisters don't run singles of melta weapons, and they have miracle dice to max out at least one damage roll.

Having 3 MM or 3 Lascanons on 3 dreadnoughts does not suddenly make the army destroy every tank in sight. Specially if they have inv saves.


Yes....obviously? A single lascannon on average does not do that much to a tank. I didn't realize people were taking offense at the fact that they couldn't bring one twin las dreadnought and be hunky-dory vs all armor in their fething 2k list

I'm responding here to the claim that "nobody uses dedicated antitank weapons, everybody just uses high volume of fire weapons to bring tanks down because blablabla 8th edition bad because it got rid of the magical table of randomly instantly kabooming vehicles."

People do bring dedicated antitank weapons. Smart people bring enough of them to actually kill a tank instead of just bringing like one and hoping to bring a tank down over 3-4 turns - weird behavior I know.

For your convenience, I'll save you the time responding:

"B-but my grey knight army only has access to one lascannon on a broken land raider I bought from a horrible Latvian in a back alley for nine hundred dollars! Three of its lascannons are broken off, and the people at my store force me to only play it with one lascannon to adhere to wysiwyg and after we play they take me out to the back of the game shop and stab me in the stomach with rusty switchblades! If I cannot compete with all armies in the game with this amount of antitank, the game is imbalanced forever!"


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 17:47:41


Post by: Nurglitch


The exact balance of what you need to bring to remove a range of targets is kind of secondary to the fact that you either remove them or they remove you. It's boring.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 17:50:00


Post by: VladimirHerzog


Nurglitch wrote:
The exact balance of what you need to bring to remove a range of targets is kind of secondary to the fact that you either remove them or they remove you. It's boring.


oh it 100% makes for boring gameplay. I've laid off 40k since the DG codex in favor of a game that rewards the player's strategic skill much more than the listbuilding and "rolling to get first turn" skill


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 18:02:29


Post by: Karol


 the_scotsman wrote:


Yes....obviously? A single lascannon on average does not do that much to a tank. I didn't realize people were taking offense at the fact that they couldn't bring one twin las dreadnought and be hunky-dory vs all armor in their fething 2k list

I'm responding here to the claim that "nobody uses dedicated antitank weapons, everybody just uses high volume of fire weapons to bring tanks down because blablabla 8th edition bad because it got rid of the magical table of randomly instantly kabooming vehicles."

People do bring dedicated antitank weapons. Smart people bring enough of them to actually kill a tank instead of just bringing like one and hoping to bring a tank down over 3-4 turns - weird behavior I know.


Well losing the ability to take twin autocanon dreadnoughts, when you have 2 of them is, from my expirance not a fun. But that is besides the point here, well with small exeption of the argument to make all MM 35pts. If that happens, then the raider dark lances should cost something like 25pts.

People aren't using stuff like dark lances or multi meltas, because of tanks or vehicles in general . they are taken, because they can one shot something like a blade guard. The fact that they can also do damage to tanks is a secondary things, because tanks, the way they are pointed right now, do not see much play. And you actually do see it for weapons that do not kill marines well. No one wants to buy a lascannon and see it do 1W to an intercessor or bounce of, at the cost it has, from a inv save. In 8th the plasma gun was a "anti tank" weapon of choice, and it was again the weapon of choice for most armies, because it also happened to kill marine class targets real well.

Why would I buy anything from a Latvian, when there are recasters two streets away from me. I don't really understand the argument? Also if DE are suppose to not be punished in their point costs, because someone may play a less efficient version of them. Then according to your logic. A MM in an army without access to attack bikes or eradictors should not go up in points either. But we know it would, so it looks like the thing that should go up in point is the thing that carries the weapon that should change points. But this , again, according to GW, costs just as much as it should.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:


No one is running ANY weapon as a single pick in their army and expecting it to singlehandedly get rid of its preferred target.

"I'll run a single lascannon as anti tank"
"I'll run a single assault cannon as anti-infantry"

are things that no good player ever says. 40k listbuilding has redundancy at its core. You take multiples of what you need.



That is interesting because through out 8th ed, the GK codex and rule set was design the idea, that somehow every target was suppose to be down with str 4 storm bolters. Also slot limitations. Specially if something is in elites, and you have them full or almost full in your army. But yeah, if the army is hyper point optimized, by accident of course , because as we know GW would never do it on purpose, you can run multiple dark lances, liquifires and still have enough point to take other stuff. Even the slots aren't a problem.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 18:18:58


Post by: Gadzilla666


Karol 79847211133367 null wrote:
Spoiler:
 the_scotsman wrote:


Yes....obviously? A single lascannon on average does not do that much to a tank. I didn't realize people were taking offense at the fact that they couldn't bring one twin las dreadnought and be hunky-dory vs all armor in their fething 2k list

I'm responding here to the claim that "nobody uses dedicated antitank weapons, everybody just uses high volume of fire weapons to bring tanks down because blablabla 8th edition bad because it got rid of the magical table of randomly instantly kabooming vehicles."

People do bring dedicated antitank weapons. Smart people bring enough of them to actually kill a tank instead of just bringing like one and hoping to bring a tank down over 3-4 turns - weird behavior I know.


Well losing the ability to take twin autocanon dreadnoughts, when you have 2 of them is, from my expirance not a fun. But that is besides the point here, well with small exeption of the argument to make all MM 35pts. If that happens, then the raider dark lances should cost something like 25pts.

People aren't using stuff like dark lances or multi meltas, because of tanks or vehicles in general . they are taken, because they can one shot something like a blade guard. The fact that they can also do damage to tanks is a secondary things, because tanks, the way they are pointed right now, do not see much play. And you actually do see it for weapons that do not kill marines well. No one wants to buy a lascannon and see it do 1W to an intercessor or bounce of, at the cost it has, from a inv save. In 8th the plasma gun was a "anti tank" weapon of choice, and it was again the weapon of choice for most armies, because it also happened to kill marine class targets real well.

Why would I buy anything from a Latvian, when there are recasters two streets away from me. I don't really understand the argument? Also if DE are suppose to not be punished in their point costs, because someone may play a less efficient version of them. Then according to your logic. A MM in an army without access to attack bikes or eradictors should not go up in points either. But we know it would, so it looks like the thing that should go up in point is the thing that carries the weapon that should change points. But this , again, according to GW, costs just as much as it should.

Not necessarily. Gw has been giving some weapons different points costs on different platforms. It's entirely possible that they could increase the price of multi-meltas on, say, Attack Bikes, but not on the ones that you can take as an optional pintle mount on a Land Raider.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 18:55:53


Post by: Sterling191


Karol wrote:

People aren't using stuff like dark lances or multi meltas, because of tanks or vehicles in general . they are taken, because they can one shot something like a blade guard. The fact that they can also do damage to tanks is a secondary things, because tanks, the way they are pointed right now, do not see much play. And you actually do see it for weapons that do not kill marines well. No one wants to buy a lascannon and see it do 1W to an intercessor or bounce of, at the cost it has, from a inv save. In 8th the plasma gun was a "anti tank" weapon of choice, and it was again the weapon of choice for most armies, because it also happened to kill marine class targets real well.


You're conflating MEQ with Gravis and Custodian level statlines. A Dark Lance at an Intercessor is a waste. A Dark Lance at a Gravis Marine, Terminator or Custodian is useful because they're quite literally superlight vehicles, and consistent damage is worth its weight in gold against 3 and 4 wound targets. Plus, when you get the inevitable 3++/4++ in play, even that is an absolute gamble.

Karol wrote:

That is interesting because through out 8th ed, the GK codex and rule set was design the idea, that somehow every target was suppose to be down with str 4 storm bolters. Also slot limitations. Specially if something is in elites, and you have them full or almost full in your army. But yeah, if the army is hyper point optimized, by accident of course , because as we know GW would never do it on purpose, you can run multiple dark lances, liquifires and still have enough point to take other stuff. Even the slots aren't a problem.


This is a flat out lie. Players ran storm bolters over other weapon options because they were the only points viable weapons for most of the edition, not because GW didn't give Grey Knights heavy weapon choices. With the advent of Tides and PA strats at the end of 8th, non-SB weapons made a serious comeback when they suddenly became actually effective and not a waste of points. It's the same reason you never saw Dark Lances over Disintegrators in Drukhari lists, or MultiMeltas in anybody's lists: they simply sucked for their points.

Furthermore, every single 9th edition codex has means at their disposal to bypass Force Organization restrictions. Marines get all of their command squad choices for free with Company Vets in the list. Necron's and Marines can double up on minor characters in the HQ slot. AdMech does the same. Drukhari have patrols and Beastmasters.

And before you start frothing at the mouth about Patrols, keep in mind that that's the exact same number of Elites that another army gets for their free Battalion. Six.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 20:31:44


Post by: jeff white


Sterling191 wrote:
Spoiler:
Karol wrote:

People aren't using stuff like dark lances or multi meltas, because of tanks or vehicles in general . they are taken, because they can one shot something like a blade guard. The fact that they can also do damage to tanks is a secondary things, because tanks, the way they are pointed right now, do not see much play. And you actually do see it for weapons that do not kill marines well. No one wants to buy a lascannon and see it do 1W to an intercessor or bounce of, at the cost it has, from a inv save. In 8th the plasma gun was a "anti tank" weapon of choice, and it was again the weapon of choice for most armies, because it also happened to kill marine class targets real well.


You're conflating MEQ with Gravis and Custodian level statlines. A Dark Lance at an Intercessor is a waste. A Dark Lance at a Gravis Marine, Terminator or Custodian is useful because they're quite literally superlight vehicles, and consistent damage is worth its weight in old against 3 and 4 wound targets. Plus, when you get the inevitable 3++/4++ in play, even that is an absolute gamble.


Karol wrote:

That is interesting because through out 8th ed, the GK codex and rule set was design the idea, that somehow every target was suppose to be down with str 4 storm bolters. Also slot limitations. Specially if something is in elites, and you have them full or almost full in your army. But yeah, if the army is hyper point optimized, by accident of course , because as we know GW would never do it on purpose, you can run multiple dark lances, liquifires and still have enough point to take other stuff. Even the slots aren't a problem.


This is a flat out lie. Players ran storm bolters over other weapon options because they were the only points viable weapons for most of the edition, not because GW didn't give Grey Knights heavy weapon choices. With the advent of Tides and PA strats at the end of 8th, non-SB weapons made a serious comeback when they suddenly became actually effective and not a waste of points. It's the same reason you never saw Dark Lances over Disintegrators in Drukhari lists, or MultiMeltas in anybody's lists: they simply sucked for their points.
Spoiler:


Furthermore, every single 9th edition codex has means at their disposal to bypass Force Organization restrictions. Marines get all of their command squad choices for free with Company Vets in the list. Necron's and Marines can double up on minor characters in the HQ slot. AdMech does the same. Drukhari have patrols and Beastmasters.


And before you start frothing at the mouth about Patrols, keep in mind that that's the exact same number of Elites that another army gets for their free Battalion. Six.

“Flat out lie” seems a bit strong here, no? Maybe a misunderstanding, but “lie” seems unnecessarily hostile. As does “foaming at the mouth” which doesn’t seem to fit Karol’s demeanour from what I have seen of him...


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 20:58:07


Post by: vict0988


 jeff white wrote:
“Flat out lie” seems a bit strong here, no? Maybe a misunderstanding, but “lie” seems unnecessarily hostile. As does “foaming at the mouth” which doesn’t seem to fit Karol’s demeanour from what I have seen of him...

He's like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh. Most balance issues can be solved with points. First, you make sure the game is thematic, a Chaos Space Marine beats a guardsman in shooting and melee, things that are meant to be tanks are tanky and things that are meant to be glass cannons hit harder than wet noodles. If you don't do this you end up with hordes of Space Marines like in 7th when they brought a free parking lot with them. Psycannons being damage 1 AP-1 does feel a bit like hordes of Space Marines here considering it was basically a twin autocannon with rending and autocannons now have the same AP and higher damage than psycannons. It is actually very fair to have a thematic problem with the psycannon's output.

Even if you make every unit and rule thematic you can still easily make a lot of the interesting choices in a faction moot by creating an internally imbalanced codex and even if you internally balance the codex if it is too strong or weak compared to other codices it will be less than amazing to play. If you compare your psycannons to storm bolters and they suck it becomes less fun to use psycannons. If your psycannon Terminators get blasted by 100 autocannons because army X, Y or Z had a misprint that said their autocannons cost 1 instead of 10 then it becomes less fun to use psycannons.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 22:52:05


Post by: The Newman


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
The exact balance of what you need to bring to remove a range of targets is kind of secondary to the fact that you either remove them or they remove you. It's boring.


oh it 100% makes for boring gameplay. I've laid off 40k since the DG codex in favor of a game that rewards the player's strategic skill much more than the listbuilding and "rolling to get first turn" skill


And what might that be? Genuinely curious, I said that about Warmachine for a long time but I can't play that in person anymore without driving for two hours on either side of the game.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/26 23:01:51


Post by: VladimirHerzog


The Newman wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
The exact balance of what you need to bring to remove a range of targets is kind of secondary to the fact that you either remove them or they remove you. It's boring.


oh it 100% makes for boring gameplay. I've laid off 40k since the DG codex in favor of a game that rewards the player's strategic skill much more than the listbuilding and "rolling to get first turn" skill


And what might that be? Genuinely curious, I said that about Warmachine for a long time but I can't play that in person anymore without driving for two hours on either side of the game.


Infinity, mostly played on tabletop simulator due to the pandemic


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 04:36:01


Post by: Insectum7


 the_scotsman wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.


That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.


....Except that they don't.
All of my Devastators and Tac Squads started carrying Plasma Cannons and Grav Cannons during 8th because their numbers were actually superior against vehicles over Las/Krak, in addition to being better against troops/elites.

Right now a Heavy Bolter averages nearly the same damage against a Raider as a Lascannon, and is cheaper. The Assault Cannon and Autocannon fare better than both. The moment an invuln is placed on the target the Las advantage dwindles considerably.

The standout AT weapon is the Multimelta, obviously. But the other traditional AT stuff pales in comparison, often making the "middle guns" more useful choices because they're either better, or can be used against other targets more effectively. Notably, Guardsmen and CSMs don't get the Multimelta as an option. During 3-7th an Autocannon couldn't even hurt a Leman Russ from the front.

. . .
Add to that the fact that there is virtually no difference between firing many of these weapons at a Rhino, vs. Firing them at a Leman Russ. Despite T7 vs. T8, the only practical difference between the two is only two wounds. T7 vs. T8 doesnt matter to S5,6 and 9.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 08:05:49


Post by: CEO Kasen


I'm genuinely trying to decide if it's an exaggeration that 40K in its current state is the worst wargame I have ever played.

That statement might be somewhat misleading, because:

A) The list of different tabletop wargames I've physically played in memory isn't incredibly long; Maybe a dozen, some of those decidedly not recently, and depending to some extent on what qualifies as a wargame;
B) I did some googling to see what were widely considered worst - so, no, I didn't play the initial release of Age of Sigmar, nor did I play any of the many awful historical wargames that clearly exist.
C) My memory can be unreliable and I'm sure there's a title drop that'll make me go "Oh yeah, at least 40k isn't Drop Squid Frontline 3rd Edition," or that nostalgia might be tinting other childhood games...

...but without some serious memory jogging I honestly can't think of a more poorly designed and bloated wargame that I personally played, crushed as it is between asinine technological limitations and a need for modern live-service-style churn and content bloat, that I personally have played since Avalon Hill was writing insane rules for pushing cardboard chits around a hex grid.

Certainly, if you stack the various games up against their price tags, 40K is an abysmal cash grab.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 08:10:07


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I remember melta being the optimal choice that beat out other weapons back in the day... if it was in range. Plasma had more range or more shots, Las had RANGE. Nowadays the range doesn't seem to matter so much.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 08:11:36


Post by: Not Online!!!


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I remember melta being the optimal choice that beat out other weapons back in the day... if it was in range. Plasma had more range or more shots, Las had RANGE. Nowadays the range doesn't seem to matter so much.


it's what happens when you artificially decrease board sizes. And in general simplify movement that way.
Same with reliable deepstrike, once a premium ability and rather restricted, becoming the norm.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 08:40:32


Post by: AngryAngel80


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I remember melta being the optimal choice that beat out other weapons back in the day... if it was in range. Plasma had more range or more shots, Las had RANGE. Nowadays the range doesn't seem to matter so much.


It's gone back and forth over the years. Plasma was generally worse because it was harder to knock out tanks, could kill your guy but rate of fire made it better vs heavy infantry and generally monsters of most types. It was too expensive points wise though for all the draw back so melta was safer and generally considered better if it hit. As well as letting you assault after you shot.

Then plasma became better because cost was less, you could fire it safe or unsafe with higher str and damage. Range and ROF made it better by a good margin while melta was still swingy and rapid fire didn't matter for preventing assaults.

Now of course melta is cheap, effective and safe to fire but for the distance you have to get with it, it melts ( no pun intended ). While plasma stayed around the same but gone up and can't compete with how hard melta hits now and some problem units that can take melta these days. As well as the smaller table defacto sizes because GW gonna GW.

I'm sure it'll swing back around again, maybe next edition in another episode of how GW pointlessly churns the meta butter.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 08:48:55


Post by: morganfreeman


I was there was a "Better than 6th / 7th edition, but still pretty fething bad" option on that chart.

Current 40k is, well, it's better than the absolute worst 40k has been. But I'd say it's significantly farther beyond most of the competently written editions of the past (3rd through 5th).


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 09:15:13


Post by: kirotheavenger


 CEO Kasen wrote:
I'm genuinely trying to decide if it's an exaggeration that 40K in its current state is the worst wargame I have ever played.

I have similar thoughts. I can also say that all the wargames 40k is in competition with are also GW games (Killteam and Aeronautica).
I can confidently say that relative to price, 40k is definitely the worst.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 10:25:08


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 10:29:58


Post by: Sim-Life


 CEO Kasen wrote:
I'm genuinely trying to decide if it's an exaggeration that 40K in its current state is the worst wargame I have ever played. .


Let's be honest, 40k has been the worst wargame around for like 15 years now. Maybe 20. That isn't to say it can't be fun or it doesn't have merits. I had Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 installed on my PC up until about 2 years ago because multiplayer is still fun every now and then even though the game is objectively pretty rubbish. Or when Jeremy in Peep Show spends £45 on wine and compares it to something REALLY delicious like hot chocolate or coke. Sometimes whats fun isn't always what is objectively the best.

Disclaimer: I still think 9th edition is NOT fun to play. But for a long time 40k WAS fun, despite not being the best game around.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 10:42:20


Post by: aphyon


CEO Kasen wrote:I'm genuinely trying to decide if it's an exaggeration that 40K in its current state is the worst wargame I have ever played.

That statement might be somewhat misleading, because:

A) The list of different tabletop wargames I've physically played in memory isn't incredibly long; Maybe a dozen, some of those decidedly not recently, and depending to some extent on what qualifies as a wargame;
B) I did some googling to see what were widely considered worst - so, no, I didn't play the initial release of Age of Sigmar, nor did I play any of the many awful historical wargames that clearly exist.
C) My memory can be unreliable and I'm sure there's a title drop that'll make me go "Oh yeah, at least 40k isn't Drop Squid Frontline 3rd Edition," or that nostalgia might be tinting other childhood games...

...but without some serious memory jogging I honestly can't think of a more poorly designed and bloated wargame that I personally played, crushed as it is between asinine technological limitations and a need for modern live-service-style churn and content bloat, that I personally have played since Avalon Hill was writing insane rules for pushing cardboard chits around a hex grid.

Certainly, if you stack the various games up against their price tags, 40K is an abysmal cash grab.


It is a toss up for me when it comes to 40K between 6th and 9th. i mean 6th was so bad even GW killed it after 14 months. It did help me put my 40K aside and dive into games like infinity and warmachine.

I have had the opportunity to play many different wargames, some of them regularly (see my sig) and some really niche games. i mean how many posters here have played say spectre ops or the large scale WWII skirmish game- battle tactics- from forces of valor/unimax(the toy company)?

The fact i have experience with so many different games that play so differently from 40K it really helps expand ones understanding as each one gives the variety of experience that keeps the hobby fresh.

With the level of 40K being both played as a skirmish system in kill teams up to an army battle game as standard, for the scale when it comes to rules writing Andy Chambers work on DUST 1947 has one of the best current rule sets when compared to what is available. It is like a middle point between early 8th edition 40K and infinity.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 10:49:44


Post by: kirotheavenger


Andy Chambers is like a magician of wargames rules, I love everything I've seen that he's put out.
I think Dust's attack system is a really good way of handling it in a game with as broad a scope as dieselpunk sci-fi, similar to 40k.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 11:03:54


Post by: Cyel


Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.


Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 11:16:03


Post by: aphyon


Cyel wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.


Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.



The glaring problem with WM/H isn't the game itself, aside from some bad restrictions on current theme lists the main thing it suffers from is the same thing GW games currently suffer from-the core of competitive players who are toxic to the community. the MKIII rules are the best the game has ever been as long as you approach it with the right attitude. we play what we enjoy model wise and avoid steamroller games at all costs.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 12:23:54


Post by: Cyel


 aphyon wrote:


The glaring problem with WM/H isn't the game itself, aside from some bad restrictions on current theme lists the main thing it suffers from is the same thing GW games currently suffer from-the core of competitive players who are toxic to the community. the MKIII rules are the best the game has ever been as long as you approach it with the right attitude. we play what we enjoy model wise and avoid steamroller games at all costs.


I don't agree. Here in Poland we have a lovely, friendly, open and welcoming WM&H community (I may have told the story of a WTC veteran who helped a newbie assassinate his own warcaster during a master-class tournament game. The newbie didn't see the opening, the veteran did, so he lost on purpose to teach the new player how to best use the options available to him). We lend models/armies, run demo games etc.

Still, very few players play the game. It is inaccessible, extremely expensive, bloated. But really satisfying once you get how it works


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 12:29:10


Post by: Karol


Cyel 798472 11133776 wrote:
Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.



I think the problem with it was that the company that makes it run in to production problems, and all of the sudden some parts of the world ended up without models. Hard to get in to a game when you can't get the models to play an opitmal list.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 12:44:38


Post by: kodos


Karol wrote:

I think the problem with it was that the company that makes it run in to production problems, and all of the sudden some parts of the world ended up without models. Hard to get in to a game when you can't get the models to play an opitmal list.

but this is not reason for why the worst version of 40k is still better than WM/H or Infinity because to know that you would have need to play it (so model supply cannot be the issue)


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 13:01:47


Post by: Karol


It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it. A game could have the best cost to fun ratio, with great set of rules, but if you don't have opponents to play it against, or the store doesn't want you to play it, because they don't sell the game, then it is not a good game.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 13:10:21


Post by: BertBert


Karol wrote:
It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it. A game could have the best cost to fun ratio, with great set of rules, but if you don't have opponents to play it against, or the store doesn't want you to play it, because they don't sell the game, then it is not a good game.


Infinity has been played mostly on TTS over the course of the pandemic and people keep playing it precisely because it's a good game. Not perfect, not without several glaring issues, but very much enjoyable. The manufacturer also has had significant production delays but people pooled 3D scans of their existing miniatures online, so you can pretty much pick up any faction right now and experiment with it. Transitioning into digital space is a trivial thing to do nowadays, so those real life constraints you mentioned earlier are not as pertinent anymore (if the game is good enough to warrant the effort, that is).


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 13:19:50


Post by: kodos


Karol wrote:
It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it.

but you cannot tell if a game is better or worse if you never played
so if there is no one to play the game, you just don't know if it is better or not

just because you have people to play with for one game and not the other, makes it easier to get games with but not a better game
this can be reason why you play a bad game instead of a good one, but it does not makes a bad game better


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 13:20:42


Post by: kirotheavenger


Karol wrote:
It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it. A game could have the best cost to fun ratio, with great set of rules, but if you don't have opponents to play it against, or the store doesn't want you to play it, because they don't sell the game, then it is not a good game.


Depends how you define "good game" I guess.
Personally I don't the size of the community reflects the quality of the game at all. But it is an important factor in whether or not you play the game. I only play 40k because it has the community and the other games I (greatly) prefer don't.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 15:04:03


Post by: the_scotsman


 BertBert wrote:
Karol wrote:
but people pooled 3D scans of their existing miniatures online.


Where did they do that, my good friend my buddy my old pal?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 15:06:40


Post by: Daedalus81


 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
i like how gw once again paywalls the pts for the factions in what ammounts to a balance patch in literally every other game, which should be free but alas...
But considering that i should supposedly be willing to pay 58 CHF for 5 slightly larger intercessors if i were to ever collect marines....

I am not surprised. Just disapointed how people can defend that gak company.


What's there to defend? Not a single person buys this pair of books for the points, whether you use their app or battlescribe, you don't need it.

The only value is having updated tournament missions in with a small rulebook attached to it.


And if one only cares about points we all know battlescribe will have them like a day or two later let alone easily accessible videos with all the points usually easily readable.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 15:11:30


Post by: G00fySmiley


positive, though still disapointed that we finally have living rules on the app and instead of using game data to update and balance points more effectively its just.. we will address next time we do a points adjustment".

I also really hope that GW movs into a alternating unit activation format for 10th


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 18:16:01


Post by: aphyon


Karol wrote:
Cyel 798472 11133776 wrote:
Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.



I think the problem with it was that the company that makes it run in to production problems, and all of the sudden some parts of the world ended up without models. Hard to get in to a game when you can't get the models to play an opitmal list.


I do not discount that, i mean you guys are in poland, my FLGS is about an hour drive away by car from the PP main office, so getting models for the game has never been a problem.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 19:13:57


Post by: Sim-Life


 kodos wrote:
Karol wrote:
It is very much an issue. W40k wins over any other table top, because you can find people to play with it.

but you cannot tell if a game is better or worse if you never played


Yes you can. Maybe this was true 20-25 years ago when the internet wasn't as prevalent as it is now, but now any given game has loads of reviews, entire communities to advise, battle reports etc for you to judge whether or not you'll like a game.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 19:16:44


Post by: Nurglitch


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
i like how gw once again paywalls the pts for the factions in what ammounts to a balance patch in literally every other game, which should be free but alas...
But considering that i should supposedly be willing to pay 58 CHF for 5 slightly larger intercessors if i were to ever collect marines....

I am not surprised. Just disapointed how people can defend that gak company.


What's there to defend? Not a single person buys this pair of books for the points, whether you use their app or battlescribe, you don't need it.

The only value is having updated tournament missions in with a small rulebook attached to it.


And if one only cares about points we all know battlescribe will have them like a day or two later let alone easily accessible videos with all the points usually easily readable.


Aren't the points values available for free on the Warhammer Community sites, under the FAQ downloads?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/27 19:23:05


Post by: Ravajaxe


It was the case exceptionnaly at the beginning of the year (Munitorum Field Manual 2021 mk 1). But they are returning to their habit of selling the prices listing (together with the new missions and rulebook).
Granted, we have an almost complete tournament fieldable rulebook as a Chapter Approved publication. Chapter Approved during 8th were not as complete.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 03:47:35


Post by: CEO Kasen


Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.


Infinity at least seems to know it wants to be mind-bafflingly complex. It revels in that. It is not for everyone - I'm like 78% sure it's not going to be for me ever - but it has an intricacy and, more importantly, a clarity of focus that 40K absolutely lacks. I can understand and respect if not embrace the kind of fun it is trying to provide.

I cannot do so with 40K. 40K simplified its core engine then turned right around and undid the value of that simplification by pounding out codex after supplement after warzone book; it's trying to somehow cater to the casual player, the narrative player, and the competitive wargamer, and is really just not a good game on any of those fronts

 Sim-Life wrote:
Disclaimer: I still think 9th edition is NOT fun to play. But for a long time 40k WAS fun, despite not being the best game around.


Fun is good! I liked 3rd/4th myself, I had tons of fun with it! I don't mean that 9th 40K is the worst game because of low skill factor or lack of tactical depth; I mean worst, as in it succeeds neither being a battle of wits nor a barrel of laughs, whereas pre-6th 40K at least usually succeeded in being the latter.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 03:53:34


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I agree that it feels like 40k is over complicating its simplicity. Like, just figuring out how many attacks a marine makes in a given phase feels more like a math problem than a statistic.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 07:20:38


Post by: AngryAngel80


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I agree that it feels like 40k is over complicating its simplicity. Like, just figuring out how many attacks a marine makes in a given phase feels more like a math problem than a statistic.


This is like 40k in a nutshell. Painfully over complicated simplicity.

They made it more simple and stream lined and people thought it was dull a bit, then they take the foot off the break and over complicated it steadily going down hill. Removed USRs but then cram even more into a million differently named but very similar rules. Add to this a million strats and unit stat lines that can vary from turn to turn a good deal based on actions and you have the worlds most complicated rules light game.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 10:23:35


Post by: vipoid


Well, my 40k projects have all stalled and I can't muster the enthusiasm to even try making lists.

So probably not in a great spot.


I know that some people are praising the new DE book as being the second coming of Christ but I fear for me it crushed what little enthusiasm I had left.

Yes, I'm sure it's strong and efficient and no doubt tournament players are falling in love with it. But I'm not a tournament player and have no interest in the book being hyper-competitive.

Instead, I see a book that's bloated in all the areas I couldn't give a damn about, but which has only become more shallow in the areas I do care about. We have a mass of stratagems and gimmicks, yet only 3 generic HQs, of which only 1 has actual options. The Archon can pick from 4 melee weapons which are all equally crap, and the Haemonculus lost his wargear selection entirely. Even in terms of artefacts the selection is laughable. There's a great big picture in the centre of the artefact section to try and hide how bare it is and how little effort actually went into it. But photocopier goes brrrrrr, I guess. But in addition to being pathetic to begin with, they're so badly designed (on top of HQs that, barring the Succubus, are also hossibly designed) that the Archon, for example, has maybe 1 viable build with all the other wargear options and warlord traits being pointless window-dressing. Also, 11 years now and still no new units. This for a book that lost 3 elites and about 10 HQs.

I imagine I'll get yet more hate for still not worshipping the DE book as being the best thing GW has ever printed and the best book in the history of humankind, but no matter how much others continue to praise it, I can't change the fact that it bores me to sleep. Nor that it has successfully killed my interest in playing 40k (something not even the 7th edition heap of dung managed).

That said, while I put a lot of blame on my faction books, I can't help but also note that the game in general seems to be moving further and further away from the game I started, and into a style of gameplay that I simply can't get invested in.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 10:44:14


Post by: Not Online!!!


 vipoid wrote:
Well, my 40k projects have all stalled and I can't muster the enthusiasm to even try making lists.

So probably not in a great spot.


I know that some people are praising the new DE book as being the second coming of Christ but I fear for me it crushed what little enthusiasm I had left.

Yes, I'm sure it's strong and efficient and no doubt tournament players are falling in love with it. But I'm not a tournament player and have no interest in the book being hyper-competitive.

Instead, I see a book that's bloated in all the areas I couldn't give a damn about, but which has only become more shallow in the areas I do care about. We have a mass of stratagems and gimmicks, yet only 3 generic HQs, of which only 1 has actual options. The Archon can pick from 4 melee weapons which are all equally crap, and the Haemonculus lost his wargear selection entirely. Even in terms of artefacts the selection is laughable. There's a great big picture in the centre of the artefact section to try and hide how bare it is and how little effort actually went into it. But photocopier goes brrrrrr, I guess. But in addition to being pathetic to begin with, they're so badly designed (on top of HQs that, barring the Succubus, are also hossibly designed) that the Archon, for example, has maybe 1 viable build with all the other wargear options and warlord traits being pointless window-dressing. Also, 11 years now and still no new units. This for a book that lost 3 elites and about 10 HQs.

I imagine I'll get yet more hate for still not worshipping the DE book as being the best thing GW has ever printed and the best book in the history of humankind, but no matter how much others continue to praise it, I can't change the fact that it bores me to sleep. Nor that it has successfully killed my interest in playing 40k (something not even the 7th edition heap of dung managed).

That said, while I put a lot of blame on my faction books, I can't help but also note that the game in general seems to be moving further and further away from the game I started, and into a style of gameplay that I simply can't get invested in.


Spoiler:
But "StRatAgEmS InCrEAse CuStomIzAbIlITY aND SuB-FaCTioNs MaKE tHE GaMe MoRE NarRatIve!"


See what you miss is actual customizability and viability in options to mix up how somehting actually plays, rather than pressing button sped ressource and get immediate effect.
And it's pretty common phenomenon. Heck the SM codex f.e. is full of single loadout change separate Datasheets that all represent the same unit type...
Or in other words, GW killed of customizability for streamlining sake and managed to feth up.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 10:53:04


Post by: RaptorusRex


I feel like it's in a pretty good place right now, actually. I do wish the disparity in the age of troop models and the like between Space Marines and Xenos would be resolved. Guardians are ugly.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 12:35:08


Post by: Blackie


 vipoid wrote:

That said, while I put a lot of blame on my faction books, I can't help but also note that the game in general seems to be moving further and further away from the game I started, and into a style of gameplay that I simply can't get invested in.


Current functioning DE lists are very similar to 5th-7th edition ones actually. Models and gameplay aren't really much different.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 13:09:05


Post by: PenitentJake


 vipoid wrote:


I know that some people are praising the new DE book as being the second coming of Christ but I fear for me it crushed what little enthusiasm I had left.

Yes, I'm sure it's strong and efficient and no doubt tournament players are falling in love with it. But I'm not a tournament player and have no interest in the book being hyper-competitive.


Actually, I find the Crusade content to be the best thing about the book. DE's Crusade content is far and away cooler than anything we've seen so far. The Admech stuff looks really interesting too, but I think DE is still going to end up on top- the Necromunda style minigame that is DE Crusade rules is just really hard to beat.

 vipoid wrote:

Instead, I see a book that's bloated in all the areas I couldn't give a damn about, but which has only become more shallow in the areas I do care about. We have a mass of stratagems and gimmicks, yet only 3 generic HQs, of which only 1 has actual options. The Archon can pick from 4 melee weapons which are all equally crap, and the Haemonculus lost his wargear selection entirely.


Equipment options are limited. Non equipment options have never been so numerous. While there may be only three generic HQ unit entries, each of those generic HQ's could also be made a Master or an Ascendant; the numbers of these types of HQ's that can be included in army are more limited, but because they exist, there are technically 9 different HQ options. And each Master level HQ gets a specialized retinue now- another thing I personally really liked about the book.

 vipoid wrote:

Even in terms of artefacts the selection is laughable. There's a great big picture in the centre of the artefact section to try and hide how bare it is and how little effort actually went into it.


You know there are 13 relics that aren't in the artefact section, right? One for each of 10 subfactions and one for each master level character. Same way there are 13 strategems that aren't in the strat section and 13 Warlord traits that aren't in the warlord trait section. So what you are ACTUALLY seeing is not a lack of effort, but a superior system for organizing the information; you can now see everything that defines a specific subfaction on one page instead of flipping through 3 different sections to do the same thing.

 vipoid wrote:

But in addition to being pathetic to begin with, they're so badly designed (on top of HQs that, barring the Succubus, are also hossibly designed) that the Archon, for example, has maybe 1 viable build with all the other wargear options and warlord traits being pointless window-dressing.


This is a matter of opinion, but personally, I disagree- especially where warlord traits are concerned; admittedly, sub-faction and master level WL traits tend to be harder to choose from than the generic ones.

 vipoid wrote:

Also, 11 years now and still no new units. This for a book that lost 3 elites and about 10 HQs.


This I can certainly get behind. I do think the book could have gone further in restoring some of what was lost- I really miss some of those named HQ's and the mounted HQ options, especially for Succubi, make a lot of sense. On the other side of the fence, I choose to think of Master level HQ's, Ascendant HQ's and favoured retinues as different units, even though they don't have separate data cards. Certainly these designations open space for conversions, and they certainly perform differently on the battlefield. And from that perspective, the Haemoxcytes actually are "new" unit concept I think; we had Trueborn and Blood Brides before, but I think that back in those supposed glory days, Wracks got shafted.

 vipoid wrote:

I imagine I'll get yet more hate...


No hate here- hope this doesn't read as hate. Some personal disagreement, some cases where I feel like the written argument provided is over simplified (judging the Relic selection based on the Relic section of the book, for example). But definitely not hate. This post probably won't change your mind; I'm not even sure it's intended to- you have a right to your opinion.

 vipoid wrote:

... for still not worshipping the DE book as being the best thing GW has ever printed and the best book in the history of humankind...


No, I think that people who like the book might try to soften your conviction that it's terrible. It does happen to be my personal favourite 9th ed dex so far, but I also acknowledge that's mostly because I'm a Crusade player, and the Crusade content in this book is hands down the best we've seen (so far).

 vipoid wrote:


but no matter how much others continue to praise it, I can't change the fact that it bores me to sleep. Nor that it has successfully killed my interest in playing 40k (something not even the 7th edition heap of dung managed).


I'm sorry that you feel that way. Frankly though, if any book was going to do that I would have expected it to be the 8th ed dex, because it suffers from all of the same problems that you describe, while also containing none of the positive elements that I've tried to highlight. There are other DE players who don't love this book, but I'm not sure I've met any that say it isn't at least a slight improvement on 8th.

 vipoid wrote:

That said, while I put a lot of blame on my faction books, I can't help but also note that the game in general seems to be moving further and further away from the game I started, and into a style of gameplay that I simply can't get invested in.


I think this is the strongest and most salient point right here, and I can't fault you for it- I totally get where you're coming from. I took a break from the game during 6 and 7, so I can't comment on those editions, but certainly with 5th and earlier, customization was handled differently- primarily by load out choices and unnamed "build your own" style options that differed greatly from one codex to another. Some people prefer that and always will, and nothing the rest of us say will change that.

Now, customizability is determined by traits that interact with each other, and the types of traits that exist have been standardized across factions. I love the fact that for the first time in history, no faction has to go without sub-faction rules (actually, it was 8th that did that- 9th is just continuing the trend). Right from 2nd ed, it always bothered me tremendously that some factions were lucky to be deemed important enough to get differentiated subfactions while others were not.

Similarly, in older editions, core rules allowed us to do things that are now achievable through other means... Typically strats. Some people prefer having the option as a core rule; again, I get that- when it's a core rule, every army can do it. It also feels like it's own action, rather than one of a set of sub-types of option.

Personally, I just see strats as giving me a greater number of things I can do at any given moment. Some people see "Using a strat" as a single thing, even though there may be 10-15 different strats that a given unit can use at a particular time. I get it- I understand that feeling, especially since some strats don't actually feel like an action, but rather a modifier to an action. Maybe it's because I also play CCG's that I have an easier time seeing the choice to use a strat as a tactic; there are a lot of folks who can't make themselves see it that way. They talk about 8th/9th as having fewer tactical options than previous versions, because to them, it doesn't feel like a tactic if it's not a core rule. Personally, I don't get that... to me, a Fly-by Attack is very definitely a tactic, as is Fire and Fade, or any of the 10-15 other things I can choose from. Similarly, deciding whose aura(s) to stand in and when is something I also don't have trouble seeing as a "tactical decision," though lots of people here must have trouble seeing it that way based on their comments.

There is a definite, and undeniable difference in feel. And some folks are going to prefer one and some are going to prefer the other.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 14:44:58


Post by: Daedalus81


Nurglitch wrote:
Aren't the points values available for free on the Warhammer Community sites, under the FAQ downloads?


At present, yes. Whether or not it stays that way is unknown. GW could certainly come out and state a such if they will, but I suspect they'd prefer the marginal increase in sales until then.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/28 17:58:36


Post by: Macharius562


Negative for me, just because I really don’t love the way they’re taking the whole setting and central mechanics. I get that 7th’s balance wasn’t great, but to me I felt like it was a better representation of a meat grinder battle with stuff like templates, armor facings, the vehicle damage table, etc. Now it feels like with all the auras and stratagems and chapter tactic equivalents and stuff, it just feels too card gamey, which just doesn’t fit the setting imo. That and I just feel like the game has lost its identity sort of, which I feel is most obviously shown through the primaries marines. The whole imperium is meant to be kinda inefficient and over engineered, but they feel just too “clean” in terms or their aesthetic, like they’d fit better in Star Wars or halo.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/30 21:54:25


Post by: flamingkillamajig


@vipoid: I think the 9th ed dark eldar book is fun to an extent but the game of 40k is just a mixture of an arms race with each new codex out-doing the last. Also i'm kind of annoyed at GW making dark eldar the top tier faction only because now i can't buy any of my chosen faction's stuff and while i want my army to be decent i don't want every WAAC player which codex jumps to every OP faction to be playing a faction i've played since at least 7th edition back when it sucked and i played the faction because i liked the aesthetic and playstyle of the army. I always choose aesthetic (art style, models and lore) and playstyle of army over what's the most broken OP at any given moment in the game. I just want each faction to be balanced and to win based on the skill of the player rather than by faction or a faction's specific army build. Like how fun is it to face the same general list each time. I think in 8th for tau it was broadsides, riptides with heavy burst cannons and drones every time. How boring is it to see the same build every time? I mean i understand some units combining better with other units but only for different viable builds of the same faction. Seeing Fly-rants as the only viable Tyranid build in like 7th ed for a faction that relied on melee, hordes, big monsters and Synapse is quite unfitting for the army's normal background.

I also pretty much swear GW don't care about any of the old factions other than Sisters (due to certain cultural shifts), Marines (because they're the most popular army) and Necrons (because marines needed a xenos or chaos army to kill in each new edition and necrons were the popular bad guy army that got pulled from the hat).

That said there are a lot of factions GW just doesn't care about anymore like any Space Marines +1 faction (custodes, dark angels, chaos marines, blood angels, grey knights, etc.) and some new armies also oddly don't have many units (harlequins, ynnari, custodes).

GW also hates long term players, they have constant lore changes, discontinuing old armies, killing off WHFB, changing the dark fantasy theme to more Good Guy vs Bad Guy theme (esp. Fantasy going to AoS), prices, constant lack of faction balance (i've heard GW does this on purpose to make you buy the new hotness which makes sense but doesn't make a balanced game), IP name changes that businesses love and customers hate (Seraphon which used to be Lizardmen? Sigmarite ore?) and more i can't remember.

It's probably less hating 40k so much as hating GW practices. Like maybe i just need to play a new army or play against less "competitive" players that have to buy the best army faction and use the most broken build to win rather than using skill. It doesn't help people use Net lists rather than their own tactics and list building skill.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/30 22:06:42


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I do think that in any discussion it is worth the effort to distinguish "options" and "viable options" because is is especially easy to get mixed up when reading. Everyone knows that codex have tons of -options- but that doesn't really matter, what matters is how many -viable- options they have.

Of course that also needs to come with the clarification that no, viable does not mean 'can win tournaments' since so many people strictly separate things into the categories of 'wins tourneys' and 'garbage'.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/30 22:11:05


Post by: the_scotsman


AOS has vastly more dark fantasy shades of gray good guys doing bad stuff/double crossing each other than 40k had had since the lore in 7th edition.

Also "certain cultural shifts." Bitch harder.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/30 23:00:00


Post by: PenitentJake


 flamingkillamajig wrote:


I also pretty much swear GW don't care about any of the old factions other than Sisters (due to certain cultural shifts), Marines (because they're the most popular army) and Necrons (because marines needed a xenos or chaos army to kill in each new edition and necrons were the popular bad guy army that got pulled from the hat).


Huh. The eight or so new kits on the way for Orks must have messed with that theory a bit eh?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

That said there are a lot of factions GW just doesn't care about anymore like any Space Marines +1 faction (custodes, dark angels, chaos marines, blood angels, grey knights, etc.) and some new armies also oddly don't have many units (harlequins, ynnari, custodes).


Dark Angels and Blood Angels have their books already, and almost every new Primaris kit released this edition can slot into those armies, so I'm not sure how you justify that point of view. We've also discovered that GK should have been out already; it looks like they're getting a new sculpt of Crowe and a vs. box- sure it isn't a full release by any stretch of the imagination, but it's something. No edition ever has included a full refresh for every faction.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

GW also hates long term players, they have constant lore changes, discontinuing old armies, killing off WHFB, changing the dark fantasy theme to more Good Guy vs Bad Guy theme (esp. Fantasy going to AoS), prices, constant lack of faction balance (i've heard GW does this on purpose to make you buy the new hotness which makes sense but doesn't make a balanced game), IP name changes that businesses love and customers hate (Seraphon which used to be Lizardmen? Sigmarite ore?) and more i can't remember.


GW doesn't hate anyone who might give them money.

The 8th edition offered us tangible proof that GW loves old players; during that edition, we saw the return of Rogue Traders, the Ambull, the Zoat, a new Inquisitor and the return of Necromunda- not to mention the return of GSC which has been dead since 2nd edition, and the redesign of Sisters, which had been functionally dead since 2003. Admittedly, 9th hasn't followed that trend... yet. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Discontinuing old armies? Look, I feel bad for the folks who hung on for so many years playing barely functional FW only stuff because they hoped it would make a comeback. But there are no factions that were fully supported by Games Workshop in 7th which were cut in 8th or 9th. And I know some people who play those armies will fight me on this- they will swear up and down that FW = GW. For many of us, that may be true- I suspect FW's footprint in the UK and even in the EU is bigger than it is on this side of the pond. But to a Canadian kid looking to buy plastic in a GW store, FW might as well be on another planet.

Name changes? Okay, I don't know about fantasy, so I can't say whether or not "Seraphon" existed in the lore before it became the default name for the faction, but Astra Militarum is quite old- it was always there, but no one used it. And if name changes are important for keeping the company strong enough to keep delivering, then so be it. If third party knock-offs take the company below the threshold where they can bang out a codex every month and some models every month, I'd gladly call a faction just about anything to prevent that from happening.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

It's probably less hating 40k so much as hating GW practices. Like maybe i just need to play a new army or play against less "competitive" players that have to buy the best army faction and use the most broken build to win rather than using skill. It doesn't help people use Net lists rather than their own tactics and list building skill.


Agree with this a lot!

Sorry if I come across as a white knight- I don't like all of GW's decisions either, believe me (Particularly the refusal to FAQ single wound old marines). I still think they're getting more right than they are wrong. Once we get all the dexes that are coming, THEN I will be able to pass judgment on the edition as whole.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/30 23:43:13


Post by: flamingkillamajig


 the_scotsman wrote:
AOS has vastly more dark fantasy shades of gray good guys doing bad stuff/double crossing each other than 40k had had since the lore in 7th edition.

Also "certain cultural shifts." Bitch harder.


You know there's a certain malus darkblade story where a baddie throws a woman's flayed face at a prisoner that was her boyfriend after they tortured her right (i think it was sexual torture too)? Old fantasy had some rather messed up things. I heard the original Beastmen lore came about by nobles that had a crazy party that included bestiality that they may or may not have dedicated to the Gods and the Chaos Gods responded by making the first incarnations of beastmen possibly being birthed out of the animals themselves.

Seriously. That was the absolute nicest way i could put it to keep it fairly neutral one way or another and you responded horribly to it. It's true. 16 years of no updates and then only an update once the shift takes place. I'm sorry dude but something happened and there are a lot more armies that got less attention (new units and such) that don't fit that sort of aesthetic.

@penitent jake: You know a part of me wants to be as positive as you but if you've been into the hobby for like 10+ years like i have then you start to see a major shift in the game that you just dislike. Aesthetic change, rules, lore and a lot of things. I had a love-hate relationship with GW right up until they killed WHFB and then they insulted the player base for it. I was mad but i stuck through it and then they insulted the player base again for something else with the new management. GW isn't a very nice company. I've probably seen Creative Assembly treat Warhammer Fantasy with far more love and respect than GW had for most of the time i played WHFB.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 00:01:56


Post by: aphyon


Macharius562 wrote:
Negative for me, just because I really don’t love the way they’re taking the whole setting and central mechanics. I get that 7th’s balance wasn’t great, but to me I felt like it was a better representation of a meat grinder battle with stuff like templates, armor facings, the vehicle damage table, etc. Now it feels like with all the auras and stratagems and chapter tactic equivalents and stuff, it just feels too card gamey, which just doesn’t fit the setting imo. That and I just feel like the game has lost its identity sort of, which I feel is most obviously shown through the primaries marines. The whole imperium is meant to be kinda inefficient and over engineered, but they feel just too “clean” in terms or their aesthetic, like they’d fit better in Star Wars or halo.


+40K

I am right there with you. funny note i just noticed the admech topic about GW removing options again for unit loadout-mono-pose/mono-kit seems to be where they are going.


I remember back in the day when GW encouraged kitbashing and creative modeling to the point they actually had a bits service so you could personalize your dudes. glad i kept all those spare bits....and play an older edition of the game that GW will never nerf.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 00:15:36


Post by: vipoid


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do think that in any discussion it is worth the effort to distinguish "options" and "viable options" because is is especially easy to get mixed up when reading. Everyone knows that codex have tons of -options- but that doesn't really matter, what matters is how many -viable- options they have.


I agree that this is a worthy distinction but unfortunately the DE HQs (with the sole exception of the Succubus) suffer regardless of which one you go with.

In terms of options, the Archon has lost a ton of wargear, including no small number of viable options. Jetbikes and Skyboards were both taken when available, as were weapons like the Punisher, as were options like Ghostplate Armour, Clone Field, Combat Drugs, Soul Trap etc., etc..

However, in spite of his options being whittled down to a mere 4 melee weapons and 2 ranged weapons, he's still lacking for viable options. None of his melee weapons are worth a damn. Not one. This is not an exaggeration. Every singe one of them is complete and utter garbage, to the point that he can't even average a single Marine kill per combat, regardless of which one you pick. Oh, and while other characters at least get Master Crafted weapons with slightly improved statlines, Archons are stuck with run of the mill Splinter Pistols. Fear his one shot at S* AP0 D1 Poison 4+!

And then you have the Haemonculus, who has no options at all - viable or otherwise. Something I will note, however, is that despite his wargear being completely fixed, GW still managed to make one of his weapons entirely worthless (since another of his weapons is just outright better).

This might not be so bad if DE were spoilt for choice when it came to HQs. Instead, however, these represent 2/3 of DE's entire generic HQ lineup. It doesn't exactly make for thrilling customisation for those of us who liked that aspect of 40k.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 00:56:07


Post by: flamingkillamajig


@vipoid: Not to mention the archon's huskblade's strength or damage potential has steadily gone downhill since maybe 5th edition. If i recall huskblades are now an archon's base strength....of 3. I mean they made hex rifles good but huskblades were good in 5th and in 7th if you took like 4 archons in a group you could kill a stormsurge like i did with em.

Shadowfield also went from amazing in 7th to kinda crap in 8th and 9th. I mean i think in 5th it was bad as well but 8th is definitely the edition when characters got weaker in melee and i think 9th sorta improved that.

Don't get me wrong. If you boost an archon, haemonculus or succubus they might be ok. The archon warlord trait ancient evil allows them to force an enemy unit in close combat to always fight last. That's pretty huge actually. Sadly no longer are the days when an archon or 2 or 3 can wipe out a towering stormsurge.

I understand where you're coming from. Our army both became more powerful but we lost options. Technically we regained bloodbrides and trueborn and got wrack elites (which i might never use elite wracks anyway). At the same time we lost hex rifles on haemonculus and we have yet to actually gain new weapons or new units though we do get a couple new models.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 03:38:15


Post by: PenitentJake


@Flamingkillamajig: Funny. I actually started playing in 1989. When the GSC came back at the tag end of 7th, it bought a lot of forgiveness- I've been bashing GW since 3rd ed for killing that army- I never expected it to return.

@vipoid: Archons can still take combat drugs and soul traps... You just have to stop playing matched to do it. Both are Crusade Requisitions. And for the record, I liked Succubi on reaver bikes and skyboards because Succubi would learn to use those things in the arena. But I never thought Archons should have access without a story to back it up.

Crusade is also the cure for boring weapons; slap an upgrade on any weapon- there are lots to choose from.

Here's an experiment for you; I can't try it right now because I'm away from my books for a while. But pick your favourite edition, and build your favourite Archon. Then do the same in 9th. Then fight them.

I suspect what you'll find is that the 9th guy wins- because all your cool gear doesn't stack- take every item in the list if you want but how many can you use at a time?

Whereas: my Master status stacks with my relic, which stacks with my WL Trait, which stacks with my strats, which stack with my Kabal trait- I won't include auras, because that brings in extra models.

And even if you do come out on top, we'll need to have the conversation again after I gain all 4 of my battle honours- because they stack too.

I get it- I know that equipment is something easily relatable and easy to model. But equipment is usually either/or; if there are 10 pieces of equipment you can take, you've got 10 options. If you've got 5 strats, 6 WL traits, 3 relics and 2 upgrades, you've got 180 combinations.

Previous editions did not have more options- they just had more equipment.








How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 03:52:56


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I'm not sure what the state of 40k is right now, but as soon as I've finished my 3 week correspondence course "How to make sense of the multi-layered rules in the new Adetpus Mechanicus Codex", I'll let you know.



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 05:34:21


Post by: flamingkillamajig


@penitent jake: I'll admit I didn't expect you to have started so long ago. I will admit squatting an army sucks. F to pay respects for bretonnia and tomb kings and to an extent whfb. I know fantasy is coming back but GW still won't let most gw stores I know play 8th ed whfb despite bringing it back. I mean it's been dead 6 years and I've been waiting. Part of me wants to see skaven come back with new units but I just hate being disappointed with a lack of new units. It's gotten to the point where I just want to buy a newer army that actually gets new units.

I kind of want to get into kings of war because I can’t wait for my when fix anymore. I heard the models aren’t as good but the balance and prices are great which is honestly all I need to hear. As long as I can find a gaming group for kings of war I will totally make a switch at least for a bit.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 06:33:56


Post by: Seabass


Cyel wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.


Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.



WMH is a dead game for a lot of reasons in my opinion. It's really sad, because PP had EVERYTHING in reach, and just pissed it away. From my take, the game collapsed because they tried to be GW at a time when GW stopped being GW. Here is what I mean.

WMH mk2 was a pretty good game. Not balanced at all (no one who played against axis tier 3, Runes of War, or gaspy2 could honestly say so, and that doesn't touch the iceberg) but it did give a lot of great decision-making and choices in the game. Ranges, movement, buffs, and debuffs all made important differences in the game. But, PP released mk3, and mk3 was an absolute disaster on its launch. PP sold books, cards, and other material to update players to MK3, then after selling it to the independent retailers, made all of the information publicly and freely available 3 weeks later. They stuck stores with products they couldn't sell and didn't say a thing about it. I mean, this list goes on for a while. The rules were a very poor mishmash of copy/paste from MK2 to MK3, on a level that would make the people that bitch nonstop about GW raise an eyebrow. The entire faction of skorne was so poorly designed (literally with models that could not mechanically work in their faction) that they had to redesign it a few months after launch. This is literally just the tip of the iceberg.

130.00 models that had no detail, missing stock, insider dealing with a specific online retailer that somehow got to buy all of the inventory PP had on the new hot models, sticking retailers with taking a loss on books and cards, CID, dear god CID which was a public beta test for new models that ended up being a gigantic mess of falsified information to break the game, theme forces, getting rid of the Press Gang program, and absolute terrible PR from the developer of competitive play, and the design team, who literally would insult players, promises of content like fluff and IKRPG content that never came, I mean, the game just went downhill at a rate that I have never seen.

From what I have seen, the game is dead. PP has been in retraction from what I understand for a while and has gone down to about 17 employees where at one time they were over 100. The game is dead within 3 or 4 hours of my home, in any direction. I dont expect PP to stick around long, to be completely honest.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 07:06:08


Post by: Sim-Life


Seabass wrote:
Cyel wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.


Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.



WMH is a dead game for a lot of reasons in my opinion. It's really sad, because PP had EVERYTHING in reach, and just pissed it away. From my take, the game collapsed because they tried to be GW at a time when GW stopped being GW. Here is what I mean.

WMH mk2 was a pretty good game. Not balanced at all (no one who played against axis tier 3, Runes of War, or gaspy2 could honestly say so, and that doesn't touch the iceberg) but it did give a lot of great decision-making and choices in the game. Ranges, movement, buffs, and debuffs all made important differences in the game. But, PP released mk3, and mk3 was an absolute disaster on its launch. PP sold books, cards, and other material to update players to MK3, then after selling it to the independent retailers, made all of the information publicly and freely available 3 weeks later. They stuck stores with products they couldn't sell and didn't say a thing about it. I mean, this list goes on for a while. The rules were a very poor mishmash of copy/paste from MK2 to MK3, on a level that would make the people that bitch nonstop about GW raise an eyebrow. The entire faction of skorne was so poorly designed (literally with models that could not mechanically work in their faction) that they had to redesign it a few months after launch. This is literally just the tip of the iceberg.

130.00 models that had no detail, missing stock, insider dealing with a specific online retailer that somehow got to buy all of the inventory PP had on the new hot models, sticking retailers with taking a loss on books and cards, CID, dear god CID which was a public beta test for new models that ended up being a gigantic mess of falsified information to break the game, theme forces, getting rid of the Press Gang program, and absolute terrible PR from the developer of competitive play, and the design team, who literally would insult players, promises of content like fluff and IKRPG content that never came, I mean, the game just went downhill at a rate that I have never seen.

From what I have seen, the game is dead. PP has been in retraction from what I understand for a while and has gone down to about 17 employees where at one time they were over 100. The game is dead within 3 or 4 hours of my home, in any direction. I dont expect PP to stick around long, to be completely honest.


There's a difference between mismanagement and a bad game. I agree there was a lot wrong with Mk3 but it was still a good game (at least in its first year, if you didn't play Skorne). Warmahordes is dead because of PP, not because the game itself is bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure what the state of 40k is right now, but as soon as I've finished my 3 week correspondence course "How to make sense of the multi-layered rules in the new Adetpus Mechanicus Codex", I'll let you know.



It just struck me that maybe bloated rules are an effort to kill soup armies. If you need to remember dozens of rules that constantly change from turn to turn in one army no one is going to do it over two.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 08:24:42


Post by: Just Tony


 Sim-Life wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Cyel wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.


Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.



WMH is a dead game for a lot of reasons in my opinion. It's really sad, because PP had EVERYTHING in reach, and just pissed it away. From my take, the game collapsed because they tried to be GW at a time when GW stopped being GW. Here is what I mean.

WMH mk2 was a pretty good game. Not balanced at all (no one who played against axis tier 3, Runes of War, or gaspy2 could honestly say so, and that doesn't touch the iceberg) but it did give a lot of great decision-making and choices in the game. Ranges, movement, buffs, and debuffs all made important differences in the game. But, PP released mk3, and mk3 was an absolute disaster on its launch. PP sold books, cards, and other material to update players to MK3, then after selling it to the independent retailers, made all of the information publicly and freely available 3 weeks later. They stuck stores with products they couldn't sell and didn't say a thing about it. I mean, this list goes on for a while. The rules were a very poor mishmash of copy/paste from MK2 to MK3, on a level that would make the people that bitch nonstop about GW raise an eyebrow. The entire faction of skorne was so poorly designed (literally with models that could not mechanically work in their faction) that they had to redesign it a few months after launch. This is literally just the tip of the iceberg.

130.00 models that had no detail, missing stock, insider dealing with a specific online retailer that somehow got to buy all of the inventory PP had on the new hot models, sticking retailers with taking a loss on books and cards, CID, dear god CID which was a public beta test for new models that ended up being a gigantic mess of falsified information to break the game, theme forces, getting rid of the Press Gang program, and absolute terrible PR from the developer of competitive play, and the design team, who literally would insult players, promises of content like fluff and IKRPG content that never came, I mean, the game just went downhill at a rate that I have never seen.

From what I have seen, the game is dead. PP has been in retraction from what I understand for a while and has gone down to about 17 employees where at one time they were over 100. The game is dead within 3 or 4 hours of my home, in any direction. I dont expect PP to stick around long, to be completely honest.


There's a difference between mismanagement and a bad game. I agree there was a lot wrong with Mk3 but it was still a good game (at least in its first year, if you didn't play Skorne). Warmahordes is dead because of PP, not because the game itself is bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure what the state of 40k is right now, but as soon as I've finished my 3 week correspondence course "How to make sense of the multi-layered rules in the new Adetpus Mechanicus Codex", I'll let you know.



It just struck me that maybe bloated rules are an effort to kill soup armies. If you need to remember dozens of rules that constantly change from turn to turn in one army no one is going to do it over two.


The fastest way to kill soup would be to disallow Allies except in narrative campaigns.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 11:21:04


Post by: vipoid


PenitentJake wrote:

@vipoid: Archons can still take combat drugs and soul traps... You just have to stop playing matched to do it. Both are Crusade Requisitions.


Oh joy of all joys. So if I agree to play an entirely different mode of play, which doesn't suit me at all, I might be allowed a couple of wargear items back? Gee, thanks.

Also, I feel obliged to point out that Soul Trap used to give a bonus immediately, upon killing a Monster or Character.

Now I have to kill five characters (monsters don't even count anymore for some reason) in order to get anything out of it. And this on a character who is supposed to be a melee character and yet has one of the worst melee profiles in the entire game.

Sorry if I'm not thrilled at the prospect.


PenitentJake wrote:
And for the record, I liked Succubi on reaver bikes and skyboards because Succubi would learn to use those things in the arena. But I never thought Archons should have access without a story to back it up.


"I don't like these options, therefore no one else should be allowed to like or use them either."

What a great philosophy.


PenitentJake wrote:

Crusade is also the cure for boring weapons; slap an upgrade on any weapon- there are lots to choose from.


It never ceases to amaze me how many hoops people will jump through to defend GW's awful game design.

'Hey, if you play an entirely different type of game, you get access to upgrades that make your weapons less-bad and less boring!'

Alas, it seems the question of why the Archon's weapons needed to be bad and boring in the first place will forever remain a mystery.


PenitentJake wrote:

Here's an experiment for you; I can't try it right now because I'm away from my books for a while. But pick your favourite edition, and build your favourite Archon. Then do the same in 9th. Then fight them.


How?

Which rules are we using? What does WS7 hit WS2+ on? Does WS2+ hit WS7 on 2s or on 5s? Does I7 strike before, after, or at the same time as a model with no initiative score? Does a model with no initiative score even get to fight? If a 5th edition Archon wounds a 9th edition Archon with a Blaster or Blast Pistol, does it suffer Instant Death?


PenitentJake wrote:

I suspect what you'll find is that the 9th guy wins- because all your cool gear doesn't stack- take every item in the list if you want but how many can you use at a time?

Whereas: my Master status stacks with my relic, which stacks with my WL Trait, which stacks with my strats, which stack with my Kabal trait- I won't include auras, because that brings in extra models.


Bringing up artefacts and warlord traits is exactly the point - an Archon shouldn't need to take a specific relic just to obtain a weapon that's actually functional.

To illustrate what I mean, let's run a 5th edition Archon and a 9th edition Archon against the Marines of the day:
- The 5th edition Archon with an Agoniser kills 1.67 Marines on average.
- The 9th edition Archon with an Agoniser does 1.4 wounds to a single Marine.
(And in case you're wondering, no, the 9th edition Archon does not have a single non-relic weapon that will bring that score up to killing even a single Marine on average)

If you want another example, let's see how their anti-character weapons hold up:
- The 5th edition Archon with a Huskblade inflicts 0.55 wounds on a SM Captain. But since the weapon has Instant Death, that's a 55% chance to kill the Captain outright.
- The 9th edition Archon inflicts ~1.4 wounds on the SM Captain. Which is almost twice the above, but with no Instant Death and with Captains having 66% more wounds, you're looking at 3-4 turns before the Archon actually kills him (assuming said Archon is even still alive).

Yes, you can probably take a relic and do better - but that's precisely my point. You're having to take a relic - something that should be about personalising a character - just to retain functionality at the most basic purpose of an Archon.


PenitentJake wrote:

And even if you do come out on top, we'll need to have the conversation again after I gain all 4 of my battle honours- because they stack too.


Even ignoring all the problems of trying to fight characters from different editions with different game mechanics, why on earth would I make one of the Archons a Crusade archon? You said to pick my favourite Archon in 9th - not your favourite Archon, using a game system that doesn't interest me.


PenitentJake wrote:

I get it- I know that equipment is something easily relatable and easy to model. But equipment is usually either/or; if there are 10 pieces of equipment you can take, you've got 10 options. If you've got 5 strats, 6 WL traits, 3 relics and 2 upgrades, you've got 180 combinations.


Why does combinations count for one but not for the other?

Also, how many of those combinations are actually functional? Because I foresee you ending up with a lot of combination of Archon that don't actually do anything, as you haven't given them the one good relic weapon and they have no other role in an army besides melee.

For example, I quite liked the idea of a ranged Archon using a Blaster or the Poison Tongue relic. However, Blasters have been scoured from the codex and the Poison Tongue relic is about as effective as the Archon throwing his own dung at opponents. What's more, by taking that Relic, I lose access to the only good melee weapon DE get (which is also a relic). So, as demonstrated above, I'm stuck with one of 4 basic weapons - not a single one of which can kill a Marine on average. At least an 8th edition Archon with the same build actually had a half-decent melee weapon to fall back on.

But apparently I'm supposed to celebrate our amazing number of options and ignore the fact that those 180 combinations amount to 1 combination that's actually functional and 179 trap options.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 11:33:03


Post by: BertBert


 the_scotsman wrote:
 BertBert wrote:
but people pooled 3D scans of their existing miniatures online.


Where did they do that, my good friend my buddy my old pal?



https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2087805624


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 16:12:49


Post by: PenitentJake


@vipoid Thanks for taking the time for the detailed response.

You're right, comparing between editions is too difficult to serve as a good experiment- my bad.

Also, didn't know your aversion to Crusade was as strong as it is. From your point of view, I can see how it may look like hoop jumping to defend GW, but Crusade is my preferred game, so to me, playing matched would be like hoop jumping, only it would make my army WAY less "My dudes"- reverse hoop jumping so to speak.

You're also right about equipment combos providing more options than I gave them credit- I didn't know how to hit the math to calculate the possible combinations- especially since I won't have access to my dexes for another 2-4 days. Razor flails in the hands of a Cult of Strife Succubus just about broke the Internet- imagine what they'd say about instant death!

Anyway, you've articulated your points pretty clearly, so I'll stop trying so hard to change your mind- I do get where you're coming from; I too would like some of those options back- I'd like a ranged Archon too- mine is likely to end up as a toxin crafter with a Court full of Lhameans, a few toxin distillery territories and some poison upgrades- he'll be a ranged bad@55 eventually, he's just going to have to work for it.

As for the "I don't like it" part of the jetbikes and Skyboards for non-Wych HQs: if GW gave us those rules back for Archons, even though I personally wouldn't like them, I wouldn't advocate for removing them- I just wouldn't use them myself.

The situation we are in though, is one where we don't have the option. I'm just explaining that from my POV I think it makes fluff sense to keep Jetbikes and Skyboards out of the hands of Archons and Haemonculi, who would would spend much of their time outside the arenas where those particular pieces of gear are far more prevalent.

My way of dealing with problems is almost always additive, rather than subtractive; rather than calling for jetbikes and skyboards to be banned for Archons and Haemonculi, I'd be more likely to suggest adding a Gladitorial Training requisition to the Crusade rules that explained why someone who should have trained as a tactician or surgeon instead spent time learning how to stunt drive.

Anyway- I won't bug you again; it's clear our points of view are irreconcilable, and that's okay. Sorry to be as much of a pain in the @55 as I have been :-)


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 16:28:32


Post by: SemperMortis


For the first time in a long while I am rather hopeful. GW seems to be moving in a more customer oriented direction. Responding to criticism and errors in the game markedly faster than in previous editions. GW seems to have realized they overloaded the market with new Marine kits and has moved towards a more balanced approach, Orkz getting new kits, Necrons, SOB, Mech. Its honestly a golden age in comparison to 5-7th.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 17:01:22


Post by: harlokin


PenitentJake wrote:
The situation we are in though, is one where we don't have the option. I'm just explaining that from my POV I think it makes fluff sense to keep Jetbikes and Skyboards out of the hands of Archons and Haemonculi, who would would spend much of their time outside the arenas where those particular pieces of gear are far more prevalent.


To be fair, Archons come from a variety of backgrounds, so there is no fluff reason they shouldn't have stuff like jetbikes.

The best example is Vraesque Malidrach, Archon of the Kabal of the Flayed Skull who was once a notorious Reaver death racer, and still modelled with jetbike helmet.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 21:49:24


Post by: CEO Kasen


SemperMortis wrote:
For the first time in a long while I am rather hopeful. GW seems to be moving in a more customer oriented direction. Responding to criticism and errors in the game markedly faster than in previous editions. GW seems to have realized they overloaded the market with new Marine kits and has moved towards a more balanced approach, Orkz getting new kits, Necrons, SOB, Mech. Its honestly a golden age in comparison to 5-7th.


Much as I disliked the Marine flood, what finally killed any hope I had of 9th being or getting good was not Marines, not exactly. It was the rather more recent realization that everyone will share to a greater or lesser extent in their egregious rules bloat.

With the engine that they have trying to run the sheer amount of rules each faction is supposed to have, the game will not be a better game in a year no matter who gets codexes, how well balanced they are, or how quickly they are released, because the balance and distribution problems, while present, obscure the fact that 40k just isn't designed for what they're trying to make it do, which is represent dozens of disparate and possibly still-proliferating factions with ever more rules and specialties within an even more limited span of core mechanics and design space than prior editions, all while simultaneously trying to appeal to casual, narrative, and competitive gamers.

(The fact that they charge out the toxic megacolon for these rules is a separate topic, as expensive rules don't by themselves make a bad game - 40K 9th is a mediocre game at best regardless of its price tag.)

The game will not magically become good in 9th with a codex release or points update; it will require total restructuring and this is not happening until 10th.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 23:10:51


Post by: Karol


SemperMortis 798472 11137137 wrote:For the first time in a long while I am rather hopeful. GW seems to be moving in a more customer oriented direction. Responding to criticism and errors in the game markedly faster than in previous editions. GW seems to have realized they overloaded the market with new Marine kits and has moved towards a more balanced approach, Orkz getting new kits, Necrons, SOB, Mech. Its honestly a golden age in comparison to 5-7th.


Ah yeah how customer oriented they are. People tell them for a year that they are late with updating various marines to the same statline, and their anwsers to this is, that because they have a 3 months delay and they need the big sellers out with new kits, at all costs, instead of puting out the books that should be out right now, they would rather update factions who are already doing fine or great in the game. Litteral golden age, when you have to wait for an update that could be writen by a clerk in lets say 3 days, if they said clerk was really lazy and took a lot of breaks, and the text had to be proof read and accepted by 2 different tiers of managment.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/05/31 23:31:00


Post by: CEO Kasen


Karol wrote:
Ah yeah how customer oriented they are. People tell them for a year that they are late with updating various marines to the same statline, and their anwsers to this is, that because they have a 3 months delay and they need the big sellers out with new kits, at all costs, instead of puting out the books that should be out right now, they would rather update factions who are already doing fine or great in the game. Litteral golden age, when you have to wait for an update that could be writen by a clerk in lets say 3 days, if they said clerk was really lazy and took a lot of breaks, and the text had to be proof read and accepted by 2 different tiers of managment.


Yeah, all that sucks too, don't get me wrong, I'm saying 40K 9th is flawed on so fundamental a level by this point, with tiny lungs suffocating so completely under its own folds of blubber, that there is no coming back and making a good game from it no matter who gets what or how responsive GW gets. Even if they moved to digital rules releases with slashed prices, did proper points updates, faq'ed Dark Technomancers inside a week and gave CSM 2 wounds from the launch of 9th, the game would still be a painful slog to play, and it's only going to be a more painful one as more Stuff is added.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 00:49:05


Post by: Jarms48


8th and 9th edition looked promising at the start but GW are just making it more and more convoluted. Each 9th edition codex has so many damn rules and interactions to keep track of.

I just want a return of universal special rules to reduce some of the duplicates. We don't need every army having their own version of objective secured, feel no pain, etc. It's a D6 game there's a very limited amount of interactions that can be explained across a few pages in the core rulebook.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 01:01:24


Post by: Racerguy180


A switch to d10 based rules would allow for more meaningful interactions. There's only so much design space a d6 based to hit/wound system has.

But USR's would be welcomed. GW has doubled down on wombocombo to make up for the limitations they have self imposed.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 03:11:51


Post by: Seabass


 Sim-Life wrote:


There's a difference between mismanagement and a bad game. I agree there was a lot wrong with Mk3 but it was still a good game (at least in its first year, if you didn't play Skorne). Warmahordes is dead because of PP, not because the game itself is bad.


I agree, MK3 was fine for a while, but man, once CID hit, the game just exploded into a fireball of whining, stupidity, crying, and bullshittery the likes of which no human had ever laid witness too. I liked early MK3 a lot and thought it was better than MK2 for most purposes. There was the stupid stuff with gang and flank not working properly as USR's but that stuff got fixed and released. But, then things like the clockatrice happened, and it just wasnt long before the game really began to spiral out of control under its own weight.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 03:16:26


Post by: vict0988


 CEO Kasen wrote:
The game will not magically become good in 9th with a codex release or points update; it will require total restructuring and this is not happening until 10th.

I disagree, a single Chapter Approved book could remove most of the bloat from the game. Invalidate all Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Relics, Chapter Tactics and Combat Doctrines from all codexes. Print universal Stratagems and WL traits and a small unique Relic set for each army and only print and update these rules in Chapter Approved, no army gets left behind and once you know what's in Chapter Approved there'll be no more surprises. That and a solidly tested mission pack and set of points would fix matched play. Errata Codex ability names to generic old-school terminology. Release a crusade pack with crusade content for every faction. Release indexes instead of codexes when datasheets need updates, just datasheets and the rules that follow with the datasheets like weapon profiles and rules like Reanimation Protocols, nothing else, not art or pictures. Release collector's guides for each army with fluff, narrative missions, terrain and miniature displays and guides.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 03:45:03


Post by: ccs


 vict0988 wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
The game will not magically become good in 9th with a codex release or points update; it will require total restructuring and this is not happening until 10th.

I disagree, a single Chapter Approved book could remove most of the bloat from the game. Invalidate all Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Relics, Chapter Tactics and Combat Doctrines from all codexes. Print universal Stratagems and WL traits and a small unique Relic set for each army and only print and update these rules in Chapter Approved, no army gets left behind and once you know what's in Chapter Approved there'll be no more surprises. That and a solidly tested mission pack and set of points would fix matched play. Errata Codex ability names to generic old-school terminology. Release a crusade pack with crusade content for every faction. Release indexes instead of codexes when datasheets need updates, just datasheets and the rules that follow with the datasheets like weapon profiles and rules like Reanimation Protocols, nothing else, not art or pictures. Release collector's guides for each army with fluff, narrative missions, terrain and miniature displays and guides.


So... 10th edition+


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 03:46:29


Post by: Vankraken


 vict0988 wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
The game will not magically become good in 9th with a codex release or points update; it will require total restructuring and this is not happening until 10th.

I disagree, a single Chapter Approved book could remove most of the bloat from the game. Invalidate all Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Relics, Chapter Tactics and Combat Doctrines from all codexes. Print universal Stratagems and WL traits and a small unique Relic set for each army and only print and update these rules in Chapter Approved, no army gets left behind and once you know what's in Chapter Approved there'll be no more surprises. That and a solidly tested mission pack and set of points would fix matched play. Errata Codex ability names to generic old-school terminology. Release a crusade pack with crusade content for every faction. Release indexes instead of codexes when datasheets need updates, just datasheets and the rules that follow with the datasheets like weapon profiles and rules like Reanimation Protocols, nothing else, not art or pictures. Release collector's guides for each army with fluff, narrative missions, terrain and miniature displays and guides.


The core rules of the game are far too limited in their current state to allow for depth of mechanics (which is what the game desperately needs). Game just bloats and has rampant power creep because the design space is so limited that you can't have much in the way of utility that doesn't just boil down to more killing power or durability. Stuff like USRs, universal game mechanics that aren't army specific, and bringing back stuff like proper cover saves will do a lot of help diversify the gameplay loop, unit roles/utility, and army interactions beyond just killing models.

That said I am the minority in that I despise current 40k due to the game being dreadfully boring. Despite my negativity of the game in its current state, a lot of the complaints going on now are stuff I sorta foresaw due to how small a foundation the core rules laid and the inevitable stacking of bonuses on top of bonuses because GW designed itself into a corner right from the get go of 8th (and completely ignored that issue when coming up with 9th).


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 04:30:44


Post by: CEO Kasen


 Vankraken wrote:
The core rules of the game are far too limited in their current state to allow for depth of mechanics (which is what the game desperately needs). Game just bloats and has rampant power creep because the design space is so limited that you can't have much in the way of utility that doesn't just boil down to more killing power or durability. Stuff like USRs, universal game mechanics that aren't army specific, and bringing back stuff like proper cover saves will do a lot of help diversify the gameplay loop, unit roles/utility, and army interactions beyond just killing models.

That said I am the minority in that I despise current 40k due to the game being dreadfully boring. Despite my negativity of the game in its current state, a lot of the complaints going on now are stuff I sorta foresaw due to how small a foundation the core rules laid and the inevitable stacking of bonuses on top of bonuses because GW designed itself into a corner right from the get go of 8th (and completely ignored that issue when coming up with 9th).


A minority? Maybe, but decidedly not alone. I've recently come around to this way of thinking. 9th is very boring, and the reason I didn't see it earlier was because of being too boggled and annoyed by the infinite train of hugs Marines were getting at the time; Now that a few more factions have some really powerful and convoluted rules, I could actually look at the game and go "Wait a minute, this is a train of watery dog spunk!"



How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 05:46:18


Post by: kodos


Racerguy180 wrote:
A switch to d10 based rules would allow for more meaningful interactions. There's only so much design space a d6 based to hit/wound system has.


this would not change anything
stats in this game are 1-10, yet GW es effective using 2-8 and limiting the design space additional with their to wound table

you can get a game based in D6 were the dice roll needed are put directly into the profile instead of stats and tables, using +/-1 modifiers with hardcaps and and get much more interactions than 40k has now

the design space of D6 is limited but GW does not even use the full scale that is available


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 06:00:15


Post by: Bosskelot


I've actually experienced a few local players, even some of the competitive ones, who are really wary of the direction the game is heading in with regards to rules complexity. The Admech Codex has what has been setting off real alarm bells with how needlessly convoluted it is and I've had a few people say that they actually dread their 9th Codex because they don't want to get some "Doctrine"-style army ability that is going to be more things to keep track of.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 06:02:03


Post by: vict0988


ccs wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
The game will not magically become good in 9th with a codex release or points update; it will require total restructuring and this is not happening until 10th.

I disagree, a single Chapter Approved book could remove most of the bloat from the game. Invalidate all Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Relics, Chapter Tactics and Combat Doctrines from all codexes. Print universal Stratagems and WL traits and a small unique Relic set for each army and only print and update these rules in Chapter Approved, no army gets left behind and once you know what's in Chapter Approved there'll be no more surprises. That and a solidly tested mission pack and set of points would fix matched play. Errata Codex ability names to generic old-school terminology. Release a crusade pack with crusade content for every faction. Release indexes instead of codexes when datasheets need updates, just datasheets and the rules that follow with the datasheets like weapon profiles and rules like Reanimation Protocols, nothing else, not art or pictures. Release collector's guides for each army with fluff, narrative missions, terrain and miniature displays and guides.


So... 10th edition+

If the core rules don't change then it's not a new edition is it? 9,5 maybe. I think the core rules are pretty much perfect. There isn't much errata outside rare rules and there are no beta rules unlike 8th, a new edition would be totally unnecessary. The existing 9th edition codexes are fine-ish, I just think GW should hurry up and release a CSM index, how many people are waiting with baited breath for the fluff and art in the next book? CSM need updated datasheets.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 06:17:51


Post by: kodos


If the core rules change a lot than it is a new game rather than a new Edition

Not many changes but corrections and updated Codex books = new Edition

so New³40k 3rd Edition instead of 9.5/10 (RT, 40k, New40k 1&2, New-New40k 1,2&3, New³ 1&2)


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 08:41:32


Post by: Karol


Sometimes it take as small change to make a huge impact on the game though. Sure the numbers and some of the rules between 8th and 9th are shared. But the terrain rules are, so different that they catapulted some armies to total game dominance.

A simple change to how doctrines work, was a death kneel to marine armies who had rules based around being in devastator doctrin. We don't see many/any Iron Hands or Imperial Fists being played nowadays. While technically the core rule set is more or less the same.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 09:38:03


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Some basic stat adjustments to bring all armies in line with each other, and to scale back overall lethality, could breathe a massive amount of life into the game. It really would not take that much.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 10:43:47


Post by: grouchoben


Can't believe I'm saying this, as 40k has been a huge part of my life for the past 7 years, but I'm considering quitting the game.

GW are showing absolutely no sign of changing their stripes. Their codex release balance system is terribad - it cuts down forests to pump out hardbacks that are redundant in a year, and their balancing system is predicated on codex creep, with an eventual edition reset when the waterline gets too high. Which is to say they don't attempt to balance the game 'in toto' whatsoever.

Their initial ideas of 9e were promising but the latest CA speaks of a lack of will or imagination to take any positive risks, their model release has skewed horribly towards Primaris and AoS, and their latest points balancing is a thing of wonder, such is it's ineptness.

Coming back to the game after playing Infinity all year, it's just such a mess. While Infinity's system is much more advanced, 40k's simple system is straining under the sheer weight of the ad hoc rules they keep stacking on. If I have to commit a serius amount of time to learn a game, I choose one whose complexity yields a really rich tactical experience, rather than one that is just committing to memory the endless iterations of violations of a simple rule set.

Finally, short-term profit motive über alles is skewing the game unecessarily, with long-term game health and design being sacrificed for a quick buck. I can see why B-bone quit and sold his armies.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 11:38:41


Post by: Sim-Life


 grouchoben wrote:
Can't believe I'm saying this, as 40k has been a huge part of my life for the past 7 years, but I'm considering quitting the game.

GW are showing absolutely no sign of changing their stripes. Their codex release balance system is terribad - it cuts down forests to pump out hardbacks that are redundant in a year, and their balancing system is predicated on codex creep, with an eventual edition reset when the waterline gets too high. Which is to say they don't attempt to balance the game 'in toto' whatsoever.

Their initial ideas of 9e were promising but the latest CA speaks of a lack of will or imagination to take any positive risks, their model release has skewed horribly towards Primaris and AoS, and their latest points balancing is a thing of wonder, such is it's ineptness.

Coming back to the game after playing Infinity all year, it's just such a mess. While Infinity's system is much more advanced, 40k's simple system is straining under the sheer weight of the ad hoc rules they keep stacking on. If I have to commit a serius amount of time to learn a game, I choose one whose complexity yields a really rich tactical experience, rather than one that is just committing to memory the endless iterations of violations of a simple rule set.

Finally, short-term profit motive über alles is skewing the game unecessarily, with long-term game health and design being sacrificed for a quick buck. I can see why B-bone quit and sold his armies.


As someone who's been into the game for around 25 years all I can say is "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 11:40:28


Post by: Seabass


I think it's funny how people are talking about the game as if it's dying.

40k is more popular than it's ever been.

I'm not saying people are wrong for having the opinions they have, not at all, I just think it's worth noting that the game is bigger than it's ever been before.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 11:50:08


Post by: Sim-Life


Seabass wrote:
I think it's funny how people are talking about the game as if it's dying.

40k is more popular than it's ever been.

I'm not saying people are wrong for having the opinions they have, not at all, I just think it's worth noting that the game is bigger than it's ever been before.


Who said the game is dying? We're saying the game is gak. If the Transformers movie have proved anything it's that popular things can still be gak.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 11:54:39


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


I think a lot of it comes down to the problems because of Corona. They simply should not have started 9th edition when they didn't have the proper production capacities. The Indomitus Set was already a bad start, the App is still a mess and the Codizes we see are actually nice but with how slowly they are coming out we still can't see the whole picture. Their FAQ system seems to have broken down completely, the points decisions are still strange and CA has become totally useless outside of the tournament scene. I really hope GW tries to solve these problems when Corona is over and not force 10th edition on us in 2 years when half the factions got their 9th edition Codex. The foundations of 9th are actually good, better than in 8th and far better than in 6th or 7th which I don't miss one bit. GW just has to get their things together again.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 12:24:11


Post by: the_scotsman


Whats really frustrating to me with 9th is that they've got some good ideas, but theyre so utterly buried at the bottom of a gigantic pile of meaningless bloat that it's tough to cut down to them.

For AGES 40k has suffered from the fact that so many units are essentially identical statlines leading to each edition having a "best" weapon profile that everyone kind of gravitates towards.

with 9th we're finally getting fundamentally different forms of durability, between Dark Angel transhuman, Death Guard -1 damage, Necron regeneration, Orks high toughness, etc - that's fantastic, that's something that's been needed for so so long.

....but of course now you need to track 97 layers of army-wide special rules and detachment rules and doctrines and stratagems and relics and custom traits and standard traits and multipart abilities and bonus auras and actions and special objectives and just endless, endless piles of trash.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 12:35:20


Post by: kirotheavenger


The problem is those types of durability aren't in any way universally applied.

We used have a typical dynamic where most factions had access to light, medium, and heavy armour for example.

But now, there's none of that. If you take a weapon that's resistant to -1 damage, that's great if you're playing Deathguard but absolutely useless against many other factions.
So, realistically, that dynamic of their being a best weapon remains but now there's a chance you'll face an army that hard-counters that weapon and you're boned.

These damage effects are handed out completely illogically as well. Why are Terminators suddenly so much more resistant to high strength weaponary if they paint their armour bone?


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 12:49:24


Post by: the_scotsman


 kirotheavenger wrote:
The problem is those types of durability aren't in any way universally applied.

We used have a typical dynamic where most factions had access to light, medium, and heavy armour for example.

But now, there's none of that. If you take a weapon that's resistant to -1 damage, that's great if you're playing Deathguard but absolutely useless against many other factions.
So, realistically, that dynamic of their being a best weapon remains but now there's a chance you'll face an army that hard-counters that weapon and you're boned.

These damage effects are handed out completely illogically as well. Why are Terminators suddenly so much more resistant to high strength weaponary if they paint their armour bone?


You're boned....unless you *gasp* didn't arm your troops with only one type of heavy weapon!! it's almost like that's the point, and that's something 40k has been missing for a long time.

As to 'handed out illogically' I don't really care. All the different space marines in the game make up roughly 1/3 of the playerbase, they simply cannot all have the same exact defenses or else tailoring against MEQ will always be the correct choice regardless of how much creativity you put into the defensive profiles of Orks, Tau, Necrons, etc.

Most factions having access to "the six different profiles that exist in the game with minor variations" is exactly what the problem was for so long. Eventually, people would just take the rules for an edition, go "welp, looks like S6 Ap- is the absolute optimal profile for killing everything, everybody spam that!" and the edition would be instantly solved. Now you want completely different heavy weapon types to attack MEQs, traditional vehicles, necron vehicles, and drukhari vehicles.

GW has always come up with a system of defenses and then never strayed from the most boring and basic application of that system.

Now dont get me wrong: I think GW has actually managed to ruin this good thing basically out of the gate by just power creeping to all hell and back and pursuing an overall strategy of manufactured discontent, where every army gets a big old spike right when their codex (and new model range coincidentally) drops, and then just slowly dwindles in usefulness until you go from top of the world (GSC at codex launch) to bottom of the barrel (GSC at present) with no help coming from GW for any reason.

The continuous escalation is the problem here. THere are some fundamentally good ideas being thrown around, but theyre all so buried it doesnt matter.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 12:58:06


Post by: Blackie


 kirotheavenger wrote:


But now, there's none of that. If you take a weapon that's resistant to -1 damage, that's great if you're playing Deathguard but absolutely useless against many other factions.
So, realistically, that dynamic of their being a best weapon remains but now there's a chance you'll face an army that hard-counters that weapon and you're boned.


That's positive IMHO, means that you shouldn't spam just a few weapons but take a bit of everything. You'll never be perfectly optimized against anyone but neither screwed against someone. Which is how healthy lists should be based around.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 13:02:14


Post by: kirotheavenger


I think it's better if armies show an approximately equal spread of all profiles.

Otherwise you just end up with every army being a skew of certain defensive measures.
"Ah feth, I'm playing Deathguard, I guess all these D2 weapons are useless" isn't fun or engaging gameplay as neither player has really made a choice in that.

The way you fixed the problem you described is avoid having one profile that's better against everything.
You need the S6 weapon to lack the anti-armour punch, necessitating S9 anti-tank.
But you need the S9 anti-tank to lack the RoF against medium armour, necessitating S6.
You also need the S6 to lack the RoF of S4 for hordes.
etc etc.
I can then bring a spread of that weaponary, and through tabletop play attempt to keep the S9 weapons firing effectively at tanks, the S6 firing effectively at light armour, and the S4 weaponary firing at troops.
That's good game design.
That's not what all these silly damage rules achieve. They just produce bloat and create feels-bad moments when which army you face determines which third of your army you write-off as obsolete.

If we were talking something like heavy tanks get -1 damage, heavy infantry can only be wounded on a 4+, etc, etc, I'd be more inclined to agree that it was a positive dynamic and helped to create the dynamic you're suggesting. But the present implementation isn't that, and I think it's gak.

I agree with your premise that GW has generally failed to get this dynamic right. I just disagree that they've done any better at the moment, I'd even say they've made it worse.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 13:22:21


Post by: Karol


Single shot anti tank weapon in a world of inv saves are horribly bad, unless they would be doing something like 6-12D flat.


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 13:27:50


Post by: kodos


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think a lot of it comes down to the problems because of Corona.[...]GW just has to get their things together again.
My problem here is that Corona might be a reason, but GW decided to continue as usual and not even try to compensate or change anything because of it

I mean if there would have been problems with keeping up, making a statemant that because of Corona the books won't make it in time but they can by the e-book now and get a discount if they pe-order both and get the physical book as soon as it arrives

intead GW decided that the only way to buy the e-book is to buy the physical book which comes late because of Corona but this is not their problem if the costumers has the wait months until he can play

it is not that Corona and Brexit were big problems that brought some unexpected issues, but that GW's solution to the problem was the least costumer friendly by trying as hard as possible to pretend that there is no problem and continue as with buisness as usual (and this caused all the problem with an App not being ready, people not getting their orders etc.)


How Do You Feel About the State of 40k? @ 2021/06/01 13:45:41


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 grouchoben wrote:
Can't believe I'm saying this, as 40k has been a huge part of my life for the past 7 years, but I'm considering quitting the game.

Coming back to the game after playing Infinity all year, it's just such a mess. While Infinity's system is much more advanced, 40k's simple system is straining under the sheer weight of the ad hoc rules they keep stacking on. If I have to commit a serius amount of time to learn a game, I choose one whose complexity yields a really rich tactical experience, rather than one that is just committing to memory the endless iterations of violations of a simple rule set.


Yeah it is looking like its time to take a break again (played 1st, 2nd, 8th). I think not being slowly boiled in the pan and slowly absorbing each change as it came out, instead being confronted by a wall of chrome after Covid doesn't help.

Currently they seem stuck in a wave of super buffing everything, which is pointless, as it just delvers the same balance ultimately, just with a lot more dice rolling and time taken.

As a wise man once said 40k is complicated (with all the straightforward bits to remember) but not complex (on table tactics are limited and the afore mentioned bits don't create much threat, they just tend to be straight buffs to stats). It seems to be approaching the point where it gets too complex to be fun as a light game.